The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-18 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

HOME CIRCUIT—CHELMSFORD, July 1.6.
(Before Baron Martin.)
CHARGE OF MURDER.
Emma Howard alias Emma Pudney, 23, a wretched-
looking young woman, was indicted for the wilful murder
of her child, George Isaac Howard, otherwise Padney.
Mr Walford and Mr Philbrick prosecuted, and the prisoner
was defended by Mr Peirce and Mr E. T, Smith.
The facts of this case were very simple, and the ev,.dence
for the prosecution left no doubt that the prisoner hail not
only committed the act imputed to her, but had also at-
tempted to destroy the life of another infant; but at the
same time it also established the fact that the prisoner was
in such a state of mind at the time as not to be criminally
responsible for her actions. It appeared that she lived with
her mother at Halstead, and that she had two illegitimate
children, the one that lost its life, who was about a year
and a half old, and another about four years old. She got
her living by silk weaving, but it appeared that at the time
the offence was committed the prisoner was in a most miser-
able state of poverty, and this had, no doubt, affected her
mind, and, coupled with her mental condition in other re-
spects, drove her to the commission of the aet with which
she was charged. It seemed that on the afternoon of the
28th of March the prisoner left her mother's house with her
two children, stating that she could not support them, and
that it was her intention to go to the union and
ask for some assistance. In about an hour she returned
without the children, and when she was asked what
had become of them, she replied that she hoped they
wero in heaven. A police constable who happened to be
accidentally passing the river Colne, towards which the
prisoner had been seen walking with her children in the
afternoon in question, heard a child's voice cry out, " I
shall fall I I shall fall I" and on going to the spot he saw
the eldest child hanging by both hands from the branch of
a tree and up to its neck in water, and the younger thild
floating in the water and apparently dead. He -rescued
the first-mentioned child, and then got the second out of
the water, but it was quite dead. The constable afterwards
went to the house of the prisoner's mother and found her
there, and asked her if it was true what he had heard re-
specting her children, and she replied that it was, and she
then said that she would go anywhere with him, but that
she wished first to see her dear children. She then said
that she first threw the younger child into the water,
and that she held the other child to look at him while
he was struggling in the river, and then threw him in,
and he turned his face to her and called out "Mother,
mother I" and she went away. The prisoner did not seem
to have attempted to conceal what she had done, and, ac-
cording to the evidence of her mother, she had been for a
considerable period before the occurrence in a low and de-
sponding state, and that fears were entertained that she
would do violence to herself, and that since the birth of her
last child she had frequently complained of her head, and it
appeared that several members of her family had been con-
fined in a lunatic asylum. The statement was confirmed by
the testimony of a medical gentleman named Sinclair, who
had attended the prisoner, and who stated that she had on
several occasions exhibited indications of hor brain being
affected.
The jury, without troubling Mr Peirce to address them,
returned a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity,
and the prisoner was ordered to be detained during her
Majesty's pleasure.
The wretched creature was removed from the bar shriek-
ing, and calling out " Oh my dear children ! oh my dear
children I "
This concluded the business of the assizes.

WESTERN CIRCUIT—SALISBURY, July 16.
NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Before Mr Justice Ryles.)
RHOADES V. COOPER—LIBEL—£I,OOO DAMAGES.
Mr Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr H. T. Cole were counse'
for the plaintiff; Mr Sleigh (specially retained) and Mr
Turner represented the defendant.
This was an action for libel under very peculiar circum-
stances. The defendant pleaded not guilty and justification.
Mr Sleigh, however, withdrew the latter plea before the case
was gone into.
The plaintiff, Susan Rhoades, is the daughter of a former
tradesman of Salisbury, now deceased, Mr Cooper is a
solicitor, about 60, practising in the same town. It appeared
ho had known the plaintiff all her life, and was always appa-
sently very fond of her. In 1853 or 1854 he began to pay her
more particular attentions, and desired to become her hus-
band. He walked and drove with her, took her to buy new
furniture for his house, and treated her in every respect as
his affianced wife. In 1856, when she was about 17 years
of age, ho seduced her. On her giving birth to a child he
refused to marry her, but offered to settle £lOO a year upon
her for life, on condition that she remained single, and held
no immoral intercourse " with any person whomsoever."
A deed was drawn up, and defendant duly paid the first
quarter's annuity. From that time to the present some-
thing like twenty actions have been brought, and they
have all been given against the defendant with costs.
On each occasion he has pleaded, but failed to prove,
hat the young lady is unchaste. He had himself at-
tempted to renew the intercourse with her, but she refused
to see him except in the presence of a third person. In 1855
he wrote her a letter, in which he considered her to be a moss
ago Lta caw:ma a plea which he
intended to plead in " action 21," as ho termed it, to be
lithographed, and sent copies to Mr Wilson, one of the
county coroners, the Salisbury magistrates, and others. In
it he charged Miss Rhoades with having had immoral inter-
course with men, and also with having, since the preceding
action, given birth to a second child. This was the libel
complained of. The action was originally brought in Lon-
don, but the defendant applied to a judge at chambers and
got the venue changed to Salisbury, for the purpose, it was
alleged, of rendering her appearance in court more painful
and distressing to the plaintiff, on account of her being so
well known in the town. Defendant's conduct was severely
censured by Mr Coleman, in his opening address.
Miss Rhoades was examined.
Witnesses having been called to prove the publication of
the libel,
Mr Sleigh proceeded to address the court in mitigation of
damages. He admitted that the defendant had acted un-
wisely and upon erroneous impressions, but at the same
time he contended that the plaintiff had sustained no da-
mage through the publication of the libel. Those who
know her were shown to entertain as much respect for her
now as they did before. There was no malice on the part
of the defendant, and he submitted that very moderate
damages would meet the justice of the case.
His Lordship, in summing up, said there could be no
question that the document which the defendant had issued
was a libel. The only question, therefore, was one of
damages, and on this point he would say nothing what-
ever to influence their decision.
The jury almost immediately found a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages, £l,OOO.