The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-31 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

--o-
WES TERN CIRCUIT, ExEnu, July 28,

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Keating.)
THE TORQUAY MURDER.
Charlotte Winson was indicted for the wilful murder of
Thomas Edward Gibson Harris, at Torquay, on the 9th of

February.
Mr. Carter and Mr. Bore were counsel for the prosecution ;
Mr. Folkard appeared for the prisoner; Mr. Prideaux and
Mr. C. A. Turner appeared for a woman named Mary Jane
Harris, who was removed from the bar and admitted
Queen's evidence. _ _ _

In our impression of Saturday we reported the whole of
the extraordinary case for the prosecution, and we now
take up the case from that point.
The medical men stated that their first impression was
that the death was caused by exposure to the weather. The
appearances were consistent with death having taken place
within three or four days, or within 12 hours. There was
nothing like decomposition. Snow would preserve a body
for some time, and when the child was found it was the
coldest weather of tho last winter.
As Mr. Folkard said he should not call witnesses,
Mr. Carter proceeded under the recent statute to sum up
his evidence, urging that whether the death was occasioned
by suffocation or by exposure to tho severity of the wea-
ther was of no consequence ; either was consistent with the
evidence and the appearance of the dead body.
It being 5 o'clock, Mr. Folkard begged his lordship to ad
journ the trial until the following morning, as the evidence
had come upon him nearly by surprise. He wished for time

to well consider it, and in addition to this he felt quite ex-
hausted, and not in such a state as to be able to perform his
duty to the prisoner.
Mr. Justice Keating said in a case of life and death he
could not refuse the application, although it would be at-
tended with the greatest inconvenience, as the jury must
be kept in confinement all night.
The trial was then adjourned.

SATURDAY.
Mr. Justice Keating took his seat at nine o'clock this
morning, and the prisoner was then placed at the bar.
Mr. Folkard then proceedodto addresstho jury on behalf
of the prisoner. In the first place, he tendered his thanks
to his lordship for the indulgence granted to him last
night, an indulgence which he would not have asked had
he not felt that the evidence was so voluminous and so
extraordinary that it was his duty to read it over and give
it grave consideration before he addressed them for his un-
happy client. He approached the case with considerable
anxiety and apprehension, for, after they had heard the
evidence yesterday by that miscreant Harris, they must
stand aghast at the horrible revelation which she asserted'
the prisoner had made to her. Let them stop for a moment
to ask who was the person who came forward to make this
charge.: She was a woman who came from beneath the
very shadow of the gallows to save her own life by attempt-
ing to swear away that of another person by whose side
she stood at the last assizes charged with the very same
ofience herself. The circumstances were sufficient to jus-
tify him in asking them to be extremely cautious as to
what weight they should attach to tho extraordinary state-
ment made by that woman Harris yesterday. He should
ask them to advance step:by step:with the greatest care be-
fore they arrived at the conclusion that the prisoner was
guilty of the crime with which she stood charged. They
must recollect they were not trying the prisoner £pr any of
the atrocities which Harris had asserted the prisoner had
revealed to her, but they were to confine themselves to the
consideration of the murder of this child, Thomas Gibson
Harris. The woman Harris had sworn that she had only
seen the prisoner once before the extraordinary conversation
had taken place which she had related. She said that as
they were carrying the child to the prisoner'shouse she, the
witness, said to the prisoner that t here had been a child
picked up. Why should Harris say that ? Why should she
speak of a child having been picked up ? But she proceeded
to say that the prisoner answered her by saying she had put
one away for a girl for £3, but the girl had not paid her.
If that statement was true, why did not Harris immediately
run away from such a woman ? Why did she after that
trust the child, her own flesh and blood, which she had told
them she loved, and that she did not with any harm to
come to it ? She had trusted her child with a woman who
had revealed to hor such a catalogue of crimes as made ono
stand aghast with horror, and had hired the assassin to
take away tho life of her own offspring. The learned coun-
sel then asked what motive the prisoner had in taking away
the life of the child. On the contrary, she had a direct inte-
rest in its living, for the prisoner was paid 3s. a week for
its keep. But in the first place they must be satisfied that
the child found was the child of Harris. He went through
the evidence of Harris, which he urged was not to be be-
lieved, and he contended that, so far from being corrobo-
rated, it had in many instances been contradicted by many
of the witnesses. They would recollect that a verdict of
guilty could not be recalled, and that the prisoner, whose
mouth was closed, must suffer the consequences of their
verdict. Ho pressed upon them that without the evidence
of Harris there was no proof against the prisoner ; that, as
to the evidence of Harris, it was not worthy of their belief,
and that there was so much doubt that the jury must acquit
the prisoner.

Mr. Justice Keating then summed up. No doubt upon a
former occasion the approver Harris was upon her trial,
and the jury were then discharged without giving a verdict.
The prosecution had now considered it proper for the inte-
rests of justice to call that person as a witness, and she
came before them no doubt in the position of an accomplice..
He would state what the law laid down as to the reception
of the testimony of an accomplice. In point of strict law
a j'iry might if they pleased act upon the uncorroborated
testimony of an approver, but judges had always told
juries, and so invariably told them so that it might
practically be considered part of the law of the land
that juries ought not to believe the testimony of an accom-
plice except that evidence was corroborated in some mate-
rial parts by untainted witnesses. It was not necessary
that the evidence of the approver should be corroborated
by untainted evidence in every particular, because if that
was necessary there never could be any occasion for call-
ing an approver; but the rule in all these cases was that the
evidence of an approver must be corroborated in some ma-
terial particulars, and if the jury were satisfied of that it
was for them to say whether they would not receive the
entire evidence as truth. That Harris stood in the position
of an accomplice was beyond all doubt. Seldom had been
heard such a revelation as that made yesterday by Harris.
She had placed herself before them as the murderess of her
child, and if the facts she had related had been proved by
other witnesses, no doubt she would have stood in the same
position as the prisoner, because they were acting in one
common purpose in taking the life of that unhappy child;
therefore beyond all doubt Barris stood in the light of a
principal accomplice, and in that state in which the law
called on the jury to see that her statement was corroborated
iu some material particulars before they gave credit to her
statement. if she was so corroborated, it was their province
to say whether she was speaking the truth upon which they
could rely. Ho should first call their attention to the evi-
dence given by Harris, and then direct their attention to the
other evidence in the case, as to hciw far her statement was
corroborated in any material particulars. The learned judge
then read the whole of the evidence of Harris. Mrs. Gibson
corroborated Harris as to the birth of the child. She had
also seen the childat the prisoner's. She afterwards saw the
dead body of the child, and she swore that that was the body
of the child of which Harris had been delivered at herhouse.
The next witness was Selina Pratt, a little girl only eight
years of ago, the granddaughter of the prisoner.- She was a
most important witness. She said she recollected the child
being brought to the prisoner's. He was called Tommy.
There was a wart on his toe. Then she said Harris came on
the day in question. The prisoner, little Tommy, and Harris
were in the kitchen. The prisoner sent her out to get some
candles. She went back to the prisoner. Harris and the
prisoner were there, but she did not see little Tommy. She
was sent out again to get some buns. On her return Harris
and the prisoner wore there, but not little Tommy. She
never saw little Tommy again: On the next day she went
with the prisoner to the qastle Inn. The prisoner had put
some of Tommy's clothes into a bag,which she took with her
to Harris's. They had previously been going along a road
until the prisoner said that that was the wrong road, and
turned back. She saw the bag next day empty. She asked
the prisoner where Tommy was, and she said Mary's aunt
had taken it away. She pointed out to the policeman the
place in the road where they had been. (The suggestion
on the part of the prosecution was that the prisoner had
taken the body of the child in the bag, and had deposited
it in the place where it was found.) The jury would con-
sider whether the evidence of this child was to be credited ;
if they could rely upon it, it was a powerful corroboration of
the statement of Harris. Then came other facts—the finding
the body by the side of the road on the 16th of February,
and its being taken to the police-office. The weather was
very cold, and there was snow on the ground. Then Ford,
the policeman, spoke to receiving the child. On Monday,
the 20th February, he went to the prisoner's cottage, saw
her, and asked her if she had not been keeping a child for
Harris. She said " Yes." He asked her if it was there then ;
she said " No, the aunt and mother had taken it away three
weeks before." On the 23d February he again went to the
prisoner and asked her how long the child had been taken
away, and she said that day month. She described the
aunt who had taken away the child. She was asked to
describe the child, and she gave a description which was
different in some respects to that given by other witnesses.
He found four newspapers in the house, but not one of the
6th of May, in which the body was wrapped. Tho little
girl pointed out the place in the road where she and the
prisoner had been, and that was the spot where the body
was found. When the little girl saw the body she said at
once, " That's little Tommy." EdwardsAthe police sergeant,
Bated that he had been to the house of the aunt of the pri-
soner, but there was no child there. He went to the pri-
soner and they bad a conversation, and the prisoner said,
" I hope nothing has happened to it, pretty dear." She gave
a description of the child, but said nothing about a wart.
Vergo, the policeman, was called. He stated that on Fob.
22 Harris was brought in custody to the poliCe-office. The
prisoner came there, but not in custody, and said she did
think Harris had murdered the child ; her aunt had taken
it away ; she should know the child among a thousand—it
had a private mark, viz., a large flat wart on the toe (but
Mrs. Gibson had said there was no such thing, yet the little

child had said there was a wart) ; it had been gone from
her a month. She went to the cell where the child was ;

she took up the right loot and said it was not the ohild, for
it had not a wart on the toe. She then looked at the head
and said it was not Mary's child. On another occasion
Harris said to the prisoner, " Is the child mine ?" The pri-
soner said, " I can hardly tell you, ithas been dead so long;
you will not hang me nor transport me, will you 2" Mrs.
Wansey corroborated Harris as to her having asked permis-
sion to go out. The prisoner came to herhouse to see Harris,
and she told her she was taken away in custody. She said
she was sure the child was not Harris's, as the aunt had

taken it away. M rs. Wansey corroborated Harris as to her
having had ls. 6d. from her. She said that on Feb. 9 (the
day of the murder) Harris had a holiday, as she said, to go
to Exmouth. Mr. Stabb, the surgeon, and another surgeon

stated that they saw the child on February 16 ; the stomach
had food in it which had only begun to be digested ;
the heart was congested ; there was no trace of poi-
son. They had first come to the conclusion that the death
had been caused by exposure to cold, but the appearances
were consistent with suffocation in the mode stated by
Harris. The body was not decomposed, but that must have
depended very much upon the temperature, and the weather
at that timo was extremely cold. His lordship said that
they would observe upon the statement of Harris that she
was an accomplice, and the question was whether they
thought she was speaking the truth. If they had a fair and
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner they would
give her the benefit of it, but if the evidence brought home
to their minds the conclusion of her guilt they would not
flinch from their daty, but bring in a verdict to that effect.
. _

. .
The jury retired at a quarter after 12, and returned at 35
minutes past 1. They then found the prisoner guilty of
murder. The prisoner sobbed bitterly.
Mr. Justice Keating then put on the black cap and ad-
dressed the prisoner—Charlotte Winger, you have been
found guilty of the crime of murder—of murdering this
poor little child you had under your care. It is true, quite
true, that you were assisted in that murder by the mother
of the child, but that can be no justification or afford the
slightest excuse for the act you have committed. If the
statement of Mary Jane Harris be true—and the jury, to
whom is intrusted the province of deciding upon the con-
duct of every witness, have believed her—your case is one
of most serious aggravation. It is to be feared you have
on various occasions acted-in the same nefarious manner
I that you have done in the present instance. I have no wish
to harrow your feelings or to aggravate the horror of your
present position by dwelling upon your crime, but it is my
duty to advert to it for the purpose of warning you to re-
linquish all hope of mercy or commiseration. You showed
no mercy to this unfortunate child, and you can expect to
meet with none at the hands of justice. I would entreat
you, therefore, to use the time that yet remains to you in
endeavouring to seek for mercy where alone it is to be
found, and I trust you may obtain that hereafter which you
cannot hope for here. For me the duty only remains, that
duty which is imposed upon me by the law, to pronounce
upon you its sentence. The awful sentence of death was
then imposed upon the prisoner, and she was led away in
a pitiable state.
Edward Osborne was indicted for forging an allotment
ticket for the payment of seamen's wages.
Mr. Sergeant Kinglake and Mr. Poulden prosecuted ;
Mr. H. T. Colo defended the prisoner.
From a vary long statement it appeared that the accusa-
tion against the prisoner was that of having forged or uttered
an authority purporting to be that of Harriet Stewart for
the payment of various sums of money which were appor-
tioned to her by her son-in-law, Edwin Stewart, who was
an able seaman on board the Caledonia. The prisoner had
been a sub-messenger in the pay-office in the Dockyard at
Devonport, and was well acquainted with the mode in which
-persons who were alloted a portion of seamen's wages ob-
tained payment. Harriet Stewart had an allotment for the
payment of £1 ss. per month. She was in London from
December to May. She had left her allotment ticket locked
up in a chest in her rooms at Devonport. On the 11th of
April, during the time Mrs. Stewart was in London, the pri-
soner went to the pay-office with an order purporting to be
signed by Stewart, and there being a large crowd of people
there waiting to be paid he said he was in a hurry, and a
woman named Pearce, who was there, offered to got the
money for him, and he produced a paper which he told
her to sign, and he also produced a clergyman's certificate of
the illness of Mrs. Stewart. Harriet Pearce wont into the
office and produced the order, but the clerk said it was not
properly filled up, and she must call the next day at two
o'clock ; he returned her the papers and she gave them back
to the prisoner, who asked her to come back the next day
and get the money, as the poor soul was at home ill and
wanted it. Harriet Pearce said as that was the case she
would come, and accordingly the next day she went
again to the pay-office and saw the prisoner, who gave
her the paper again, and she went into the office and
drew £5 for four months' pay, and she handed the money
and papers to the prisoner, who gave her 6d. for her trouble.
On the 15th of May Mrs. Stewart came home, and found
her chest had been broken open and her allotment ticket
gone ; shortly after "Harriet Pearce accidentally met the
prisoner, who told her that the woman for whom she had
drawn the money had been making a bother about it, and
if any one called and asked her about it she must say she
knew nothing about it. When Mrs. Pearce returned home
she found a policeman had been there,land she went directly
to the Police-office and told the whole story. It was shown
that the son-in-law had in truth obtained the money.
Mr. Cole made an ingenious speech on behalf of the pri-
soner, urging that there was no fraud, as in truth the man,
who was entitled to his pay, had received the money.
The highest character was given to the prisoner.
The learned judge having summed up—one of the
greatest questions was whether the prisoner intended to
defraud, anti whether he had forged the document or uttered
knowing it to be forged with such intention—
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.