The Sun.
London, England, 1832-09-07 00:00:00

GUILD HALL.

Eliza Kerman, a tall young woman, the wife of
a driver of a branch coach from the Blossoms Inn,
Lawrence-lane, was brought before Sir PETER
LAURIE yesterday, on suspicion of having destroyed
her own child, aged ten weeks, about the latter end
of Msy last. Mr. Newbon, the vestry clerk of St.
Andrew by the Wardrobe, appeared with the over-
seers as complainants.
Mr. Newbon said, a female child, about four or
five months old, was found deserted in the passage
of a house in St. Andrew's-hill, on the night of the
16th of June. It was advertised on the 18th, and
on that day the prisoner called at the place where it
was at nurse, examined it, arid said it was not the
one she was in search of, as it had not a particular
mark. Next day, however, she called on the over-
seers, arid said it was the offspring of an impreper
intercourse between her sister and her husband, and
that she was ready to take it and maintain it. It
was about to be given to her, but it was deemed
right to make some inquiry and take some indemnity
first, and upon visiting the husband he declared he
knew nothing of the circumstance. They were con-
fronted, and she then admitted her statement was
a fabrication, got up to screen herself from the
punishment for deserting her infant ; that in truth
the child was her own, arid she had dropped it.
Prisoner had a dispute with her husband, and
dropped the child, intending to take away her own
life immediately afterwards. To obtain this full
confession, the officers had promised not to prosecute
her, but they still required her to give proof the
child was truly her own, as her husband protested
he was not aware she had given birth to one since
about 18 months ago. The child was accordingly
sent to Norwood.

Sir PETER LAURIE having called upon the pri-
soner to answer the charge, she said the child was
really her own. To prove that site dropped the
child that was found, she would state, that she
watched it, as it lay undiscovered, for some time in
the passage. It was sleeping, but a boy coming
out kicked against it and woke it,and an old woman
refused to take it in. A woman who lived at White-
chapel offered to take and suckle it, but the parish
beadle who had been fetched to the door declined

the offer, on account of the distance. She had
concealed her delivery from her husband, because he
was not fond of children. Her nurse and infant did
not sleep with her, therefore, even during the first
fortnight. She was oppressed with low spirits, and
had been twice in St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and
once attended by a medical man at home.
Sir PETER asked why she was taken to St. Bar-
tholomew's ?—The husband replied, the first time
because she poisoned herself.
Sir PETER asked how his wife had obtained
money enough, without his knowledge, to pay for
the lying-in and nursing of the child ?—Prisoner
could explain that. She received a small annuity
from her friends in the country. She was entirely
innocent of the charge brought against her.
It was intimated there was some difficulty in trac-
ing out the nurse, Mrs. Tivey.
Sir PETER LAURIE said the prisoner had been
guilty of a very grave offence in deserting her child,
and he should remand her fora few days while some
inquiry was made.