The Express.
London, England, 1862-09-29 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byke.)
CONVICTION OF MIA WILSON FOR RURD&R.

The jury were absent nearly two boars deliberating upon
theieverdiet. . . . . . . .

When they returoed bete court, end Mr. Avory, the clerk
of arraigns, put the formal iv:notion whetter they found the
prisoner guilty or not guilty of the felony and murder
whereof she stood accused, the foreman uttered the fatal
word Guilty.
The prisoner heard the verdict pronounced without en.
hibitiog the dightest appeaniuce of emotion, and the blood
did not even nee to her cheeks. . .

Mr. A vory then asked her in the usual form whether eho
had anything to say why judgment of death ehould not be
paired upon her according to law .
The prisoner mule no reply, but merely gave a gentle
shake of the heed.

Mr. Harker, the senior usher of the court, then made
the usual proclamation for aliens while sentence of death
was passing upon the prisoner.
Mr. Justin Bytes then, having first enured the Mark
nap, addressed her is the following terms :—thitherine Will.
son, after a keg trial and a most patiout and anxious con.
sideration of every circumstance in your can, the jury
have come to the conclusion that you were guilty of this
most atrocious crime. It is very seklom that 1 thick It any
part of m 7 duty in a case of this or say other description to
expos either coocurrenee or dimwit with the verdict of a
jury, but upon the present occasion lam bound to say
that, in my opinion, the jury could not have arrived at any
other conclusion than they have done, consistently with the
facts that were laid before them. I never heard • case
where it was so clearly preyed that a murder was committed,
and where the excruciating pain and agony of the victim
were watched with so much deliberation by the murderer.
The greaten cam was taken during the progress of the
trial that nothing should be improperly introduced into the
inquiry, and that you should not be prejudiced by anything
that had happened before • but now that the jury have
delivered their verdict and ;here can be no longer any fear
that their decision should be in any way improperly in-
fluenced, I think it right that the jury should know, and
that the public also should know, what sort of
C.:it is that the avenging arm of the law
length overtaken. I find, then, that about the year
1853 or 1854 you were employed in the capacity of • ser-
vant or housekeeper to • person named Mason, who lived
at Boston, in Lincolnshire, and that this person was in the
habit of taking colchicum, He made his will in the month
of April, and by that will he left to you the whole of the
little property he poisoned. He died in the month of 0. -
toberfollowing. I will say no more about this case except
that it is quite char that at this time you were perfectly
well acquainted with the nature and effects of oolchicum.
In the year 18361 find that you were living with • young man
named Dixon, and that you came to London and went to
lodge with him; at the house of the deceased. Dr. Whidboroe
was called in to attend him. He was not allowed upon the
present trial to state any of the circumstances connected
with the Moen of this person, but I may now ,state that
it appears by the depositions that Dixon was suddenly taken
ill with violent vomiting and purging ; that his symptoms
were exactly the same as those exhibited by the unfortu-
nate woman Mrs. Somme ; and that he died very speedily
afterwards, you yourself representing that he had died of
galloping consumptiou but on his body being opened his
luny were found perfectly healthy. About the year 1859
I find that you were in the habit of visiting a Mrs Jackson,
who also resided at Boston, and that you were aware that
she drew from a bank in that town the sum of
1204, and that this sum was in her ponneion.
She was taken ill with the same symptoms, and
died in four days, and after her death the money
was nowhere to be found. It appeared that upon this
occasion you produced a promissory note apparently signed
by two persons residing at Boston for the amount that was
mtesing; but it was proved that both those signatures were
forged. In the month of October, 1860, I find that you
were connected with • Mrs. Atkinson, who resided at Kirkby
Lonsdale, and that she osme to live with you at your resi-
dence at Kennington, and it appears that you were aware
that she was in possession of a considerable sum of money.
On the 19th of that month Mrs. Atkinson was taken ill ;
spin the same symptoms, retching, violent purging,
vomiting, and great agony, sod in four days she WIN dead.
If the jury had acquitted you upon the present charge you
would have been immediately put upon your trial for
this murder. I have read the depositions in the case
most carefully and anxiously, and the result upon my'
mind is that I have no more doubt that you committed that
crime than if I had seen it committed with my own eyes.
In 1861 I find you were living with • man named Taylor,
and that be was attacked in the same manner as the others
to whom I have alluded ; but that, fortunately for him,
remedies were immediately resorted to and he recovered.
Aril), i find that only in the present year you were tried in
this court for an attempt to murder, by the administration
of sulphuric acid to • woman in whose house you were
residing. You were acquitted upon that charge, but al-
though this was the case, there is too much reason to be-
lieve that you were guilty of this crime also ; and I am
informed that the learned judge who tried you
felt it to be his duty to sum up the case man
unfavourably to you. These facts, I regret to say,
render it extremely probable that the startling statement
made by Dr. Taylor, in the course of hie evidence, is cor-
rect, and that in the midst of apparent prosperity and obe-
dience to the law • dreadful crime and etc* is rife in this
metropolis—the destruction of life by secret poisocing. Your
life is in the hands of the crown, and I think it right to in-
form you that, if lam consulted in reference to your case,
I shall not feel myself justified in interfering, and that I
cannot hold out to you the slightest hope of any commuta-
tion of your sentence.
The learned judge then pruned the awful sentence of
death in the usual form.

The prLoner was then asked, as is customary in all cases
in which women are sentenced to capital punishment,
whether she bad anything to say in stay of execution.
The meaning of this was explained to her by one et the
warders, card she merely shook her head.
During the whole of the trial the prfloner exhibited the
greakaLoolneaseod self- 'on, and she was not in the
slightest degree afected at any portion of the learned
judge's address to her, and when he had concluded she
walked firmly away from the her.
A rather curious fact transpired after the jury had re•
turned their verdict. They took with them the two letters
that had been produced in the course of the case, sod upon
a close examination of them it' appeared that the jury dis-
covered that they were both written upon the same descrip-
tion of paper, and bore the sense watermarks.
Charles Francis Cagier was placed at the bar to receive
judgment.
The prisoner, it will be remembered, was tried on Wed.
nesday before Mr. Justice Bytes for the murder of his wife.
but the jury found him guilty of manslaughter only, and
added to their verdict that the offence had been committed
under very great provocation, the deceased being a very
drunken anti violent woman.
Mr. Justice Bylee sentenced the prisoner to be kept to
bard labour for fifteen mouths.

Thie concluded the bosioese of the wagon, and the court
adjourned to Moodily, Oat. 21.