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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATU RDAY EVENING, MARC ti 9, 1861.

hIATHER KEMP'S OLD FOLKS' CONCERT
COMPANY from AMERICA, consisting of

THIRTY LADIES and GENTLEMEN,

with their New England Orchestra, all of whom will appear in
COSTUMES of ONE lIUND RED YEARS AGO,
and render in their unique, peculiar, and popular style, gems
of Ancient, Sacred, and National Airs. Enthusiastic recep-
tion of Emma J. Nichols, the favourite young American
Vocalist.
ST. JAMES'S lIALL, Piccadilly, every Night during the
week at 8.

MORNING PE R FORMANCES
on WEDNESDAY and SATURDAY, at Three o'Clock.
Admission—Stalls, 3s. ; Area, 2s. ; Gallery, Is. Tickets may
be had of the principal Musicsellers and Librarians, and at
Austin's Ticket Office, 28, Piccadilly.

A 4 It. W. S. WOODIN'S NEW ENTERTAIN-
MENT, the CABINET of CURIOSITIES, POLY.
GRAPHIC HALL, King Wiliam-street, Charing-cross;
TO-NIGHT, and EVERY EVENING (except Saturday), at
Eight. Private boxes, .£1 Is. ' • Stalls and box stalls, is.
area, 25. ; amphitheatre, ls. - A plan of the stalls may be
seen, and seats secured (without extra charge), at the Box-
office, from 10 till 4. Morning Performance, Saturday,
March 2.

A RGYLL ROOMS. - GRAND MUSICAL
ENTERTAINMENT,
with the Celebrated BAND, Forty in number (established
eleven years), chosen from the Philharmonic Concerts, Royal
Italian Operas, and the Household Troops. Conducted by
Mons. Lamotte. Cornet-a-piston, M. Boulcourt.—Dancing
at Nine o'clock.-18. admission.

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ROOMS,
High nolborn.—The most elegant entertainment in
the world. The dancing area is most extensive. The reading
and smoking rooms on either side of the spacious galleries are
replete with every comfort, and the refreshment rooms at-
tached to the ball room are unrivalled even by Oriental
beauty. The wines, &0., are of the highest quality. The
band, directed by Mr. Packer, stands alone for its excellence.
Admission, is.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, March 8.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell, and a Common Jury.)

HARRIS V. HARRIS AND BOND.

This was a suit instituted by the husband, a civil
engineer and draughtsman, for a divorce on the
ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent,
to which denial of the adultery and cruelty were
pleaded.
Mr. Brett, Q C., and Dr. Spinks were counsel
for the petitioner ; and Dr. Wambey appeared for
the respondents.
From the evidence it appeared that the parties,
after cohabiting for some years, married, and lived
together for a considerable time, but had no chil-
dren. Until 1857 there was no imputation of mis-
conduct on the part of the respondent; but in the
early part of that year the parties agreed to sepa-
rate, the husband stipulating to allow £1 Is. a
week. Up to this period they lived in London,
and the respondent attended to the business of a
Berlin wool shop, which her husband Lad opened
in the neighbourhood of Kentish Town. When
the deed of separation had been executed, the re-
spondent went to live at Lancaster, and there
became acquainted with a man named Bradley,
and, in company with him, took up her residence
at a public house situated in the moors of Lanca-
shire. Subsequently she formed an intimacy with
the co-respondent, who was a married man, but
separated from his wife, and they lived together in
a cottage in the neighbourhood for upwards of 12
months. It was suggested on the part of the re•
spondent that as there were two others lodging with
her in the cottage the co-respondent merely occu-
pied the same relation towards her, and witnesses
were called who deposed to the alleged cruelty by
the petitioner. It appeared also that the petitioner
accused his wife of intemperance, and of pawning
goods out of the shop to satisfy her unfortunate
propensity.
The
.jury found a verdict that the adultery alleged
had taken place, and that the petitioner was not
guilty of the cruelty pleaded, and
The Court pronounced a decree nisi with costs.

had not on the Thursday seen the prisoner White-
lock at his house with Margaret Redfearn, and if
she had not threatened to leave his service. The
prosecutor replied that, in consequence of what he
then saw, he told her she would have to leave his
Ns
service hen his wife returned. On re-examina-'
tion by Mr. Foster it appeared that he returned'
home on Thursday morning, the 21st of February,
about nine o'clock, and hearing voices in his study
he ran upstairs there, thinking his wife had re=
turned home, she being absent on a visit, and he
there saw Margaret Redfearn sitting on the couch
with her dress very much disordered, and the pri-
soner near her with the braces of his trousers
loosed ; and he then told her that she should leave
his service as soon as his wife returned.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Margaret Redfearn was then called. She was a
comely-looking girl of 19, neatly dressed, and ap-
peared of superior station to a servant. She swore
that on the sth of January, when Mrs. Armstrong
was from home, the prosecutor came into her bed-
room and committed a rape upon her. Next morn-
ing she said she would expose him. He said if she
did he would have to leave the country. Mr. Arm-
strong had attempted to commit another assault on
her on the night of the 22d of February. She sent
for the prisoner and told him what had taken place.
The prisoner then, at her request, wrote a letter to
the prosecutor, and after it was written she read
it over, took it to the chapel, and gave it to John
Robinson, who gave it to Mr. Armstrong. Wit-
ness denied that, although on the return of her
master from the country he found her-and the pri-
soner in his study, they were in an unseemly posi-
tion. The prisoner, she said, had come to see her
master about some books, and when her master
came in he was reading. The prosecutor did not
then discharge her, nor did he say anything about
it. The prisoner remained in the house with the
prosecutor about an hour and they smoked their
pipes together. [Prosecutor had denied this.] Pri-
soner, on the day after, called at the prosecutor's
house, and witness went upstairs and told her
master that he had called. The prosecutor refused
to see him.

Witness, having been cross-examined by Mr.
Foster, adhered to her statement.

Mr. Davison called Mr. Hodgson, attorney,
who spoke to the excellent character of the pri-
soner, who hid been his clerk for five years.
Mr. Waters, chief constable of Hartlepool, also
spoke to the prisoner's character.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Foster,
and it was elicited from him that Margaret Red-
fearn had told him on the 25th of February, when
stating her charge against the prosecutor, that the
prisoner had twice by force had possession of her
person ; the last time was in her bedroom on the n ight
of the 22d of February, and the first occasion a
fortnight or three weeks before. This the witness
Redfearn had denied on her cross-examination.
This was the case for the defence.
The jury then retired, and after an absence of
upwards of an hour brought in a verdict of Guilty,
but strongly recommended the prisoner to mercy.
The prisoner was ordered to be put down till this
morning, and his lordship said he would consider
what sentence he ought to pass.
This morning the prisoner was placed in the dock
to receive sentence.

His lordship, after recapitulating the charge
against him, said he had sent this letter, imputing
to a minister of the Gospel that he had committed
an offence of the greatest enormity, with the intent
to extort money, and, as the jury had found, with-
out any reasonable or probable cause. Had the jury
not coupled with their verdict a recommendation of
mercy, on account of his previous good character,
he should have sentenced him, for so heinous an
offence, to penal servitude; but, taking that recom-
mendation into consideration, the sentence of the
Court was that he had imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for 18 calendar menthe.

The prisoner seemed almost stupefied on hearing
his sentence.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.--DORCHESTER, March 8.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)

Helen Hutchings was indicted for the wilful
murder of her female infant child at Bridport.
Mr. Stock prosecuted, and Mr. H. T. Cole de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner was in the service
of Mr. Samuel Bowden Gundry, a magistrate of
the county, residing at Bridport. His family con-
sisted of his two sons and the servants. On Sun-
,.day, the 4th of November last, the prisoner, who
was the cook, came down stairs as usual. She com-
plained of illness, and was obliged to go to bed,and
Mr. Gundry tent for Mr. Cory, a surgeon of the
town. Mr. Cory came, and having seen her, he
pronounced that she was in the family way. A
woman named Mary Ann Balston also came. After
that the prisoner's sister came, and then the sister
and the maid-servant went up to the prisoner, who
was like a mad woman and called out, " Oh, Mrs.
Balston I have had a child, and it is in the closet."
They asked her if she had done anything to it, and
she said they would find it a little cut. Mr. Cory
came again, and he went to the closet and brought
out a parcel in a carpet covering. Upon opening
it the body of a child was found. It had cuts about
the head. Mr. Cory said, " Now for the instru-
ment." She said, "It's on the table.'' There was
a razor on the table on which was fresh blood. That
razor had been in the room of Mr. Sidney Gundry.
The prisoner had used that razor to cut her corns
with.

Mr. Cory, the surgeon, stated that he was coroner
for the county. He was sent for to Mr. Gundry's.
He went there. He saw the prisoner in bed, com-
plaining of pain. He asked her if she was pregnant.
She said, No; she was unwell." He partially exa-
mined her, and told her she was pregnant, and
asked if anything had passed. She said " No,"
and he told her she would miscarry. She begged
him not to tell her master. As she denied her
pregnancy he told her the next day would show.
He was oiled again about 9at night. Mrs. Balaton
told him something, and he went to the closet and
opened it, and found the full grown body of a child.
There was a cut on the mouth and on each side of
the neck. He then asked where the instrument
was, and some one said on the table. There was a
razor on the table, with wet blood on it. He sent
for the police, and gave the prisoner in charge.
He handed the razor to Stillman, the policeman.
He examined the prisoner, and found she had been
recently delivered. The body weighed 71b. The
umbilical .cord was cut but not tied. The angle of
the lower jaw was cnt out; the wound extended
from ear to ear. A slice of the tongue was cut off
evidently by a sharp instrument. There was a
wound on the left side of the neck, dividing all the
arteries ; the chest was laid open, and a small por-
tion of the lungs protruded. The lungs werelally
inflated and filled the cavity of the chest. They
fisted in water; the heart was healthy, but empty
of blood. He believed the child was born alive.
The wounds were sufficient to cause death, and he
believed the child died from the injuries. There
was a bucket under the prisoner's bed, in which was
the afterbirth. He did not hold out any promise
or threat ; he merely said she had better tell him
who was the father of the child. As he heard her
exclaiming he said, 66 You had better not say any-
thing, as it may be used against you."

Cross examined—l had first told her she had
better tell me all about it, and then I would inter-
cede with :her master. I might have said, " Hem
is a sergeant of police come to take you in charge;
you need not say anything, but if you do it may be
used against you."
Mr. Cole upon this submitted that the statement
made by the prisoner could not be given in
evidence.

The Judge said if it had reference only to col-
lateral matters it would be receivable.
Mr. Stock submitted that the inducement had
only reference to the father of the child.
Mr. Cole urged that the statement of the surgeon
was to tell him " all about it," and that extended to
the whole question. And it must be recollected
that the witness was a magistrate and coroner for
the county, and he had sent for the policeman, and
had given her in charge. There was a distinct
promise.
The Judge said the principle was laid down by
Mr. Best in his book ; it mast be a promise or threat
in respect of the matter for which the prisoner was
tried. The promise had reference to the question
of who was father of the child. The witness at the
time was acting as a surgeon and not as coroner.
He did not think this was a threat or promise in
respect of this charge. On the second occasion it
would have been better if no statement of the pri-
soner hal been taken. What she said should not
have been listened to, but this was not a promise or
a threat, and therefore the statement could not be
excluded.
Examination continued—The prisoner said " Oh,
' Mr. Cory, I did it to save others." At that time
she much agitated. She was in posses-
sion wnoafa yhveerrsenses, but very highly excited.
Cross-examined—lt appeared to have been a pre-
tracted labour. Women sometimes became in a
frantic state, and did not know what they were

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 181.7. 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 arteries would 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 guilty of murder there must be proof that
the 'child had been completely born alive. In the
case of a head delivery the child would have
breathed before its actual birth. He thought the
charge of murder negatived, and the case ought at
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 from the court in a fainting state.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-WORCESTER, MARCH 8.

CIVIL COURT.

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

TURNER V. NICOLLS.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. H. James appeared
for the plamtiff; and Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and
Mr. Powell for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action, J. Turner, was a
farmer living at Woodside Farm, Chadsley Corbett,
and he 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, who 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 y ming woman, and had been in the
habit of kissing her, but he denied that he had
ever taken any indecent liberties with her. lic
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 the 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.