The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-01 00:00:00

The investigation into the accusatio, s against
Theobald Meyrick, the master of the workhouse,
was resumed yesterday before R. B. C ne, Esq., the
poor-law inspector, and a board of g • rdians.
This was a second case against the defendant,
brought by Sarah Moss, a girl, it was stated, of
somewhat weak intellect, who when she first entered
the workhouse was admitted as sane, bat has since
been placed in the lunatic ward.
Mr. Lewis was present on behalf of the defen-
dant, and Mr, Angell for the prosecution.
The Chairman said when he was present before
it was stated that certain monetary temptations had
been held out to Sarah Skinner, for her to forego
her accusation against Mr. Meyrick, but theman
who, it was said, was the party who hadtendered
sthsen
emd onn esyu
raw
ma se
nn
so t f
r his forthcoming, although
apprehension,
o a
n dheee
nhead
e-
qnently he had not sent in his
p rt, but as he
eh
roeu was
a s
stilla
ewhansn
eteh
of
fn t
hg
ei veennnitmo un ne dn e aneri ant
refrain from sending in his report till the man was
gsedrvtehrdea, t h et hs
forthcoming.
Sarah Moss, the complainant, said she was 19
years passed from Bethnal-green
Workhouse old, andkhouseto was
eaCsity of London Union about 18
months ago. She subsequently returned about six
months ago, when she left and went to Bow-road
Union. When in Bethnal-green Workhouse she was
in the infirmary with ulcerated throat. Was in the
infirmary about six weeks. After she left the infir-
mary was set to work in the house. Was well treated,
but had to complain of the master, Mr. Meyrick.
Hales, the porter, went and fetched her out of the
receiving ward to go and see the master, and took
her to the office, where he left her. This happened
when she first entered the house. When she was
alone in the office the master asked her to pull up
her clothes. He told her also to undo her frock,
and she did. He then put his hand on her breast.
She then left the office. She complained to Mr.
Bristow of what had happened. Did not say any-
thing to the matron, but told some of the girls.
Pomroy was the name of one of them she told, but
could not remember the names of any of the others.
Went out of the workhouse the day after this hap-
pened, and stayed at home all day, and returned to
the workhouse the following Wednesday. When
she returned Mr. Hales went for her and conducted
her to the presence of the master, and left her alone
with the master, who then asked her to take an
oath denying what she had been saying. She said
she could not deny what she had said. He then
said he would send her about her business. She
then left his office, and told some of the girls what
the master had said to her. Some time after this
she was alone, cleaning some carpets outside the
master's offices,:when he asked her if she would
take hold of a dog's tail, putting his dog on a table.
She always conducted herself very modestly, but
did not always use modest language.
By Mr. Lewis—Was admitted into the house on
Sept. 7, 1861, and remained till the Bth of March,
during which time she was punished by the master
for using bad language. Was also :punished a se-
cond time, not for using bad language, but for tell-
ing the girls what the master had said. The next
time she was confined for six hours for insubordi-
nation. She was allowed bread and water all that
day. On the 27th of May she was confined for 10
hours—not for using bad language, but for telling
the girls what the master had said to her.
By the Chairman—Did not remember being shut
up on the 10th of May with other girls. Did not
remember a girl named Leonard. Had been before
the guardians before in this room. Did not say
anything to them of what had happened.
By Mr. Lewis—Never said that her mother turned
her in the street at night. Her mother never said
she (complainant) would swear anything. When
she was admitted her mother was asked to see the
board. The master had told her what her mother
had said about her. Her mother had said she was
not right in her mind. Did not remember being at
the master's office at any time with her mother and
Mrs. Pomroy. Never told the master that her mother
had locked her out all night. Was quite sure she
was never in the master's office with her mother and
Mrs. Pomroy. Her mother told her she must get
her living the best way she could. Was positive
she had never said her mother had turned her out
the streets at night. Did know Maria Northburn.
Had said to her out of a joke that she had met two
chaps, who gave her some gin and ale. Could not
say why she had told that falsehood in joke. It
was quite true she was in the park, but not with
two chaps—not at 11 o'clock, but in the afternoon.
Had told the truth when she gave her statement
against the master. She did not tell all the truth
to her mother. She did not like to do so.
Mrs. Moss, mother of previous witness, lived at
5, Albert-place, Bethnal-green. She recollected her
daughter entering Bethnal-green Workhouse. Had
seen the master three times, each time in his office.
The master sent for her and said he had done so to
satisfy her that he had never put the reported ques-
tions to her daughter. He said he had had her in
before Mr. Bristow, and she had denied every word
she had previously said. She then asked to see her
daughter, but the master said she could not see her,
it was too late. She had received a letter from him,
stating he wanted to see her at once. He said her
daughter wanted to come out, and asked witness to
take her out. Witness, however, said she could not
afford to do so.
By Mr. Lewis—Never chastised her daughter
for being out with men. Had never had occasion
to do so. Would not swear that she had not said
her daughter had been out with men. Never heard
of her daughter going into the Park and meeting
two men. Her daughter had never told her so.
Had never told her daughter she might get her liv-
ing the best way she coald. She was sure that Mrs.
Pomroy was present with her and her daughter in
the master's office. Had told her daughter she could
not afford to keep her, and that the house was the
best place for her. Forgot if she said when in Mr.
Meyrick's presence her daughter was not right in
her mind, and that no one could believe anything
she said. Had said her daughter was an untidy
girl. Her daughter was a little unweak in her mind,
bat knew right from wrong. Remember positively
that she never told the master her daughter wits
weak in her mind. Did not say in the presence of
Hales, the porter, to the master, not to let her out
again as she was not right in her mind. Mr. Onion
took down her statement in writing, but gave her
nothing for her trouble—was quite sure of that.
Mr. Onion went to witness and she not to him.
Her daughter never told her she had turned her into
the streets and locked the doors. Her daughter oc-
casionally told untruths. Had been married 21
years.
By the Chairman—Had told the whole truth on
this occasion, although she had said she cccasionally
told untruths.
Stephen Moss, father of complainant, said he was
a tailor, and remembered receiving a letter from Mr.
Meyrick on the 21st of May.
By Mr. Lewis--Remembered the date of the
letter so accurately because he took particular no-
tice. He had a good memory. The letter said,
,4 Madame, I want to see you as soon as possible,
concerning your daughter, Sarah Moss." That was
all the letter contained to the best of his memory.
His daughter was discharged from the house three
weeks after the date of the letter. Would swear
that the letter was dated the 21st May. Was not
sure whether his daughter was not at home on the
19th of May. Would swear that he had a received
a letter containing the above contents. He be-
lieved what his daughter had said, but did not
complain. Could not say why he did not complain.
Had only heard. of the master's misconducting
himself upon one occasion. He never mentioned
to any one that the master had misconducted him-
self to his daughter. He had seen Mr. Onion the
first time that morning. Could not recollect if he
had seen him before. Did not recollect any occasion
upon which Mr. Onion penned down his wife's
statement.

Here the witness was severely cross-examined by
Mr. Lewis, and he ultimately admitted that he had
seen Mr. Onion four times previously, thus con-
victing himself of perjury, He was at once ordered
to leave the witness-box.
Hales, a porter, was next called. Ex mined by
Mr. Lewis—Remembered the mother of the girl
Moss saying she wished her daughter to be kept in
the house, for she was not quite right. Her daughter
was about at night, and she was afraid she would
get herself into trouble_ The master had told the
girl what her mother had said.
Susan Pomroy, an inmate of the workhouse, and
superintendent of the cleaners, said she had heard
the mother ask the master not to let the girl out, as
she was constantly running after men, and she was
fearful of her getting into trouble.
By Mr. Lewis—Heard the mother say the girl
was not right in her head. She was constantly being
punished. Witness did not believe the girl could
have been right in her head or she would never con-
duct herself as she did. Her conversation was not
immoral but stupid.
By the Chairtnan—Did consider her a malicious
girl, but thought her conduct arose from want of
senfte,

.
ed
thße girl /lot to be right. had told the master this
y Mr. Angell—Had told the master she believed
3"1 atter the girl entered the house, and had told
the matron sev
the matron eral times. No one was present but
and master when the mother said the
sortedpped out late at night. Had frequently re-
p the girl, and each time she told the waster
she believed the girl analot right.
Mr. Buncombe
' In
otacer of the City Union
Workhouse, was called for
the purp eof reporting
8e cons
they
upon the mind of cornplainaut.
Her conversation was
not rely on her oath. could

The Lord Chief Baron said he considered that
evidence of the character suggested was not at all
material to the inquiry.
The lad James Gardner, who had been examined
on the previous day, was recalled by permission of
the Court, and Mr. Ribton asked him whether he
had heard the girl Humbler at any time say any-
thing relating to the offensive letters and valentines
that had been sent to the deceased.
He replied that he had not heard her say any-
thing in reference to the subject.
Mr. Poland then proceeded to address the jury
in reply upon the whole case. He said that his
learned friend was incorrect in stating that those
who conducted the prosecution had any doubt as to
whether the charge of murder should be pressed
against the prisoner or the young woman Humbler,
and he had carefully abstained in his opening ad-
dress from stating that there was any evidence to
support the charge against the latter, and he was
very glad that his lordship had afforded him an op-
portunity of placing her in the witness-box, instead
of merely having her deposition read, because this
afforded an opportunity for his learned friend to
cross-examine her, and to discover whether or not
she was the witness of truth. The learned counsel
then proceeded to remark upon the evidence for
the prosecution, and said it appeared to him that
it entirely disproved the supposition that the
death arose from an act of suicide, and that
the medical testimony and the fact that
one of the fingers of the deceased was actually cut
to the bone, evidently in the act of grasping the
blade of the knife to defend herself from the attack
that was being made upon her, were quite conclu-
sive upon this point. He then referred to the other
suggestion for the defence, that the murder was
committed by the girl Humbler, and urged that it
was monstrous to suppose that a young girl, 19
years of age, should have lifted the unhappy de-
ceased out of her bed, and placed her on the floor,
and committed this dreadful crime, and that every
circumstance in the case also tended to negative
such a suggestion. In conclusion, he said that those
who conducted the prosecution had felt it their duty
to lay before the jury the whole of the circumstances
of this most remarkable case. He admitted that it
was incumbent upon them to prove, not only that
the case was not one of suicide, but of murder;
but also that the murder was committed by 1 he pri-
soner ; and it appeared to him that the whole of the
evidence tended to induce that impression, and that
impression only, and he felt satisfied that if the jury
should be of the same opinion, they would not be
deterred from doing their duty by any consequences
that might result from it.
The Lord Chief Baron then proceeded to sum up.
He said that the prisoner was charged originally
with the young woman Elizabeth Humbler with
the commission of this crime, but on looking at the
depositions it occurred to him that the two prisoners
could not be properly tried together, and that if
such a course was adopted it was one that was
likely to produce discredit and mischief to the
administration of justice. The speech that had
been made by Mr. Ribton that day satisfied him
that he was correct in this opinion, for if the two
prisoners had been jointly tried, the result would
have been that each of the learned counsel
would have endeavoured to show that this crime
had been committed by the unfortunate prisoner
whom the other defended. As the counsel for the
prosecution had also intimated his intention not to
simtaitnearat
press the charge against the female prisoner, and
that his object was merely to give in evidence cer-
tain statements
the otherntsthathapridbsoenenerm,
h made
fedeblt herthyat
thiswastendingto
n
Mot
at
rat i
nc o
aunr sde
tthhea titshoulde r
,b
we
ht ao kme en,
ea nhda
dMero.n Brsualt oe
dn
upon the point, concurred with him in that opinion •
was to witdraw the
and he therefore suggested that what should be done hch urge againstt the female pri-
be cross-examined. The '
sonar, and call her as a ne„, so
that she might
counsel for the prosecu-
tion had adopted this suggestion, and the whole case
was now before them. It was undoubtedly one of
the most extraordinary description, and the evi-
dence and the whole of the circumstances con-
nected with it would demand their most seri.
ous consideration. There was no doubt, in the
first place, that on the morning of the 15th Sep-
tember this unhappy woman, Mrs. Gardner, came
to her death by violence, and the first question they
would have to decide was, whether this violence
was the result of suicide or an act of wilful murder,
and if they should come to the conclusion that a
murder had been committed, the more important
question would then arise whether it had been
satisfactorily established that the prisoner was the
person by whom that murder was committed. He
then called the attention of the jury to the medical
evidence and to the condition in which the body
was found, and he said it was certainly a remark-
able circumstance, if it were a case of suicide, that
no blood should have spurted about the room, and
that there also should have been none on the lower
part of the person of the deceased. The learned
ljudge went on to comment upon other portiono Of