Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-08-24 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES

CROWN COURT.—YESTERDAY.
[BAore Mr. Baron WATSON.]
His lordship tookhis seat this morning at flint, o'clock,
and immediately proceeded to pass the following
SENTENCES.

Militon Garai, 22, a Spanish seaman, for the man-
slaughter of William Marshall, on the 3rd of April last,
six years' penal servitude.
John M'lntyre, 37, who pleaded guilty to the man-
slaughter of John Maxwell at sea, on the 26th of
February, 1859, imprisonment and hard labour for
fifteen calendar months.

THE MURDER OF A POLICEMAN'S CHILD AT LIVERPOOL

Mary Ann Gibbons, 15, was indicted for the wilful
murder, on the 21st of July last, cf John Thompson, a
little boy of the age of four years and nine months, the
son of a police-officer named John Thompson.
Mr. Aspinall and Mr. Raffles appeared for the prose-
cution ; and Mr. Pope, instructed by Mr. Bluck, defended

the prisoner.
It appeared from the opening statement of the counsel
for the prosecution that the prisoner had been in the
service of Mrs. Thompson only two or three days before
the occurrence, into which they had to inquire, took place;
and that on the very day, July 21, she had been told
that she would have to leave, as she was not capable of
doing the work. On the evening of that day., the mother
saw the child playing in the Street, about eight o'clock,
and shortly afterwards sent the prisoner out to
fetch him in. She returned in a minute or two,
saying she could not see him, and was sent out again,
when she returned after twenty minutes absence,
tying she could not find him. A little boy came
into the shop kept by Mrs. Thompson at this time,
and said he had seen a womau take up the child and
go away. Mrs. Thompson told the prisoner to go and
inform her husband at the Rose-hill police station ; but
the girl only returned about three o'clock next morning,
and in the meantime the child had been found drowned.
About ten o'clock, soon after the prisoner had been sent
to the Rose-hill police station, she was met on the canal
bank by a boy named Fox, a considerable distance from

Mrs. Thompson's house, and she asked him the way to
Bankfield-street. She suddenly called his attention to
something in the water ; with the assistance of a flatmar,
she pulled it out, and it was eventually, identified as the
missing child. She did not, however, recognise the
child until a considerable time after it was taken
out of the canal. On returning to Mrs. Thompson's
house at three o'clock in the morning, she said that she
mistook her mistress's instructions about sending her to
the Rose-hill station, and that she had gone to the
Sandhill station. He (Mr. Aspinall) should call before
the jury a little girl whose evidence was most material,
but which was not heard of until the previous day.
That witness would tell them that she saw the prisoner
talking to a woman, and that that woman carried a
child about the time in question. He should likewise
call before them a woman of the name of Ellen Jones,
who would state that on the night in question she saw
the prisoner going along Doncaster-street with a child
in her arms. He would also call before them a boy
named Hill, who would say that he saw a strange
-woman take up the deceased in the street ; and he
would, as before, speak to a..particular woman whom he
identified as the person he saw take up the child. This
was a woman of the name of Latham, whom he should
call as a witness, for however truthfully the woman might
speak as to circumstances, he was, no doubt, mistaken as
tothe woman Latham. The route from Mrs. Thompson's
house to the Sandhills-bridge was a distance of lj
miles, and the route was so intricate that it would be
extremely difficult for any person who had not some
previous knowledge of the line of streets to find the
way. The mystery of thi3 case arose from the impossi-
bility of ascribing to -the prisoner any reasonable motive

for such a crime.
Hannah- Thompson, examined by Mr. Raffies.—l am
the wife of John Thompson, a police-constable in this
-town. I live at 61, Conway-street, Everton. I keep
a provision shop. My eldest child is named John ; he
is four years and nine months old. The prisoner came
into my service on the 18th of last month. She told
me that she was fifteen years old. I did not get any
character with her, as she said the family she last lived
with had gone to London. It was part of her duty to
attetL,lto the children. My eldest boy was a healthy child,
but he hi a weakness down one side, which prevented
him walking well. On the afternoon of the 21st July
I told the prisons; that she would not suit me, and in
the evening of that dayl missed the deceased. The
deceased was playing in t,`..1.e street, about the door of my
house, at a quarter past eigh. o'clock. He had on a red
frock, but no hat or cap. Myilittle boy was playing
about the house, and I told the pri2oner to bring him
in that he might go to bed, but she ret„;.-ned in about a
minute, saying that he was not there. / a ent her out
again, and she returned in about twenty mintt,:les, say-
pm she could not find him. This would be about ine
o'clock. I then told her to go to the Rose-hill station,
to tell my husband. When looking for the child, a '
little boy, named Charles Hill, came into the shop, and
on asking if he had seen Johnny, he said, "Your little
boy, Mrs. Thompson ?—why, I saw a yellow woman
take him up, and go into Gordon-street." On the return of
the prisoner, after her second search, I told her to take this
little boy with her to the station, but he did not go. My
husband returned that night a few minutes before ten
o'clock. I did not see anything of the prisoner from
nine o'clock until two or three o'clock the next morning,
when she came home alone. I asked her if she had
taken my boy. I had then heard from my sister that
my boy was drowned. I continued asking the prisoner
why she did not know the boy when he was taken out
of the canal, and she replied that it was dusk. I still
kept accusing her, and she replied that she did not do
it. I asked her why she went to the wrong station,
Sandhills station, instead of Rose-hill, and she said she
thought the way I directed her was the wrong way. I
asked her why she had not come home before, and she
said the neighbours would not allow her. She remained
at my house until Saturday, the 23rd July. I kept ac-
cusing her all the time between the 21st and the 23rd
July. It never took the least effect on her, and she
said that I should find it out.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.—l did not know the
prisoner or her mother before she came to my service.
I took the prisoner into custody because her mother
seemed a very tidy and respectable person. I had noticed
no unkindness on the part of the prisoner to the children.
I told her I thought she was guilty, and that everybody
else said she was guilty.
John Thompson, a police-officer, the husband of the
last witness, stated that the prisoner did not come to the
Rose-hill police station.
Ellen Jones examined by Mr. Raffles.—l am the wife
of John Jones, and live in Hedley-street. I was out on
the night of the 21st July. It was about nine o'clock.
I met the prisoner, and she had a child in her arms. It
was dressed in a red frock, leather boots, but had no hat
or cap on. She was going very fast down Doncaster-
street, towards the docks, from Great Howard-street.
I said, " Mary Ann, where do you live now?" but she
made no answer. She must have heard me. Her
mother lives next door to me. On Monday, the 25th
of July, I saw the prisoner in the next house to mine, on
the other side. I asked her what night it was the child
was drowned, and she said on Thursday night. I said
that is the night I met you, and she said " No, I was
not out that night." She also said that she had been
scourinc, the rooms all day. I went into my own house,
and she followed and said the reason she did not speak
to me that night was that she was afraid of meeting her
mistress, as she was going to see her mother.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.—When I met her she
was going in the direction of her mother's. I heard of
the child being drowned on Monday morning ; but I
did not then hear of the prisoner being accused.
A little girl, who at first „crave the name of Ann
Owens, but afterwards admitted that it was Ann Patte-
son, was next called. She was a new witness; and had
been heard of only the previous day. She said :—I am
fourteen years of age, and live in Newsham-street with
tny grandmother. I know the deceased from going to
the shop. I remember the day he was lost. I think it
was Tuesday, but I am not sure. I know the prisoner,
and on the mght in question I saw her at the bottom of
Howe-street. I saw a woman there with the deceased
In her arms I do not know whether I should know
said, Th
tagam.When the prisoner til""nan
is the child I have been looking for," and
the womana said, "Yes, I know it is Thompson's boy."
They talked together for a while, when the prisoner
whoenszte "a'n sawa?:fL followed the prisoner to Mrs. Thompson's
street wheher come out again and go into Gordon-
,re she met the woman again. She followed
the
Bou nda prisoner, and saw
the
she left
and the prisoner in
ry-street, where left them together. She
could not tell what made her
f
anybody until sherteoldothse
dapyo.lieeall:;ffiwc. She never told
police-officer at the door . of
the court on the
ptrial. She wanted to get into
the court to hear theviu
Cross-examined by Mr. pope ri
name as Ann ow
°w came you to
and would not answer the repeuten-
give your
down her head,
questions both of the learned counsel and of his laordd
in. She then began crying, but after a little time

stated that she would not have come to the court this
morning if the officer had not fetched her. The wit-
ness admitted that she had told several different stories,
and that the day after the child was drowned she met
the priaoner in the street and quarrelled with her.
Charles Hill, a boy about nine years of age, exa-
mined by Mr. Rafiles.—l live in Conway-street, Ever-
ton. I know Mrs. Thompson's children. 1 remembet
seeing the deceased playing in the street on the night he
was lost. I saw a yellow woman come up to little
Johnny Thompson, take him in her arms, and go down
Gordon-street. He had a red frock on. Afterwards
my mother sent me to Mrs. Thompson's shop for a can-
dle. Mrs. Thompson was crying about Johnny, and I
told her what I had seen. She said she knew very well
somebody had nipped him away.
John Fox, a youth, examined by Mr. Aspinall.—l
live in Everton-view, Bootle. On the evening of 21st
May I was returning home along the canal bank, having
got on the bank at Bankhall-bridge. I saw the prisoner;
she came from behind my back. She asked me for
Bankfield-street. She said she had been in the brick-
field, and that she had met a man who said there were
kidnappers in the field, so she had climbed over the wall
on to the canal bank. While she was talking we
were walking along towards Bootle, when after going
about 100 yards she said there was a child in tba
water. I said it was a dog. On looking again it
appeared to be a child. The prisoner then began to cry.
I asked her if the child was any relation of hers, and
she said no. She asked me to pull it out ; I said, " No,
you may pull it out." A flatman came past, and he and
the prisoner got the body out of the water. I went to
the police. I and the prisoner accompanied the police
with the body to the dead-house. A man stopped the
police on the way, to look at the body under a lamp.
The prisoner said she was looking for a child dressed in
a red frock. I said, " The child that has been found is
dressed in that way." She first recognised the child at
the Collingwood station.
John Carroll, a flatman, said that he helped to get
the body out of the canal. He did not know how the
child was dressed.

Thomas Hayes and Burke, police-constables, stated
that the prisoner was beside the man who looked at the
child under the lamp, but she did not then recognise it.
Detective-officer Wilson said that he took the prisoner
into custody at her mother's house, 65, Hedley-street.
I asked the prisoner several questions. I asked her
what time she saw the child alive on the night
it was drowned. She said the last time she saw
it was with the old woman in Gordon-steeet. I said
what old woman do you mean ? she said an old woman
who was in bridewell, Mrs. Latham. She was going
towards the waste ground, and she said, Missis, that is
the child lam looking for. The old woman replied, I
know, it is Mrs. Thompson's child; I am going to take ,
it home with me ; you go back, and don't say
anything to Mrs. Thompson about it. She did so, she
said, and. Mrs. Thompson ordered her to go to Rose-hill
station. She then went down Conway-street, through
Great Homer-street, towards Christ Church School,
when she met the old woman she had arranged to meet,
with the child in her arms. The prisoner took the
child, and they went to a new street in Scotland-road,
opposite Doncaster-street ; and the old woman said,
" You go down Doncaster-street, and I will go down
Athol-street, and we will meet at Athol-street
bridge." She carried the child. At the bridge
the woman took the child from her, saying, " Come
along ' • I live down here." They turned down a steep
place leading to the canal bank, and then went on to
Bankhall-ibridge. There they saw a man in the field
with a horse, and the old woman said, " There is a man
there ; he may see us, or else we would go farther."
They then turned back a short distance towards Liver-
pool. The old woman stopped, and looked ronnd to see
if anybody was coming; and the she said, "I am going
to put the child into the water; it will sink to the
bottom, and no one will ever know anything of it." She
then stepped to the water's edge and dropped the child
quietly in. The old woman said, " I will get over the
wall into Bankhall-street, then into Great Athol-street ;
you can run along the canal bank, and I will meet you
there ' • if any body wants to know what you are run-
ning for, tell them that you are going to Bankfield-
street." The old woman told her to swear she knew
nothing about it, and that no one could find it out. She
ran along the canal bank until she met the boy Fox.
This was her statement.

It appeared that the officer had not given the usual
caution before asking questions of the prisoner ; he was
severely reprimanded by his lordship for this neglect.
Esther Latham, the old woman identified by the boy
Hill as having taken up the child, said that she was a
widow, living in Back Sandown-lane, Everton. She
declared that she never knew anything of the parties or
circumstances connected with this case before she was
charged. She accounted for the way in which she had
spent her time on the day in question, and was then set
at liberty.

Dr. Ajyrton gave evidence regarding the cause of death.
The preceding is the case for the prosecution.
- Mr. Pope, in defending the prisoner, said it was a
fean",-21 thing for a girl of the prisoner's age to be
charged with the crime of murder. He would impress
upon the mi.lcis of the jury theprinciple in English law,
that it was the,
:luty of the prosecution, and the prose-
cution alone, to mt;_ke out a case, without trying to eke
out from the girl's cs:vii statements materials for her
condemnation. He
Appe4ledhtothme tryasthtaot
tihfethere
was the slightest doubt in ..heir
pri-
soner's guilt, to return a verdict of not guilty. The
first step was to prove that a, murjer, had been com-
mitted ; and the burden of proof by psitive evidence
was with the, prosecution. The next step On the part
of the prosecution was to prove, beyond all rOsonable
doubt, by a chain of evidence, that if a mQrder
had been committed, it had been done by the prisone-
He contended that it was not at all impossible that the
child might have strayed to the canal ; nor was it im-
possible to suppose that the child was nipped up for the
purpose of robbery, or child !stripping, and for somereason
or other put down near the canal, that it strayed from
that point and fell in. But the more important part of
the defence was, had the prosecutor brought together
a chain of probable evidence which could lay the crime
on the prisoner ? No possible motive of enmity had
been shown that she should have carried away the child
a mile and a-half, and deliberately dropped it into the
canal. Could they believe that a girl fourteen years of
age could plan such a consummately wicked act ? The
mother herself had stated that the prisoner's conduct
was kind, and that she trusted her with an infant, for
which she was far more responsible. Not a single cir-
cumstance of spite or malice had been adduced, yet they
even asked to find that little girl guilty of murder, with-
out motive, without malice. Leaving out the girl's
own statement, there was not a tittle of evidence against
her. Yet the case for the prosecution was and must be,
that what the prisoner said to officer Duncan was not
true, else if it were true why had they not put
Mrs. Latham into the dock, instead of in the wit-
ness-box ? It had no value as a confession, for
not only had it been proved untrue, but in many
of its circumstances it could not possibly be true.
This statement had been got by extracting evidence
from the prisoner, without first mentioning the conse-
quences to her. The learned counsel then commented
on the evidence of the girl Owens, and in conclusion he
said the case for the prosecution was one of mystery, and
full of doubt and uncertainty.
Two witnesses, who had known the prisoner from a
child, spoke very favourably of her character.
His Lordship, in summing up, said that the jury
must be satisfied that the prisoner, by herself or with
others, wilfully and purposely threw the child into the
water. They could only find her guilty from a train of
circumstances that led to that conclusion. The present
case was extremely mysterious. The learned counsel
for the prosecution had not ventured to offer a theory
as to the murder, and he must confess that he was at a
loss himself, even at that stage of the enquiry, to estab-
lish a theory in his own mind on the evidence upon
which the prisoner committed ,ths offence of drowning
the child. ObservatiOnsliat•-been made about motive,
but there was no apparent motive here. The mystery
was in the hands of the jury, and they must deal with
the evidence.

The jury retired to their room to consider their ver-
dict, and after the absence of a few minutes found the
prisoner not *silty. She was then discharged.

MkICCIIESTEIt WILL FORGEILIZE:

It was airanged to take the case of the Manchester
Will Forgeries to-morrow (Wednesday) morning
immediately after the sitting of the court. Hu
lordship then proceeded to try civil causes.

ROBINSON V. JEFF
In this case, Mr. Attorney-General Bliss and Mr.
Quain appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Edwin
James, Q. C. and Mr. Melhuish for the defendant.
The plaintiff was Thomas Robinson, a builder and
joiner of Hull ; and the defendant was Richard Jeff,
porter merchant, also of Hull. The action was for
goods sold and money paid, arising out of a coa-
-1 tract made in 1858, for some building work to be
done by the plaintiff. There was a claim of £561 for
\the first instalment due, and there was a further claim
of about £204 for extras. The: plaintiff was nonsuited.
The court then rose.