Skegness Magazine

Police Theory that Alsatian’s Chase after Hedgehog Led to Tragedy
WOMAN FOUND LYING DEAD IN DYKE
After being Missing Since the Previous Night

CORONER’S QUESTIONS TO HUSBAND

No Inquiry Made to Police for nearly Twenty-four Hours

The tragic fact was revealed at a Skegness inquest that a Skegness woman lost her life because her Alsatian dog chased a hedgehog.
In the opinion of a police witness the dog, described as an unusually large and powerful specimen of the breed and as being on a lead held by its mistress, caused her to be pulled down a steep embankment into a slimy ditch, through the bottom of which she struggled for fifteen yards before collapsing.
The Coroner expressed surprise that her husband, after waking in the middle of the night to find his wife had not returned, should have gone to sleep again.
The husband, a local butcher’s manager, said his reason for not acquainting the police until 23 hours had elapsed was that he made enquiries in brief intervals from his work, in the hope of learning that his wife had gone to friends or her dressmaker.
The deceased woman was Annie Irene Rose, age 53 years, of 127 Drummond Road, Skegness. The enquiry was conducted by Dr. F. J. Walker, coroner for the district, the jury being the same as that which officiated at the previous inquest on the 3-year-old child who was also drowned in a dyke, reported in another column. Supt. Ackrill was also present. (Story of the child coming shortly.)

A POWERFUL DOG.
The Coroner told the jury he had summoned them because there might be some difficulty as to deciding the cause of death.
George William Rose, butcher, 127, Drummond Road, Skegness, identified the body of the deceased woman as that of his wife. He went to the Vine Hotel about 8.30 p.m. on the night of Friday, July 29th, and found her there drinking a glass of beer. It took her a long time to get it finished, but she only had a glass.
The Coroner: Did your wife come home with you that night?—No, I left her there. I went home to tidy myself up for Saturday.
Had your wife any companion with her?— I left her with the company inside the bar.
Did she have a dog as a companion?—Yes, a large Alsatian, a powerful dog.
WOKE UP AT MIDNIGHT.
Was it usual for you to go to bed before Your wife?—Yes.
What happened after that?—I don’t know anything of what happened to her. I woke up at midnight and found she had not come home.
Have you known your wife to stop out all night before ?—No.
Were you then not rather surprised?-I was rather.
What did you do?—I went and turned the gas out which I had left on, and returned to bed and went to sleep.
FOUND DOG SCRATCHING AT BACK DOOR.
What happened next?-I woke about 4-50 in the early hours of Saturday morning and found my wife was not there. I was awakened by the dog scratching the back door to get in. It was minus its collar and lead.
Do you know that it had its collar on when it went out on Friday night?—Yes, I had hold of it in the Vine Hotel.
What did you do then?-I let the dog in, had my breakfast, and went to work.
Your wife was still absent?—Still absent.
You had made no enquiries up to the time of going to work?-I was on the alert, and went down to the Vine again at 11 o’clock on Saturday morning. I asked the barman if he saw my wife leave the night before and he said he did not notice her specially. As I was coming out I saw the attendant and he said he had a word or two with her when she left at 10 o’clock.
TOLD THE POLICE.
We have now got to 11o’clock on Saturday morning and you have not yet found your wife?—I kept slipping home during the day to see if she had got back, and when she had not come back by 8-30 Saturday night I told the police.
You told the police at 8.30 Saturday night, about 23 hours after you last saw her. What next did you do?-I went back to work until 11-30 p.m.
It was a long day’s work?—Yes, 5 a.m. to 11-30 p.m.
Supt. Ackrill: He is a butcher.
At 11-15 p.m. you received information from the police that a body had been found. What did you do then?—The constable took me to the mortuary.
You did not see her in the ditch?—No, I saw nothing of her until I went to the mortuary.

ACCIDENT THREE MONTHS AGO.
Was your wife knocked down by a car in May last?—Yes, she had only just got walking again. She was in a bath chair up to a few weeks ago, and was not very strong en her legs.
Have you ever known her fall down?— She has had several slips, but nothing serious.
Mr. J. T. Wholey (foreman of the jury): Was it your wife’s custom to stay out late? —Not after ten. She often sits up a bit late.
The Coroner: The jury are rather surprised that you did not acquaint the police straightaway?—I was working all the time and could not find anything out.
Mr. K. Green: Did you think she was with friends?-I thought she might have been, or possibly that she had gone to see her dressmaker as she has done before.
DOG’S LEAD PRODUCED.
The Coroner: But this is the next morning?—I thought she might have been laying in bed.
If I had been in a similar situation I think I should have been worried?—I was, but I did not know what to do to find her.
Mr. Bradshaw: Was that the way she usually walked home, down Coronation Walk?—Yes.
Mr. Selby: Did the dog usually slip his collar when pulled?—No.
The witness displayed some emotion when the dog’s lead and his wife’s gloves and handbag were produced for identification. It was stated that the dog’s collar had never been recovered.
CAR PARK ATTENDANT’S EVIDENCE.
A car park attendant at the Vine I Hotel said he saw the deceased on the Friday night as she passed him near the main entrance to the Vine Hotel about ten o’clock. She had the dog with her, but it was not on the lead. He was certain it was loose.
The Coroner: Did she speak to you?—She said something which I did not catch.
You are sure she saw you?—Yes.
In what direction did she go? – Towards Coronation Walk.
Was she a frequent visitor at the Vine Hotel?—I can’t say that. She was walking as if she were a little lame.
Mr. Wholey: What was the light like? – Semi-darkness.
LYING IN MUD AND WATER.
P.c. Taylor said he received Rose’s message at the Police Station on Saturday night about 8-30 p.m. that he had missed his wife since 9-30 the previous night. He and Insp. Harvey at once visited the Vine and Coronation Walks. They searched the plantation and all the dykes in the vicinity.

Eventually they discovered the body of a woman in the mud and water at the bottom of a dyke which ran alongside Coronation Walk. The body was lying face upwards with the face, chest, and knees above water.
The footpath which ran alongside the dyke was five feet wide. The verge was 8 feet above the level of the water. The dyke was nine feet from the edge of the footpath and the steep bank was nine feet deep.
He found a lady’s handbag, pair of gloves, and a dog’s lead fifteen yards from where the body was lying. A newly-killed hedgehog was lying against the handbag.
POLICE WITNESS’S THEORY.
In his opinion the woman had been walk ing along Coronation Walk with the dog on the lead when the Alsatian, an exceptionally big dog, saw the movement of the hedgehog.
It apparently sprung at the hedgehog, and it could be assumed that it pulled the woman over and that she fell down the bank side. Her face, eyes, mouth, and nose were filled with the stuff from the muddy sewer.
The Coroner: You say her face was all dirty?—Yes. I think her face was filled with this slime, that she staggered along for fifteen yards and then collapsed.
The witness said there were distinctive marks on the grass down to the dyke from where the handbag was found as though she had slipped into the dyke.
The Coroner: That’s a very clear description, but of course its only an opinion. You jurymen may have your own opinions, but the evidence will help you to form one.
VERY DARK.
The witness said he visited Coronation Walk about the same time that the deceased would pass along it the previous night and found that the trees made it very dark. There was only six inches of water in the dyke.
A juryman: Was there a collar on the lead?—No.
Then the lead could not have been on the dog?—The lead might have been round the dog’s neck.
Mr. ‘Bradshaw: How far was it from the Vine entrance to the walk?—About fifty yards.
Mr. Green: Had the dog been in the water?—No.
Supt. Ackrill: The witness did not see the dog until probably 23 hours after the accident.

HAD SWALLOWED MUD
Dr. Brownlie said he carried out a post mortem examination. The body was well nourished. The hands were clenched in mud. Fluid from the mouth was of a frothy character. There was no evidence of injury beyond a few superficial scratches on the face. There was no disease in the heart.
The Coroner: Do you therefore presume that she had breathed while she was in the water?—Yes, the frothiness was due to air and water in the lungs. There was black fluid and sand in the stomach.
She had not only breathed in the water, but had swallowed mud?—Yes.
She was not dead before she fell in the ditch?—Definitely not. Death was due to asphyxiation by drowning.
SUFFERING FROM GIDDINESS.
Dr. Desmond O’Neill said he had attended deceased from time to time. He had attended her after she was knocked down by a car in May last. No bones were fractured, but she was rather badly shocked, and suffered from faintness and giddiness. She had been in a bath chair until about a fortnight previously. She was anything but strong on her “pins.” She was the sort of woman who would go faint or dizzy if she had been pulled down by the dog.
Mr. Wholes: Do you think it was safe for her to go about alone in her condition?—That is a difficult question to answer, but events appear to prove that it was not safe.
“A PECULIAR ACTION.”
The Coroner observed that it was a peculiar action of the husband when he made no inquiries although his wife had been absent the whole night. That matter did not, however, come within the province of the jury, who had to find out the cause of death. Neither did the question of liquor consumption enter into the matter. He felt that neither he nor the members of the jury would let the absence of a wife go so long before making inquiries. Though it was peculiar he did not see that that matter should concern the jury.
The jury returned’ a verdict of  “Accidental death” due to falling in the dyke, and expressed their deep sympathy with the relatives.