Star.
London, England, 1823-07-18 00:00:00

WORCESTER, JULY 16.

Elizabeth Gibbons, a single woman, was indicted
for the wilful murder of her female itlegizimate child.
The body was found in the river Stour.
Mr. Justice PARK summed up at great length, and
left it to the Jury to say if they were satisfied that
the child c as born alive; and if so, that it was wil-
fully and maliciously destroyed by the mother; and
if such were their opinion, they would return a ver-
dict of Guilty. If they were of opinion it was not
wilfully destroyed, but that she supposed it lifeless
when she threw it into the water, it being in a torpid
state, they
.would acquit her.
Before the Jury retired, the prisoner said, that she
supposed the child was dead when she threw it into
the water.

The Jury consulted for a short time, and at four
o'clock last evening, returned a verdict of .‘ Not
aunty of the murder, but Guilty of concealing the
birth of the child."

She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in
the County Jail.
Mr. Justice PARK said, if the verdict had been that
of Guilty, no one who had heard the evidence could
have denied its justice, and he should have left her
for execviiion on Friday. He gravely admonished
her upon her future conduct.

She was then carried from the dock apparently
insensible.

LINCOLN, JuIAT 15.

John Siorr was indicted for the wilful murder of
Sarah llumstance, by administering to h'er a quantity
of arsenic.

Sarah Humstance, the sister-in•law of the de-
ceased, stated that the late Sarah Humstance lived
as servant with Mr. Walker, of West Keals, in the
Fen.. On the 4th of April last, she visited the de-
ceased at Keal, and found her very ill in bed, and
complaining of soreness in the throat. On the follow-
ing day she again went to see her, for the purpose of
removing her home, the deceased having expressed a
strong drsire to be taken from Mr. W'alker's house.
As she, with some other females, were raising her
from the bed, they found a dead child, recently born,
which was wrapped up and taken home in a cart
with its mother. On the road they stopped at a pub-
lic-house, and the diceased there drank some wine
and water, after which she seemed.to be much re-
vived, but before she got home she died. The mother
and the child were buried together in one coffin, and
they were afterwards taken out of the grave to be
e;amined by a surgeon.
The evidence of the other witnesses did not go to
prove the cbarge.
Mr. Baron Ganaow, said, in his opinion the case
had failed in all its points. In the first instance it had
not been proved that the deceased died by poison, and
if it had there was not a shadow of evidence to shew
that it had been administered by the prisoner. In
order to bring home the charge to the prisoner, the
Jury must clearly understand that the deceased did
not die' a natural death; and even if it had been a
fact Completely established, that she did die by taking
arsenic, they would ask, in the absence of all evidence
which could affect the prisoner, whether it was not
possible that she had taken it herself with a view to
self-destruotion? It was impossible to say the prisoner
was properly charged by legal evidence with the
death of this party, and his Lordship therefore would
not call upon the prisoner for his defence ; and he
aaled, if the Jury acquiesced in his view of the case,
they would pronounce him not guilty. There was
good reason for supposing there had been an imprOper
intimacy between the prisoner and the deceased, and
as theyoung woman had died prematurely, the pro-
secutors acted perfectly consistent with their duty to.
the pu'olic, in thoroughly investigating the case to the.
bottom, and having now done so, his ;sordship con-
ceived that it plainly appealed there was no fonn4.
tion for the charge.
The Jury immediately acquitted the prisoner.
There were other indictments against the prisoner,'
charging him with administering. certain deleterionel
and poisonous drugs to Sarah. Hi:nuance, for . the,
purpose of destroying ber.iinborn infant. This accts=
sation could only be supported by the same evidence
as was brought forward on the above trial, and the
Court considered that as being 400 loose and vague to
beat all relied upon, and therefore suggested that
the.prisoner should be acquitrasi without again ex-
amining the witnesses.
The Jury were of theome . opinion, and.directly
acquitted the priipner:. • • •