The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1880-07-06 00:00:00

THE ALLEGED MURDER AT GREW.
KERNE.

In the Queen's Bench Division on Thursday-s
Before the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice
Bowen.
Mr. Sullen moved in the case of the Queen v.
Robert Slade Colmar and Jane Colmar for a rule nisi
for a writ of certiorari that the two prisoners might be
tried at the Central Oriminal Court. They had been
committed for trial for the wilful murder of Mary
Budge, • widow, who underwent an operation in the
female prisoner's house, which, according to the
evidence, caused her death. It was an operation to
procure abortion. She returned home on the follow-
big day, and died on the 20th of March in the present
year, and the two prisoners were committed for trial
on the 28th of April.
The Lord Chief Justice —What had the male
prisoner to do with it? Was he a party to the opera-
tion
Mr. Sullen replied that according to what was
alleged the operation was performed by the husband
at the wife's house. They were living apart, he at
Bristol, and she at Yeovil, and he was sent for, and he
came to Yeovil and performed the operation which
caused the death of Mrs. Budge. The application was
made owing to the prejudice which prevailed against
the prisoners, so that it was not likely they would be
able to obtain a fair trial. Owing to former proceed-
ings against the male prisoner he did not anticipate
that justice would be done to him by any jury in that or
the adjoinin counties. In 1864 he was tried at Taunton
for a similar offence, and was acquitted. There
were 42 affidavits, but he would read only one.
Mr. Sullen went on to say even the coroner, who had
not accused before him, but who went into the
circumstances of the death of Mrs. Budge, seemed
almost to have lost his head, if he might use the
expression, because he said to the jury that "there
was scarcely a paper or a railway station where they
did not see Madame Jane Colmer, curer of worms, but
if destroyer of babies was put it was more likely to be
true." There were several other affidavits, among
them that of the prisoners' solicitor, Mr. J. C. Davis,
clerk to the justices of Sherborne, who said Mary Budge
was well-known in and about the locality, having been
brought before the public a g0.,•1 deal owing to the
sudden death of her husband, a solicitor, two years
ago. She was then left with five children, and much
sympathy way expressed for her. Jane Coliner had
for many years advertised herself us a herbalist and
curer of worms, and it WWI generally believed in
Somereetehire and the adjoining counties, that under
the preteace of being curer of wormy she carried on
niwa practices for the punsise of procuring abortion;
and the coroner at the inquest, in addition to the words
, quoted above, said "it is not the first time I have
been obliged to investigate a li-sinful case, and been
, obliged to send the husband for trial for the maw
slaughter of a young woman." Rule nisi greats&

MR. BRADI. %DOH SERVED %Vint A Wllll'.
The elected .1 Northampton ha. been *erred with •
writ for illegally sitting Asia votmg in the Donee of
Commons. The writ ie. it ix .11, returnable eight
days from the time of see Om. It ia believed that Mr.
h i.e enter an ap.i. mice, and it. will then
be for plaintiff to state the grounds of hla elains
in order that the defence may Ims flied. WM the
question is likely to be tried without formal evidence.
The writ recites "that the defendant, Charlie
Bradlaugb, in the mouth of July, 1880, did make an
affirmation in lieu of an oath, and was not entitled to
make the said affirmation under and by virtue of the
statutes in such cares provided according to the
statute 29.30 Victoria, cap. 19, and that the said
Charles Bradlaugh, the defendant, voted and sat in
the House of Commons &icing the debate after the
Speaker had been chosen, and that the defendant
thereby became liable to pay to the complainant the
sum of 11800 pursuant to the said statute, and that the
plaintiff claims the said sum of £3OO.
The following entry appears in Friday's" Votes and
I Proceedings in the blouse of Commons" :—" Mr.
Charles Br. Ilssigh, one of the in mbers for the borough
of Northamp'on, claiming to be a person for the time
being by law permitted to make a solemn affirmation
or dedarsti .n, instead of taking an oath, made and
subacribetl a solemn )(brio it on in the form prescribed
by 'The Paliatnentaiy Oaths Act, 188,' as altered
by 'The Promissory Oaths Act, 1888."
The leAo says I—The actir.n against Mr. Bradlangh,
when decided, will, in all probability, be carried to
the Court of Appeal, anti from the Court of Appeal to
the House of Lint,. Probably we shall have
Bradlaugh as a standing d.sh in the newspaper., on
and off, for a year or eightee . months.
A London correspondent ssys : -The person who
has expressed his rea lines, to berin fire in Westmins-
ter Hall is a city millionaire, who declares himself
ready to expend £lO,OOO, if neces cry, in testing the
legality of Mr. Bra right to affirm.
On eaturdav a melting was hel4 in Hyde Park to
protest against the sal . lesion of Mr. Bradlaugh into
the House .1 Commons in consequence of the
showery we ither the attesnlauce was limited, and the
mooing we. a failure.