The Sun.
London, England, 1866-12-22 00:00:00

ASSIZE IN

TELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT—MAIDSTONE, Dec. 21.
(Before Mr. Baron Channel)
THE TUNBRIDGE WELLS MURDER.
The trial of Ann Lawrence for the murder of
her child, Jeremiah Lawrence, at Tunbridge-
wells, on the 14th of April, was proceeded with
this morning.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Willoughby con-
ducted the prosecution, and Mr. Ribton and Mr.
Orrnerod the defence.
In addition to the evidence for the prosecution
which was reported yesterday, Dr. Davey was
called. He said that the cut on the child's throat
was a deep, clean cut. It went back to the spirt.
The child was on its back. Two powerful jets of
blood would come from the child's throat. Wit-
n,ss saw the prisoner's dress and the marks of blood
on it. Probably the person who inflicted the wound
would be covered with blood. lle could not say
whether the person's hand would be covered with
blood. The person who did it must have teen in a
stooping or kneeling position. That would tend to
deposit blood on the front of the upper part of the
person who inflicted the wound. It would be arte-
rial blood. The marks on prisoner's dress would
be consistent with the action of these jets of blood,
and with a stooping or kneeling position. If the
heart acted a second time there would be four jets
of blood, two jets for each vessel. The hand that
pressed the razor would be bloody. Witness exa-
mined the upper part of the bed. There was a very
little blood on the pillow. The wall was slightly
smeared with blood. There were marks of blood
on the ceiling in the centre of the room. In wit-
ness's opiniOn, if the woman had attacked Highams
with a billhook there would not have been these
marks on her dress. He believed the blood on the
ceilin came from the man's arm. No vessel was
wounded in the man so as to produce such a spat-
tering of blood. There would not be such a flow of
blood from the man's wound's. (A piece of flesh
was shown to witness which corresponded with a
wound on the third finger of the man's right hand.)
His two fingers were taken off at the infirmary.
Highams was at the infirmary 14 weeks. He had
13 wounds—four on his head, four on his shoulder,
four on his right hand, and one on his left wrist.
Cross-examined, he said—Highams lost blood. It
was principally venous blood. He must have lost a
great quantity of blood. If in contact with him the
woman must have been smeared with blood. The
appearances on the woman's clothes were not con-
sistent with the blood on them having come from
Highams. The apron produced is spattered with blood
as if from the nose of a watering pot. In witness's
opinion the blood must have come from some large
vessel. No vessel was injured on Highams' person
to create such spattering of blood as was found here.
The shirt of Highams was saturated with blood.
Witness thought the blood on the apron did not
come from Ilighams's wounds. All the appearances
on the apron, except the pattern of it, were of blood
or blood and water. The carotid artery when severed
sends a jet of blood with great violence. Only one
of Ilighams's wounds would send forth a jet of
blood. The blood on the ceiling must have come
from his hand. There might have been a small jet of
blood from the wounds on his head. Witness could
not undertake to swear that the blood from some
jet in the veins of the man's head could not possibly
have sprinkled some part of the woman's apron.
The same as to the blood from his arm. Witness
could not say whether there was any of the child's
blood on Ilighams's shirt. It was so saturated with
blood that he could not say, nor whether it was
sprinkled before it was saturated. He could only see
sprinklingof blood on the woman's dress indistinctly.
now. He thought she might have been in close con-
tact with the man, and her dress appear as it was
now produced. He must have been out of bed when
the wound on the arm was inflicted.
The prisoner's statement made before the magis-
trates was read. It was, "I own to all except killing
the child. I cannot own to that, as I did not do it."
Mr. Sergeant Parry last night summed up the
case for the prosecution.
Mr. Ribton now addressed the jury on behalf
of the prisoner. He proposed first to consider
the case without reference to the evidence of
ilighams. The prisoner had Lft her husband
at the solicitation of Highams, and had lived
with him two years. This man, having a taste for
illicit amours, was cohabiting with the prisoner at
Tunbridge-wells, and at the same time visiting ano-
ther woman at Mailing. The prisoner's jealousy
was excited by these visits to Mailing ; but she and
Highams had slept together on Thursday night.
On Saturday morning, about 15 or 20 minutes be-
fore six, cries of " Murder" were beard proceeding
from the house in a man's and also in a woman's
voice. Why should she have cried " Murder ?"
Was it not at the moment that she attacked Iliehams
on seeing that he had killed her child? She said
afterwards that she had conquered the devil. The
first thing she said to those who came was, " Send
for the police, for there is murder." •As soon as
the man came out she denounced him. He has
killed my child." She had said this all along. She
had also said " One is dead, and the other will be
soon ;" but this was only another mode of express-
ins, the same idea. To one of the policemen she
,said "My child ! my child ! I want my chills
This must have meant the murdered child, for she
knew at the time that it was murdered. In her
distraction she called, although she must call in
vain. It was, in fact, the police who had decided
which of these two persons, the prisoner' or Highams,
should be charged with the murder of the child.
This was an example of the want of some high pub-
lic functionary to conduct capital prosecutions.
The police could have foreseen what sort of evi-
dence Highams would give. His exculpation
• would be the inculpation of the prisoner.
The prisoner's expression of intended ven-
geance against Highams would be very per-
tinent to the inquiry whether she wounded the
man with intent to kill him, but they did not bear
upon the question before the jury. The evidence
of a witnsss on whose account the trial had been
postponed from the summer assizes went to
this point. The evidence of Dr. Davey was strong
against the prisoner, hut he relied on considerations,
not of science, but of common sense, on which the
jury could form an opinion as well as a doctor.
Dr. Davey, however, would not venture to say
on cross-examination that the spots of blood
upon the woman's apron must have come from the
child, and could not have come from any other source.
The only motive which the prosecution could assign
for the murder of the child by its mother was the
mother's jealousy of Ilighams. Suppose Highams
had died of his wounds without making any state-
ment, could the prisoner have been convicted with-
out his evidence? But consider now what that evi-
dence was? Ile said, in answer to the learned judge,
that the first time he heard the child was dead was
from the policeman in the next house; this was un-
true, for the prisoner had charged him with the mur-
der in front of the house, in the hearing of two wit-
' nesses. It was remarkable that Highams, in his story,
said nothing of the murder of the child. Yet if that
story were true the child must have been lying with
its throat cut when the prisoner attacked him, and
he must have seen it. The question for the jury was
not which of these two persons committed the mur-
der, but whether the evidence was sufficient to con-
vict the woman. Suppose the man were now upon
his trial, and all the evidence given yesterday had
been brought against him, together with the evidence
of the woman, what must have been the result? It
would have beep urged against him that he was
charred hy the woman with this murder, and did
not deity it, but only said " Youarea dear woman."
The woman would perhaps say that she rose early to
light a fire, that she was chopping woad, that Elle
heard some cry or sound, rushed up stairs, found the
child's throat cut, and attacked the man with the
billhook. No doubt it would be difficult to assign
an adequate motive for the man murdering the
child ; but a woman would save her child's life even
at the price of her own. The affection of the woman
for her offspring was not the growth of habit or the
product of civilisation, but it existed in the rudest
age, in the wildest clime, and in the most untutored
breast,—

" The sturdy savago 'midst his clan,
Tho ru,,lest portraiture of man,
Owns the stilt throb, and see:et start,
The hidden impulse of the heart."
The Woman had throughout told the same story. Be-

fore the magistrate, alone and unaided, she charged
the man with this murder. But the jury were not
called upon to decide that the man was guilty ; the
evidence was not sufficient to warrant them in say-
ing that the woman was guilty, and, if there was
doubt in the case, she was entitled to the benefit of it.
Mr. Baron Channell then proceeded to sum up

the case. It was to be inferred from the evidence
that the child was murdered in the morning and not
over night ; and there was'a strong inference that
either the man or the woman murdered it. if the
evidence led to the conclusion that the prisoner was
guilty, it would be a fearful thing that she should
be acquitted because an adequate motive could not
be assigned for the crime. It would be desirable to
endeavour to ascertain as nearly as possible the
time when the child was murdered. It would be
convenient, therefore, in the first place to refer to
the evidence of the policeman May, 1; ho first saw
the murdered child. At five or ten minutes past
six he touched the child's face and it was warm.

Referring to the other evidence, Mrs. Taylor, who
lived next door, said that about 15 or 20 minutes
before six she heard both a man and a woman cry
" murder." Highams' account was that he was
roused from sleep by blows of a billhook on the
head, which the prisoner held in both hands. Did
this explain her getting the better of him as she did?
He said he did not hear of the death of the child
until he went next door, but other witnesses said
that the prisoner charged him with killing it in
front of his own house. One witness said that
to this charge he made no answer. Another wit-
ness said that he answered, " You are a dear
woman." A policeman stated that he found in
the bed a piece of skin, which appeared to have
been cut from Highams' finger. In reference
to;the evidence of Dr. Davey, it was to be observed
that he drew rather a fine distinction. But he ad-
mitted that, if the shirt of Highams were soaked
with; his: own blood, that might have obliterated
the sprinkling of blood which would have come
from the child if he killed it. There was no pos-
sibility of any other verdict than that of guilty or
not guilty of wilful murder. The jury were not
called upon to inquire into the prisoner's attack on
Highams, except as throwing light upon the ques-
tion they had to decide.
Upon the jury retiring, one of their number stated
that he was under medical treatment, and requested
that they might be conducted to a room in which
there was a fire.
Mr. Baron Channell referred to the words of the
oath of the officer in whose charge the jury were and
said there was some doubt as to their construction,
and he must decline to interfere.

It appeared that the jury were to be taken to a
room where there had been a fire.

The jury retired about a quarter past 1 o'clock.
Shortly after 4 o'clock the jury returned into
court and give a verdict of guilty.
Sentence of death was then passed in the usual
form.

James Fletcher was indicted for the wilful murder
of James Boyle, at Gillingham, on the sth of Sep-
tember last.

Mr. Poland and the Hon. E. Stanhope prose-
cuted ; Mr. Barrow, at the request of the learned
Baron, undertook to defend the prisoner.
The prisoner was a convict under sentence of penal
servitude at Chatham. The deceased was an assis-
tant warder of the Convict prison. The prisoner
struck him on the face with a hammer and caused
his death. He said before the magistrate that he
thought he would do this act, and get quit of life.
He had been brought before the Governor of the
prison for using foul language on the report of the
deceased, and was sentenced to two days' solitary
confinement on bread and water and to lose marks.
On coming out he joined a gang of convicts who
were breaking stones, and in the course of the after-
noon he, without any altercation:or previous warn-
ng, struck the deceased two or three blows on the
'ace with the hammer which be used for breaking
Of these blows the deceased died.

stones.

The jury, without hesitation, found the prisoner
guilty, and he was thereupon sentenced to death in
the usual form.

This case was tried while the jury, in the case of
Ann Lawrence, were deliberating, and immediately
after sentence had been passed upon Fletcher the
jury in Lawrence's case came into court and returned
their verdict, and sentence was passed on her. Thus,
within the space of a few minutes, two capital sen-
tences were passed.