The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-09 00:00:00

EVENING, MARC 9, 1861,

about. The hydrostatic test had been exploded'.
The child might breathe before it was born.
The Judge upon this wished to have the opinion
of the Other surgeon who was called in.
Mr. Hounsell—l am a surgeon, and have been so
since 1817. I made an examination of the body of
this child.. The wounds were the cause of death.
If the child had been born dead the bleeding would
have been less, because as long as the child lived
the orterieiwould have been active I should have
thought the child was alive at the time, but how
long it lived I cannot say.
The Judge then said he was anxious to have the
evidence of the second surgeon upon this point.
There Could. be no doubt about the prisoner being
guilty of concealing the birth of- the child, but to
make her pilty of murder there, must be proof that
the child had'heen completely-born alive. _ In the
headi
its
sdealcitvuear t
actual birth
bile
ritb chli de:
twheouulgdht h.
chargecave
bar se ea t ho er
ofd ab
murderef er
negatived, and the case ought at
e
Once to stop.
Tho jury acquitted the prisoner of the murder,
but -found her guilty of the concealment of the:birth.
The Judge then told the prisoner that whether
she Was guilty of the higher offence Was a
.queStion
between herself and Almighty God, but by law she
Was entitled to an acquittal. It was, however, a
bad case of concealment, and-she must be severely
punished. She must be sentenced to 18 months'
imprisonment with hard labour.
The prisoner, a prepossessing young woman, who
had suffered most fearfully during the trial, was
removed front the court in-a fainting state.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.--7-WpßcEsnu, MARCH 8,
Cum COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron Wilde and Common Juries.)
The first cause in the list was an undefended
tjectment. ,

TURNV.E. V. IVICOLLS.

Mr. Seigeant Pigott and Mr. 11. James appearo
for the plaintiff; and Mr. lluddleston, and
Mr. Powell 'for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action, J. Turner, was a
farmer living at Woodside Farm, Cladsley Corbett,
and ho brought the present action against the de-
fendant, James .Nicholls, the younger, to recover
damages for the seduction of his (the plaintiff's)
daughter. The defendant pleaded the general
issue.

The young woman who was the subject of the
action stated that she was about 20-years of age,
and lived with her father and mother at Woodside
Farm, at Chadsley Corbett. The defendant was
a young man of about the same age, and he lived
with his brother, who farmed several hundred
acres of land, and resided about a quarter of a mile
from the plaintiff's house. According to the girl's
statement the defendant had several times seen her
at her father's house and kissed her; but on
the evening of the 9th of May, 1860, he met
her on her return home from the meeting of
a Dorcas Society, and after accompanying her
across three fields, attempted to take " undecent"
liberties with her. The girl resisted, and after
10 minutes he left her, and she went home. On Fri-
day morning, the 25th of May, the plaintiff's
father and mother went out, according to their
custom, to Stourbridge Market, and the 'girl was
left alone in the house. At about ten o'clock in the
morning the defendant came with a gun on his
shoulder, and knocked at the back door. The young
woman opened the door, and he went in and kissed
her, and began talking about some ferrets. The girl
:was standing by the window washing up the
breakfast things, and the defendant went up to her
and kissed her, and put his hands round her waist.
The girl told him to take his hands off till she had
finished the breakfast things. The defendant
did so, and, as she was drying her hands,
he caught hold of her, and effected his pur-
pose, against her will, and then left, with
his dog and gun. The defendant only called
at the house once after that. The young woman
never said anything to anyone of what had occurred,
but in the month of October she went to her uncle's,
and on the 11th of January She was prematurely
delivered of a child, which she positively swore
was the defendant's. The young woman, vc ho gave
her evidence in a very free and outspoken manner,
was cross-examined as to certain acts of familiarity
which, it was suggested, she had allowed on the
part of one of her father's farm servants, but she
denied it all. The girl's evidence as to the defend-
ant's visits at the plaintiff's house before the 25th
of May and his discontinuance of his visits after
that day was corroborated by other witnesses.
The defendant was called as a witness, and ad-
mitted that he had been on terms of familiarity
with the young woman, and had been in the
habit of kissing her, but he denied that he had
ever taken any indecent liberties with her. He
denied that he was at the plaintiff's house on the
25th of May, but he admitted that he was there on
one Friday, about tho same time, when all the cir-
cumstances occurred to which the young woman
had spoken, except that he had not been so inti-
mate with her. Two men, who were now in the
employ of the defendant's brother, were also exa-
mined, and spoke to acts of familiarity which they
said they had witnessed between the young woman
and one of the farm servants.
Mr. Baron Wilde having summed up the evi-
dence with great care,
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,—
Damages, £lOO.