This morning [October 9th, 1915] Gunner Henry Charles Martin, Royal Garrison Artillery, was brought before Mr C. H. Osbourne and Alderman H. Arnold at the Luton Borough Court, and charged on remand with the capital charge of murdering his wife Amy at 6 Queen Square, Luton, on Monday morning.

The case for the prosecution was in the hands of Mr Harker, from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he had a most sordid story to unfold to the magistrates. In this he dealt briefly with the evidence given at the Coroner's inquiry that the deceased woman had misbehaved herself with a Luton soldier, and against this said he would be prepared to produce evidence that the accused man, who was stationed at Stratford [East London] had made the acquaintance - he did not suggest that it was more than the casual acquaintance - of a young woman at Ilford.

This also had to be considered in the question of provocation which had been raised, as the deceased woman had found out about her husband and this other woman, and this was a matter which would have a bearing on the unhappy domestic relations of the accused and his wife.

Before the Court opened there was a crowd of people in Stuart Street waiting for admission. Immediately the door opened the public gallery was filled, and a line of people waited in the street hoping that some other people would leave and make room for them in court.

While the opening statement for the prosecution was being made, prisoner stood with his head resting on his hands on the edge of the dock, a handkerchief hiding his face. Later he was allowed to sit down.

Mr Harker, in opening the prosecution, said prisoner was charged with the wilful murder of his wife by cutting her throat with a knife on Monday morning [the couple are pictured, right]. They had been living at Queen Square, but some time ago prisoner enlisted and had since been stationed at Stratford. Last weekend he came home, and nothing untoward appeared to have occurred until early Monday morning when the oldest of the three children, a lad named Charles, 13 years of age [he was in fact born in early 1903, so was actually aged 12], heard his mother cry, "Charlie! Charlie! Charlie!".

He got out of bed and saw his mother rush downstairs, bleeding from the throat. He ran after his mother, who went and banged on the door of the next house. The little boy, seeing his mother was bleeding, appears at once to have fetched a towel and some water, and attended to his mother. It was a brave act for a little boy, and it was the bright spot in what was a case of a sordid nature.

The next-door neighbours attended to the woman and sent for the police and medical assistance. Dr Lewis attended to her, and found that an exterior jugular vein was partially severed. The haemorrhage was stopped and the wound stitched up, and the woman was sent to hospital, but in spite of all that could be done for her she died at 9.30 am from haemorrhage and shock due to the wound which had been inflicted.

Mr Harker then related the confession made to Pc Hencher at Park Square by the accused, which said he had stabbed his wife and believed she was dead, and to further statements made by the accused to Sgt Matsell and Inspector Janes, in the course of which accused said it was "all through that Lincoln chap" that he was "drove to it," and that it had been nothing but "rows, rows, rows".

These, said Mr Harker, were shortly the facts of the case which the magistrates would have to take into consideration whether it was a case in which the accused should be committed for trial and, if so, upon what charge. Upon these facts, he submitted, there could be only one charge on which the accused could be committed - a charge of wilful murder.

Other matters would have to be gone into, said Mr Harker, but whatever they were and whatever the other issues which were raised, they must be decided at another tribunal. The functions of this inquiry were to inquire into the immediate circumstances of the act, and to satisfy themselves whether or not those facts pointed to a prime facie case of wilful murder.

The other facts to be gone into, said Mr Harker, were first raised by the statements that the man had made, and also by suggestions put forward by accused's advocate in another place. The suggestion was that the unfortunate woman who had been killed had been guilty of misconduct with another man, and the act which the prisoner had committed was done in a moment of great stress and great provocation by his knowledge of misconduct on the part of his wife.

The Bench would know that where a person killed another person the law presumed that it was done intentionally, for a person must be taken to expect the consequence of his act, and the onus was upon the accused to rebut the presumption. When nit was sought to set up provocation, there must be what was called "considerable" provocation before a murder charge could reasonably be reduced to one of manslaughter.

In this connection he wished to lay before the Bench one or two facts. It if was true the woman had misbehaved herself, that fact had been in the husband's knowledge at least three or four months. In the meantime he had been at Queen Square on several occasions.

It was not difficult, when the unfortunate victim was dead, said Mr Harker, to blacken her character, and it was not difficult to paint in a virtuous light the man who was alive. When there was such a position as unfortunately and unhappily often occurred between husband and wife, it was the duty of the Bench to hold the scales equally.

Assuming that the husband knew his wife had been guilty of misconduct - he was putting the case at its worst - did that fact at the time he killed the woman make him act under such impulse that he must have been in what might be described as white raging fury, and because of this his mind would be so unsettled that it would not be fair to presume that it was by intention and design that he killed his wife, and not merely knowledge which he could be shown to have had for three or four months.

Were there any other facts in this case, asked Mr Harker, besides this allegation of the wife's misconduct? It would be noticed that in his statement to the police the accused spoke of "rows, rows, rows". It had been shown their married life was undoubtedly unhappy, and he was going to suggest that the act was committed, not under such provocation as he had indicated, but in a fit of temper in one of these rows, and that a fit of temper was no answer to a charge of murder.

The suggestion was that the trouble was on account of the wife's misconduct, said Mr Harker. He was going to show there was another factor. When the police inspector searched the room after the affair happened, he found under the bed a paper on which was written in the hand-writing of the deceased woman the name and address of another woman at Ilford.

It appeared that prisoner had some acquaintance with that young lady, and that this had come to the knowledge of his wife. He was not going to suggest either against the prisoner or the young lady that there was anything in this acquaintance, except that the girl said there was only a casual meeting in the street one evening, and a promise to write a letter.

The young lady would tell the Bench [sitting in the courtroom, above] that the meeting with prisoner took place on August 11th, and that she wrote a letter to his on August 12th. These dates were important, because August 11th was on Thursday, and he would be able to show that prisoner came to Luton the following Saturday.

On August 16th, continued Mr Harker, the young lady referred to received a letter which he would read, and which he would proved was the handwriting of the dead woman. It was headed "Miss Martin, 6 Queen Square, Luton," and was as follows:

"Dear Lizzie - if I may call you by that name - I have had my brother down to see me this weekend, and very pleased I was to see him. He informed me of a young lady he had. I should be very pleased for you at any time to pay me a visit. I think he thinks a great deal of you, and I hope you do of him Maybe I shall be you way shortly, as I have a friend at Ilford, and I should very much like to call on you if I may be a friend of yours also. Hoping you do not think me personal in taking the liberty of writing to you, as I should like to know my brother was being made happy away from his relatives. Hoping you will answer my letter. Yours sincerely, Miss Martin."

It was suggested by Mr Harker that it had come to the knowledge of deceased - and on another occasion he would be prepared to prove it - that there was something between her husband and another woman. It might be assumed also, in the absence of further information, that the young woman would regard the latter with great suspicion, and probably read into it something more serious. The point was that at that time there was this new factor which must enter into the lives of these two people, and if it was a question of "rows, rows, rows" one could easily see it was a cause for mutual recrimination about unfaithfulness to each other.

This evidence would be put forward, said Mr Harker, as pointing to the fact that the crime was committed, not under the provocation which had been indicated, but in the course - if he might use the term - of a nagging match in which the prisoner, losing his temper, took up the knife and inflicted on his wife a fatal wound. But all that went to the question of provocation was not germane to this inquiry. All the Bench had to be satisfied about was the actual act of the crime, the infliction of the wound, and he did not think the material facts would be in dispute.

Mr Harker: "Then I ask you to commit this man to take his trial uppon the capital charge of wilful murder."

The eldest son of the deceased, Charles Martin, now living at 35 Ridgway Road, Luton, repeated evidence given at the inquest. He identified the latter previously read by Mr Harker as being in his mother's handwriting, and another as his father's writing.

Questioned by Mr H. W. Lathom (defending solicitor) he said there were two soldiers billeted at 10 Blythe Place, when his mother was there [her father's address]. One of them was L-Cpl Tom Newbury, 2/5th Lincolns, and witness saw his mother and Tom kissing each other at times. When they went to Queen Square, Newbury used to come and see them very often. When his mother used to go and lie down in the bedroom after doing her housework, Newbury used to go with her.

The washstand in the bedroom at 6 Queen Square was on the same side of the bed (the left side) as his mother used to sleep, continued witness, and the cup and saucer was on the washstand. The knife was on the bed. It was his father's habit when he came home to get up and bring his wife a cup of tea.

Asked how his father and mother seemed when he went to bed, witness replied, "Quite happy".

Mr Harker asked him if he had ever heard any row between his father and mother about Tom Newbury, and he replied that about a fortnight ago his father had told his mother that he wanted to get at Tom Newbury to see him about this matter. Another time his mother told his father that she was going to Australia with this soldier, meaning Newbury.

The witness also stated in re-examination that his mother once came down from Barking to Luton. She said her sister was ill, but witness knew she went to see Newbury because he knew his Aunt Ethel was not ill.

"Father was a good father, and mother was a good mother to us," said the lad in answer to another question.

Next-door neighbours Mr and Mrs Fookes told how they had been awakened by a scream and found Mrs Martin in the yard with a wound to the throat. They had heard nothing previously in the nature of quarrels between Mr and Mrs Martin. Mrs Martin was a nice quiet neighbour who kept her home clean, and her children too.

Giving medical evident, Dr Lewis said he thought the wound was caused by a stab, and the withdrawal of the knife caused the wound to run downwards and outwards. The probabilities were that the jugular vein was severed by the withdrawal of the knife.

Mr Harker: "Have you considered this from the point of view of suicide? Do you think it is a wound that might have been self-inflicted." Dr Lewis: "It is possible, but improbable."

Dr Lewis added that he went into the bedroom and could see no evidence of a struggle. He agreed with Dr Bell's statement at the inquest that little force would be required to cause the wound.

Witness said the cutting of the vein was caused by the withdrawal of the knife. The first motion of the knife would not have cut the vein. He thought the woman turned her head towards the right on seeing the swing of the arm, and the knife pierced to a depth of three-quarters of an inch. This would not have done much damage, but in pulling it out the vein was slit.

Mr Lathom: "Except for that unfortunate accident of turning her head to the right, the chances are she would be alive now."

Dr Bell added that he should assume the woman was lying in bed, from the nature of the wound.

Mr Lathom: "Isn't it just as possible she was sitting up in bed?" Dr Bell: "I don't think a clear-cut wound like that would be made if she was sitting up, the neck not being taut." He agreed, hoever, that it would not be impossible.

After the luncheon interval, Pc Hencher and Inspector Janes described the scene at the house and Martin's confession

Inspector Janes then added that while the prisoner was being taken to St Albans on remand he said: "She said she loved the Lincoln chap. She said she would poison me." Later on he said: "I took her up a cup of tea, and she had a slice of bread and butter." Then he became very excited, got up from his seat, clenches his fists, and said: "It's that Lincoln chap that caused all this. I wish I could get at him now."

In evidence, Sgt Matsell said the prisoner told him: "It's all through her. She crazed me to join the Army. Then she came down to Luton and carried on with one of the Lincolns. A fortnight ago I came down to Luton and got on to her about it. She came for me with a poker and hit me on the head." Later he added: "It's fit to craze a chap. Rows, rows, rows. I haven't had any sleep for weeks now. I did not know what I was at."

Sarah Anne Hampshire, 19, Empress Avenue, Cranbrook Road, Ilford, a domestic servant, said she met the prisoner on, she believed, August 11th. The meeting took place at Wanstead Flats, near Ilford, when witness was in company with a girl friend. Prisoner and a companion were sitting on a seat, and attracted the attention of witness and her companion.

She said he gave his name at Charlie Martin, and an address in Torrers Road, Stratford, and asked her to write to him. She wrote the next day but did not get a reply from him and had not seen or heard from him since. A few days later she received the letter previously read out by Mr Harker but took no action on it.

With the close of the prosecution case, Mr Lathom submitted that in the evidence before the court there was nothing on which a judge who understood his business could find that there was corroboration that prisoner murdered his wife.

"If he was sent to the Assizes on a charge of manslaughter prisoner would plead guilty, but to a charge of murder he would plead not guilty." He did not wish to minimise the seriousness of the man's position. He killed his wife. The difference between murder and manslughter put plaily was "malice aforethought," and Mr Lathom said he would laugh at the prospect of a death sentence for this man. The punishment for manslaughter rested between penal servitude for life and immediate release, and was dependent on the evidence put before the Judge.

The dead woman, said Mr Lathom, was a woman who had one virtue, and one only - she was a clean, good housewife, and a kind mother to her children when it did not interfere with her illicit love. But her character was too black to blacken.

As to painting the husband's virtues, that was not his intention. But he held a situation at Brown and Green's who would speak for him at the Assizes, and when he left, owing to a small wages dispute, he obtained another situation at Barking, which he held for two or three years.

His master at Barking saw a newspaper report which stated that prisoner was said to have been dismissed at Barking for drunkenness, and came down to the inquest yesterday at his own expense, and would also attend the Assizes, to deny this statement.

The reason Martin had left an enlisted was because his heart was broken, owing to the conduct of his wife. She had returned his letter torn in pieces, gave away a brooch he bought her tp another soldier and admitted to her relatives that she had behaved improperly with that soldier. She also stated that when Newbury's service expired she was going to Australia with him, and threatened to poison her husband if he did not die quickly, so she could go and live with the other soldier.

She admitted to her husband that she had been caught misbehaving with Newbury at midnight. Although this blackest iniquity had been committed against him, to came back, back to entreat the wo0man he still loved to come back to him and be forgiven for the sake of the children and the home. But she refused and, said Mr Lathom, Tom Newbury was the man who was really responsible for what happened.

As to the tragic Monday morning, Mr Lathom said there was a quarrel over Newbury. The dead woman repeated her statement that when Newbury's time was up she was going to Australia with him, and would rather poison prisoner than give up Newbury.

In the course of the quarrel the deceased threw prisoner's spurs at him, and prisoner, who was cutting some bread and butter, swung round with the knife in his hand, without knowing what he was doing. There was no malice and no murder.

Two things had to be considered - whether there was premeditation or provocation. Mr Lathom submitted that there was no premeditation and that there was provocation.

At this point the magistrates retired, and on their return said they had decided to proceed on the charge before them.

Prisoner elected to give evidence, but was so shattered that it took a long time to draw his story from him. He was told that if at any time he did not feel fit to proceed he could stop.

Martin said he was married 13 years ago at the Luton Register Office, and had three children. He formerly worked at Langley Foundry, and then for Brown and Green Ltd., and 3½ years ago went to the London Scottish Foundry Ltd, Barking.

He got on with his wife nicely until just before he joined the Army. He was earning £2 8s a week and overtime. Of the housekeeping money and his overtime they saved £28, which was kept upstairs.

At Whitsun they came down to Luton and stayed at Blythe Place. There were two soldiers billeted there, but at the time he did not know the name of either. Witness only stayed one day, but his wife stayed a week. When she returned she seemed strange.

He asked her where her Mizpah brooch was. At first she said she had lost it, but later said she had given it to a soldier. At first she would not give his name, then she gave a false name, and then gave the name of Tom Newbury. She told him she loved Tom Newbury. Witness tried to persuade her to give Newbury up.

"I went on my knees to her," said prisoner, "and asked her ton give him up, but she said it was too late. She said she had made a vow to him. I said, 'Is he after your money?' and she said, 'No, he loves me and I love him'."

Prisoner said his wife asked him to get a separation, because she was going to have the soldier. Prisoner then went and enlisted in the R.G.A. Deceased left the children with a friend for a week, and then came to Luton, and about a fortnight after she returned to Barking she left altogether with the children, and cam to Blythe Place to live.

He did not have any of the money that had been saved up. She had all that, and once wrote to him: "If you touch what belongs to me there will be trouble."
He came down one day to see his wife, and when he went to Blythe Place was told she had left there and was living at Queen Square. Prisoner went to the house in Queen Square about 9 or 10 o'clock. He could see through a back window that supper was set for one, but he could not get in. He went away and returned later. The blind was then pulled down, but he could not get in and had to go elsewhere to sleep.

A fortnight age, said prisoner, his wife wrote to him that she had not much work, and had a job to make both ends meet. He came down and found that she had plenty of work and was earning good money. He told her that she was telling lies, and then she hit him on the head with a poker and ran out.

About the time he enlisted, said prisoner, his wife said she was coming to Luton to be with Tom Newbury, and flung her wedding ring at him. He picked it up and kept it, but returned it to her about August Sunday, when he thought they were reconciled.

One day his sister, Mrs Jane Barton, came to the house at Queen Square while prisoner was there with his wife. In her presence deceased admitted that she had been found with Newbury in a compromising position, and that she had sent cigarettes and handkerchiefs to Newbury.

He asked deceased whether it was true that she was getting drunk and going on night marches with the soldiers, and that she had been discovered with Newbury in the middle of the night, and she replied: "That's that Nell told you." She admitted to Mrs Barton that what had been suggested in his questions was true.

On Sunday night they had a conversation with his wife about Newbury. He was willing to forgive her, and tried to get her to come back to him and give up Newbury, but she said Newbury had served 12 years and could get his discharge at any time, and she was going to Australia with him.

When he went to bed he lay down in his clothes, removed his boots and spurs, as he intended getting up in time to catch the fish train at 3.30.

Asked by Mr Lathom about the "bad morning," prisoner said that before he enlisted he always took his wife a cup of tea early in the morning. He did not wake up in time to catch the early train on Sunday, so he would go up in time for the nine o'clock parade.

Later he got up and made some tea, and used the knife produced to cut some bread and butter. When he took the tea up to his wife she said: "I wish I could get you to drink one with some poison in it."

Prisoner: "She threw my spurs at me, and told me to take my hook." He picked up his spurs and walked round to the other side of the bed. He thought she was going to throw the cup at him, and then he hit her. "I happened to have the knife in my hand," he said.

Asked by Mr Lathom if he meant to stick the knife in her, he replied: "No, I didn't. I don't know exactly how I done it, but I done it, and will suffer for it."

Then prisoner said he put on his boots, went out and gave himself up to the police.

Asked about his marriage, prisoner said that apart from Newbury there had been no serious trouble and he would have taken his wife back at any time. He did not wish her any harm, and loved her.

Prisoner was committed for trial at the Assizes, which commence next Saturday, on the capital charge of wilful murder. The proceedings did not conclude until 5.30 pm.

[Beds & Herts Saturday Telegraph: October 9th, 1915]