The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-08-21 00:00:00

iLtgal.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, Au Gum. 15.

BARBARITY BY A SCHOOLMISTRESS.

Mary Allen, 40, was charged with unlawfully and
maliciously smoking Caroline Infects. In other counts
of the indictment the prisoner was charged with assault-
ing the prosecutrix and causing her bodily harm.
Mr. Lilley conducted the prosecution, and, in opening
the case to the jury, he said the facts he should have to
lay before them were of inch • nature a. must necessarily
excite the sympathy of everyone who heard them, and
he therefore requested them not to allow their feelings
to prevail unfairly against the ptisoner, but that they
would look calmly at the evidence that would be laid
before them, and give their verdict uninfluenced by the
prejudice that must naturally be creaks' by some of
the facts that would be deposed to.
The circumstances of this cane have been very recently
and very fully laid before the public. The prisoner was
a school-mistress in lkslcross-street, Southwark, and it
appeared that about three years ago Caroline Leferre,
the proaecutrix. • child nine )ears old, the daughter of
• labourer in the service .4 Messrs. Barclay and Co., was
sent to the prisoner's school, and after being there about
two years she expressed a desire that the child should
not any longer come to her as a scholar, hut that she
should be with her as • companion. From tint time
there appeared to he no doubt that the prisoner bad
treated the poor child with the greatest possible cruelty.
that she was in the habit of beating her with a cane and
• thick stick, which she actually broke while assaulting
her, and which stick was found in the prisoner's house
with blood upon it, and upon one occasion, for some
trifling fault, she burnt her on the hand and the neck
with a hot iron. When she was taken away she was in
a most dreadful state, her bully and arms being covered
with bruises and wounds, our of the latter, at the back
of the head, being of a very extensive character.
Caroline Lefevre, the poor child whose treatment was
the subject ,4 inquiry, deposed to the various acts of
cruelty she had received from the prisoner, and she also
said that one day prisoner made her fetch the pan that
Rai in the schoolroom, and she insisted upon her eating
stone of the filth that was in it, And placed a small quan-
tity in her mouth. She spat it out, and the prisoner
then told her that if she did not swallow sonic she would
poke it down her throat with a stick, and in consequence
of this threat she did swallow sonic. (This statement,
as may naturally he iniaginisl, caused considerable sensa-
tion in court.) She also stated that the prisoner not
only struck her with the cane and the stick, but that she
had also struck her with a poker Mid is tire shovel.
The prisoner inquired of the witness how she came by
the injury at the Imek of her head.
The child, in a most artless manner, replied, " You
did it, governess." She then burst into tears, and
evidently entertained a strung feeling of tenor for the
prisoner.
Mr. Justice 'Williams (to the prosecutrix).—Why did
you not tell your tither, when you went home, how you
were treated?
Site replied, "1 was afraid to do so, because I knew I
hail to go back to my governess."
Several neighbours of the prisoner were examined,
and they proved that, ujmn many occasions, they had
seen her beat the poor child in • most brutal manner,
and that when she 'bled front the injuries she received
the prisoner told her to go and wash herself at the
water-tap.
One of the witnesses was asked by the learned Judge
why she did not apply to the authorities, or give some
information as to the conduct of the prisoner towards
the child; and she replied that the neighbours used to
talk upon the subject, but they appeared to think that
lf they interfered they would only be told to mind their

-
own business.
The prisoner, when called upon for her defence, put
in a written paper, in which she asserted that the
prusecutrix was a very naughty child and addicted to
thieving and other bad habits, and that she punished
her in order to cure her of her bad propensities, but
only did so moderately. She dii not appear to deny
that she had forced the child to eat the filth, but
explained that the reason for her doing so was that the
child had put some upon her (prisoner's) plate while her
back was turned one day for a short period at dinner
time, and that 410 thought she would serve her the
same. She also admitted that the child was burnt ono
day, but said that she was ironing at the time, and the
, child persisted in pulling the flint upon which she
rubbed the iron away from her, aid she was accidentally
burnt while doing so.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of the Whole
charge contained in the indictment.
The learned Judge, in passing sentence upon the
prisoner, said that in all hui experience he did not
remember any ease where one human being appeared to
have acted with so much cruelty to another as she
appeared to have acted towards this poor child. i-le
therefore felt himself called upon to inflict the full
punishment fixed be the law for such an -.fence, which
was that she be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for
three years.

ANOTHER CASE OF GROSS CRUELTY TO A
CHILD.