The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, MARCH 31, 1842

formation which witness received, be took pollee-
man 121 F with him about twelve o'clock last night
to Shire lane, where they found the prisoner in bed. On
entering her room she tried to cover herself over with the
bedclothes. Witness said to her, " Tell me where my
child is." The girl replied, " I've not got it, it's my
mother." He had since been told that if he went to No.
4, Exeter-street, he should find the baby. He accord-
ingly went there this morning, and he saw two females
standing at the door, who said that the prisoner's mother
was a " second hand" there, where she had lived up till
yesterday, but that did not reside there now. He
went into every room but one, and could not find his
child. In that room which he did not search a female
was in bed, and he did not like to enter it ; he
had no doubt, however, now, but that if the Magistrate
would send a policeman thoroughly to search that house,
the child would be found, as, from information he had
received this morning from persons, outside the Court, he
was convinced that his child was there.

In reply to questions from Mr. JARDINE, the com-
plainant stated that he was perfectly sober at the time
the baby was lost. He could give no reason for stealing
his baby, except to make a property of it.
Mr. JARDINE said he did not think that very likely.
Indeed it was a very odd story altogether.
Police Constable F 121, who took the soldier into
custody, said the complainant was quite drunk at the
time, so much so, indeed, that witness refused to take
the charge for a long time on that account. The soldier
was quite sober.
Thomas Hancock when called on fur his defence, in a
manly straightforward manner spoke as follows :--1
Please your Worship, in the afternoon about four o'clock,
I left the barracks and was proceeding along Castle-street,
when a young woman came up to me and said, " Soldier,
will you give me a glass of ale," I said, " lam going
somewhere to get a pint, I don't mind if I do." •We then
went intoaa public-house near Rupert-street, where we had
not been long when the complainant, his wife,
and two children came in ; the two females
got into conversation, and the man brought
over his pot to me and asked me to drink; I did so and
returned the compliment by asking him to drink from
mine; we were very comfortable, and remained in con-
versation nearly an hour; I then got up and said, " Now
I must go, it's nearly parade time." I then asked him
if he should be there after parade, he said no he
should not, but he asked me to meet them iu the evening
at the Sugar Loaf in King-street, Drury-lane. We then
parted and I went to parade. After parade I was going
towards King-street, looking for the Sugar Loaf, when
I met the woman who had the baby, and she
took me to the house, where I fc.und the man, his wife,
and child. The wife soon after went out, and
the woman who had . the child went to look
for her as she said. The complainant then called for a
fiddle, and his wife almost directly came in, and they
all began to dance. The woman who had the child,
however, did not return. They asked me where she
was. I said I did not know ; but I did not say it was
all right when the woman 'went out. I never knew any
of the parties till yesterday, and as for the young
woman who stands by my side, I never saw her till this
morning ; she is not the woman at all who was drinking
with us, or who had the Child. When the man said he
bad some suspicions of me, I at once gave myself up to
the landlord, and said I considered myself in custody.
Mr. Collins, the landlord of the Sugar Loaf,
corroborated the latter part of the prisoner's state-
ment. He said the female prisoner had not been
at his house at all, the woman who was in their
company was considerably taller, and was dressed altoge-
ther differently ; he remembered the woman perfectly.
Mrs. Brewer, the mother of the lost baby, then went
into the witness-box, but declared that she was unable
to recognise the female prisoner, as she had been drinking.
Mr. JARDINE remarked on the wickedness and impro-
priety of a woman, only three weeks over her confine-
ment, getting drunk and dancing at a public-house ;
whilst he deeply regretted the loss the complainant had
sustained, he should certainly not be justified on the evi-
dence of a drunken man, which had been contradicted,
in detaining either of the prisoners, they should there-
fore be discharged.
Brewer then applied for a warrant to search the house,
No. 4, Exeter-street, but it was refused.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORFOLK CHIC UlT,Bury St. Ednzund'*, March 28.
The Commission for this county was duly opened
_on
Saturday at a late hour ; there being 15 cases entered
for trial, of which three were. Special Jury causes, the .
rest of a rather common class.
Since the last Assizes at this place the county Courts
have been remodelled at some expense, and various al-
terations effected in their general structure, which tend
materially to the comfort of the Learned Judges. We
regret to say, however, that the accommodation afforded
to the Bar and the Attorneys is rather circumscribed,
though, on the whole, the Courts have been improved
both in their external and internal appearance.
CIVIL CouaT.-7(Before Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY.)
BROWN V. FIELD.
Mr. Kelly and Mr. O'Malley were Counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Prendergast appeared (with Mr. Byles) for
defendant.
This was an action of slander, the parties to which were
neighbours, residing at Cronfield, in this county. On
the part of the plaintiff it was asserted that the de-
fendant, without any provocation, had first accused him
of having " stolen or taken away his plough irons," and
had afterwards added, that " he had been in gaol for
robbing the house of Mr. James Freeman," a farmer,
in the vicinity, of which he at the time said he. had been
" informed by Ted Freeman." On the part of the defen-
dant, the Learned Counsel elicited from the first witness,
in cross-,txamination, that the defendant and Mr. Field
came on the road quarrelling, to the spot where the
plaintiff was raking his peas, and that thereupon there
was a general war of words, in which both parties abused
each other, while the plaintiff called up the witness to
hear what the defendant would say against him. During
this interview the witness also said; " the conduct of the
plaintiff was so very a2gravatinr., that if he had been the
defendant he really did think 'he should have knocked
him down."
Upon this the Learned Judge interposed, and suggested
that the case should be compromised by the withdrawal
of a juror.
Mr. KELLY said he would consent to this willingly, if
the defendant would retract his words, that being the
only object of the action.
Mr. PRENDERCAST was very ready to say, on the part
of his client, that no serious imputation was meant to be
conveyed by the language used by him. Both the par-
ties, indeed, were highly respectable men in their way,
and possessed but one fault, which was that they were
both rather quarrelsome and bad tempered.—(Laughter.)
His LORDSHIP thought that this was by far the best
termination to such a case, which had evidently arisen
out of a hasty quarrel. Each party would now pay his
own costs.

CROWN COURT—(Before Lord Chief Justice TYNDAL.)
The calendar contains a list of only eighteen prisoners,
in consequence of the gaols having recently been de-
livered by the Magistrates at an adjourned sessions.
The offences, however, set forth in the calendar are of a
serious character.
John Gilbert and James Riches were indicted for hav-
ing burglariously entered the house of the widow Far-
row, on the night of Saturday, the Bth of January last,
and stolen thereout six silver spoons, five half-crowns,
sundry shillings, sixpences, and eight farthings. To this
charge the latter-named prisoner pleaded guilty.
It appeared that, on the morning of Friday, the 7th
January, 1842, the prisoner Gilbert called at the house
of the prosecutrix, who keeps a general shop in the un-
frequented village of Bromeswell, near Woodbridge, in
this county, and asked for three halfpennyworth of to-
bacco. Having been served, he next asked for a light,
when he was politely asked to walk in and light his
pipe at the fire of the " keeping-room." While in this
sanctum the stranger saw the widow put the money
he had paid, her into a drawer in her bureau, an
antique piece of furniture which adorned the walls
of the room. On the next evening a Mrs. Keeble
brought to the shop a half-crown, in which was a notch,
as•well as a slit in the rim, the effect of which was that
it had no " ring" in it. Besides this there were four
other half-crowns, 155., and six tea-spoons in the bureau,
when Mrs. Farrow retired to her lonely couch at nine
o'clock, after having seen that all was safe. About one
o'clock her rest was broken by a noise, bait no cause for
suspicion arising. the prosecutrix " clanged them noisy
chaps," and turned again to the arms of Morpheus. On
coming down stairs, however, at eight o'clock the next
morning, it was apparent that the window had been
broken open, the house entered, and the bureau rifled
of all its precious contents. The alarm being given,
the constables were sent in pursuit, and in a very
short time the prisoners were both in the custody of
• the police. In order to connect the prisoner Gil-
bert with the commission of this offence, it was now
proved that his shoes corresponded with the snow
marks around the window, as well as did those of
Riches, there being two distinct sets. They were both,
moreover, seen at ten o'clock on Friday near the shop
of the prosecutrix, and it was proved that, on being
turned out of a beer-house in Woodbridge, at twelve
o'clock on Saturday night, both the prisoners went to-
gether past their own lodgings towards Bromeswell.
After having been taken into custody, the prisoners
made their escape, but being retaken, they afterwards
made certain statements, which, as far as Gilbert was
concerned, plainly indicated his participation in the
crime imputed to him.
The CHIEF JUSTICE then summed up the case to the
Jury, and having called their attention to the possibi-
lity of their finding Gilbert guilty of housebreaking
alone, as there was no direct proof of the hour when the
house was entered,
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, in accordance
with that suggestion.
Gilbert having been previously convicted of felony,
was forthwith transported for fifteen years ; but Riches
was only sentenced to one year's imprisonment, there
beiag no other imputation upon his character.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, March 28.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
_ _

James Brown was indicted for a highway robbery
from the person of Benjamin Johnson, in the neighbour-
hood of Manchester, on the 13th of Dec. last.

Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Boothby for the prosecution;
Mr. Whigham for the defence.
It !appeared from the statement of the 'prosecutor, that
on the night in question he was proceeding from his
warehouse in Manchester to his residence at Hardwick,
about a mile off. He had in his pocket a roll of notes,
amounting to about 2301. He had reached the end of
Tipping's-lane, approaching his own house, when he
was set upon by several men, at least three, who knocked
him down, seized him by the throat, and in an instant
rendered him senseless. When he recovered a little, he
found two men helping him up. His money was gone,
and he was severely cut about the head, apparently from
kicks by heavy clogs. His throat was so injured, that
he even . now spoke with great difficulty. His watch-
pocket, containing the notes, had been cut away.
One of the notes was a 201. note, which had been cut in
two, and very imperfectly put together again.
A little boy, who was near the spot, said that there
were four men in the gang, that they knocked thQ pro-
secutor down, and that while one knelt on him the others
ran away. He thought the prisoner was like one of the
latter.

In the course of the next evening a person passing
through one of the back streets of Manchester heard a
cry of murder, and running to the spot found the pri-
soner on the ground, and several men beatinc, him. On
his coming up the assailants ran away. He asked the
prisoner what was the matter, who replied that they
wanted to rob him, but his money was safe. He said
he knew them. The witness said he ought to go and
give information, for the purpose of having them punished.
The prisoner replied his money was safe, and he would
not do so. The witness suspecting something wrong,
said he would detain him until he saw the police, upon
which the prisoner ran away, but was pursued and taken;
on his person was found about 531. in gold and silver.
It appeared that he had lately been changing notes at
various places, and had been seen in possession of several
101. notes, and one of 20Z similar to the one which had
been lost by the prosecutor. One of the notes he had
changed was a 51. note of the Bank of England, No.
10,479, and evidence, which occupied the Court the
greater part of the day, was adduced to show that this
note formed part of the bundle which had been taken
from the person of the prosecutor. It was traced from
the branch bank at Manchester, through a great number
of hands, and was supposed at last to have formed part
of a payment made to the prosecutor by Messrs. Har-
greaves and Dugdale, and which he had deposited with
the other notes.

The prisoner was convicted and sentenced to twenty
years' transportation.
William Hoyle and John Mills, the former about thir-
teen, and the latter about eleven years old, were indicted
for attempting to commit a felony, by endeavouring to
burn the cotton-mill of Mr. Charles Haigh, at Spotland,
near Rochdale, on the 15th of February last.
Mr. Brant conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Green
the defence. _ _ _ _ _

It appeared that the mill had been left safe by the
manager at eight o'clock in the evening. On going into
the mixing room, where the cotton goes through one of
the earliest processes, it was discovered that some "fly,"
that is, the soft down which escapes from the machine
during the process, which had settled upon the sill of
one of the windows, had been on fire. This window was
about three feet from the floor of the mill inside, but
was level with the ground on the outside—a circumstance
which fortunately kept the " fly," which had settled
there, so damp that the surface only had taken fire. In
the third row of panes, about twenty-seven inches from
the ground outside, a pane had been broken some days
before, and was still out. On searching, part of.a limiter
match was found, which there was every reason to sup-
pose had been put through the broken pane. The win-
dow was next a private focit-path, where marks
of clogs were found, which corresponded with
those worn by the prisoner Hoyle, who was
taken into custody. He said that he and Mills had
done it in the evening before they went home, and
that they had a great mind to have' gone back and ex-
tinguished it, but they did not. Mills said he had
nothing to do with it. Hoyle said to him, " Yea, thou
has' then, thou stood three yards off by the wall."
Mills denied again, on which Hoyle told the police that
Mills had got a bottle of oil of vitriol to throw on the
cotton, and that it was put behind the old necessary
door. On searching, it was found there. It di d not
appear whether the oil of vitriol would ignite the cotton
or not.
On the close of the case for the prosecution, the Judr,,e
said there was nothing to go to the jury as against Mills,
who was removed from the bar, and
Mr. GREEN proceeded to address the jury on behalf
of Hoyle, contending that it was a wicked and dangerous
trick, but was not accompanied by an intention to burn
the mill.
The Judge summed up the case, and the jury found
Hoyle guilty.
Mr. Brandt, on behalf of the prosecution, recom-
mended him to the mercy of the Court, on the ground
that he believed the prisoner to be the dupe of more
wicked persons of riper years.
On some inquiry being made, it appeared that this was

the third attempt made within a very short time to fire
the mill.

The Judge said the case was one of a very serious cha-
racter, and in moral guilt as great as if the whole of the
property was actually destroyed, that being the intention
Such things must be prevented. He would consider
what it would be best to do with the prisoner before he
passed sentence.

HOME ClRCUlT—Kingston, March 30.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Baron GURNEY.)
Sarah Robinson, aged 21, was indicted upon the Co-
roner's inquisition for the wilful murder of her new-born
illegitimate child.
Mr. Clarkson defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence, that shortly before
Christmas last, the prisoner, who resided with her
grandmother at Dorking, presented an appearance
which induced a belief that she was enceinte. On
the sth of January she was observed in the water-
closet, by a person who resided in the house,
and she then appeared very unwell. On the same day
she placed herself under the care of Mr. .Curtis, a
surgeon at Dorking, and continued under him till the
time she was taken into custody. On the night or the
27th January the water-closet was emptied, and the soil
placed on a dunghill on the premises of a neighbour ;
on the following morning the body of the child was
found amongst the soil, and it was evident that it had
been there for some time. Soon after Christmas the
prisoner was observed to have decreased in size, but no
particular notice-Iry-as taken of the circumstance.
Mr.. Curtis proved that the prisoner applied to him for
advice on the sth Jan. and remained under his care till
the day the inquest was held on the body of the
child. She appeared very ill, but he saw nothing
which led him to suppose that she had been de-
livered of a child, or that she was in the family
way. On the morning of the 28th of -January he
was called to see the body of the child ; the umbilical
cord was ruptured, but there were no marks of violence;
the child had been born alive and had breathed.

Mr. Baron GURNEY told the Jury that the case against
the prisoner had entirely failed ; there was no proof
whatever that she had given birth to a child, further
than a slight alteration in her appearance. He never
before knew of a case of that description in which the
supposed mother had not been subjected to an examina-
tion by a medical man in order to prove whether she
had or had not recently been delivered ; and the fact of,
the prisoner having been for three weeks under the care
of Mr. Curtis prior to the finding the body of the child,
and his not having any reason to suppose that she was
or had been in such a state, was much in her favour.

The Jury instantly acquitted the prisoner.
Sarah Head, aged 19, was indicted for the wilful mur.
der of her illegitimate male child, at the parish o:
Lambeth.

Mr. C. JONES defended the prisoner. Mr. CLARK-
SON stated the case on behalf of the prosecution, and
called the following witnesses
-Mr. James Francis Wool, of Bowhill Terrace, Brix-
ton, stated that on the evening of the 11th inst., on his
return from the City, a communication was made to him
by Mrs. Wool, which induced him to go to the water-
closet, when he observed what he considered to be the
body of a child lying on the soil. He immediately sent
for 'Mr. Christie, a surgeon, and also for a policeman.
The prisoner was at that time in her bed-room ; she
had been in his service about 12 months.

Wm. Blenhame, 182 P, stated that on the night of the
11th inst. he was called to the house of the last witness;
he examined the water-closet, and after considerable dif-
ficulty succeeded in taking the body of a child from the
soil; he fished it up by means of a sweep's scraper, which
he placed under the neck, and part of a clothes' prop.
After washing the body he discovered an incision upon
the left side of the neck, which extended about three
inches. On the following morning he went to take the
prisoner into custody; he then searched for the baby-
linen but could not find any.
Inspector Campbell stated that the day after the body
of the child was f iund, he went to Mr. Wool's with the
last witness. He found the prisoner in her bed-room,
when the prisoner said, `• There is no knife there, the
mark on the child's throat was made by the clothe's prop
in forcing it down the water closet." At that time he
had not said anything to the prisoner about a knife. He
subsequently examined all the props, but could not dis-
cover any marked with soil ; in fact, there *as not one
of them, on account of their length, which could be put
down the closet.

Sergeant Kendall,. 1 P, examined the prisoner's room,
the night the child was found. He asked her whether
she had any knife in the room? to which she replied
she had not. He was then about to search a bureau,
when she said, " There is nothing there, the doctor has
searched all those drawers." He afterwards found a
penknife with a broken blade in her work-box ; she then
said she had brought that up afterwards.
Mr. Christie, a surgeon, stated that he was called in
on the night in question, and saw the child taken from
the water-closet. He observed a wound, about half an
inch in depth, on the left side of the neck, extending
from the ear, about three inches. The main vessels
were not divided, but a quantity of blood had flowed
from the wound. On the following morning he made a
post mortem examination of the body, and found a con-
tused wound on the left side of the forehead, under
which, and on the dura mater, was a quantity of extra-
vasated blood, which would increase the cause of death.
When he first saw the prisoner, she at once admitted to
him that she had been deliVered of a child. He then
asked her where it was, when she said that it was dead—
that she had put it into a pail of water, and had
afterwards thrown it down the water-closet ; she
admitted that the child was born alive, but said that it
was tuft full-grown. She also stated that she was
standing at the time it was born, and that it fell upon
the hearthstone. The wound upon the neck could not
have been caused by the scraper with which it was
taken from the soil. The, knife produced was a more
likely instrument to have caused such a wound. It was
a clean cut. Should say, from the appearance of the
wound, that it had been inflicted whilst the child was
alive. Had it been inflicted after death it would have
had a very different appearance. The child was full-
grown.
Mr. Baron GURNEY-- Might not the contused wound
you have.described have been caused by the child falling
upon its head, as stated by the prisoner ? Witness—
Certainly.
Mr. Baron GURNEY—Supposing the child had died
from the effects of the injury on the head, and if the
wound in the neck had been inflicted immediately after-
wards, might it not present the same appearance as if it
had been inflicted during life ? Witness—Yes, if in-
flicted immediately after death.
Mrc JONES addressed the Jury on behalf of the pri-
soner, and contended that the charge of murder had not
been established by the evidence adduced. There was
another charge upon which they might find her guilty,
viz., that of concealing the birth of the child ; but upon
that subject he would not trouble them with any obser-
vations.

Mr. Baron GURNEY having very minutely summed up
the case,

The Jury acquitted the prisoner of the murder, but
found her Guilty of concealing the birth of the child.
The LEARNED JUDGE immediately sentenced her to
two years' hard labour in the House of Correction.
Thomas Courtney, aged 19, was indicted for wilfully
inciting and counselling the last named prisoner to
murder her child.

Mr. CLARKSON said, as the Jury had acquitted the
female of the charge of murder, the prisoner could not
be convicted as an accessory, and, therefore, he should
not trouble them with any further evidence.
The Jury, therefore, under his Lordship's directions,
acquitted the prisoner.
Samuel Cooper, aged 19, and George Boseley, aged 19,
were indicted for feloniously wounding Robert Branford,
police constable, No. 101, with intent to do him some
grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Clarkson prosecuted, and Mr. Charnock defended
the prisoners.

It appeared that on the night of the 11th of February,
the prosecutor, who was on duty in Mint-street, Bo-
rough, was called to the assistance of a gentleman, who
was beset by two females of loose character. Upon the
prosecutor's interfering, Cooper seized him by the neck,
and struck him several times over the head with his fist.
Bosely then ran up and struck him a violent blow across
the head with a life preserver, which felled him to the
ground, and inflicted such a severe wound as to render
him unable to attend to.his duties for some time. Cooper
was taken into custody on the spot, but Bosely was not
apprehended for some days.
The Jury found Bosely Guilty, and acquitted Cooper.
The latter was then indicted for the common assault,
to which he pleaded Guilty.
Boseley, with a female of the name of Sarah Pearce
who had bnfore been convicted of felony, was then in-
dieted for stealing two waistcoats and other articles, the
property of Charles Paddon.
The case was clearly proved against the prisoners, and
the Jury instantly found them Guilty.—'
Mr. Baron GURNEY sentenced the prisoners to be
severally transported fur 15 years ; and Cooper to be
kept to hard labour, in the House of Correction, for two
years.
Cooper, on hearing his sentence, became extremely
violent ; and it required the assistance of several con-
stables to remove him from the bar. _ _

Mr. Baron GURNEY told the prosecutor that he had
conducted himself in a very praiseworthy manner, and
had risked his life in apprehending some very suspicious
characters. He should, therefore, order him to receive
a reward of 101. beyond the usual expenses.