The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-29 00:00:00

put away my child. I did not go into the bedroom to pre-
vent it, as she had filled my mind up and I was led away by
her. I did not go and communicate with the police. Ido
not know why I did not. Although she told me of so many
murders, yet I trusted my child with her when the other
refused to take it. I did not communicate the conversation
to any one. I had agreed to pay her every quarter. I never
asked the prisoner to do it. I saw her take the child into
the bedroom and I did not say anything. I used to go to
church, but not after this had occurred. I saw the child
after it was dead. I did not laugh or think it a matter of
great rejoicing. I told prisoner of Mrs. Gibson's dream,
and when Mrs. Gibson told me of it I felt alarmed. I never
told the prisoner I wished the child made away with. I
told my attorney what I have said to day. I also told Verge
the policeman part of it. I asked Mrs. Edwards, the po-
liceman's wife, if I should be hanged, and she said, " Oh,
nonsense, who said you would be hanged ?" I have not
been told I shall be pardoned. My conscience has induced
me to speak the truth. Ido not expect to be pardoned. I
don't know what is to be done with me.
Re-examined—Mrs. Gibson told me she had had a dream.
I asked her to go up the lane with me at night, as Ifanciod
I heard a child crying.
The witness gave her evidence with great calmness, but
her statement created the greatest sensation in a very
crowded court. The prisoner sobbed bitterly when Mr.
Carter stated that he should call Harris, and was detailing
some facts of the evidence she would give. It evidently
took her by the greatest surprise.
Witnesses were called with a view of corroborating
Harris in such instances as it was possible to do so.

The trial was proceeding when our parcel was despatched.

Extraordinary Case.

At the Maidstone Assizes, yesterday, Emily Elizabeth
Inglis, a married woman aged 2G, dressed in deop mourning,
was charged before Mr Baron Pigott with the wilfulmurdor
of her female child.

Mr. Grady and Mr. Addison conducted the prosecution.
Tho prisoner was defended by Mr. Barrow and Mr. Wil-
loughby.
The circumstances under which this charge was preferred
against the prisoner were of rather an extraordinary charac-
ter. It appears that she was a person in a respectable posi-
tion of life, and she was married a few years ago, and she and
her husband kept a public-house called the Shipwrights'
Arms, at Gravesend, but it seemed that they disagreed, and
in March, 1864, a sparation took place between them by
mutual consent. The prisoner subsequently applied to the
Divorce Court, with a view to obtain a formal separation
from her husband; but the judge refused to make the order,
and advised that the parties should resume cohabitation.
The husband did not seem inclined to carry out this sugges-
tion, and the prisoner went to the house of a sister of her
husband, who resided at Gravesend, and at that time no
suspicion appeared to have been entertained that she was in
the family-way. Tho prisoner appeared to have been deli-
vered upon the morning of July 4, and upon an alarm being
given the body of a child was found in her bedroom. It was
alive when it was first discovered, but died very soon after-
wards, and a number of wounds were discovered on the head
and breast, and these injuries were alleged to be the cause of
death ; and the suggestion on the part of the prosecution was
that the prisoner had wilfully destroyed the life of her child,
with a view, if possible, to conceal her shame, and keep the
fact from the knowledge of her husband.
The following evidence was adduced :

Rebecca James deposed that she kept the British Queen
public-house at Milton, and the prisoner was her sister-in-
law, but she was separated from her husband. The prisoner
came to her house on the 29th of June, and at that time sho
had no suspicion that sho was in the family-way. Witness
went to her bedroom on the morning of July 4, and asked
her to come to breakfast, and she said she was very ill and
did not wish to be disturbed. Witness went downstairs, and
shortly afterwards Mrs. Livermore made a communication
to her, and witness went to the prisoner's door and listened.
She called out " Emily," and the prisoner told her to
go away—she had been sick, but was better. Witness
went into the room, and saw the priscner standing in the
room, and sho missed the hand basin from the stand and
saw it under a chair, and she pulled it out and found the
dead body of a child in it. It had a handkerchief tied round
its head, and she observed a cut across the breast, and upon
seeing this she ran down stairs screaming.
Cross-examined—Witness was aware that there had been
proceedings in the Divorce Court with a view to a separa-
tion between the prisoner and her husband. She did not
remember hearing Sir James Wilde, the judge of the court,
recommend that the parties should live together again, but
he dismissed the case, and the prisoner afterwards went
to her husband's house and said that sho had come home.
Witness's brother refusued to live with her, but said that if
the prisoner went and took lodgings he would pay for it,
but she refused to take a lodging. She said she had no
clothes, and her husband promised to bring her some, and he
also promised to let her have a gold watch that belonged to
her. Witness was summoned by the prisoner for an assault,
and she was fined by the magistrate.
Mrs. Elizabeth Livermore deposed that at the time in
question she was at the house of the last witness, and in
consequence of something she told her she went to fetch
Dr. Nisbett. After the doctor had been, witness saw the
prisoner and said to her, " Poor thing, I am sorry for you."
She replied, "You need not be sorry for me. I did not in-
tend to kill that, I intended to kill a larger one." Witness
did not know what the prisoner meant by this observation.
Tho doctor told witness to watch the prisoner, and shortly
afterwards she was removed to the workhouse by witness
and a Mrs. Hinkley. Witness saw the child iu the work-
house about a quarter to eight o'clock, and at that time it
was alive.

Mrs. Elizabeth Hinkley deposed that she was a widow,
and she was sent for to the British Queen about seven
o'clock in the morning of the 4th of July, and saw the
prisoner. She was dressed and appeared to be very ill, and
witness saw a baby in the basin. It was alive, and 'she
saw its arm move. Witness took up the basin, and
the prisoner asked her what she was going to do with it.
Witness went to the police-station, and when she returned
she went to the prisoner's room and said to her, " Oh, dear
me, how cruel you have been." The prisoner replied,
What have you done with it; you can hush it up if you
like, and you shall be paid." Witness told her not to mind
the pay, and the prisoner then said, " Can I depend upon
you ?" Witness then asked the prisoner what she had done
it with, and she said, " Can I trust you ?" At this time
witness observed that the prisoner's hands were covered
with blood. She asked the prisoner again what she had
done it with, and she said with a scissors, and they wore at
the end of the sofa. Witness looked on the sofa, and found
a small pair of scissors, very bloody, and the prisoner told
her to take them home with her. As they were going to the
workhouse the prisoner said, " Don't let anybody know it—
don't let Fred White know who I am." The person she
mentioned was the policeman. Witness asked her how she
came to do it, and she replied "Forhis sake." Witness asked
her if she meant her husband, and she replied "No, I do
not want to hearanything about him. I have not seen him
for 15 months." The prisoner afterwards asked her to post
a letter for her, and she promised to do so. Sho asked the
prisoner on a subsequent occasion how she could be so cruel
as to cut her child in such a manner,and she made no reply,
but pressed her hand.
Frederick White, the police-constable, deposed that as he
was assisting the prisoner out of the cab she said to him,
"Be my friend, keep quiet." He afterwards read the charge
to her, and she then said, "I know the charge." The wit-
ness then produced the scissors referred to by the last
witness.

Mr. R. Nisbett, the surgeon, deposed that ho examined
the body of the child, and observed three wounds on the left
side of the breast, with dark-coloured blood oozing from one
of them. This was the only penetrating wound, the others
merely penetrated the skin. There were several small
punctured wounds in the head. The child was alive when
ho saw it, but it was nearly dead, and only breathed at in-
tervals of 15 seconds. The wounds ho referred to might
have been produced by such an instrument as the scissors
that had been produced. lie believed that the death
was produced by one of the punctured wounds in the head,
which had penetrated the brain, but the wound in the
breast might very probably have had something to do with
it. The prisoner seemed very much excited, and hardly
knew what was going on, and he heard her say that she
wondered what all the fuss was about ; she thought they
were making a great fuss about nothing,
Cross-examined—There was no post-mortem examina-

tion. Two of the wounds were such as might be made by
merely closing a pair of scissors, but he did not think the
larger wound could have been entirely caused by that
means. This wound passed into the chest. It would be
very natural for a woman to use such an instrument as a
scissors in a case like this.
BaronPigott, to the witness—Wouldyou be surprised, in
such a case, that the child might be wounded accidentally ?
Witness-1 should not.
In answer to a question put by Mr. Barrow, the witness
said that he did not think the injuries of the head could
possibly have been occasioned by falling on the ground.
He added that he was unable to say how deep the wound
in the chest extended.
By the Court—The wound in the head appeared to pass
completely into the brain, and there was, therefore, no
doubt as to the cause of death, and ho considered it un-
necessary to make a post-mortem examination. The probe
passed completely through the skull into the brain.
Mr. Barrow, at the close of the case for the prosecution,
made an able address to the jury on behalf of the prisoner,
and after reminding them that if they returned an adverse
verdict to her the inevitable result would bo that her life
would be sacrificed upon the scaffold, he contended that, in
the first place, there was no positive evidence that either
of the injuries that had been alluded to was the cause of
death ; and, secondly, that there was nothing to show,
even supposing this fact had been proved, that those in-
juries were not inflicted accidentally, under the excite-
ment of the position in which the prisoner was placed.
With regard to the motive that was suggested for the
crime, he submitted that there was no evidence that
the child in question was not the child of the
husband, and he remarked that if the prisoner had been
aware that it was the result of an adulterous intercourse
with some other man it was not likely that she wouldhave
gone to her husband's house and requested him to receive
her if she had been aware that she was likely to be de"