The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-08-16 00:00:00

ibis

SENTENCED TO DEATH.

At the Central Criminal Court in London, John
Dilley, aged 41, a frame maker, and Mary Rainbow,
29, unmarried, were indicted for the wilful murder of
the illegitimate child of the last-named prisoner. The
a.e commenced on Friday in last week and terminated
on Saturday.
Mr. Poland and Mr. Montagu Williams prosecuted
on behalf of the Treasury; Mr. Wildey Wright and
Tenniswood defended the male prisoner Dilley; Mr.
Warner Sleigh and Mr. Lindsell appeared on behalf
of the prisoner Rainbow.
The prisoners both pleaded " Not Guilty."
Mr. Poland, in giving an outline of the case, said
that it seemed that the male prisoner lived at Shefford,
a village in Bedfordshire, and was a married man with
a wife and family. He carried on business as a picture.
frame maker, but was also the postman of the
village. The other prisoner,
i Rainbow, was a do-
mestic servant at Baldock, n Hertfordshire, a short
distance from Shefford. In the beginning of the
r,resent year she was enceinte while in service,
and the male prisoner was the father of the child.
That being the case, the female prisoner could not remain
in service to be confined. In February she wrote to
her cousin, a Mrs. Hall, residing in Chelsea, saying
that she was leaving her situation and was coming
to London, and should come and see her. In March
both prisoners took lodgings in the house of a Mrs.
Stirling, in Stibbington-street, St. Pancras, London,
in the name of "Mr. and Mrs. Hall," the name of the
cousin living at Chelsea, and passed as husband and
wife. The prisoner Rainbow continued living there
till the 22nd of April, when she was safely confined of
a female child. The prisoner Dilley had meanwhile
gone back to Shefford. The child was full grown and
healthy, and the prisoner seemed to be very fond of
it and treated it with great kindness down to the 10th
of May, when the male prisoner, Dilley, came to the
lodgings, and remained there all that night with the
prisoner, till the evening of the following day, Sun-
day, when they both left the lodgings in a cab with
the baby and some luggage, and were driven to the
Great Northern Railway Station at King's-cross. The
luggage was left there, and at eleven o'clock the same
night the two prisoners, without the child, went to a
house close to the station in Gray's-inn-road and ap-
plied for a room. They could not get one, and were
sent to a house in Liverpool-street, where they re-
mained during the rest of the night. They had only a
small bag with them in the shape of luggage. They
left on the Monday morning, and Dilley seemed to
have gone back to his home, but the prisoner Rainbow
remained in London and called on her cousin Mrs.
Hall at Chelsea; and then the bottom of her clothes
were seen to be wet and dirty and she had the appear-
ance of having been walking about in the country.
That morning, about twenty minutes to eight, a man
named Stocks was engaged with others repairing a
wall some distance from Finsbury-park Station, in the
Green-lanes, Hornsey, and found a paper parcel lying
on the ground, away from the main road. He exa-
mined it and found it contained the body of a dead
child, and this it seemed there was no doubt was the
prisoners. The man Stocks went immediately for
a police-constable, who examined it and found
wounds in the head, and it also smelt strongly of
laudanum ; and the medical evidence showed that
the child died from violence. Soon after, the female
prisoner, when returning to her home, had to wait
at Hitchin Station for about an hour for a train. The
following morning a bundle of child's clothes was
found concealed in a hedge about 200 yards from the
station. This was identified as part of the clothes the
baby was wearing. Inspector Dodd afterwards went
down to the prisoner Dilley's house at bhefford, and
he admitted that he was in London on the 11th of
May and left the prisoner Rainbow and the child at
King's-cross Station and returned home, but did not
know what had beeome of her after that. The
female prisoner was also arrested, but said nothing to
the charge. The case on the part of the prosecution
was that the prisoners had gone by train on the
Sunday night to the Finsbury-park Station and there
committed the murder and deposited the body in the
place where it was subsequently found.
William Stocks, a labourer, deposed that on the
12th of May last he was engaged at work in the
Green-lanes, at Hornsey, when he saw a brown
paper parcel lying about 45 yards from the road, and
at a spot up to which there was a narrow passage. He
thought it was a dead dog. He went to see. The
paper was lying open and he saw in it the dead body
of a little child, with some flannel over its feet. He
called his fellow workmen; they did not move the
body but placed a board in front of it and went for a
constable. They then saw some yellow stuff oozing from
its mouth and a little hole in the head. It was lying
near a brick, on which there was blood. In cross-
examination, he said it was an open field with gates
and there were a number of small pieces of brick out.
Herbert Boitaull, a policeman, spoke to seeing the
body of the child on the private side of the wall over
which he had to climb to get to it. The child was
quite dead. There was some blood on the clothes and
mouth. There was a small wound on the crown of the
head, and there was blood on the brick on which the
head lay. The body was partly naked, but its extremi-
ties had some linen and flannel bandages.
Dr. Bury, a physician in the Hornsey-road, who
had examined the body, said it was that of a well'
nourished child of about a manth or six weeks old, He
found several contused wounds at the back of the
head, one being nearly an inch long, at the side. In
the stomach was milk which had the smell of laudanum.
His opinion was that death was caused by injury
to the brain. The skull was fractured, and there was
another smaller wound caused, he thought, by a
brick. On the brick there were short hairs correspond-
ing with those of the child. He believed the fracture
wcs occasioned by a blow from a blunt instrument, such
as a brick, and had been inflicted during life. The
smaller wound might have been caused by dropping the
child. The laudanum would have caused insensibility
to so young a child. It was a very fine child, and it ,
might have been only three weeks old. In cross-
ex tmination the witness said he did not find the veins
gorged with blood. There was sufficient laudanum in
the stomach to have caused death if time had been
given. The pupils of the eyes were contracted and
that was indicative of laudanum. He could not say,
apart from the wounds, that the child had died from
laudanum; noi could he say positively whether death
was occasioned by laudanum or the wounds. It was
chfficult to say whether the wounds were inflicted
before or after death. Laudanum in syrups was
occasionally given to children. The death might have
occurred any time during the night preceding the
time the body was found. The exposure of so young
a child at night might cause death apart from the
wounde.
Further evidence having been given in support of
the prosecution, Mr. Poland having summed up on
behalf of the Crown, Mr. Wildey Wright and Mr.
Warner Sleigh addressed the jury on behalf of their
respective clients.
The learned Judge, in summing up, said that if the
jury were satisfied that the child met its death by vio-
lence, the act amounted to wilful murder; but if they
had any doubt upon this, the prisoners were entitled
to be acquitted. On the other hand, if the evidence
brought home to their minds that the prisoners, or
either of them, had been the means of wilfully causing
the death of the child, their duty to the public at
large and their own consciences required that they
must say so, regardless of any feelings of sympathy
they might have for the prisoners, or the probable
consequence which would result from such a verdict.
The jury, after an absence of about an hour,
returned into court with a verdict of Guilty against
both prisoners, but recommended the woman Rainbow
to mercy, on the ground that she had acted under the
influence of the man,

The learned Judge,having assumed the blaek cap, ad-
dressing the prisoners said,—James Dilley and Mary
Rainbow, you havebeen committed, after a most patient
trial, of a very foul and cruel murder—the murder of a
poor little nnoffending infant, of which you were the
parents. Until the time you took this infant to its
death there was no reason to suppose your affection for
it was not real. You, James Dilley, stimulated the
woman to commit the murder, and you have both been
found guilty. The jury, after consideration, have
recommended you, Mary Rainbow, to the merciful
consideration of the Crown. I have no power
in this matter, beyond forwarding that recommenda-
tion to the proper authorities, where it will meet
with due attention, and if consistent with justice,
those authorities will give you all the mercy they
are able to give. I ought not, however, to hold out to
you any hope of mercy. With regard to you, James
Dilley, yon must prepare to die. You have been con-
victed of a base, a cruel, and a barbarous murder, and
I know of no extenuating circumstances in the case.
The law compels me to pass upon both of you the sen-
tence of death. His Lordship then passed the sentence
of death in the usual form.

After the trial and sentence, the prisoners were
handed over to Mr. Sidney Smith, the Governor of
the Gaol of Newgate. The male prisoner seemed
to treat the matter lightly at first, but upon being
removed to the condemned cell he changed, and
broke down considerably. The female prisoner,
who had fainted in Court, and was carried away
insensible, remained in that condition for a con-
eiderable time. Mr. Sydney Smith did not have her
removed to the condemned cell, but had her carried
into a room, and, by his instructions, Dr. Gibson,
the prison Burgeon was brought to her, and every-
thing was done for the unhappy woman. It is stated
that the female did not sleep the whole of Saturday
night. She was left in charge of two female
warders, and after her recovery was removed to the
cell for condemned women, but apart from the male
prisoner. On Monday morning they were both visited
by the Prison Chaplain. Both prisoners seemed to
pay marked attention to his ministrations. The
woman was very much affected.