The Sun.
London, England, 1847-08-20 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, August IS.
Mr. Sergeant Murphy again sat in the grand jury-
room to-d3y, to assist in disposing of the criminal eases.
CROWN COURT.—(l3efore the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
Mary Squire (21), a married woman, stood charge
with having, at Manchester, feloniously and of her malice
aforethought, killed and murdered Joseph Squire, her
infant child.

Mr. Monk appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. J.
Pollock defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence of Thomas Crogate and
other witnesses, that the prisoner, who lived in Back-
garden-street, in Manchester, and who was supposed not
to have been in a sound state of wind when she com-
mitted the act, had been seen to approach the window of
the first floor of the house in which she dwelt, and to
cast the child, which was but two years of age, into the
street before the house. She immediately afterwards got
out of the window herself, which was not a great height
from the ground, feet foremost, and in that way slipped
down into the street. The death of the child was at-
tributed to the injuries it sustained in being thus thrown
from the window. The prisoner had previously be-
trayed symptoms of insanity, and had on the same day
observed to her husband that she had "made the
child's frock very pretty," by tearing up the gar-
ment. She had been ill of a fever some time before,
and the fever produced delirium; and that fact was at-
tested by two young medical gentlemen, Mr. King and
Mr. Brodie.
The prisoner, under these circumstances, was Ac-
quitted, on the ground that at the time when she killed
the child she was not so possessed of her reasoning facul-
ties as to make her a responsible person.
Mr. PoLLocs then suggested to the Learned Judge the
propriety of obtaining from the jury their opinion as to
the present state of the prisoner's mind, with the view
of furthering the object of any application which might
hereafter be made in her behalf.
His LORDSHIP did not see how that question could
now be put to the jury. Any further facts that it might
be necessary to adduce with such a view might be laid
before the Secretary of State in the form of affidavit.
MARRIAGE IN A DISSENTERS' CHAPEL.-George
Hawes (25) was charged with having, at Manchester, on
the 7th of September last. feloniously married and taken
to wife Martha Helsby, his former wife, Mary Chadwick,
being then alive.
Mr. Monk appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. J.
Pollock for the defence.

The facts usually established in a case of bigamy were
proved, namely, that the prisoner had been married on
the 19th of July, 1841, at Ashton under-Lyne, to Mary
Chadwick; that she was still living ; and that sulme-
quently, on the 7th September last, he married Martha
Helsby, at the Collegiate Church in Manchester.
The former of these marriages, however, had been
solemnized in a building at Ashton, called the Israelite
Sanctuary, and according to the rites of a sect the mem-
bers of which were worshippers in that building. Two
of the sect, Mr. James Brindley and Mr. John Stanley
were called as witnesses, and the first of these, who is a
grocer at Dukinfield, stated that Mary Chadwick was
his step-daughter. Witness had been present at her
marriage with the prisoner. The registrar of marriages,
Mr. Whitehead, was present, and notice of the marriage
had been duly given to him. (Mr. Monk observed to
the Court thst:the place had been licensed under the Act
of Parliament.) They lived together for ten months.
The doctrine taught in the " Sanctuary" was that of the
Trinity. Witness believed in the bible, " from back to
back," from one end of the book to the other.

Cross•examined—They called themselves " Israelites."
Prisoner himself was not of that persuasion at the
time of the marriage, though he did intend becoming
one of the body to which witness belonged. He then
attended no place of worship.
Mr. POLLOCK took several objections on respective
defects in the evidence, and referred to the statute
touching Dissenters' marriages, 6 and 7 William IV.,
cap. 85, and especially to the 42d section of that
Act, in which it is enacted, " That if any
person shall knowingly intermarry in any place
other than the church, chapel, registered
office, or other place specified in the notice, &c., or with-
out due notice to the superintendent-registrar, or with-
out license, &c., or in the absence of a registrar, &c.,
that marriage shall be null and void." fie contended
that it did not appear that there had been a lawful mar-
riage. Mr. Higginbottom, the superintendent registrar
of the district, could only say that he had no doubt of
having received notice of the marriage to take place
within three months, and the notice, being in writing,
ought to be produced. It was not here, but at the re-
gistrar's home. Section 7 of the Act required that
there should be a certificate from the registrar of the
fact that the requisite notice had been given to him. No
such notice was produced, and it was necessary, n
proving this charge, to show by the best evidence—
namely, the certificate itself—that such certificate had
been issued, because, otherwise, according to the terms
of the 42d section, it would not appear but that this
marriage was null and void in law.
Mr. MONK submitted that it was not necessary to ad-
duce this documentary evidence. There was no doubt
that the place of solemnization was one in which a mar-
riage might lawfully take place. It was not a question
of law, but one of evidence, and this was a case in which
applying the common-law rule, omnia prcesumuntur rite
acta, the evidence of the public officer would dispense
with the production of a aoeumant irgnina from himself.
His Lordship retired for some minutes, apparently for
the purpose of conferring with Mr. Justice Wightman
upon the question.
On his return, the Learned JUDGE said, that the
point was one of importance, with reference to civil
as well as criminal cases, and that it was one which
ought to be reserved for future consideration. That,
his Lordship thought, should be done in a manner to
occasion as little inconvenience to the prisoner as pos-
sible; and if he were. convicted, the best way then would
materialhot the prisoner, ePi srb es
e:en
be to permit the prisoner to be at large upon his own re-
cognizance to appear whenever. called on.
Mr. POLLOCK was quite willing to assent to that course,
and
His LonnsruP.then.told the jury that he should leave
it to them to decide simply, whether the two marriages
had been duly proved in fact ; and if they should find in
the affirmative, then the question of the legality of the
first marriage, according. to the evidence given, would
have to be determined elsewhere.
Verdict—Guilty,
His LoRDsHIP directing that the prisoner should be
wife and two infant children, at Manchester, was to
discharged on entering into his own recognizance.
Joseph Speed, aged 30, indicted for the wilful murders
day ; but Sergeant Wilkins, who ap-
pearedvetirrAl
eeandncet: a s there was reason to suppose that
for the prisoner, stated to the Court, that as there
had as yet been no opportunity of adducing evidence for
respecting the state of the prisoner's
Tee timehe a
caseof thele actwh wouldwhich
justice
thet thisthe
iam4Priuediarrayetdshould be postponed.
His LORDSHIP concurred in the opinion of the
Learned Sergeant, and, therefore, directed that the in-
dictment should stand respited until the next assizes.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
THE MARYLEBONE MURDER.
Mary Ann Huns, aged thirty, was indicted for the
wilful murder of Mary Stowell, on the 2nd of June
last. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
On the resumption of the proceedings the unfortunate
woman, when again placed at the bar, looked paler and
more downcast.

- -
Mrs.— Cressell, wife of the butler of Sir Alexander
Woodward, said she knew the prisoner at Brighton.
Took up her abode at No. 42, Adam-street, about four
months ago, and the acquaintance was renewed. Saw
her frequently. She behaved like other people. Saw
the prisoner about half.past eight on the night of the
murder. She appeared wild and violent in her speech
that night.
Cross-examined--Always found prisoner humane,
kind, and harmless.

By the JUDGE—Was busy that night, and could not
say that she looked at the prisoner's face.
Mr. Crawford Bolt, surgeon, said he was called to see
the body of the deceased at five o'clock in the morning
of the 2d of June, and described the injuries she had
received. The cord round her neck was loose enough
to admit two or three hands within it. Noticed a wound
on the left jaw, which must have been inflicted after
death. The skin was red, hard, dry, and greasy. A
blow during life would not cause redness. She had been
dead eight hours at least. The deceased was dressed.
There was no fire in the room. There was a wound
over the orbit of the eye. Two wounds on the
back of the neck and on the head appeared
also to have been inflicted after death. The
skull and brain were healthy. Six ribs were
broken on one side and eight on the other. Found that
the rings of the windpipe had been compressed and
broken. Pressure upon the lungs, and the stoppage, in
consequence, of the respiratory power was the cause of
death.
quite impossible that all
cauCsreodssb-yexoanmeirnedmoti—.Thlotugwhats the injuries could be
the injuries could have been inflicted with a poker.
Police-constable 124 was re-called, and said he saw
the poker found, and that it was covered with blood and
hair. Could not say that he noticed the hair until the
next morning.
Mr. Bolt was re-called, and positively asserted that
the blows of a poker could not have caused the breaking
of the ribs. The only way he could account for the
injuries was, that the deceased was lying on her back,
and that the person who inflicted the other injuries em-
Played his or her arms in doing so. Perhaps one
" bump," if it were violent, would have broken all the
ribs. Judged the time the deceased had been dead from
the rigidity of the muscles and from experience.
Re-examined—The blow over the eye would no doubt
cause insensibility in a person so old.
By a juryman—It was quite !impossible that a fall
could produce the fracture of the ribs.
Mr. M‘Murdo, the surgeon to the gaol of Nee-gate,
was next examined—The prisoner had been under his
charge since June, and he had been desired to pay parti-
cular attention to her, with the view to ascertain the state
of her mind, and had done so. Had had continual con-
versations with her. Had not noticed anything in her
conduct to lead him to the belief that she was of unsound
wind. She complained occasionally of headache, but
generally said, when he spoke to her, that she was well.
She complained of certain inconveniences which had led
him to the belief, by
r ant.—(Considerable sensation.)
examination, that she was preg-
Cross-examined—Knew that stoppages under some
ircumstances affected the brain. Had known persons
,o become mad for a considerable time in consequence.
Derangement caused frequently unsoundness of mind for
he time it lasted. Had known persons to have hys-
terical fits under such circumstances. A long eon-
-if:mance of epileptic fits would in time affect the mind.