1847 Rochester Kent - The alleged poisoning of a Mrs Brown

William Brown Errington accused of poisoning his wife Sarah

William Brown Errington was born on 16th November 1809 in Southwark, Surrey (now part of London) to Thomas Preston Errington and Elizabeth Haynes. He was the second youngest of five siblings born to the couple, who had married in 1799.

There is no record of his mother's death, but on 25th September 1816, when William was 7 years old, his father, then 40, on record as a widower, married 24-year-old Mary May at St. Mary Church, Lambeth, Surrey (now part of London). They went on to have five children together.

William followed in his father's footsteps and became a blacksmith and farrier and in 1832, at the age of 23, he married 25-year-old Elizabeth Bunce from Woodford, Essex, (now part of London) at St. John the Baptist in Loughton, Essex. They eventually moved to Chalk, Gravesend, where he worked as a blacksmith and farrier in the nearby area of Higham.

Reports indicate that they had three living children, but only one record has been found for a daughter named Jane, born in 1841.

Tragically, Elizabeth died on 3rd October 1843 at the age of 36 while giving birth to their son William, who also did not survive.

On 9th November 1844, at St. Mary Chalk North Aylesford, Kent, William, aged 34, married 24-year-old Sarah Fisher.

Sarah Fisher. like William was born in Southwark and her late father, John Fisher, had been a schoolteacher in Southwark, so they may have known William. After her father's death, Sarah and her mother moved to Milton-next-Gravesend.

Sarah's mother, Sarah Catherine Fisher, and her uncle, Thomas Holmes, witnessed the marriage.

William's father was not present, as he had passed away on 10th October 1840, at 64 years old.

In October 1845, Sarah gave birth to their daughter, Sophie Sarah, and by December 1846, she was expecting again. On 12th October 1847, she gave birth, and Mr Wiblin, a surgeon from Strood, visited her for a few days after the birth. Both mother and baby were doing well, and he deemed it unnecessary to call anymore, leaving her care in the hands of her husband, William, who enlisted nurse Ann Caush to assist with her recovery.

Shortly after, Sarah's health suddenly turned for the worse. She began vomiting violently, expelling a slimy substance of various colours. Her mother visited and, noticing the change in Sarah's condition, urged William to summon the doctor. That night, Sarah endured considerable suffering, continuing to vomit. When Mr Wiblin returned the following day, he found her in a state of collapse. He prescribed medications he considered necessary and monitored her frequently throughout the day when she still appeared unwell. Gruel seemed to be her primary source of nourishment during this difficult time.

When Mr. Wiblin attended to Mrs. Fisher again, she was somewhat aware but suffered from various symptoms. He administered the medication he believed was appropriate. However, she continued to decline rapidly over the following day but sadly on the morning of Tuesday, October 26th, at four o'clock, she passed away.

While Sarah was ill, Mrs Fisher wrote to her brother, Thomas Holmes, an appraiser and undertaker in London, about her mysterious condition. She urged him to visit and provide advice.

Upon arriving at Mrs Fisher's residence in Gravesend on Tuesday morning, Mr Holmes found her husband, William, there and learned that Sarah had died. He immediately suggested accompanying William to see the corpse.

When he viewed the body, Mr. Holmes was so struck by its appearance that he suspected poison was the cause of death. He informed William that an inquest would be necessary. Initially, William did not object, but when he learned that the parish constable would summon a jury and realized he would need to attend the inquest, he disappeared and had not been seen in the area since.

On Tuesday November 8th, an inquiry began, led by Mr. J. Hinde, Esq., one of the county coroners, and a jury, which lasted several days at the Falstaff Inn, Gad's Hill, near Rochester.

Ann Caush, the nurse who attended to Mrs. Fisher during her confinement, testified that on Sunday, October 17th, the deceased's husband visited her home asking for her help and the confinement had begun on Tuesday, October 19th. On Wednesday, she complained of a headache; she felt somewhat better the next day, but by Friday, she vomited something green and continued to deteriorate until the 24th. The nurse said she had not seen anyone other than the husband give her anything to eat or drink. Mrs Fisher had a bruise on her left thigh, which she claimed was inflicted by her husband.

The nurse had been feeding her, except for one occasion when her husband gave her gruel, which she consumed. Shortly after, her condition became more severe. At one point, she was in a state of frenzy and jumped out of bed, requiring all those present to prevent her from hurting herself.

When questioned about the gruel, the nurse replied, "The gruel was made either by myself or Mrs. Fisher, but it was often left on a hob in the adjoining room without anyone present."

This indicated that anyone could have tampered with the gruel without the attendants' knowledge.

Amelia Bates lived two houses away from the scene:

"The husband's name is Errington, but most people referred to him as Brown. I attended to the deceased on the Tuesday before last. At her confinement, the only people present were Mr. Wiblin, her mother, and myself. When I saw her on Thursday, she complained of having the ague but requested that her husband not be informed about it. I encountered her several times afterwards; she did not complain of any pain but said she was feeling violently sick, and what she vomited appeared to be a slimy substance of various colours.

Henry Bartlett, aged 17, was questioned:

"I have been employed by Mr. Brown. About three weeks before her confinement, I witnessed my master strike his wife around the head. I have seen my master bleed a horse, but I do not know if he kept any drugs. He left home on the Saturday before last and has not been seen since."

Other witnesses were examined, but their testimonies only corroborated the symptoms described in the surgeon's evidence, who was subsequently called.

Mr. Wiblin, the surgeon from Strood, testified:

"I attended to the deceased during her confinement at her husband's house. She had a very favourable recovery initially, and I visited her daily until Friday. Up until that point, she was doing well.

One day, a messenger came to inform me that she was dying, and I rushed to her side. When I arrived, she was asleep. I gently touched her on the shoulder, and she woke up. I asked her if she was experiencing any pain, to which she replied that she was not, and then she fell back into a sleep. I woke her again and asked further questions, but she fell asleep once more. Since I couldn't fully understand what she was saying, I asked the attendants for clarification, and they informed me that she had been experiencing violent vomiting. She remained in a drowsy state, so I administered medications that I felt were appropriate. At that point, she was in a state of collapse.

On Sunday night, I was called again; the attendants told me that she had jumped out of bed in a state of frenzy. I examined her and found that she was somewhat lucid but complained of a burning sensation in her throat, intense thirst, nausea, and stomach pain. I provided her with the treatment that I deemed necessary and saw her twice the following day (Monday). However, I found that she was sinking rapidly. When I returned the next day, I discovered that she had passed away.

During the post-mortem examination, I conducted an extensive overview of the deceased's body. Externally, I noticed nothing that could have caused her death, aside from a large bruise on one hip, which was the only visible sign of violence, and it was not related to her death. Internally, I found her throat to be inflamed, discoloured, and swollen. Additionally, her stomach and intestines were significantly inflamed, and there were recent ulcerations present in the stomach. I have taken samples of the throat and stomach for further examination at my own facility''.

The inquest was adjourned for a more detailed analysis of the stomach's contents

On Friday, November 11, the case resumed.

Mr. Wiblin, the surgeon, gave further testimony:

"I have continued the analysis. Upon examination of the stomach, I found 14 drachms of oxalic acid. There can be very little doubt that a much larger quantity had been ingested, either absorbed or expelled through vomiting."

In response to a question by the Coroner, Mr Wiblin confirmed that the ulcers he found in the deceased's stomach were not chronic but recent. He expressed no doubt that death was caused by the poison administered to her.

''I am certain that the ulcers in the stomach were recent. A considerable amount of the poison may have been expelled. I believe that oxalic acid could have been ingested by the deceased without her realizing it, considering her insensible state at the time. The medicine I administered to the deceased did not contain oxalic acid. I am of the opinion that three drachms would be sufficient to cause the death of a person in such a weak state as the deceased."

The next witness was Sarah's uncle, Thomas Holmes, an undertaker from 112 London Road, Southwark. He stated that upon seeing the body, he suspected poisoning due to her swollen and parched lips. He expressed dissatisfaction and indicated he would call for an inquest on the body. He asked the deceased's husband if there was any poison in the house that she could have accidentally ingested, to which he replied that the deceased's mother had given her some prussic acid for use in apple pies.

Sophia Colegate, the next-door neighbour, stated that she had known the deceased and her husband for about fifteen months and noted that they did not live together comfortably.

Additionally, it appears the husband had mentioned shortly before her confinement that his wife would die as his former wife had, stating, "About seven days after her confinement, as a robin has sung twice over my head, there would be two deaths, and I should be the other."

Mr. J. Hinde, Esq., the Coroner, proceeded to read and comment on the evidence. In his summation, he directed the jury's attention to several significant facts presented during the proceedings. Notably, the circumstances surrounding the woman's vomiting on Thursday—just half an hour after her husband had given her gruel—her jumping out of bed and screaming afterwards. Her state of insensibility and pain the following day all raised suspicions that something nefarious had been administered to her. Additionally, the bruise on her thigh, while not directly causing her death, and the evidence from the boy employed by him indicated the husband's unmanly brutality toward her.

The Coroner emphasized the highly suspicious absence of the husband, who had left his home and his infant children—considered by most to be what he should hold most dear. He pointed out that there could be no reasonable explanation for his departure, especially if his wife had died of natural causes. After giving the situation careful consideration, he concluded that the husband was likely the one who administered the poison, implying that he must have intended his wife's death.

After a lengthy deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of "Wilful murder" against William Brown Errington.

The Coroner then promptly issued a warrant for his apprehension.

On Saturday, November 12th, a warrant was issued to the police for the arrest of William Brown Errington, who was charged with the wilful murder of his wife. However, William had not returned to his home and children since October 30th.

Witnesses reported sightings of William, describing him as being in a very excited state. The police were able to trace him to Romford, Essex. From there, he reportedly took a train to London and was believed to be hiding somewhere in the London metropolis.

This story ends with many unanswered questions and an air of mystery. There were no reports of William being found, no trial, and no records of his existence after he disappeared.

I did come across a London news report stating that on Saturday, November 27th, the police received information about the discovery of a dead body of a man, about 40 years old (William was 37), found lying in a state of undress, except for a ragged pair of trousers, in Billiter Square in the City of London. The body was removed to the vaults beneath All Hallows Church. This unfortunate deceased person had been wandering around the city and the Borough of Southwark (which is William's birthplace) in a deplorable state. Could this have been William? We may never know. There was no follow-up report, so no doubt put down as just a poor madman that no one claimed.

I also find myself thinking about his first wife, Elizabeth. Did he kill her during childbirth? No inquest was ever conducted, and her death was attributed to childbirth complications. He had stated that Sarah would die like his first wife. If it hadn't been for Sarah's uncle requesting an inquest, they might never have discovered the truth about Sarah's poisoning, which could have also been misclassified as a death during childbirth.

Once William realized that the game was up and that he would surely hang for her murder, could this have driven him into madness?

LIFE AFTER

The daughter Jane from his first wife, went to live with relatives William Beavin, a labourer at a gas factory, and his wife Mary in Camberwell, Southwark. This was the area Williams family were living. In the 1861 census, age 20, she was recorded as their servant but then she disappeared. There is no record of her death, marriage, or census connecting to her. Jane was three years old when her mother died and six when her father murdered Sarah. It is possible that as she grew older, she learned about the events surrounding her family and moved away, changing her name out of shame, as identity paperwork did not come into force until 1915, so people could easily disappear, as we found with William.

I was unable to find any details about the other children William and Elizabeth had; none were christened, and births were not registered by law until 1837.

William and Sarah's daughter, Sophie Sarah, was taken in by her maternal grandmother, Sarah Fisher, who worked as a housekeeper for George King, a beer seller, who lived at Prospect House in Milton Gravesend. George died in August 1851, and his will left his house and assets to Sarah, who continued to run the beer-selling business with Sophie as her assistant, when she was old enough. Sophie's grandmother passed away on February 4th, 1865, at Prospect House at the age of 74.

Her probate occurred a year after her death and doesn't mention anything going to Sophie. The executor was George Cole, a victualler of the Flower Pot Tavern in Sunbury, Middlesex. A double probate passed in February 1868. Sarah may have been borrowing money for the business while alive, including giving the house away, which left Sophie with nothing to inherit upon her grandmother's death.

On January 10th, 1867, at St. John the Evangelist on Waterloo Road, Lambeth, Sophie, age 21, married a widower, 32-year-old William Russell, a farrier from Brasted, Kent, who had two boys: William, aged 7, and George, aged 5.

His first wife had died during childbirth with George. Sophie moved into William's home at 1 Cottage Place on Kennington Road, in Lambeth.

Sophie had been suffering from bronchitis for several years and had dropsy for one month before her death at 40 Union Street, Lambeth, on February 17th, 1872, at the age of 27.

William and Sarah other child who survived the tragic murder of Sarah—the child she gave birth to before she died, there is no record birth record related to this child under William and Sarah but he absconded.

I did however find a birth record for a child named William Joseph Errington, registered to William's brother, Joseph Errington, and his wife, Mary, born on October 12th, 1847. The birth was not registered until November 23rd, so it is possible that this child belonged to William and Sarah.

Joseph moved his family to Australia aboard the Lady Ann in 1857, arriving in Adelaide on October 11th. They settled in Hope Valley, in the City of Tea Tree Gully area of Adelaide.

William Joseph passed away on August 20th, 1939, at the age of 91. He left behind two sons, Alfred and Frank, as well as 18 grandchildren and 16 great-grandchildren.

SOURCES

1. (1847, November 13). Mysterious Death. Kentish Independent, pg3.

2. (1847, November 20). The case of poisoning at Higham. Kentish Independent, pg3.

3. (1847, November 23). Alleged poisoning in Rochester. Kentish Gazette, pg4.

4. (1847, November 23). The murder of a woman by her husband. South Eastern Gazette, pg5.

5. (1847, November 29). Death from Want. Morning Post, pg4.

6. Bring your backstory to life TM Ancestry® | Genealogy, Family Trees & Family History Records. Available at: http://www.ancestry.co.uk/

7. General Register Office (no date) General Register Office - Online Ordering Service - Login. Available at: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/

8. Archive, T.B.N. (no date) History’s colourful stories in black and white, Home | Search the archive | British Newspaper Archive. Available at: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/