The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-01-29 00:00:00

SENDING AN INFANT BY RAILWAY.

The cheep of ...the Queen e. Mary and Martha Falkinfrham "
ha been before the ',urt of Criminal Appeal, when fifteen
of the intim—in fact the whole Judicial liench—anembled
In the enert of VAchetmer Chamla r to deliberate and give a
considered judgment to the case.
-

The prisoners were indicted at the quarter sessions of
the North Riding of Yorkshire for a misdemeanour,
for that on the rith of August, 1869, they did unlaw-
fully and willfully abandon and expose a certain child
then being under the age of two years, whereby the
life of the said child was endangered.
The prieoner, Mary Fakingham, was the mother of
the child, which was shout live weeks old at the time
mentioned in the indictment, and at which time both
prisoners were residing together at Stockton-on-Tees.
It was proved that the prisoner Mary, about four
months previous to the birth of the child, had an
interview with the father, who was then residing at
Gisborowh, at which interview they had a conversation
relative to the maintenance of the child after it was
born. She told him that she would father the chill
on him, and that he would have to pay for it, to which
the man replied, "I'll not pay for it ; but if you send
it to me I will keep it." •I's;. thing was ssid by either
of them as to the time at which, or the mode by which
the child was to be mat. On the day named in the in-

dietment both priseiners put the child into a hamper,
wrapped up in a woollen shawl, and pas ked with phew.
Inge and cotton wool, and the prison-r Mary, with the
knowledge and connivar.ce of the other prisoner, took
the hamper by a passenger vessel on the river Tees
from Stockton, where they resided, to Middlesborough
(a distance of four or fire miles), at which lath, place
she took the hamper ta the booking office of the rails
way elation, and there left it, paying 6.1. for the car-
riage thereof, and telling the clerk to be very careful of
it, and to sesnd it to Gisborough by the next train, which
would leave Middlesborough in ten minutes from that
time. She did not say Anything as to the contents of
the hamper. The hamper was addressed "Mr. Cans,
Northeate, Gisborough ; with care; to be delivered
immediately," at which address the father of the
child was then lodging. The hamper was carrisd by
the ordinary passimeer train from Middlesborongh
to Gisborough, leaving the former place at 7.45
pm., and arriving at ita destination at 815 p.m. At
840 p.m. it was delivered by a railway porter at its
aildrese, and on the hamper being opened it was found
to contain the child, alive, and packed in the manner
before mentioned, with a paper, on which was written,
" Phme take care of tdie child, for George Beaumont
is the fathsr of it." The child was taken by the re-
lieviog officer the same evening to the union works
hones, where it lived for three weeks, at the expiration
of which ps riod it died from c 'uses no' attributable
to the conduct of the prisoners or either of them.
It was peeved to have twee a delicate child. The
prisonei's counsel objected that upon these facts there
was no evidence to go to the jury that the life of
the child was endangered; and, secondly, that there
was no abandonment and no exposure of the child,
within the meaning i,f the statute. The court ()venni.
the objecti,n, end left the case to the jury, who found
both pri oners guilty. At the requs st of the prisoners
council Oil case was granted by the ce iirt for the
opinion of this court, whether or not the prisoners were
properly convicted. Both prisoners were admitted to
bail. The cage came on for argument at the sittings
of this court in Michaelmas Term, but no counsel ap-
peared on either aide ; and as the five learned judges
whit resided could not agree upon the points raised
by reading the case, it was found necessary to have •
meeting of all the jinlges. The question turned upon
the words if the 24th and 25. h Viet., c. 100 sec. 27,
which were as follows :—'• Whosoever shall un-
lawfully abandon or expose any child being under
the age of two years, whereby the life of such child
should be endangered, or the health of such child shall
have been, or shall be likely to be, permanently
injured shall be guilty of • misdemeanour."
Mr. Shepherd appearei in support of the prosecution.
No learned counsel appeared for the prisoners.
The Lord Chief Justice, on the sitting of the court,
about half-past eleven o'clock, said this was net indict-
ment and conviction of the prisoners for abandoning
and exposing an infant child and having been informed
that the ease was not to he argued on the part of the
prisonere, the judges bad considered the point before
outing into court, and as the majority of them were
of opinion that the conviction should be affirmed, it
would be unnecessary to hear the learned c iunsel in
support of it. At the same time the whole of the
juices, were of opinien that, looking to the peculiar
circumstances of the case, and to tee fact that tills
was the first case of the kind that had arisen under the
statute, and to the possibility that the prieonere were
not aware that they were committing an offence, they
were of opinion that a lenient sentence would meet the
exigencies of the case.
The coon ictiou was affirmed accordingly.