FEW murderers have come as close to the scaffold as Michael Hynes who so savagely attacked a near neighbour of his parents-in-law with a sword that it almost defied logic that she would survive for several days and not have expired on the spot.

Though an appeal was launched against the death sentence, there had been little expectation of it being commuted.

The outrage happened when the sergeant, who served with the 16th Regiment at Aldershot, had been granted furlough and went to stay with his wife’s relations in Gosport.

But on the first night, he shattered his image as a devoted father of four and husband by drinking heavily, and very much against his judgement, his father-in-law was persuaded to join him at a local hostelry where a further copious amount of ale and spirits were consumed.

Tragically, at their home in Chapman’s Yard, Hynes became increasingly belligerent and so fearful were his parents-in-law of his temper that they fled their own home, leaving him alone with his wife. His temper frayed still further and he chased her up the stairs with his sword and bayonet drawn.

She only escaped by clambering through an upstairs window and throwing herself into the arms of a passer-by.

Naturally the commotion was overheard by neighbours and one, Ann Shein, fatally tried to pacify Hynes, but, out of control, he lashed out at the defenceless woman and with his sword slashed her several times about the head, so much so part of her brain was exposed.

Either in a state of madness or stark realisation of what he had done, he rushed out into the street, frantically waving the weapon, with the local press later exclaiming that it was “marvellous” that no further atrocity was occasioned before he was arrested.

Hynes, 32, appeared before local magistrates the following day, March 10, 1860, charged with cutting and wounding, the magistrates being told that Shein was not only still alive but her condition was improving.

Sadly, that was not the case when he appeared at Hampshire Assizes on July 14, with Mr Justice Channell learning that his 62-year-old victim had died two months after the gruesome attack once paralysis had set in.

Leading for the Crown was Mr Poulden who detailing the poor woman’s injuries, commented: “No doubt the prisoner was in a state of intoxication at the time but I am afraid that is no excuse, either in point of law, or reason, or common sense, for it can never be tolerated by the law of England that a man should, in the first place, by his own deliberate act, take away his reason and then plead it as an excuse for a heinous crime of this description.”

The sergeant’s out of character conduct was summarised by Sarah Clark, his mother-in-law, describing how in “a foaming rage” he had thrown himself about the room as she tried to placate him.

“She gave him no angry words,” she emphasized of the dead woman.

Outside the house Hynes was seen, with his sword drawn, “hacking” at something on the ground.

Jurors heard the “something” was Shein whose head was discovered by her son lying in a passageway with her head covered in blood. When he attempted to comfort her, she was “insensible”.

Hynes was arrested by Pc Joseph Young who hearing the furore ran to the scene where he saw Hynes flourishing his sword from side to side, bawling: “By God, I’ll pierce this through you.”

The officer bravely confronted him and Hynes desisted: “You are a policeman and I have done it.”

Hynes did not give evidence at his trial, instead relying on Mr Cooke, his barrister, who conceded from the outset he had been drunk and he was bitterly sorry for her demise.

Basing his speech that his excessive drink revealed the absence of premeditation, he said: “The prisoner is not a midnight murderer who by subtlety and a long career in crime has come at length to the feet of the gallows, to answer to his country the charge of taking the life of another human being.

“Great offences generally begin by small ones; the great criminal generally commences his career by some petty theft as a child and is at length is brought to the gallows. There is no imputation on the prisoner that he has led such a life. The evidence shows to the contrary.”

The greatest proof that he was at heart a family man lay in the fact he often spent time at his parents-in-law and underlined his duty by revealing he had suffered a serious head while serving abroad.

“That he is a man of great sobriety, honesty and excellence in character is shown in every aspect of his life and the stripes on his arm are a good proof of the excellent way in which he has conducted himself, not only in his private life but also in his public career.”

Implausibly he tried to suggest Shein had met “unfortunately” her death when trying to cut his way out of the premises to follow Mr Clark, finally submitting: “If he had intended to murder, might he not have at once despatched her?”

Jurors retired, only to return to court to ask for clarification defining manslaughter and if it applied accidental killing.

The foreman then revealed 11 of their number had agreed on a verdict, the 12th had not.

“Then you must retire and endeavour to convince the one that holds out,” the judge told them.

The foreman however replied: “He won’t give in because he says that in a case at Dorchester where in a struggle, one man killed the other with a stick, it was brought to manslaughter. Will your lordship explain to him the difference between the two cases.”

The judge said the two cases were dissimilar and reminded them the lack of provocation from the victim.

The jury filed out once more, returning shortly with a verdict of guilty but endorsed with a heaving recommendation for mercy.

Channell told them there was no other possible verdict.

“Your case is a lamentable one,” the judge remarked, passing sentence of death. “You might have been set for better things but by giving way to intemperance on this occasion you were excited to the commission of this offence which forfeits your life.

“The liquor which you took appears to have reduced you to the state of a drunken savage and the sword which was entrusted to you to use against the enemies of your country you employed in depriving her of the few remaining years of her life an aged, helpless and an unprotected woman.”

Though he would forward the jury’s recommendation for mercy, he warned there was little hope of a reprieve.

Hynes, showing no sign of emotion, was then removed from the dock and taken to the condemned cell at Winchester Prison to await his fate.

As time passed, he had no reason to consider his life would be spared, so much so that many of his visitors had said their last goodbyes to him.

But less than a week before the execution, the prisoner governor received a telegram from the Secretary of State, George Cornewall Lewes, that he had been granted a reprieve.