The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-05 00:00:00

had also been preferred before the grand jury; but they
ignored it, and returned a ,:,true bill for manslaughter.
The charge for murder was abandoned upon au objec-
tion taken by the prisoner's counsel that the child was
improperly described, and the case went to the jury
upon the indictment for manslaughter.
Mr. Wordsworth prosecuted, and Mr. Parry defended
the prisoner. From the evidence of a great number of
witnesses, it appeared that the pH, oner was a person in
humble circumstances, and she had been in service in
the neighbourhood of Limpsfield. The child in question
was an iliegimate one, and while she was in service it
had been placed out to nurse with a woman named Rice.
In the beginning of February, it appeared that the
prisoner left her service and went to live with Mrs.
Rice, and at this time it was stated that, although
weakly, the child, which was then nine months old,
was in perfect health. When the prisoner came, she
took the principal charge of the child, and she was
observed by its nurse the first day she came to produce a
bottle which she said contained Godfrey's cordial, end
to administer some of it to the infant, who very
soon afterwards appeared very sick and ill. It appeared
that after this the prisoner went into the Bletchingly
union workhause, where she remained a few days, and
then returned again to the house of Mrs. Rice. The
child then became more seriously ill, and the medical
man of the union, Mr. Thompson, was sent for, and ho
adtninistered a powder to it, but the illness increased,
and the child died on the 18th of February ; and, upon
a post mortem examination, it appeared that the child
had died of congestion of the brain, which was the pro •
gable result of some narcotic poison, such as laudanum,
having been administered to it. The circumstances of
suspicion against the prisoner were most cogent, for it
was clearly proved that she had made three applications
at different shops for laudanum, and upon it being re-
fused to her at one of them, where she said it was for
her baby, she went to another where she said it was for
herself for tooth-ache, and a small quantity was fur-
nished to her, she being at the same time informed that
it was poison. After this, when inquiry was being made
respecting the state of the child, she went to one of the
shops where-she had obtained the laudanum, and asked
the person who had sold it to her, if any inquiry were
made as to her having purchased laudanum, to say that
she had not. It also appeared that when she was ques-
tioned as to what she had done with the laudanum, she
at first said that she had got it at home, and after-
wards that she had dropped the bottle out of her
bosom and broken it. In addition to these circum-
stances, it was proved that the prisoner on several
occasions had said that "she wished to God the child
was dead, for then she should have a good home,"—this
expression being supposed to allude to a circumstance,
which, however, did not come out in evidence, that the
father of the child had said he would have married her, if
it had not been foe the child. II the course of Ihe cross-
examination by Mr. Parry, it transpired that i.udanum
and Godfrey's cordial were sold at the different shops in
the town in commo❑ with grocery, cheese, candles, and
drapery, and one of the shopmen, in answer to a question
put to him by the Learned Counsel, said, very innocently,
that he did not know whether they kept prussic acid or
arsenic as well as laudanum amens their articles of gro-
cery. Mr. Thompson, the medical officer of the union,
and his assistant, Mr. Tomlinson, gave their opinion that
toe congestion of the brain of the deceased was occasioned
by laudanum or some narcotic poison; but in cross exa-
minatio❑ by Mr. Parry it was admitted that other na-
tural circumstances might have caused the same appear.
ances, although they did not think it was probable. Mr.
Thompson also said that, although he was told by his
assistant before he saw the child that it was suspected
to be suffering from some narcotic poison, and its ap-
pearance entirely confirmed that suspicion, he did not
administer the slightest remedy by stitnulaets, or a bath,
or in any other manner; but said, as he thought the
child apneared inclined to rally, he considered it better
to leave it to nature. The assistant also, upon being
ascertain
that th
he h,;ids
himself
fof his
nly
milua scientificedseti'an.oekdn(l)vvi postmortemtlheda'
e':
admittedeto
examinations, although he said he
had been present at a great many.
Mr. PARRY commented, in the course of his address,
in most severe terms upon the conduct of the medical
men, and their not taking any steps to rally the child,
although they represented that they were aware of the
suspicion of its having taken some narcotic poison, and
must have known that the administration even of a
simple stimulant might have been attended with the
most beneficial result, and probably would have saved
the child's life ; and he then proceeded to contend that
the jury could not rely upon the evidence as to the
cause of death, and upon this ground, whatever other
suspicious circumstances might be in the case, it was
their duty to return a verdict favourable to the prisoner.
Chief Justice WILDE having summed up, the jury,
after deliberating for about five minutes, returned a
♦erdict of Not Guilty.
Charles Green, alias Fletcher, 23, was indicted for
stealing ten silver spoons, the property of Elizebeth
Watson.

The prisoner is stated to be, although so young, one
of the most desperate thieves on the Surrey side of the
water, and it appears that he has been 18 times sum-
marily convicted, under charge, or sent for trial to the
assizes, the Central Criminal Court, and quarter-sessions,
but he has hitherto, by vv hat would appear the most ex-
traordinary good fortune, escaped conviction by a jury.
On Friday night he attempted to escape from the gaol
at Kingston, by getting up the chimney (:f the cell in
which he was confined, but upon coming to an iron bar
which was fixed across it he becams lammed in, and
with great difficulty got down ' again and upon the
keeper entering the cell he was astonished to find him
covered with soot, which was only partially removed
from him when he appeared to take his trial.

It appeared in the present case that thQ robbery was
committed so far back as April in last year, and the
principal witness was the servant of the prosecutrix,
who spoke to the fact of seeirsg a man leave the pre-
mises with the basket of plate under his arm. She de-
clared that man to be the prisoner, but on account of the
time that had elapsed since the robbery. a doubt was
entertained whether she might not be mistaken.
The jury gave the prisoner the benefit of this doubt,
and returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

of
JCuill(3l..r,le: r.enpeteesirpstoonhiao.trges4l.
WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Teunton, April 2.
r
This being Good Friday, the Learned Judges attended
Williams was indicted for forging, on the Bth
Divine service in the morning, and did not, in conse-
quence, repair to the courts till two o'clock.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Jiisticeperißs,EinSelNVE:,Lith)
Williams.itn:lot ltd gheeefr(rrs)aetuatcl dice:drop t:t‘chloe: knowinglol den were counselvm g for
at the
No. pro-
secution
receipt by Mary Williams, wiitthtoinhtaernethteoedheff„rraguedd,Muairtyh
M
iurt
ostw. Lah;nne:sm,„teoko,fLilair.ll7l.lWalill,liaßnlatsh' , made some ; and Mr. Stone defended the prisoner.
person
ner facts of this case were these:—lt appeared that a
ap-
plication to her friends, who lived near Barnstaple, for
some money ; and John Knills, who had married her
sister, procured a Post-office order for 51., and forwarded
it in a letter addressed to Mrs. 'J. Williams, 4. Lower
Swayneawick, Lark Hall, Bath. The prisoner lived at
No. 5, Lower Swaynes wick, Gloucester-road, Bath. It
so happened that the letter-carrier, by mistake, took the
letter so addressed to Mrs. J. Williams to the house of
the prisoner. Neither the prisoner nor his wife were at
home at the time, and the letter was left with a Mrs.
Hawkins, who lived next door to the prisoner. When
the prisoner came home in the evenine. Mrs. Hawkins
gave him the letter. The terms of that letter were these :
"Dear Sister,—l have sent you 51. as soon as I re-
ceived it from Mortred, and I hope it will be a benefit to
you, and you had bettter go to the Post-office and receive
it. I hope you will write as soon as you have received
the money, as I shall not be easy till I hear from you.
"Your affectionate sister and brother,
" JOHN and ANN KNILL."
This letter was received by the prisoner on the 9th of
July. The next day he went to the Post-office and ten-
dered the order, which was then signed, "Jane Williams."
He was asked by the clerk at the Post-office by whom it
had been sent, and the prisoner answered, " John Krill;"
and that name corresponded with the name in the order-
book. The clerk asked him who was Jane Williams?
and the prisoner said she was his wife. The clerk then
asked him if he knew any other Williams, because the,
order was made payable to Mary Williams? The pri-
soner said he had a sister called Mary Williams. The
clerk then said that Mary Williams must sign it. Upon
which the prisoner said, "I will sign it for her;" and be
struck out the word Jane, and inserted the word Mary,
and the money was paid to him. Some time after this
inquiry was made at the different post-offices, and Hall,
the Bath officer, went to the prisoner's house and told
him he was charged with obtaining from the Post-office
the sum of 5/. upon a Post-office order, and the prisoner
said he had. He then took Hall t 9 his father's house and
gave him up the letter and the money. The prisoner said
he thought of going to the Post-office the following week
to speak about it. Be said his wife's name was Jane,
and he thought the order came from some relative of hers.
The prisoner had a very excellent character given him.
Mr. Justice CnesswELL said the question was whe-
ther the prisoner forged the name with the intent to de-
fraud some one.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty of forgery, but
not with intent to defraud.
Mr. Justice CRESWELL said—This is no verdict at
all, gentlemen, you must consult again.
The jury then returned a verdict of Guilty.
Sentence deterred.
Robert Reeling and
George Compton were indicted for
killing a horse, the Property
of Thomas 'White.
Mr. Allen conducted the case for the prosecution, and
Mr. Phinn defended the
risoners.
From the evidence it appeared that White resided at
the Anchor public-houseatCoomehay, and was a farmer
and publican. He had a stable about 150 yards from
his dwelling-house. On the 27th of November last he
had four horses in his stable, one of which was called
Colonel. On the next morning, upon going to his stable,
he saw the horse Colonel down on its side, in apparently
great danger. There was a large wound in its head,
into which a person
might have put his finger. Moe an,
the farrier, was sent for, and by his advice the horse was
killed. The next morning the horse was skinned, and
upon cutting up the horse a spike nail, seven inches
long, was found in its stomach. The prisoners had been
g
in the employ of White, and he had had occasion to sum-
mon them for leaving their emp oyment and at that time
Compton raid to White that he had been the cause of
their being at an expet:s-,, and it should do him no good.
Io about a fortnight 1
after this a man of the name of
Cave gave him some information. Cave had been in
the employ of the prosecutor, and had left him on the
night of the injury,
prosecutes. The secretary to the society said we should
offer 51. reward, but the prosecutor told him to add 101.
White belonged to a society which
more, and he would pay that sum. A meeting of the
society
wag called, and this case was spoken of. The
prosecutor wrote to the chairman of the society on the
23d of December, begging the society to subscribe fur
him, as he had been threatened with various injuries,
end unless something was done he should be ruined.