Death of Charles Artlett

Transcript of photocopied article on page 8 of the Westminster & Pimlico News 23/2/1894

VANDON STREET MYSTERY – The Inquest and Verdict

At the Coroner’s Court on Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Troutbeck held an inquest, touching the death of Charley Artlett. There were some signs of excitement about the Court, as this case had evoked very keen interest in the vicinity of Vandon Street, where the wildest rumours had been circulated since the occurrence took place.

Thomas Howe, of 14 Vandon Street, said he was the deceased’s stepfather. He had identified the body. He knew nothing of the occurrence.

Jemima Howe, mother of the deceased, living at 14 Vandon Street, said she was at home when the occurrence took place, on Sunday, between 11 and 12 p.m. A constable came to her shop door, and said: “Would you assist me in with your son”? Witness went with him and saw her son lying on his back by the Auxiliary Stores stables. The constable said: “Help me up with him”. She did so. “About three or four yards past the door where he was found”, witness continued, “I could assist him no more, and I said: ‘My dear boy, try and get up.’ The constable then struck him violently on the face and knocked him down.”

The Coroner: Where was he then? On the broad of his back. – Then what did the constable do? The constable struck him on the face. – I think you said “violently”? He struck my boy’s face. – How do you reconcile your statements? You said the constable knocked him down? My boy was lying on the broad of his back, and the policeman pulled him up by the collar of his coat, and then struck him down with his fist. Was it a severe blow? No, I don’t think so. – Where was he hit? On the face, but I can’t say whether it was the right or left side of the face. – What about this tube you’ve got? It fell out of his throat when the constable threw him into the parlour. That is the tube (produced). – Where was this tube when you last saw it? I last ‘saw it at a quarter to eleven, in his throat. Where was he then? He came into the shop, and took a little dog of his, and said he was going to sell it. – You saw the tube then? Yes. – Did you see the tube after that? It was in his throat. – What occurred after the policeman threw him down? He dragged my son to the shop, and threw him in and slammed the shop door. My son got on his knees, like that, and went towards the table. I said “Oh Charley, he’s done for you”.-He was gasping then for breath, and rolled over. – After that what did you do? I went and put a pillow under his head, and in less than five minutes he was dead. I then called my husband. – Was your son drunk? Yes he was. – Did he show any fight? No. – Are you sure? I can’t tell you. When the policeman struck him he put his hand to his throat, and said: “You dirty dog, to strike an afflicted man”. Oh! but I can’t tell you more, it was all so momentary. I can’t say no more. – How did the policeman take him to the shop? He dragged him in, and threw him on a hamper of greens, and said: “There you are”. My son crawled to the table, and I said: “Charley, you’re done for”. I then went to the door, and called the policeman, and said: “You have killed my son”. The policeman came and felt the back of my son’s ear, and said: “Fetch a cab”. I said: “No, fetch a cab yourself. You have killed my son”. He fetched a cab, and I called my husband, who assisted the policemen to put my son in the cab. – Did you make a statement to the inspector? Yes.

Inspector Deacon read the statement, which differed from the witnesses’ evidence, in that it stated that deceased was obstreperous, and that the constable did not strike him violently. Also that deceased wanted to fight the constable.
The Coroner: You say here the blow was not struck violently. Witness: Well sir, he hit him on the face. My son was intoxicated, but the constable used him shamefully.
A Juryman: Did the tube come out after he was inside?
The Father: I don’t think my wife is fit to speak, she is upset.
The Coroner: If you keep talking you’ll have to leave the Court.
Elizabeth Artlett, single, of 14 Vandon Street, sister of the deceased, said she saw him on Sunday at 11.30 p.m. A friend brought him indoors. He was the worse for drink. He went out again and she followed and asked him to come to supper, but he refused. She then returned indoors. The constable called on her mother and asked her to come and help him, and she went, and witness heard her tell the constable not to hurt him because he had a tube in his throat. Then witness believed the constable struck deceased a blow.

The Coroner: How could you believe that? Witness: Because I heard mother say: Don’t hit him, and the constable said: I won’t hurt him. Then she said: If you disturb that tube youll be the death of him. The constable then threw him into the shop by the side of a hamper of greens, and shut the door and said: Now you’re inside. My brother scrambled up on his hands and knees to the table. My mother said: Charlie, you’re dead, and he rolled over. Mother then put a pillow under his head, and then my father came down. I found the tube beside the parlour door. – How far is that from the door through which he was put in? About five feet. – Did he ever lose his tube before? No sir. – Has he been drunk before: Yes. The tube was fixed by a string tied by a bow at the back of his neck. The bow must have been undone. – Why didn’t you put the tube back when you saw he was without it? We could not find it. – How do you account for his losing the tube? When he was struggling at the parlour door it must have fallen out. And what had the constable to do with that? I don’t know. -Was there any blood? No. When did you find the tube? About twenty minutes after my brother died. A Juryman: Was he breathing when he was brought inside? Very little.

Winifred Artlett, sister of the deceased, of 14 Vandon Street, said she left the deceased in a public house at seven o’clock on Sunday night. He was then quite sober. She knew nothing of the occurrence.

Dr Gossage, house physician at Westminster Hospital, said he saw the deceased about 12 o’clock on Sunday night. He was then dead. Deceased was an attendent at the hospital, and had had the operation of tracheotomy performed on him at the beginning of last year.

The Coroner: Were there any external marks? Witness: No. No marks of blood on either cheek? No. – What was the cause of death? Death was due to suffocation through the tube having been removed from the throat. There was no mark of violence on the body at all.

P.S Bowles, 7 A.R., said that on Monday night Mrs. Howe came to him at Rochester Row Police Station, and told him her son had been dragged across the roadway at Vandon Street by a constable, leaving a trail of blood, and that he had died in consequence. Witness sent P.S. Wood to make inquiries.

P.S. Wood, 21A, said he went to Vandon Street and examined the roadway, but he could find no trace of blood. He called Mrs. Howe’s attention to this, and she said: “It is a mistake”. There were slight marks about the house as if some one had been lifted along there.
P.S. Mawellet, 42A, said that on Monday night he saw the deceased strolling up Vandon Street. His sister came for him to go into supper, but he refused. She took hold of him, but he was obstinate, and they both fell on the roadway twice. Then she left him. Deceased was apparently all right then.
Inspector Deacon, A Division, said he had examined the roadway at Vandon Street, and for about ten feet there were marks as if some substance had been drawn along. He saw Mrs. Howe and she said that only she, her husband and the constable were present when the occurrence took place. Witness took her to the station and she made the statement already produced. She pointed out to him the place where the tube was found.

The Coroner: Where was that?
Witness: Inside the parlour. That was about 13 feet from the shop doorway.

Mr. Howe wished to speak and permission being given he said: “My wife is half a lunatic. She doesn’t know what she is speaking about, she’s so upset”. He then went over the evidence already given and said that his daughter picked up the tube inside the parlour about two feet from the door.

P.C. Murphy, 16A, was then called and said that while he was on duty on Monday night he saw deceased and his sister fall to the ground twice. Later in the evening he saw deceased lying in the street. He went and told Mrs. Howe that if she did not take him indoors, he would take him into custody. She said: No don’t do that, I’ll take him in. Continuing, witness said: She took one arm and I took the other. We went two or three paces and the deceased tried to strike his mother. I said: Don’t be nasty, and come indoors like a sensible man. Deceased then turned to me and made a running blow at me. I put up my arm to defend myself. He then fell on his knees and took off his two coats and said to me: You’re a dirty dog. He then got up and made another running blow at me. I guarded myself. The mother said: Do take him indoors but don’t hurt him. Mind his throat. I then lifted deceased up by putting my hands under his arms and took him in. I was then cleaning the dirt off my trousers, and was standing on the pavement when I hear the mother calling deceased a dirty low scoundrel and telling him he was a disgrace to her and his father. I then continued my beat and heard her still making a disturbance inside. When I was coming back she called out to me: My son is dead. You’ve killed him. I went in and saw him lying in the parlour. I fetched a cab at once and took him to the hospital. On the way to the hospital he threw up his arms and gave a gurgle.

A Juryman: Did you strike him? Witness (firmly): No, I only put up my arms. – You didn’t use any violence? No. I took him under the arms. I would not use violence and his mother before him.

The Coroner in summing up, said that it was always necessary to exert a certain amount of force in dealing with a drunken man. Now from the positive evidence as to where the tube was found it could not have been forced out by any violence used by the constable. Then there were no external marks of violence. All the evidence of the relatives went to show that the tube must have fallen from deceased inside the house. The constable had no object in striking the deceased, and if he had surely the blow struck would have left some mark. It seemed senseless to make any point of blows being struck. It was quite possible that the constable in warding off deceased’s attack may have come against deceased’s face, but a policeman was quite within his right in defending himself. A policeman was not supposed to go about the streets for anyone to strike at.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned the following verdict: We are agreed that this is a case of accidental death, and that the constable is perfectly free from any blame whatever.

The Coroner: I quite agree with you. It is a very sensible conclusion. I can’t say that the constable acted otherwise than in a kind and sensible manner.