A Doncaster Tragedy

An Ex-Soldier and His Wife

Murderous Jealousy and Low Life

Sentence of Death

At the Leeds Assizes before Mr. Justice Collins, Philip Garner (49), a labourer, was placed on trial for the wilful murder of his wife, Agnes Garner, at Doncaster on 2 December of the previous year. Mr. Turton conducted the prosecution, while Mr. Lloyd defended the prisoner. The case had been postponed from the previous assizes.

The prisoner, whose appearance suggested intelligence, appeared somewhat downcast during the proceedings, though he remained attentive and clearly understood his position. At times he appeared momentarily absent-minded, but this was taken merely as a sign of his natural temperament.

According to the prosecution, Garner had formerly served in the army and in 1875 held a position as a messenger at the Leeds Post Office. After leaving that employment he worked for some time in the Liverpool docks before eventually moving to Yorkshire. He came to Doncaster, where he resided in the Low Pastures district.

On Saturday, 25 November, the prisoner and his wife visited the house of a man named Hoyle. They had difficulty finding lodgings and were directed to Hoyle’s house, where they remained and drank during the evening. By about nine o’clock the couple returned to their room. The following morning they spent time quietly, but later the prisoner noticed a screw hammer belonging to the household and took it.

They then walked into the town and later returned through the Lord Nelson public-house. Eventually they went to the Low Pastures area. Two boys later discovered the body of a woman lying face downwards in a ditch near the road. Her head was covered with blood. The boys informed the police, and a man named Swan soon arrived at the scene. He assisted in placing the body upon a cart and conveyed it to the Doncaster Infirmary.

Evidence showed that the prisoner must have struck his wife from behind with the hammer while she was stooping to collect stones from the ground. She had been struck several times and died from her injuries.

After the event the prisoner returned to Denaby, where he had previously been employed, and was later arrested.

During his examination he admitted killing his wife but denied that the act had been premeditated. He claimed that they had quarrelled about her conduct and that she had taunted him about her unfaithfulness. According to his statement, she picked up the hammer first and struck him, after which he wrested it from her and struck her in a moment of passion.

Medical evidence showed that the woman had suffered severe injuries to the head. The doctors stated that the blows must have been delivered with considerable force.

Evidence was also given regarding the prisoner’s state of mind. Although he had occasionally displayed signs of jealousy and agitation, medical examination found him to be mentally sound.

Counsel for the defence argued that the killing had occurred in a sudden fit of passion brought about by extreme provocation, and urged the jury to consider whether the offence should be regarded as manslaughter rather than murder.

In his summing up, Mr. Justice Collins explained that if the act had been committed under serious provocation the charge might be reduced. However, the law required that the provocation must involve real bodily injury; a mere insult or slap would not suffice.

The jury retired shortly before half-past twelve and returned after half an hour’s deliberation. The foreman announced that they found the prisoner guilty of wilful murder, but recommended mercy on account of the great provocation he had suffered through his wife’s infidelity and the influence of drink.

Mr. Justice Collins then pronounced the sentence of death in the usual form, stating that the evidence clearly established the prisoner’s guilt. The jury’s recommendation to mercy would be forwarded to the proper authorities.

The prisoner, who listened to the sentence in a stunned manner, was then removed from the court.