The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-07 00:00:00

was unwilling to make any banh observations upon any
gentleman in the position of Dr. Key, but his duty *ga-
velled him to observe, that when a medical gentleman took
ups himself to rep out of his profession and set as •lawyer,
matting • will by which he was benefited to the *stein of
3001., Le ought not to be too thin-skinned. He thought he
had also • right to complain of the manner in which Dr. Key
had given his evidence in cross.esamination, and he had no
hesitation in stating, that he appeared to fence and shufile
with every question that was put to him, and that not a
single direct answer could be obtained from him. This
was not creditable conduct in any care, but it was still
worse s hen the question at issue was whether a fellow
creature was to be consigned to an ignominious death upon
the scaffold. Dr. Key had oleo evidently done all he could
to keep from the knowledge of the jury what had occurred
before the coroner, in reference to the examination of the
man Collins, and it was only at last that he was with great
difficulty compelled to admit, that Collins had stated that
he saw the deceased fall against the wall in his garden e
day or two before his death, and that he had upon
hearing this statemeut, admitted that such a fall
as the one described would account for eU the
injuries ghat were alleged to be the eau* of
death. His learned friend had taken upon himself
to describe the proceedings before the coroner is being of
en imperfect character, but it appeared to him that the
whole transaction was fully explained by the evidence of
Collins, and that the coroner's jury were perfectly justified
in returning a verdict of accidental death. He complained
that on the present occasion the evidence of Collins should
have been withheld from the jury, and said that it @hewed
that the object of the prosecution was to endeavour by any
means to get a conviction against the prisoner, in the hope
of obtaining a share of the money to which she was enti-
tled. The learned counsel then commented upon the other
facts of the case and concluded a very able and eloquent
address by expressing a confident opinion that the
jury would not do what the prosecution required of
them in this case—namely, take a leap in the dark—and
come to a conclusion adverse to the prisoner, the effect of
which would not only be her destruction, but would also
deprive her of that property to which she was clearly en-
titled by the long and arduous services she had rendered to
the deceased, and cause it to be d' 'bitted among the per-
sons who had evidently no other object in instituting the
present prosecution then to obtain it.
Mr. Justice Erie then summed up the case in his usual
careful and clear manner, calling the attention of the jury
to every important fact.
They almost immediately returned a verdict of Not

THIRD COURT.—YESTEIWAY.
BSPOIti n■ CONINOP 811JILAXT.

Harriet Butler, 24, spinster, was indicted for endeavour-
lotto conceal the birth of her infant child.
The circumstances attendant upon the prisoner's guilt
were of a very revolting character. It appeared that
about November, the prisoner went into the service of Mr.
Venn, of No. 4, Commercial-row, Islington, hair-dresser,
sad shortly afterwards, her appearance led Mr. Venn to
think that she was in the family way. The prisoner how-
ever gave so reasonable an excuse for her appearance, that
all suspicion was at once removed, and not anything fur-
ther was thought of the matter until the 12th of
February, when the prisoner was very late in
putting away the things that had been need for break-
font, sod looking very pale, her mistress told her that
she would assist her. The prisoner then went out and
shortly afterwards Mrs. Venn went into her own room next
to that in which the prisoner slept, and upon going into the
prisoner's room she saw that the floor and carpet had been
but fresh washed, and upon looking into the bed from the
appearances which there presented themselves the at once
became convinced that birth had been given to a child. In
the cupboard where some of the bedding was kept Mrs.
Venn found a bundle. A strange smell also pervaded the
roam. Upon this Mrs. Venn fetched the prisoner's cousin,
and called prisoner into the room. The cousin then took
the bundle from the cupboard, and found it to contain the
body of a female child. The prisoner, in answer to her
cousin, who asked her what she had been doing, said what
do you meant The police and a surgeon were then sent
for, and the prisoner was ultimately conveyed to the work-
house where she was kept. The surgeon made an exami-
nation of the body of the child, which turned out to be that
of a female recently born, but was so burnt that it was im-
possible to say whether it had been born alive, being charred
all over, and a great portion of the intestines consumed. The
prisoner had, as it afterwards appeared, been that day de-
livered, and making a large fire endeavoured to dispose of
the body by burning it before the family got up.
Mr. Sleigh, in a speech of some length, ably contended
that the concealment charged was net the permanent one
contemplated by the act of pediment.
She was Acquitted.