The Sun.
London, England, 1861-09-23 00:00:00

tended that the falsification of the register, if done
at all, must have been done wilfully, as it was per-
fectly impossible for the prisoner to have forgotten
his wife's name and his own, especially while in the
performance of an act of such a character, and in-
volving such important results ; and he bGlieved he
should call such evidence as would justify the
magistrates in sending the prisoner for trial on the
charge. The punishment, however, was of minor
importance, compared to the establishment of the
rights of his ill-used child, and the restoration of
that peace of mind to the child's unhappy mother,
by securing the safety both of herself and child
from any further brutality at the hands of the pri-
soner, wilfully designing to suppress his son, and
disinherit and lose him, and get rid of him by some
means short of directly depriving him of life.
Mr. George Frederick Sadd said—l am a sur-
geon and aecoucheur at Rugby. I recollect the sth
of January, 1859. On that day I was called to the
Globe to a lady in her confinement. It was in
the morning, between eight and nine. The Globe
Inn is near the railway terminus and I there de-
livered the lady of a male child. I have seen the
lady I then delivered.

Mr. G. V. HefforiLl am superintendent regis-
trar of births for the district of Rugby, in the
county of Warwick. I produce the register of
births from the 30th of June, 1858, to the 26th of
August, 1859. There is a signature of William
Herbert, who was the registrar. He died in May
last. The entry of register No. 221, dated the
7th of January, 1859, has the signature and writing
of William Herbert, except the signature of R.
Hill. The register was read, and stated a boy
named Robert Hill to have been born on the sth of
January, 1859. Robert Hill being the father, and
Mary Hill (maiden name Seymour) being the
mother.

Cross-examined by Mr. Philbrick—l have been
superintendent registrar since 1838, and William
Herbert, who made this entry, was district registrar
for about twelve years. He ceased to be registrar
in March last. He was about 77 when he died,
and exceedingly infirm, so much so as to be almost
past business. I knew Mr. Herbert some time,
and remember him relieving officer, and his resign-
ing that appointment. lam not aware that any
special inspection was made of this book (the
register), but Mr. Godfrey came in his ordinary
course, and did inspect it some time before Christ-
mas last. I made complaints myself of the inaccu-
racies and irregularity in Mr. Herbert's keeping
the register. There were many of them, and to
such an extent as to lead me to make such com-
plaints, and Herbert resigned under compulsion.
(A laugh.) I have no doubt that every word, letter,
and figure, except the signature, R. Hill, is in the
handwriting of Herbert.
Re-examined by Mr. Cooke—Amongst my com-
plaints I never made any as to any inaccuracy
in this entry. Although as infirm as I have stated,
he was able to walk. Many registers of births were
omitted. My complaints extended to his putting in
letters which ought not to be there, and also to mis-
spelling, but never to entering any names wrong-
fully.

By Mr. Leigh (the presiding magistrate)—Her-
bert was infirm in his faculties.

Mr. Thomas James Maltby—l live at No. 4, Rne
de la Paix, Brussels, and have been for some years
acquainted with Mr. Hill, now present. I was pre-
sent at his marriage with Miss Amy Georgina
Burdett. This document, which I hold in my hand,
purports to be a certificate of that marriage, which,
to the best of my recollection, took place in August,
1852. I gave instructions for the preparation of the
settlements between Richard Guinness Hill and
Amy Georgina Burdett. This deed of settlement,
now produced, I saw executed by the parties.
Having seen the prisoner write, I am perfectly
acquainted with his handwriting. I believe the
writing " R. Hill," in the register-book now pro-
duced by G. V. Hefford, to be the signature of the
prisoner. I have seen Mr. Sadd, the surgeon, this
morning. I took him to see Mrs. Hill. By the
settlement, after the death of the survivor, whether
husband or wife, the settled property is to go, subject
to a joint power of appointment, to the survivor,
and if no appointment, equally amongst the chil-
dren of the marriage, or to one, if only one ; but if
no issue, then all to go to Mrs. Hill, if the survivor,
with absolute power of appointment to her as if
not married, and in default of appointment one
moiety to Mr. Hill, and the other moiety to next of
kin or wife. In possession there is about £5,000,
and in reversion about £9,000. Mr. Hill has re-
ceived between £2,000 and £3,000 from another
portion of the property. • 1 have seen Mr. Hill
write a dozen times, and swear this writing in the
registry is his handwriting. I cannot be mis-
taken. lam a solicitor. I have not been either

insolvent or bankrupt, and am at present on the
rolls of the court. I shall be very much astonished
if I am not. I am not concerned in the prosecution.
I took it up at first, but gave it over to Mr. Cooter,
who is my general agent, but: I have nothing now
to do with it. 1 am in receipt of my fees as the
Vice-Consul of Brussels, and never have assigned
them to my creditors or any other person. I cer-
tainly have not always been able to pay my debts.
I have been thirty years on the roll cf attorneys,
and it is an utter falsehood to say or insinuate that
I have ever been struck off the rolls, or did any-
thing whatever to justify any such proceedings.
Mr. Cooke objected to this course of interroga-
tion, and it was not persisted in.
Sarah Parsons—l am the wife of James Parsons,
who is a bricklayer, living at 38, Queen-street,
Rugby. I recollect nursing a lady who was con-
fined with a little boy at the Globe Inn, Rugby. I
nursed her about three days. I did not see any
gentleman with her whilst I was there. My
daughter Catherine nursed her longer than I did.
Catherine Parsons—l am the daughter of the last
witness, and am in service. I remember nursing a
lady and a little boy at the Globe Inn, Rugby. I
do not know when it was. I think about two years
ago, but it was not very warm. The lady was
known as Mrs. Hill. There was a gentleman there
whom I now identify. I was with them about a
week. I did not receive any directions at Rugby
from the prisoner as to that child. I took the child
from Rugby to the Euston-station, London, by
Mrs. Hill's direction. I also took a box, which is
now produced by Brett, the detective offiCer, and
it contained baby's clothes. The child was
wrapped in a shawl, which is the one produced.
Mr. Hill met me at the station, and he called a cab
and told me to get into it. We drove to a house,
and Mr. Hill took the box out of the cab and put it
into the house. I do not know where the house was
as I am a stranger to London. After that he drove
some distance till we came to a cab that stood still
at the side of the street. Mr. Hill and I got out of
the cab that brought us from the station, and he
went to the cab that was standing still. A dark
woman came out of the cab, and went with her
into a @hop, and I remained with the child in the
street. They remained in the shop for 10 minutes,
and then went to the cab. Another woman then
came out of the cab, and they all three then came to
me, and the dark woman asked me if the child was
clean. The prisoner then said to me, " Give the
child to this person," and I gave it to the light
woman—the second one who came out of the cab.
The two women now in court are the two who came
out of the cab, and the light one is the one to whom
, I gave the child. The woman walked away with
the child too.—(The women gave the names of
Mary Ann Idle, a gipsy-looking female, and Eliza-
beth Andrews.) Prisoner and myself got into the
cab and went to a eoffee-house, where I slept. Next
day I got up and prisoner said he would go and see
the baby. He went out, and came back about two
o'clock. I asked him if he had seen the baby, and
he said, " Yes, but it had cried all night." He went
away, and came again about five, when he went
with me to the station and he brought me to Rugby,
I rode in the same carriage. He said nothing when
we were coming to Rugby. When one of the women
asked me if the child was clean, I said, Yes, it
was ; and I hope it will be kept as clean in London
as it was at Rugby." One of the women replied it
had got a good nurse. The night on which I went
up was very cold. The women were clothed very
shabbily. The dark woman was drunk. I have seen
the child in London about three months since; it
was then in the hands of the mother.
Mr. Philbrick objected to the question of identity
being gone into on the ground that it had nothing
to do with the false representation in the registry,
which was the charge the prisoner had to meet. As
the Court of Queen's Bench would ultimately have
the matter before them, the learned counsel urged
a formal decision.
The Chairman said that he personally thought
the question was incidental to the inquiry, and that
it ought to be put. Some of his brother magistrates
were of the same opinion, but others thought diffe-
i.ently, and he therefore suggested the bench should
reire to discuss the point. This course was adopted,
gala the chairman said that, having considered the
naatter, the bench were of opinion that any question
might be put that would tend to further the ends of
jus%tice. (Some applause.)
Catherine Parsons was then recalled, and in re-
ply- to questions said—l have seen a child recently,
bur I Cl:nnot swear it is the same child I delivered
to tho wo man I have mentioned, at the request of the
prisoner, fit the Euston-square statiora. I however
believe it to be the same child. The reason I think
so is, that it has very light hair, light blue eyes, and
light; and long eyelashes. Mrs. Hill had the child
whe.l I last saw it, and she was the lady I attended
at 11,,; .gby.
Th.l a witness was cross-examined by Mr. Philbrick,
and sr, tated that the child was in her custody about
a we k altogether, and that the reasons she had

stated were the only ones she could assign for be-
lieving it to be the same child.
Elizabeth Andrews, a woman who bore the ap-
pearance of having led a somewhat desolute life,
and whose hands were dyed with walnut juice,
showing evidently that she had recently been get-
ting her living by shelling walnuts, upon being
sworn, was examined as follows by Mr. Cooke :

Where do you live ?—At No. 8, Lincoln-court,
Drury-lane.
Are you a widow, married, or single woman P—l
am a widow.

Are you also sometimes known by the surname
of Farebrother ?—Yes, I am known by that name ;
it was my maiden name.
Do you know the person sitting by my right
hand (the prisoner) ?—Yes.
Have you seen him before?—Not since be gave
me the child.

But you have seen him before. How many times ?
—I have seen him three times before,

Will you describe when and where you first saw
him ?—The first time I met this good gentleman I
believe was on the 9th of January, 1859.
Where was that ?—ln Windmill-street, Hay-
m arket.

What part of the street was it in ?—At the cor-
ner of a street where there was a public-house, but
I cannot tell what was the name of that street.

Was it near the Argyll-rooms ?—yes, quite op•

posite.
What were you doing ?—I was standing with my
baby in my arms singing.
About what time ?—As near as I can say, about
half-past nine or a quarter to ten.
At night ?—Yes.
You were singing, I suppose, in order to get
money given to you, were you not ?—Yes, sir.
Well, now, did the good gentleman say anything
to yoll ?—Yes, sir, he did.
What did he say ?-11e gave me a shilling, and
said he wanted to speak to me for a few moments.
What then occurred P—l went then, sir, with
him, and spoke to him.
Where did you go to P—l went round the corner
of the street, about half-way down.
Was that to get into a quiet place P—Yes, I
should suppose so. .

On arriving there, what did he say to you ?
The first thing he asked me if I had got any more
children, and I said, " Yes, two others." He then
asked me if I had a husband, and I told him
" No." He then asked me if I could take care of a
child if I was paid for it, and I told him that was
according to circumstances; that I could not give
him a decided answer that night, but I would meet
him again.

What did he then do or say P—He promised to
meet me on the Sunday night at the place.
That was the next Might, was it not ?—Yes, sir.
Did you meet him P—Yes, sir; I did.
According to the appointment made the previous
night P—Yes, sir.

Had you any one with you when you next met
him —No ; I went by myself.
What then took place ?—I told him I would take
the baby, but before I took it I should wish to see
the mother. But, fetching a very heavy sigh, he told
me I could not see the mother, for that the mother
was dead..

Who fetched the sigh ?—The gentleman.
What then occurred ?—I then consented to take
the baby.
What next ?—He told me he would give me 15
sovereigns, which he did.
What were the 15 sovereigns for ?—To mind the
child for one twelvemonth.

Did he give you any money that night ?—He
gave me 2s. 6d. on that night.
That was on the Sunday night ?—Yes, sir.
Did he say anything more P—No, sir. He did
not say anything more; but I asked him if the
child was taken ill what I was to do, where I was
to send to him ; and he said he could give no ad-
dress, as he did not wish his father to know any-
thing about the child.
Was there anything said about a further sum of
money P—He told me if I could get the child into
any institution during the 12 months he would pay
me for my trouble.
Was any sort of institution mentioned P—No, sir.
I told him I knew nothing about getting children
into institutions, and when I had children of my
own I had to keep them.
_ _ _

Was the workhouse mentioned ?—No.
Did he say anthing more P—No ; only that I was
to bring the child up like one of my own.
Was any appointment made for a future meeting ?
—Not after I received the child.

But you have only told us of the Saturday night
and the Sunday night. You did not receive the
child on the Sunday night, did you ? Then there
was another appointment ?—Yes, he promised to
meet me on the following Wednesday evening, at
a quarter to 10, at the same place, and he said he
would then take me to a railway station to receive
the baby.
Did you meet him ?—Yes, sir.
At the time appointed P—Yes, to the moment.
Had you any one then in your company ?—Yes,
a poison named Mrs. Scott.

Is she known by any other name P—Yes, Mary
Ann Idle.

Had she any conversation with the prisoner is
your presence P—Nothing particular that I can
think of.

What then took place ?—We went into the station.
How did you go to the station ?—A cab was
taken at the top of Windmill-street.
Who called the can ?—The gentleman.
And did the good gentleman go with you ?
Yes, we all three went.

What station was it P—lt was at Euston-square.
What took place there P—When the cab stopped
at the station he told me and Mary Ann Idle to
stay in the cab a little while, and he would be back
again in a few minutes.

-Was it in Drummond-street outside the station ?
—Yes, sir, it was.

Well, what then ?—We waited and he came back
again in about five minutes, and said the train had
not come in, and that it would be about a quarter of
an hour.

Did you soon afterwards receive the child P
Yes, sir, I did from the young person who was
examined before me.

Did you receive the e money also P--No, sir, Idle
received it for me.

In your presence ?--No, she went into the ale-
house to receive it while I remained in the cab.
Did you see her receive it P—No, but I received
it afterwards from her.
How much ?-1:15.

Was the money in gold ?—Yes, all in sovereigns.
Now, did the prisoner say anything to you before
about a bank note ?—Yes, I asked him if he had
got one, and he said yes, he had got one ; and I then
asked him to get it changed, as it was so difficult
for a poor person to change a note.
Now, was any address given to you where you
might communicate anything respecting the child?
—None at all.
Did the prisoner take your address, or did you
give him one ?—I gave him my address.
Where was that P—No.l9, Litchfield-street, Soho.
Did you live there ? —No, sir.
Was anything to be sent there?—Yes, sir, a box
of clothing. It was to be addressed to Mrs. Scott,
19, Litchfield-street, Soho.
Afterwards did you receive some baby's clothing?
—Yes.
Is the box produced the sane it came in ?—Yes.
Who brought the clothes P—l cannot say; the
box came by the delivery.
Did Mary Ann Idle or Scott give you the box
now produced ?—Yes, sir, she did.
Were there any marks on the baby's clothes ?
No, all precautions and marks had been taken off.
Were the marks cut out or were they only obli-
terated ?—There was a little bedgown where there
had been a mark, and it seemed as if the mark had
been taken out and a little piece let in.
Was the child when you received it wrapped in
the shawl produced?—Yes, sir, that was the shawl.
You have lived at several places since that time,
I believe ?—Yes, I have.
But always within the district of St. Giles's ?
Yes, sir.

Has the child been with you since you received it
from Catherine Parsons till lately?—Yes, till lately.
With but one exception P—One seven days.
Do you mean that was when you went to prison
for that period ?—Yes, and the child went to the
workhouse.

During the whole time you have had the child
has the prisor.er ever seen you or had any communi-
cation with you P—No, sir.
Neither directly nor indirectly P—None at all.
None of any kind whatever ?—No, sir.
Has any one ever sought after the child on the
part of the prisoner P—No, sir.
What have you done with the child ?—I have
given it up to the mother.
[The child was here brought into court, and
caused a great sensation. Every person pressed for-
ward, and appeared most anxious to obtain even
the slightest glimpse of him. The boy seemed a
fine light fellow for his age, and looked around
the court from his nurse's arms with a gaze of sur-
prise, little conscious of the important part he was
playing in the proceedings. When taken close to
the box he looked into the witness's face, and evi-
dently recognised her. A painful feeling was created
amongst the auditory when it was perceived that it
was under medical treatment, several plasters being
on its head and neck to cure the sores brought on
by the neglect and ill-treatment to which it had
been subjected.]
The examination of the witness continued.
Is that the child ?—Yes, sir, it is.
Is that the child you received from Catherine
Parsons P—lt is the same child.