The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-17 00:00:00

THE ARMY.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, March 16.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
Mary Sweetlove, 37, married woman, was indicted for
the murder of her infant, Octavius George Sweetlove, by
drowning him, at Sandwich.
Mr. Rose prosecuted, and Mr. T. Chambers defended
the prisoner.
From the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecu-
tion, it appeared that the unfortunate prisoner was the
wife of a baker at Sandwich, and that five children were
the result of their union, the youngest of which was the
unfortunate subject of the present inquiry. It would
seem that they were in very bad circumstances, and on
two or three occasions the whole family had been ad-
mitted to the Union workhouse. In the month of De-
cember last year, it appeared that the husband of the
prisoner had left her, and she took up her abode at one
of the small houses in Sandwich, with her children, and
they were reduced to a state of great destitution and
misery, the prisoner not having the means of paying for
her lodging or procuring food for her family, and on
the lath Dec. it appeared she was informed by the land-
lord that he could not allow her to remain in his house
any longer, and that she must provide herself with
another place of refuge. Upon this being intimated
to the prisoner, it appeared that about the middle
of the day she went out, taking with her the
youngest child, and in a short time she returned to
the public-house, but unaccompanied by the infant.
About half-past one o'clock in the afternoon of the same
day, a labouring man who was returning to Sandwich,
having occasion to pass a small stream known as the
Dyke, saw the body of an infant in the water, and he
took it out, and conveyed it to the nearest cottage, where
a medical man was sent for, who used the necessary re-
medies to restore animation in such cases, but without
success. This infant was speedily identified as that of
the prisoner, and some persons immediately proceeded
to the public-house whore she was staying, and on her
being asked what she had done with her baby, the pri-
soner replied that she had thrown it-into the Dyke, and
gave as a reason for doing so, that the child cried as she
was passing the place. The witnesses stated that at this
time the prisoner appeared in a wild and excited state,
and one of them said that for some time before the me-
lancholy transaction, the prisoner presented the appear-
ance of a lost woman, and she was of opinion that her
mind was affected. Mr. Emmerson, the surgeon, who
saw the prisoner immediately after the affair, also
expressed an opinion, that on the day the child was
found in the water, the prisoner was in such a state of
mind as to be unconscious of her actions. It also ap-
peared that after the prisoner had been committed to
gaol, she sent for Mr. Aris, the Governor of the prison,
and expressed a wish to make a communication to him,
and after he had cautioned her that what she stated
would be used as evidence against her, she made a
statement, which he reduced to writing, to the effect
that on the day in question her landlord had told her
that he could not allow her to remain any longer in his
house, as she had no money to give him, and that if she
did not provide herself with another lodging in two
hours, he should turn her and her family into the street.
She said, that upon this threat she went out with her
child, and having no home or friends, er any means of
support, she was driven almost to desperation, and was
not conscious of what she did, and could not tell how
the child got into the water; whether she laid it on the
bank and it rolled in, or whether she had herself placed
it in the water.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS made a very feeling address to the
jury, on behalf of the prisoner, commenting in forcible
terms upon the destitute and wretched condition to
which she was reduced, and urging that she had been
driven to despair and madness, and was in consequence
not in such a state of mind as to render her criminally
responsible for the dreadful act she had committed.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE summed up, and
The Jury, after a very short deliberation, returned a
verdict of Not Guilty, on the ground of insanity.
The prisoner was ordered to be detained during her
Majesty's pleasure.
CIVIL SIDE.—MARCH 15.
(Before Lord DENMAN and a Special Jury.)
ROEMER V. MITCHELL.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 1,5001,,
endorsed to the defendant, and accepted by him.
The defendant pleaded that the bill in question had
been obtained from him by the fraud, covin, and misre-
presentations of the plaintiff.
Sergeant Shee, with Mr. Lush and Mr. Simon, were
for the plaintiff and Mr. Russell Gurney, with Mr.
Hawkins, for the defendant.
This action was brought under the following circum-
stances:—lt appeared that the plaintiff had for several
years carried on the profession of a surgeon dentist, in
Conduit-street, and in the course of the year 1846, being
desirous to dispose of his business, he applied to a Mr.
Pike, who was described as an agent in such matters,
and he took upon himself to further the object of the
plaintiff. lie in consequence caused an advertisement
to be inserted in the Glasgow Advertiser newspaper, in
which he gave a very glowing description of the business
that was to be disposed of, and representing the profits
as very large, and in fact, that it was everything that
could be desired by any gentleman desirous of engaging
in such a profession in London. The advertisement
met the eye of the defendant, who, as well as his
father, were both engaged in the medical pro-
fession at Glasgow, and they replied to it, and
subsequently various negotiations took place between
the parties, which eventually led to the arrangement,
out of which the present action arose, being entered into.
It appeared that as at this time Mr. Mitchell was quite
unacquainted with the science of dental surgery, it was
considered advisable that he should take some in-
struction under the plaintiff before he was installed in
his place, ;and an arrangement was entered into, the
effect of which was, that the defendant was to pay down
a sum of 1,0001., and to give a bill of exchange for
1,5001 at twelve months' date, as the price of the busi-
ness, and ho was then to be introduced into the concern
as a partner, and was to be paid 1501 for his services
for the first year, and as his capabilities and knowledge
of the peculiar art which he intended to practise in-
creased, he was to be, according to the terms of the agree-
ment, " gradually but securely" introduced to all the
patients, and ultimately the plaintiff was to retire
altogether, and leave Mr. Mitchell in the undisturbed
possession of the business. In furtherance of this agree-
inent it appeared that a deed was drawn up by which
the plaintiff undertook to put the defendant into posses-
sion of all his instruments, which were of a peculiar