An intriguing document at the Brighton History Centre refers to the murder of one Emily Hockley "for nefarious purposes" in Brighton by two medical men.

It is full of misspellings and inaccuracies and below the text outlining the case are many lines of doggerel reminiscent of the "true confessions" of criminals once peddled at executions.

There was no information accompanying it but, fortunately, The Times had covered the case in some detail.

It was heard at the Summer Assizes of the South-Eastern Circuit on July 10, 1878, before Lord Justice Thesiger and revealed a sordid trade in back-street abortion being conducted in Brighton by a trio of perpetrators.

Before the judge were Robert Charles Moon, surgeon, Henry Charles, chemist, and a woman named Julia Brown, 46, described as a "herbalist".

A street directory showed that five years earlier, Moon had been living at 11 Gladstone Terrace and Darley at 6 Russell Square.

They had been indicted for the murder of Emily Hockley in Brighton on April 9.

Moon had also been indicted for using an instrument with intent to procure her miscarriage and Darley for administering a noxious thing for the same purpose.

The charge against Julia Brown was the same as that against Darley and applied additionally to Eliza Hollands in January 1878 and Emma Jones in November 1877.

Hockley, who had been in service, had found herself pregnant.

Fearing exposure and having heard of Darley, she had gone to him for assistance. In return for a considerable sum, he gave her some liquid but it failed to work.

He then sent her to a friend "who never failed". This was Moon. What he did was not known, for the woman would not say.

She afterwards became unwell and, supposedly suffering from typhoid fever, was admitted to hospital.

There she had a miscarriage, which she somehow managed to conceal from the staff with the assistance of her friends.

Ten days later, however, she died, and a post-mortem revealed the truth. Bottles were then found in her box, the contents of which were analysed.

The cause of death was found to be inflammation, but it was uncertain, on the medical evidence, whether this inflammation was the result of taking the drugs or the use of an instrument - or both.

Nevertheless, the coroner's jury found Moon and Darley guilty of murder and they were tried. The grand jury agreed.

The difficulty facing the Assize court was one of proof, a difficulty increased by Hockley's reticence up to the time of her death. The Lord Justice concurred.

There was apparently evidence of Darley administering a noxious drug with a felonious intent of endeavouring to obtain abortion - but there was no evidence to show the drug had caused death in this instance. As to Moon, his lordship understood there was no evidence of an instrument having been used.

On the two respective defence counsels declaring they could not offer a defence on the charge of administering a noxious drug with the intent charged, his lordship directed the jury to acquit both the accused of the charge of murder.

As there had been no intention to cause death, any evidence connecting the act with the death caused had to be "of the clearest and most satisfactory character", and it was not.

Moon and Darley did, however, plead guilty to the charge of administering noxious drugs with intent to procure abortion.

The case against Julia Brown in regard to Emma Jones was on the same charges the professional men had faced. Jones was married and had had four children.

Finding herself pregnant, she had gone to Brown but the drug she was given failed to work and the child was delivered at full term. However, the case broke down for lack of evidence.

Indeed, Jones was criminally liable on the charge of using the drug with the intent to procure abortion on herself.

As there was no evidence to corroborate Jones' case and as she was in law an accomplice, Brown had to be acquitted.

She was also acquitted on the other charge regarding Eliza Hollands, who was too ill to attend and there was not sufficient evidence without her.

The Lord Justice, in passing sentence on Moon and Darley, spoke severely about the nature of their crime and the detestable traffic they had carried on.

From the wretched women who resorted to them, they wrung every shilling they could by the promise of remedies which were either delusive or injurious.

Such crimes were, he declared, far too common and were of the utmost mischief to society. As there was often difficulty as to proof, any sentences had to be exemplary.

The conduct of Moon, who was a surgeon and a member of an honourable profession, was therefore all the more criminal and the sentence was 15 years' penal servitude. In Darley's case, it was ten.

Among the badly-written verses in the mystery document are these lines intended as a warning for potential victims of what the prosecution described as "a detestable traffic": So young girls give heed to these words I have penned, Or perhaps when too late you may think of this caution And repent when at last you are meeting your end.