The Sun.
London, England, 1855-09-21 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—Sept. 21.

THIRD COURT.

Eliza Hennessey, 33, married, and Patrick Hennessey,
44, tailor, were indicted for neglecting to properly pro-
vide with suffidient meat, drink, and clothing their in-
fant child, Peter Hennessey.
Mr. Ryland appeared to support the prosecution, which
had been instigated by the City authorities.
The evidence against the female prisoner was taken
first upon a separate indictment against her.
She, it appeared, lived with the male prisoner, who is
her husband, in Montague-court, Bishopegate. He car-
ried on the business of a jobbing tailor, the female pri-
soner buying up old clothes, he mending them and she
selling them again in the Petticoat-lane Clothes Mart.
Both prisoners were of most dissipated habits, particu-
larly the woman, who, it appeared, got all the money
earned by her husband,jwhich was said to be quite enough
to support them comfortably, but their joint practice was
to work a few days in the week, and get drunk the re-
mainder. They had two children, one the subject of
this indictment, and another, 12 years of age, who used
to help his father in his trade. Their brutal neglect of
their children had been always the subject of complaint,
and one had already died, it was alleged, for want of
proper food and care. For the last eight weeks they had
lived in the above court, occupying a. garret, and the
frequent cries coming from the room caused the other
lodgers and the neighbours to call upon the landlord of
the house to investigate the matter ; and he, upon the
22d of last month, went up and opened the room occu-
pied by the prisoners. He found the room empty, except-
ing a stool, and what seemed to him a bundle of dirty
rags upon the floor. Hearing a faint cry proceed from
beneath it, the landlord raised up the rag covering, and
there beneath it, upon about a handful of dirty straw,
lay the child in question—an infant, about two years and
a half old ; it was quite naked, and almost reduced to a
skeleton. Its body was a mass of sores, and it lay so
encrusted and embedded in filth, that upon its being
raised from the floor a portion of its face was so cemented
down that it tore away, and remained sticking to the
ground. It could not see out of its eyes. It could scarcely
move its head, and could not eat some food which the
neighbours gave it. When the male prisoner came
home and was questioned about it, ho said it had been
without food that day, and the previous one he said
his wife was out drinking, and he had nothing to give
them. The poor little thing was all over sores, some
of them open and the straw sticking in them. Carter, a
police-constable, was then called in, and the child taken
to Mr. Forster, surgeon, who advised its removal to the
workhouse, and the prisoners taken in custody.
Mr. Clark, surgeon to the union at Homerton, where
it had been removed to, said it was better now, but he
did not expect it would live, and if it did, it would be
crippled for life. He had never seen such an object in
his life. It was brought to him wrapped up in a cloth ;
it was a mass of sores, some bleeding ; its eyes were
closed, and kept up a continuous discharge of water.
Dirt, want of food and proper light, had been the cause
of its horrible state. Its belly was hard and swollen
most unnaturally, whilst its limbs were almost fleshless.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
Her husband was then tried upon the same facts, and
also found guilty, but recommended to mercy, thinking
the mother was the more guilty party.
It was stated that no one had ever seen the poor in-
fant in question from its birth. About three years ago the
prisoner had left the child who died, and another, in an
empty room in Reeve's-court, and when the neighbours
broke into the room they found the poor little things
without clothes, and found one lying under the empty
grate, and the other with its hands in it, they having
crawled there for warmth.

The Recorder, i❑ passing sentence, said it was not per-
haps a proper course for a judge to complain of a suffi-
cient want of power, but he felt that the sentence he
was about passing upon the occasion might be thought
inadequate to the heinousness of the offence she had
been convicted of. It fell but little short of murder,
and had the child died both prisoners would have been
tried for that offence. He sentenced the woman to the
utmost limit of punishment allowed him by law, namely
two years' imprisonment, and the man to one.
This ended the business of the session.