Arthur Hulley

Arthur Hulley died at the County Asylum in Mickleover on 19 September 1905.

He had been admitted into the asylum on 7 April 1893 from the Bakewell Union.

On 2 August 1905 he was seen by the infirmary doctor who found that he was suffering from extensive injuries to the lower part of his body, having apparently been kicked and later died on 19 September 1905.

His post-mortem showed that he had suffered from extensive internal injuries and that his death had been due to blood poisoning following those injuries that it was considered had, no doubt, been caused by kicking.

The doctor said that it was impossible for his injuries to have been self-inflicted.

The doctor said that he made enquiries on 3 August 1905 into how Arthur Hulley had received his injuries and said that the night attendant informed him that everything had been quiet for the previous to nights where the patients slept.

The doctor said that when he interviewed a patient who had worked with Arthur Hulley in the laundry his statements had been contradictory and said that he could not follow what he was saying.  He said that one minute he would say that he had seen someone kicking Arthur Hulley and that the next he would say that he had not seen anyone kicking him.

Another patient who was interviewed made a statement to the effect that he had Arthur Hulley had had words one day and that he had pushed Arthur Hulley down in the laundry, but he said, 'I never kicked him'. However, the doctor said that when he saw the man again the following day he admitted to having kicked Arthur Hulley on the Wednesday morning at about 10am because he had refused to pour some water on some clothes, but said that it was from behind and that he had been standing up at the time. He said that he had been wearing clogs at the time.

However, the doctor noted that the man had not answered the questions that he put to him very readily and that that was the only information that he had got, even though he had made the fullest enquiries and added that the statements should be received with the fullest caution.

The man was noted as having been admitted into the asylum on 14 April 1896 as a criminal lunatic who at the time had had a history of many convictions. He was described as an imbecile and had worked in the laundry for about three years and although he was known to get very excited, he was never really violent. However, it was additionally noted that he was no longer a criminal patient, but simply a pauper.

However, it was further noted that there was nothing to connect the kick that the man said he had given Arthur Hulley with the injuries from which he died, as if what he said was accurate, that his kick had been from behind and that it seemed hardly possible that that could have caused the injuries from which he had suffered unless he had been stooping.

It was further noted that it seemed very singular that Arthur Hulley would have waited seven hours after being kicked in the morning to have not complained about them that evening, noting that his injuries would have caused him great pain.

It was also noted that there had been no witnesses to the kick that the inmate was said to have admitted and that it was not possible to question him because he was not possible for him to appreciate the position that he was in and the possibility that he might make incriminating statements against himself.

However, the doctor noted that Arthur Hulley was never known to say much which would account for him having kept things quiet.

However, the man that was in charge of the laundry said that he had seen nothing like a disturbance take place and nor did he hear any quarrelling or had any complaints made to him. He added that the inmates were never out of his sight for more than a couple of minutes. He said that the three men had been working for some time and that he had never had any disturbance at all. He noted that Arthur Hulley was never known to utter a word unless spoken to.

The coroner noted that whilst the other inmate had admitted that he had kicked Arthur Hulley from behind, that there was nothing to connect that with his death and it was suggested that an open verdict be returned in order that the case could be reopened if further evidence for a charge of manslaughter or some other charge might come to light.