The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-27 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—May 26.

LAMBETH.—THE ALLEGED CHILD MURDER
AT PECKHAM.—The Hon. G. C. Norton was
engaged for a considerable time in further investi-
gating the charge against Elizabeth Beagin of
having caused the death of her male illegitimate
infant in the month of October, 1557, and burying
it in lime in the garden of her house in Camden-
square, Peckham, where its remains were found.
When the prisoner was placed at the bar, In-
spector Dann, who has charge of the case, informed
the magistrate that he had served a summons upon
Mrs. Smith, sister to the prisoner, and who is also
wife to the father of the deceased child, fcr her
attendance as a witness; but she was unable from
indisposition, to be present; and he received the
certificate he produced from her medical attendant
stating that she could not be in attendance before a
week. He (Inspector Dann) also served summonses
on a person named Gill and his wife, and both were
in attendance.

James Gill, who stated he resided at No. 6, Gun-
powder-alley, Shoe-lane, Fleet-street, described him-
self as a tailor, and who had formerly belonged to
the City police, was here called, sworn, and exa-
mined at considerable length. He said that about
the time (October, 1857) George Beagin, brother to
the prisoner, called on him and informed him that
an unpleasant occurrence had taken place at his
father's ; that his sister had given birth to a child,
of which her own brother-in-law was the father;
that the child was dead; and that the whole thing
had been unknown to the family. He further said
that Mrs. Smith had stated, as he (witness) had
been informed by her brothers, that she would
rather have paid a pound a week than that the
child should have died, and further, that Alfred
Beagin had acknowledged that he dug the hole in
the garden for the burial of the child, but had not
buried it himself. The witness further stated that
he had been consulted by both George and Alfred
Beagin about bringing an action against their
brother-in-law, Mr. Smith, to punish him for his
indiscretion, and also coupling with the act of se-
ducing their sister, another which took place at
Erith, respecting his (Smith's) wife. Witness, in
consequence of this application, saw Mr. Smith, and
on telling him' of the affair at Erith, he offered him
£2O to give up the author of this information. He
led Mr. Smith to believe that he should give up the
author, and several letters passed between them on
the subject. At his first interview with Smith he
gave him £l, and he might altogether have received
as much as £5 from him, but certainly not £2O, as
he had promised. When shown a receipt for £lO
received from Smith upon a solemn promise that
the affair of the child should be kept a secret, and
which bore the name of "George Greaves" and asked
whether the signature was not in his handwriting,
the witness fenced in every possible way, and al-
though ultimately admitting the fact, he declared
he had no portion of the £lO.
Mrs. Gill was next called, but her testimony was,
if possible, more unsatisfactory than her husband's.
She, as well as her husband, denied that they had
told the officer, Hall, anything about the death of
the child, the precise place in which it was buried
in the garden, or saying anything whatever about
the canal.

George Hall, 176 P, was then sworn, and said
that both witnesses had informed him that the
prisoner had said that if she had fifty other chil-
dren she would not do so again, for while lying on
the deceased she felt it kick her in the stomach.
They also described the precise spot where the
body was buried in lime, and said that it had been
contemplated to take it up and throw it, into the
canal.

Both witnesses affected much surprise at the
officer's statement, which they denied, but in such
a way as to leave no doubt in the minds of all who
heard them that the officer stated the truth ; and,
after a lengthened examination, the prisoner was
again remanded, for the attendance of Mrs. Smith
and other witnesses.

WORSHIP-STREET.—THE RECENT CASE OF
ALLEGED ASSAULT WITH A CRICKET BAT.—
John Brown, described as a lawyer, ix the Temple,
was charged, on remand, before Mr. Hammill,
with violently assaulting Henry Sole and Harriet
Holland on the 11th inst.
Mr. Beard now attended for the defence, and the
following additionnl evidence was received :
Harriet Holland, whose testimony was given with
apparent difficulty from prostration, and who was,
accommodated with a seat, stated, as the other
complainant had, that the three gentlemen pur-
posely pushed against them while passing ; and
in reference to the assault upon herself, said—
I recollect nothing after defendant struck me
with the cricket bat. I first recovered my senses
when on a stretcher at the station-house, where I
vomited a great quantity of blood, and have done
so every day since. A part of my head beneath
my bonnet is swollen, one of my teeth is broken
clean off, two are loosened, and two are chipped,
my right eye was quite closed, and I could not
open it until Sunday last. lam still very ill, and
a surgeon has been in attendance upon me daily.
Mr. Hammill—Doubtless. Was any one near
you but the defendant when he struck you ?
Complainant—No, sir, I was about two yards
from the mob.

Mr. Beard—l shall, in the present condition of
this poor woman, forbear putting her under cross-
examination, which I assuredly otherwise should
do, with the view of eliciting evidence of the con-
duct of her party.
Complainant was' then assisted from the court,
and the notes taken at the former hearing read
over..

A witness named Bray, in answer to questions
from Mr. Hammill, said—Not any one was near
the woman at the time she was struck—the bat
descended upon her head. I cannot say whether
defendant held it with one or two hands.
Cross-examined—l do not know -whether any of
her party were advancing towards the defendant
as he struck. I did not on the former cross-exami-
nation say they were.
Martha Sole, whose evidence had not previously
been taken, gave the same version of the affair as
the others for the prosecution had done, stating, in
addition, that defendant, as he passed her with her
baby in her arms, forced the cricket-bat against
her side, and when her husband asked, " What did
you strike, my wife for ?" he instantly knocked him
down with the bat. She screamed ; he then hit at
her, the child being still in her arms, and, missing
his aim, followed up his attack by levelling a blow
at her sister, who came up at the moment, which
knocked her senseless—no one else being near.
Inspector 'Webster produced a certificate from Dr.
Wright, of Hackney, stating that the injured
woman was gradually recovering, and out of danger.
Questioned by Mr. Beard, the inspector stated
that defendant at the station said he ought to charge
Sole with an assault, and complained of ill-usage,
the marks of which witness had since seen upon his
legs and thighs.
Hopper, the officer in chat:ge of the case, in reply
to questions by the solicitor, said that ten minutes
before the alleged outrage was committed, he saw
the complainants an &several others near the Horns,
at the corner of the Hackney-road, greatly miscon-
ducting themselves, and apparently clearing the
pavement before them. Their conduct excited his
suspicion, and he turned his light upom them. One
of the party challenged his right to do so, but was
checked by Sole, who observed, " Come along, or
you will get well screwed up." They were
told to go on quietly, but shortly afterwards he
found them engaged as formerly described with the
defendant.

Mr. Beard then observed—l shall now, Sir, call
a witness for the defence, and upon his evidence,
after what has been stated to-day, I think you will
be of opinion that this is at least a case in which
the defendant should be admittedto bail—unlimited
and unexceptionable it shall be ; but do not send
him back to prison until the time of trial. Last
week you were told by the husband of this poor
woman that he expected to find his wife dead on
returning home. Doubtless that must have had
influence with you in refusing bail, but to-day a
certificate is put in, showing that the woman is
actually out of danger; and I trust that this happy
intelligence will inuce you to comply with my re-
quest. Defendant has from the, first protested that
he was set upon by numbers—that it was in self-
defence he struck, and did not conceive a woman
was the formost of the crowd. Most deeply he
regrets the injuries, although accidental, and would
do anything to compensate.
Mr. Matthew Bernard Lucas was then examined,
and said—l am a golicilor, at 11, Adam-street,
Adelphi. I was returning from ericketing in com-
pany with defendant and his brother at the time in
question. I do not think defendant was exactly
sober. In the Hackney-road we met the com-
plainant and a party of about eight. They occu-
pied so much of the pavement that we, being arm
in arm, jostled them, but not intentionally. We
passed on, they shouted, and we turned. I believe
they uttered bad language, but cannot swear so.
Sole rushed up to defendant and either knocked or
pushed him down. He then rushed at me and the
gentleman next me. Others were advancing at
the moment, and I struck him with my left hand
as hard as I could. His teeth cut my knuckles,
which are still sore. Defendant did not strike him
with the bat. I must have seen him if he had.
After I :_truck Sole I perceived defendant rise, and
then he first used the bat. The party had by that
time increased ; there were then ten or twelve. A
woman came forward as defendant swuxg the bat
to keep them off, and was struck with it. She fell.
Several persons then got defendant down and
jumped upon him, and nearly strangled him. When
Sole rose from the grottnd'he first seized the, but

afterwards charged the defendant. I have known
the defendant ten years ; he is a particularly mild
and inoffensive gentleman.
Defendant—l should be ashamed to strike a man
with such a weapon, unless in danger of great vio-
lence ; how much more so, then, to harm a woman ?
The blow was by chance, and as I have described.
Mr. Hammill intimated that he shonld adhere to
his intention of sending the case to a jury, and
again refused bail. The depositions to be completed
to-morrow.

SHOCKING CASE OF MURDER AND
MUTILATION OF THE BODY.

Considerable sensation was created yesterday at
Bristol, in consequence of the murdered body of a
child, frightfully mutilated, having been found by
some boys in Tyndall's Park.
Information of the discovery having been made
to the police, no time was lost in informing the
coroner, who at once issued his warrant, and an
inquest was held at the Hope and Anchor Tavern,
Jacob's Wells.

The body, upon being viewed by the jury, pre-
sented a shocking spectacle. The throat was cut
from ear to ear, all the large bloodvessels, the gullet
and windpipe being divided, right down to the
back bone ; both arms had been cut off near the
joint of the elbow, and the legs at the junction of
the hips with the pelvis. The arms and legs are
all absent, and are supposed to have been either
burnt, or destroyed in some other way. The trunk
and head were packed in some dark-grey alpaca
cloth, which had been carefully sewed together
with cotton.

It appeared from the evidence that the body was
found by a little boy, named Mills, the son of a
fancy-soap maker, residing at 19, St. James's-street,
St. James. The little fellow was playing with a
companion younger than himself in the park, and,
being heated, they retired to the shelter of some
trees, underneath which, and amongst some high
grass, they found the bundle. Mills opened it, and
on seeing the body of a child, with its throat cut,
he vas greatly alarmed. A young man happened
to be passing, and a policeman soon after came up,
and the body was carried without delay to the
station-house of the Clifton division of police to
await the inquest.
The Coroner having summed up, the jury re-
turned -a verdict, " That the deceased was found,
wilfully murdered in Tyndall's Park, but by whom
murdered is to the jurors unknown."

THE .HEREFORDSHIRE MURDER.

LEBBURY, THURSDAY AFTERNOON.

The resumed inquest on the body of the mur-
dered woman Harriet Baker was held before Mr.
Underhill, coroner, and a respectable jury of
tradesmen, this morning, at the Feathers Hotel, in
this town.

John Isaac Jones, the clerk, who was suspected
on the occasion of the first inquest, is in custody.
He was arrested by Superintendent Tanner and
Detective Williamson, on Tuesday evening, at his
lodgings. He was apprehended after a warrant had
been issued, subsequent to a private investigation
by the magistrates.
Mr. Masefield, sworn, stated that Jones was one
of five clerks, and worked in the lower office.
Jones had been a clerk in his office two years and a
half. Had served as a clerk faithfully. Received a
recommendation with him from Australia, but be-
lieved that he came originally from America ; yet
he came to Ledbury from Birmingham. Before
leaving Ledbury for London, on Tuesday, he called
Jones into his office, and set him some copying.
Jones was in his office almost daily, yet he seldom
called him up, because he had a wooden leg. From
the office day book, to which the clerks downstairs
had access, it would seem that nearly £3OO was in
the two drawers upstairs, but he had sent the
greater portion of that sum to the bank before
going to London. Witness kept wax tapers on his
table, and sometimes wooden lucifer matches.

Henry Masefield, son of the former witness, iden-
fified in a packet of money, consisting chiefly of
fourpenny and threepenny pieces, a sixpence, with
a hole in it, that had been in his father's drawer.

W. G. Woodward, a clerk in the office adjoining
Mr. Masefield's room, deposed that he kept business
money in his desk, of which the young Mr. Masefield
knew, but he iid not think the other clerks knew
of it. Found the money safe and the drawer un-
touched on Wednesday morning. Before leaving
for London on Tuesday, Mr. Masefield gave him
nearly £2OO to take to the bank. Adding money
from his own desk, he deposited at the bank, when
he went to dinner, about £225. That he was going
to take this money only Mr. Dew, in addition to
Mr. Masefield, knew. After leaving the offices at
night, met Jones near them, coming from the
town, at about ten minutes past ten. In going
towards the offices Jones was also going towards
his lodgings. Merely said "Good night," to him.
About a quarter to 10 next morning found the
offices closed and a crowd round them. Was told
Mrs. Baker had been hung and then set on fire.
Went in and found Jones there with others. Jones
looked very pale and agitated. There were, other
drawers in Os (witness's) desk beside the one lie
had spokex of, neither of which was broken open.
Wm. Masefield, another son of Mr. Masefield, the
proprietor of the offices, deposed that he was clerk
to his father, and kept money in one of the drawers
in the last witness's desk. At the time of the murder
there was about £2l there. The drawer was un-
touched. Did not think that Jones knew that he
had that money-I'l9 belonged to the Cricket Club.
On the morning after the murder found a bunch of
three small keys on the gravel walk which sur-
rounds his father's paddock, at a point about five
yards from the back entrance to the offices.
Richard Dew deposed that he was a copying
clerk in Mr. Masefield's service. He had been there
nine years. On the day of the murder he (witness)
left the office at about ten minutes past eight at
night. Before Mr. Masefield went to London on
that day, witness saw him give Mr. Woodward a
considerable sum of money to take to the bank.
Would swear that he did not communicate that fact
to Jones, who left the office about seven o'clock.

The examination of this witness was being pro-
ceeded with when the parcel was despatched.
The magisterial examination of Jones will be
resumed to-morrow afternoon.

MURDER OF A CHILD AND SUICIDE
OF THE MOTILER.

On Wednesday an inquisition before the county
coroner for the Manchester district (Mr. W. S.
Rutter) disclosed the particulars of the murder of
a child by its mother, and then her own self-de-
struction, under circumstances of a melancholy
character. The sad event took place in the small
village of Hollyhurst, in the township of Pilkington,
'between Whitefield and Radcliffe, about six miles
north-west of Manchester. The deceased, Sarah
Kay, aged 22 years, lived with her husband, Samuel
Kays in one of a row of four or five small cottages.
She had been previously married to a man named
Smith, a Mormon, who went to the Salt Lake
Valley, and died there. After his death, and about
18 months ago, she was married to Kay, a young
man, who is a power-loom tackler, and both he and
the deceased worked at the cotton factory of Mr.
Buckley, about five minutes' walk from the cottage.
She had a little girl (by her former husband) named
Mary Alice Smith, a little under fire years of age,
and both appear to have been fond of the child,
which lived with them, and went to school while
they laboured at the mill. Three weeks ago, on
Sunday, the husband was away from home until 10
o'clock at night, and some report was officiously
spread, which reached the wife the following day,
to the effect that her husband had been improperly
in the company of her cousin. This led to a quarrel
between his wife and himself, he denying that there
was the least truth in the report. The deceased li
appears to have been of a sensitive disposition, and
was not satisfied with her husband's explanation.
The occurrence preyed upon her mind, and, unfor-
tunately, on Monday last, at noon, the unpleasant-
ness was revived. As they were leaving the factory,
for dinner, they met a woman who complained of
the deceased having spoken disrespectfully of the
person alluded to. No sooner had they entered the
cottage, than the deceased began to reproach herole
husband with not having kept at home
Sunday referred to. Angry words ensued, vid trhs.
e
quarrel was heard by a next-door neighbour
Butterworth), but all she could distinguish was
r
the husband saying, " Get thy dinner an do to thy
work." The deceased, from her voice, appeared g to
previously
be much exasperated. The di
oven to warm, and
dinner,
cooked, had been placed in
he rapidly partook of what he
e chose, then returned
the remainder to the oven for his wife and child,
and went to the mill alone. The deceased
41re-
mained in the house nearly half an. hour, during
which she appears to have
hdeorteormwnm
life uopnod 4
n
horrid tragedy of sacrificing _
of her child. The poor little creature was inno-
cently gathering flowers in an adjoining field with
e Mrs,
where
the el.,
Devon-
port another girl belongingtoA_l_
rs. v
_rs.Devonport, a neigh-
bour. The deceased as kc d
in
i..
the children were, and telling her,
ir
port noticed that she was agitated, and that her
face was flushed, and that she spoke in a short and
hurried manner. Having returned with the chil-
dren, the unhappy woman sent her own child td,
Mrs. Butterworth 's to borrow a razor. Hearing
the direction given to the child, and having once
before lent the instrument to the deceased for the
purpose of cutting her corns, Mrs. Butterworth
gave the little unsuspecting victim what
proved to be the instrument of its own and its
mother's destruction. The little girl
l followed her

mother into the house with the razor, and the door
was closed and locked. The cottage has two bed
rooms, one of them very small, and to this the
frenzied mother took the child, and perpetrated the
fearful deed. The bodies lay side by side, within
half a yard of each other, the mother's face being
towards that of the child, and their blood comming-
ling in one pool between them, in which lay the
open razor. The frightful gash in the throat of
each showed the excited energy with which the
weapon had been used; and there can be little
doubt, from the position of the bodies, and the blood
not being spurted in any direction, that both were
in a sitting posture upon the floor when the mother
despatched the child (which was to the left side of
her), and then, as it fell backward repeated the
fatal stroke upon herself, and let drop the razor be-
tween them.

Nothing was known of what had occurred, even
by the immediate neighbours, who supposed that,
notwithstanding the quarrel, the deceased had gone
to her work as usual. Shortly after six o'clock
the husband came home, and finding the door fast,
knocked loudly. Mrs. Butterworth told him
that his wife had not come from the fac-
tory yet. He replied that she had not been there
since noon. A fearful thought immediately flashed
upon her mind, and she exclaimed, " Oh dear, the
child fetched a razor from me." The husband an-
ticipated the dread result. A neighbour, Henry
Hayes, procured a ladder, and on looking through
the bedroom windom, announced that both mother
and daughter were lying dead. Shortly afterwards
another man, John Howard, got through the win-
' dow, and going down stairs, unlocked the door, and
a surgeon went upstairs and saw the bodies, which
were then cold.

The inquest was held at the Bay Horse, Chapel-
field, on Wednesday afternoon, when the facts
above narrated were adduced in evidence. The
husband, we regret to state, evinced even less con-
cern in the matter than either of the witnesses.
He admitted that jealousy on the part of his wife
had led to what had happened, but averred that
there was no ground for it. He said that if ever a
quarrel occurred she originated it ; that her temper
was irritable ; that nine months ago, after some
words with her brother, she went to a lodge of
water, with the intention (as she afterwards stated)
of drowning herself, but was prevented by seeing a
man sitting upon the bank.
The jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a
verdict concerning the death of the child of wilful
murder, that being the offence for which the mother
would have been tried had she been living. The
verdict upon the mother was, " Destroyed herself
whilst labouring under temporary insanity ;" and
the jury expressed their reprobation of the conduct
of the persons who had spread the scandalous re-
port by which the poor woman had been distressed.