In the evening of Wednesday 16 June 1875 two police officers were on duty in Queen Street, Sheffield when they noted a crowd of people at the corner of Silver Street. Going over they found people in the crowd staring down at the body of a man lying on the ground. Police Constable Turner lifted the man up by his upper body and rested him against a wall, but he simply keeled over and sank down again. One of the crowd said that when he first saw him. he was under attack from some men who were kicking him. The two officers called a cab and the man, who they judged to be in a very drunken condition, was removed to the Police Office and lodged in a cell.

It was hoped that he was recovering, but seemed to be so inebriated that he could not speak in order to give his name and address. His face was bloody and blood was oozing from his mouth and nose. However a search was made of the man’s pockets and a pawn ticket and a shilling in change was found. The ticket held the name ‘Henry Law, 6 Sidney Street, Sheffield.’ However, by this time, it was still unclear whether the man was drunk, or had been the victim of a serious, vicious assault. A short time later Inspector King, who was the duty officer at the Central Police Station on Castle Green, Sheffield, heard Law shout ‘police’ and he went immediately to his cell.

Unfortunately the man still could not speak properly, so that officer gave him a drink of water and assured him that he was safe. Almost immediately Law fell back, either asleep or unconscious, so the inspector kept an eye on him for the rest of the night, visiting his cell regularly. By 12.30 am it became apparent that the man was in a dying condition and so the police surgeon, Dr Arthur Hallam was sent for. He arrived at 12.55 am, but found the injured man was already dead. Making an external examination of the body, the surgeon found his nose was fractured and Dr Hallam therefore concluded that Henry Law was not drunk, but had suffered a fractured skull in an attack.

The following day an inquest was held by Coroner Mr D Wightman in the Watch Committee room at the Sheffield Town Hall. The coroner, gave the jury a run down of what was known about Law so far, but assured them that on this occasion they would simply deal with the identification of the deceased man, before he ordered a post mortem to be held. The man’s widow Sarah Law identified the body as being that of her husband, who she said was twenty three years old, and they both lived on Creswick Road, Pond Hill, Sheffield. Then the inquest was adjourned for a week until Wednesday 23 June 1875.

However police enquiries continued, and it was quickly established that, on the day his body was found, Law had spent a considerable amount of time in a public house on Silver Street, Sheffield. It appeared that he had left the house around 10.30 pm when he had been accompanied by a woman. As they were walking along, a man came up and started an argument with the pair. As a result Law had been knock savagely to the floor, before being punched and kicked by the man. Accordingly, when the adjourned inquest was opened in the Grand Jury room at the Town Hall, Mr Wightman told the jury that he feared that they would have to adjourn the inquest yet again.

Although police enquiries had been made, no suspect was yet held in custody. So the enquiry was postponed yet again for a fortnight. However when the inquest was convened once more, on Wednesday 7 July 1875, Dr Hallam stated that he could confirm the fact that Henry Law had indeed died as a result of a fractured skull. The surgeon gave his opinion that the injury had been caused either by a kick or a blow but was not the result of a fall. The surgeon described Law’s face as being ‘a mass of bruises’ although these could not account for his death. The first witness was a man called Frederick Graham who had seen and described the attack which, he said had happened around 11.10 pm on Wednesday 16 June 1875.

He said that he had witnessed two men fighting and they both fell to the ground before the second man jumped to his feet and ran away. Graham said the first man followed him, before hitting him on the back of his neck and kicking him when he fell to the ground. A second witness Thomas Henry Green too had seen the fight, but he said that four men had been involved in the attack, not just one. Green said that he had told two police officers what had happened, and gave his opinion that Law had been sober. However the two officers disagreed and said that the man had been drunk, but the witness continued to deny this.

The third witness, although agreeing with the basis of the previous witness, also stated that Law had been drunk. She was a woman called Kate Connor, who said that a group of four men had attacked Law and one of them she recognised as being a man called Thomas Tierney. She described how they had formed a ring around Law before he and Tierney had begun fighting. However, they had just been fighting for a short while before Law walked away and Tierney had followed him. She said that in attempting to knock him down, Tierney fell down on top of him. Her account was confirmed by another woman called Amelia Fletcher. She too had witnessed Tierney falling on top of Law, but admitted that she could not see all of the fight, as her vision was blocked by the large crowd that gathered around the fighting men.

There then followed a conversation between the coroner and Inspector King as to why a surgeon had not been immediately called to the police station, when the deceased man had first been locked in a cell. The inspector still claimed that the prisoner had been drunk and it was not usual to call out a surgeon for that reason. However, in an attempt not to apportion blame, Mr Wightman pointed out that in his opinion the death blow had already been struck before Law had been brought into the police station. Nevertheless he added, it was still the responsibility of the police to send for a surgeon immediately and let them decide if the prisoner was drunk or dying. However he emphasised to the jury that in this case ‘not sending for a surgeon had not caused Henry Law’s death.’

Mr Wightman summed up and said that it did not matter how the victim had died or whether Law’s head had struck the kerbstone or not. The reality was that he would not have fallen before being struck by Tierney, if that was what had happened. However, he told the jury, that did not relieve Tierney from the responsibility for Law’s death. Once again he stated that he believed that when Henry Law was brought into the police station, he was in a dying state and could not have been saved by a surgeon even if one had been called. He suggested that after Law had walked away, Tierney had followed him and inflicted the injuries which, he emphasised were wilful and malicious. Therefore in his opinion the attack amounted to wilful murder. The jury concurred and that verdict was given.

Frustratingly, I have been unable to find a conclusion to this case, having poured over all the local cases sent to the Leeds Assizes. There could be many reasons for this, which usually are not always documented, but I have come up with a blank. The prisoner, Thomas Tierney could have died in custody or the grand jury at the beginning of the assizes, might have thrown it out due to lack of verifiable evidence. Admittedly, the only two people who witnessed and identified Tierney as fighting with Law were women. Was that a good enough reason for the grand jury to have the case thrown out at the assize court? Sadly, we will never know!