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

SUMMER ASSIZES

WES TERN CIRCUIT, EXETER, 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. Bere 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 tho 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 the 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 the severity of the wea-
thor 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 proceeded to address the jury on behalf
of the prisoner. In the first place, he tendered his thanks

to his lordship for the indulgence granted in him last
night, an indulgence which he would not have asked had
ho 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 fox a moment
to ask who was the person who came forward to make this
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
ofienco herself. The circumstances were sufficient to jus-
tify him in asking them to be extremely cautious as to
what weight they should attach to the extraordinary state-
ment made by that woman Harris yesterday. He should
ask them to advance stepby steplwith the greatest care be-
foie 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 for 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 wish any harm to
come to it ? She had trusted her child with a woman who
had revealed to her such a catalogue of crimes as made ono
stand aghast with horror, and had hired the assassin to
take away the 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-

Roved, 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. lie 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 prisones•
Mr. Justice Keatirg 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 iu 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 jury 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 bo 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 ono
common purpose in taking the life of that unhappy child;
therefore beyond all doubt Harris 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
in 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. He 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 how 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 herhouso.
The next witness was Selina.Pmtt, a little girl only eight
years of age, 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 Barrie
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 got some buns. On her return Harris
and the prisoner were there, but not little Tommy. She
never saw little Tommy again. On the next day she went
with the prisoner to the Castle Inn. Tho 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 whore 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 whercsit 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 boon keeping a child for
Harris. Sho said " Yes." Ho 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
Gth of May, in which the body was wrapped.` The 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." Edwards, the polim sergeant,
stated 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 had 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. Ho stated that on Feb.
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 fiat wart on the toe (but
, Mrs. Gibson had said there was no such thing, yet the little