The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-19 00:00:00

at No. I, Amelia-place, Walworth. Knows the pri-
soner, who has dealt with him for some time. On
Thursday, the 27th of November, at about four in the
afternoon, the prisoner came to his shop. He purchased
a pennyworth of gunpowder. He asked for the best.
John Marne, a gunmaker, residing in the Walworth-
road—On Wednesday, the 26th of November, he sold
a quarter of a pound of bullets to a person. Can't say
whether the prisoner was the person. The person was
dressed in a different manner to the prisoner. Saw him
before the magistrate, and his dress was then like
that of the man who bought the bullets. They were to
fit a pistol exactly like the one produced. It was dusk
when he came into the shop. It was about five o'clock.
The evidence of this witness closed the case for the
prosecution.
Mr. CLARKSON then rose, and said that in the observa-
tions he was about to make he would not attempt to deny
that the prisoner was the person who fired the shot.
There was another duty imposed on them, which
belonged to them alone—a duty which he ex-
pected them to discharge, uncontrolled by any-
thing they had heard, or with respect to anything
that they mighty) hear on the subject ; and unless the
evidence they had heard did not leave a shadow of doubt
on their minds, that at the time of the commission of the
offence the prisoner was an agent answerable for his own
actions. Although the law left it upon the prisoner to show
that he was not fit to judge of his own actions, he
(Mr. Clarkson) hoped that he would be able to show
them, on his behalf, that such was actually the case.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to comment at
some length on the evidence which tended to raise a
question as to the prisoner's sanity. At the conclusion
of his address,
The Lord Chief Justice TINDAL proceeded to reca-
pitulate the evidence in a general manner, commenting
on the various facts as tending to prove the prisoner's
insanity.
The jury then consulted for a short time in the box,
and then requested to be allowed to retire.
The, usual officer having been sworn to keep them in
safe custody, they left the Court.
After an absence of twenty minutes the jury returned
into Court. On their names being called over,
The foreman of the jury delivered a verdict of Guilty.
The usual proclamation of silence having been made,
the Learned Judges put on their black caps.
The Lord Chief Justice TINDAL then addressed the
prisoner as follows :—" Samuel Quennell, you have been
found guilty, by the verdict of a jury of your country.
men, of the crime of murder—a crime which has always
been, with the exception of thecrime of treason, regarded
as one of the very deepest dye by the laws of England,
and against which the punishment of death has
always been enforced. It is my duty to say that the
jury have come to a proper conclusion on this question.
There are circumstances in this case of great
aggravation—as the crime was not committed
under the influence of sudden anger, or cir-
cumstances of provocation; and unknown almost to the
unfortunate victim of your crime, you reserved to your-
self the preparation of the instruments of death, against
which the deceased felt quite secure. Under these cir-
cumstances, it is my duty to impress upon your
mind the sentence of the law, which will as-
suredly be carried into effect. Exert yourself
therefore to employ the little time allowed you to pre-
pare for that great change which you assuredly will
shortly undergo. It only remains for me to pass upon
you the sentence of the law." His Lordship then passed
sentence of death in the usual form and ordered the
prisoner into the custody of the sheriff of the county of
Surrey.
The prisoner, who seemed quite unmoved during the
passing of the sentence, was then removed.
INFANTICIDE.—EIiza Huntsman, 21, was indicted for
the wilful murder of her illegitimate child, Emily, by
casting it into the water, and thereby drowning it and
suffocating it.
There were two other counts in the indictment, one
describing the deceased infant as being known by the
name of Emily, and the other as a child whose name was
unknown.
Mr. Parnell prosecuted, and Mr. Clarkson defended
the prisoner.
The following evidence was adduced :
Mrs. Mary Stacey deposed that she resided at Lower
Edmonton, and the prisoner was her cousin. She came
to her house on the 10th of December, accompanied by
her child, an infant five months old ; and the prisoner
left, with her child, for the purpose of going to her lodg-
ing, about half-past seven o'clock in the evening. Wit-
ness went next morning to the prisoner's lodging,
and asked her where her baby was, and she replied,
" Oh, my baby—there, there," and appeared in a dread-
ful state of agitation, and shortly afterwards she went
into a fit. Witness afterwards saw the dead body of the
prisoner's child at the police-station.
Cross-examined—Witness had known the prisoner
since they were children. The prisoner was 21 years
old, and she always appeared to be very fond of her child.
She was in bad health, and frequently complained of her
head, and had been taken to the doctor's in consequence.
When she left with the child she treated it with great
kindness and apparent affection. After the birth of her
child, the prisoner went into a family as wet-nurse, but
she only remained there three days, on account of her
losing her milk. The prisoner was usually very ab-
stemious, but after the birth of her child she was ordered
to drink porter. When she came home from her
situation she complained of her head, and appeared in a
dreadful state. She had had her head shaved several
times, but the hair never grew again, either on the top
or the back of her head.
Mr. CLARKSON observed that this circumstance might
be material when the medical testimony was adduced.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL said it was a very proper
course of examination.
The witness continued—When she saw the prisoner at
the time she referred to, she did not appear to know her,
and was like a distracted woman. When she asked her

about the baby, she pointed wildly upwards, and said,
" Oh, my baby—there, there." The prisoner was well
taken care of by witness's mother, and neither she nor
her child wanted for anything.
Mrs. Sarah Willis deposed that the prisoner was her
niece, and at the time this occurred she was lodging with
her baby at her house. She remembered her coming
home on the evening of the 10th December, and soon
afterwards witness's daughter asked her if she had put the
baby to bed, and witness asked her where the baby was.
She made no reply, but raised her hands, and clasped

them over her head.
By Mr. CLARKSON—The prisoner was always a kind
mother. She continually complained of her head, and had
asked witness to put her hand to her head, and when she
did so, she found it throbbing, and very hot. She ap-
peared more like a distracted person than anything else
when she was asked about her child. Except upon the
occasions when she complained of her head her conduct
was uniformly kind, attentive, and affectionate.
Mrs. Wallis deposed that she asked the prisoner
where her baby was, and she replied that it was where
the bonnet and cap was.

.
By Mr. CLAaKsoN—She appeared at this time in a
frantic state.

Mary Fordham deposed that, about eight o'clock on
the evening of the 10th of December, she met the pri-
soner half-way between Stanway-brook and her lodging
at Edmonton. She had no child with her, and she hung
down her head as she passed, and appeared to be crying.
Jesse Lawrence, a police-constable, deposed that on the
same evening he picked up the bonnet and cap of the
deceased child on the edge of the brook, and he con-
veyed them to the station-house.

William Fordham proved that he and several other
constables dragged the brook in question, and found in it
the dead body of a female child, which was afterwards
identified as the prisoner's.
Another constable, named Harrison, proved that the
prisoner was given into his custody, and upon his telling
her that she was charged with the murder of her infant,
she replied, " I don't know how I came to do it."
By Mr. CLA.RKSON—The prisoner was in a violent
state of agitation and excitement at this time.
Mr. Henry Samuel Hammond, a surgeon at Edmonton,
deposed that he was called upon to examine the child
after it was taken from the water, and it presented all
the appearances of death from drowning. There were no
external marks of violence upon the body, and he had no

doubt the child's death was occasioned by drowning.
Witness had attended the prisoner about a year and a
half ago, and at that time he considered her in a state
of physical debility, which was very likely•to _occasion
frequent headaches, and might affect the reasoning
powers, and. bring about partial insanity.
By Mr. CiARKSON—The sudden loss of her milk,
after the birth of a child, to such a subject, would be

decidedly likely to increase the symptoms, and to pro-
duce temporary insanity.
Mr. M'Murdo, the surgeon of the gaol of Newgate,
gave testimony of a similar character. He added, that
having heard all the circumstances that had been ad-
duced in evidence, in his judgment, at the time the pri-
soner committed the act imputed to her, it was exceed-
ingly probable that she was in a state of temporary
derangement.
Mr. CLARKSON (this being the whole of the evidence
for the Crown) then made a forcible and pathetic appeal
to the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and urged that the
itnesses for the prosecution had made out, in his
opinion, that at the time the unhappy creature com-
mitted the act with which she was charged, she was not
in possession of her senses. He said that, if the jury
thought it necessary, he had several witnesses who would
confirm the testimony of the medical gentlemen who
had been already examined, but he trusted the jury
would not require any additional evidence.
Mr. Justice PA.rrEsox having addressed a few observa-
tions to the jury, they at once returned a verdict of Not
Guilty, OH the ground of insanity; and the prisoner was
ordered to be detained during her Majesty's pleasure.

IVEW COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
Elizabeth Sears was indicted for stealing a saw, a pair of
silver spectacles, and a box of sights, the property of Henry
Pocock, Bermondsey.
Henry Pocock said he was an engineer. The prisoner was
in the habit of being employed in his house two days a week,
in the capacity of a char-woman, for about three months
previous to the present indictment. Witness in the course
of that time missed a small hand-saw, a box of sights,
such as are used by opticians in their business, and a
pair of silver spectacles. The sights and the spectacles were
kept in a room to which the prisoner had access. Witness
asked about these at the prisoner's, but she denied having
seen them, or knowing anything about them. However,
after she had been taken into custody they were found in
consequence of the prisoner's information, in the possession
of an optician in King-street, in the Borough, to wham she
had sold them.
Thomas Taylor, cabinet maker, in the parish of St. Sa-
viour's, swore to having purchased the saw produced in
Court, and identified by the prosecutor as his, from the pri-
soner. She had a pair of spectacles on her at the same time.
The constable who took her into custody, said she had
refused saying anything to the charge. She wished to go to
the prosecutor to tell him all, in hope he would forgive her.
The Learned RECORDER set the facts before the jury,
who found her Guilty, but with a strong recommendation
to mercy.
This recommendation seemed to take the Recorder by