The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-20 00:00:00

THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 20, 1849.

out. When taken into custody, he said he did not in-
tend to defraud the society, but to pay it back as soon
as he could.

Mr. MATTHEWS addressed the jury for he pri-
soner, contending that his identity with the person
who received the money at the bank had not been
established.

His LORDSHIP having summed up, the jury re-
turned a vedict of Guilty.
Sentence deferred.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Befcre Mr. Justice

WILLIAMS.)
Emma Craven and Edward Craven were charged,
the former with having, at Wakefield, on the 6th of
August last, endeavoured to conceal the birth of her
child, and the latter with aiding and abetting her in
the concealment.

Mr. Blanshard and Mr. Shaw conducted the prose-
cution; Mr. Overend and Mr. Pickering defended the
prisoners.

Mr. BLANSHARD, in opening the case, after stating
the charge against the prisoners, said that they resided
near Dewsbury, and the family consisted of a female
servant, named Ellen Sykes, and a man servant
named Thomas Nettleton, who did not live in the
house. Before August last, the appearance of Miss
Craven had caused suspicions in the mind of Ellen
Sykes, and on the 4th of that month, early in the
morning, Miss Craven complained of her being unwell
from a bowel attack, and remained in bed ; Mr.
Craven attended her, taking up her breakfast, and
afterwards brandy and water. About half-past 12
she heard cries from Miss Craven's room. Mr. Craven
attended her all day. Ellen Sykes observed several
other circumstances which went to prove the birth
of a child, though she herself never saw the infant
alive. On the Monday she observed Mr. Craven
go into the garden between nine and ten o'clock, and
watched him in consequence of what she had previously
seen, and observed him digging near a cucumber frame
in the garden. She was then sent out, and when she
returned in about an hour, she found Miss Craven
down stairs, looking much thinner. After tea she
went out into the garden, and the hole 'which she had
seen Mr. Craven digging was filled up. What she
had seen she told to Thomas Nettleton, and on going
to the place where the hole was dug, searched, and
found buried in it a paper parcel, inside which was
found a male child, wrapped up in white calico.
Sheets and chemises were afterwards taken possession
of by the police, belonging to Miss Craven, which
medical men would state had marks which clearly
showed that whoever had used them had been de-
livered of a child. In addition to this evidence, after
the discovery was made, Mr. and Miss Craven sud-
denly left the neighbourhood ; the former, however,
surrendered himself ; the latter was taken into custody
in October. The Learned Counsel then called
Ellen Sykes, who deposed to the facts stated in the
opening speech of counsel.
Cross- examined—Miss Craven had a sweetheart
who went out to Australia about two months before
this happened. When she complained of being
poorly, she said her father had wanted to send for a
doctor, but she did not like doctors. Had seen some
baby-linen in a box of Miss Craven's. It was quite
clear to me that Mr. Craven was digging a little
grave. He continued digging, though he could see
me. I went into Miss Craven's room many times, the
door was not locked. Mr. Craven used to go into
Miss Craven's room when she was sick.
His LORDSHIP here said there was no concealment
of birth; there was concealment of the body, but no
concealment of the birth on which a jury could act.
The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
.Mary Skinner was charged with the wilful murder
of her new-born male child, at Dunnington, on the
13th of September last.
Mr. Matthews prosecuted, Mr. Dearsley defended
the prisoner. _ _

At the suggestion of the latter gentleman Mr. Hay,
a surgeon at York, was called, who spoke as to marks
and bruises which were found on the child, and as to
the fact of its having been born alive. He gave other
testimony tending to show
,that the prisoner had in-
flicted injuries upon the child which caused its death ;
but at the conclusion of his testimony, his Lordship
having asked the witness whether his opinion might
not be fallible, and being answered in the affirmative,
his Lordship asked the jury whether they wished the
charge of murder to be proceeded with, to which they
replied in the negative.
The prisoner then withdrew her plea of not guilty
as to the charge of concealing the birth, upon which
the jury found her Guilty.
His Lordship then, considering the length of time
she had been in prison, sentenced her to a further
imprisonment of six weeks.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

ATTEMPTED PARRICIDE AT CHISWICK.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.
Mr. Bonxix having replied,
Mr. JusticeCOLERIDGE summed up the whole case,
observing that there were two questions involved in it;
first, did the prisoner shoot at his father; and secondly,
if he did, what was his intention in doing it? The act
of shooting was not disputed, but the intent was contro-
verted. Now the only means of ascertaining the intent
of a rational man in -doing a thing wits by looking at
the consequence of his act. Thus, for instance, if a sane
man placed a loaded pistol at the head of a fellow-crea-
ture and fired it off, killing him, there could be
no doubt that the intention of that man was to kill the
party shot at, but of course insanity deprived a man of
full power of entertaining an intent. Well, then, the
facts of this case were such as to show that if this party
were sober, he had done an act with the intent to take
away life, under such circumstances as would have
amounted to murder, had his father died. Drunkenness,
however, was neither a defence nor an excuse for crime,
but it" might be advanced to prove that a party
was incapable to conceive an intent. It was not
enough, however, simply to show that the patty
was intoxicated, but it must be proved to the satisfac-
tion of die jury that he was so drunk that he was not
competent of forming the intent he was charged with,
and that now seemed to be the only question the jury
had to decide in this ease. If they negatived the point
of drunkenness, then it would bo their duty to decide
whether the prisoner fired the pistols with the intent to
do some grievous bodily harm, or to commit murder.
The jary then retired to consider their verdict, and
after an absence of about twenty minutes they returned
into court with a verdict of Guilty of the assault with
intent to do some grievous bodily harm. They believed,
however, that he committed the offence whilst labour-
ing under feelings of great excitement, and, therefore,
they strongly recommended him to the mercy of the
Court.

Sentence wag deferred.
Just before the Court rose he was again brough
up to receive sentence.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, addressing him, said that
the jury had found him guilty of firing a pistol at
the prosecutor with intent to do him grievous bodily
harm, and had acquitted him of the more serious por-
tion of the charge. They had at the same time re-
commended him strongly to the merciful considera-
tion of the Court, and he was always glad to attend to
such a recommendation when it was founded upon
proper grounds. In this case, however, the jury had
given the recommendation upon the ground that he
had committed the act while under the influence of
liquor, and his duty compelled him to say that the
Court could not allow that fact in any way to operate
as an excuse, and that they could not for a moment
permit it to be thought that it was any palliation of
an offence that it was committed under the influ-
ence of drink. He could not help thinking that, in
the present case, the prisoner having formed the des-
perate design which to some extent he had carried
out, had endeavoured to fortify himself to commit it
by the excitement of drink. He had now, therefore,
to answer for a most grievous crime. Upon some real or
imaginary grievance he had deliberately armed himself
with two loaded pistols, and having gone to the house
of his father at a time when he knew he should find
him helpless and unsuspecting, had discharged both
the weapons at him, and had left him upon the ground
bathed in his blood and apparently dead. Human
nature shuddered at-such an act, and it was one which
could hardly be considered possible unless proved, as
in the present instance, by the clearest possible testi-
mony. Under these circumstances the Court felt it
had no alternative but to pass upon him a sentence
that would remove him from this country, and for a
very long period.

The prisoner was then sentenced to be transported
or 15 years.

NEW COURT.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
Alfred Sinclair was indicted for obtaining from
John Cetta, by false and fraudulent pretences, a
quantity of looking-glasses valued at 401.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Payne prosecuted, and Mr.
Robinson defended.
This was the case so often before the police-courts,
in which the prisoner effected his schemes by repre-
senting himself as a West Indian merchant, named
Barclay, carrying on business under the firm of
Barclay and Co., Maiden lane, in the City.
The jury found the pisoner Guilty.
There were several other indictments for obtaining
goods under similar circumstances, but they were net
proceeded with.
The COMMON SERGEANT ordered him to be trans-
ported for seven years.
In the course of the day, upon an application being
made to postpone the trials of two men who had only
been committed on Monday, until next session,
The COMMON SERGEANT said it was nothing but
fair to the prisoners that they should have their trials
postponed. He hoped that the Secretary of State
would make a rule that there should not be any pri-
soners committed for trial at the sessions whilst they
were sitting.
Thomas Stevens, 50, labourer; William ill`Donald,
18, coachmaker; Caroline Hill, 19, spinster; Ann
Plummer, 22, spinster; and Julia Collins, were in-
dicted for stealing a watch, chain, seal, mourning-
ring, ten sovereigns, some silver, and other moneys,