The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-10 00:00:00

complained might sometimes lead to the conviction of the
innocent. His lordship had occasion frequently to make the
same complaint at Stafford, and hoped that the practice

would. be discontinued.

The matron of the gaol proved that she received the pri-
soner on the 23d Sept. She Was very ill for about a fort-

night. On several occasions the prisoner wished to speak

to her, hut the matron refused to have any conversation

with her in regard to her case. But on one occasion when
she was in the cell the prisoner was in tears, and said " Oh,

I have throttled that child ; I tied the garter round its
neck." She was in great distress, was always crying, and

seemed scarcely to know what she said.
Mr. Hayes, a surgeon of Wellington, made a post-mor-
tem examination of the child. It was a fully developed
child. It had a piece of list doubled and tied round the
neck with two knots. He formed an opinion, before the ex-
amination, that the child died of strangalation, from the
list tied round the neck. That opinion was afterwards
confirmed by the examination. The body was perfectly
healthy, and in his opinion it had been born alive, though
the appearance of the blood in the lungs might have arisen
from the child's having breathed before it was completely
born into the world, or from putrefaction. The umbilical
cord was torn from the body close to the abdomen, so that
there was no room to attach a ligature, and the child must
in any case have died of haemorrhage within ten minutes
or a quarter of an hour of its birth.
Mr. Bonghey, for the prisoner, contended that there was
no sufficient evidence that the child was born alive ; still
less could it be said that the prisoner had wilfully destroyed
it. The learned counsel suggested that it was a case of pre-
mature labour, brought on by washing, and that, even if the
child was born alive it might have died of haemorrhage,
or from the effort of the prisoner to deliver herself. The
prisoner might be convicted of endeavouring to conceal the
birth.
Mr. Baron Watson, in summing up the evidence, said
that if the child was born alive, and the prisoner applied
the garter for the purpose of strangulation, and not, as
suggested, in order to deliver herself, the jury must find
her guilty of wilful murder. His lordship then went care-
fully through the facts as proved in evidence, and when he
came to the evidence of the policeman, observed that from
his heart he entirely deprecated the practice of policemen
getting admissions, as had been done in this case, from pri
goners. He had no doubt that the policeman Beeston was
an honest man ; but it was well known that policemen
were sometimes dishonest, and tried to get admissions, in
order that they might convict. In such eases the police-
man had it all his own way, and could not be contra-
dicted by the prisoner, and thus a jury might be led to
dip their hands in innocent blood. It was impossible for
a jury to say how much of the charge the prisoner might
have heard, or how much she intended b admit. His
lordship said he felt bound to say this much for the
interests of public justice, and he hopsd that what
he said would not be confined to big court. If
the jury felt that they could place impicit reliance on
what the policeman stated they must do it eir duty, and
find the prisoner guilty of murder ; but f, on the other
hand, looking at all the evidence in the cast, they had any
doubt upon that point, they were at lib3rty to find her
guilty of endeavouring to conceal the birth if they should
be of opinion that the evidence would sustan that charge.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of eideavouring to
conceal the birth.
Mr. Baron Watson then sentenced her t, be imprisoned
with hard labour for three calendar month.
John, Hollbs, alias Williams, was chargedwith the wilful
murder of Benjamin Bromley, at Shrevrabkty, on tho 29th
Mr. Scotland and Mr. Corbett prosecqed
of October last.
; and Mr.
Rupert Kettle and Mr. Talfourd defended.
The prisoner pleaded "Not Guilty."
re-
mewbered, having recently been reported be readily The circumstances of this homicide will
On the night
of the 29th of October the prisoner quakelled under the
market-hall with a young woman named Uher, with whom
hehe accustomedhfeaudhbdererwithßin the evening
rom g his violence,
ran away. Bromley said to the prisone; " Stand off ;
what did you hit the girl for ?" Upon Ach the prisoner
lteoy, consort.aed
she, Latefee ru
inflicted upon him a mortal wound with aknife.
The evidence was remarkably clear, andle prisoner had
admitted that fact. His counsel addresed the court to
show that the crime was manslaughter, and the judge
having pointed out the legal boundaris between that
offence and murder,
The jury returned a verdict of guilty f manslaughter,
and the learned judge sentenced the prikMer to be trans-
ported for fourteen years.