Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1816-10-05

ansactiun. In answer to 4 question from
4 he Court, she said that there was fire IN
he room in which the prisoners were, but
! I had not burnt up.
Cross. Examined by Mr.. Andrews
Knew the prisoner, Mrs. Hunter Is years ;
she had child as old as 81, and another
is young us s, she had no idea that it was
the Intention of the prisoner to burn the
child, but thought it was inficting upon it
too much punishment. Witness went next
day to see the child. it was sitting on
form dressed, and complained of head
ache. Here the infant, who was in Court
exclaimed" no, did not''l Witness
next day sent to Mr.. Wilson an officer, up.
un the subject. She was always on good
terms with the prisoner, and had no quar-
rel with her previous to the circumstance
in question.
Martha Wright stated, that she went in
company with the last witness to Mrs.
Hunter when size entered the apartment
she saw the child beiore the fire, add it was
then stripped naked down TO the waist
bant'. The prisoners she thought, was hol-
ding the bottom part to the fire, but as
they stood before her, she could not we'll
distinguish. The child was very close,
and cried out veiv much. Witness was
much alarmed, and enquired. &c for Gods
sake what are you doing" The prisoner
Hunter re;.lied, 81 am roasting the child :"
and the expression and sight so shocked
her, that she was obliged to quit the place.
Having recovered in some time afterwards,
she returned to the house, and asked tn
see the child. when Mrs. Hunter said it
WAS oct playing. Witness would not be-
lievc this and insisted on seeing it. S1on
hurried up stairs, tn prevent its being exa-
mined. Witness then Determined upon
making TIC matter known, and the parish
officers were informed of the circumstance.
Cross-exsmined.-Had no difference
whatever with the prisoner. Never heard
any thing against her character. The
child when dressed, on her second visit to
the house OF the prisoner. did not appear
altered, and witness thought at first the
prisoner was merely frightening the child.
The fire befnre which the child was
placed was large wood fire.
]. Wilson an officer uf Barking Parish
went out on the 23th May to the house of
the prisoner and insisted upon seeing the
child. At first, much reluctance was man
Tested, but the witness persevering the
Child was brought. He had it takes into a
parlour, stripped and examined. There
was then large burn on the right shoulder
which came sumo distance down the back.
| Daniel Moore is surgeon and apothe-
cary at llford On the 9th May last, VIII
son called upon him to examine the child.
He found large burn on the upaer part of
the arm, which extended across the whole
shoulder, and came half way down the
back. 1t was taken to the work house,
and subsequently before a bench of Magis-
trates, when being examined, two large
burns were discovered on the lower part Ot
the back, one on each SHE. Witeess iho't
the child was then in DANCE; ous STATE
In six days there were symptoms of fever,
and was OF opinion they proceeded from
fore, for o. against the prisoner Hunter.
| MI. + Brown. another medical gentle
man, conf med the testimony of the last
witness. He thought that the wounds on
the lower part was occasioned by the child
struggling and rubbing against the bass.
The case on the part of the prosecution
having closed, MIR. Andrews made an inge-
NOUS appeal to the court, and put 1t to the
Jury to say, whether it was prObtble that a
design, such as was now imputed tn the
prisoners, would have been delbe ately &
openly executed in the light of day and
with punishment staring them in the face
The truth was, he said, that although he
had no witness to prove it, he had nnt the
slightest hesitation IN asserting that the un.
fortunate & certainly imprudentstep taken
by the prisoner, liunter,was merely mode
ofpunishmenta and terrOrt0 cure tie cluld OI
some vicious aud shameful habits. which
young as il was, mildcr means could not
effect. lie submitted also that although the
prisoner, Hunter; must be found guilty d
some offence, whether the minor or creates
it was for the jury to say,he did not see how
verdict could be pronounced against the
prisoner jarvis. The former woman, fell
most poignaUtly the imprudence of her con
duct and threw herself upon the mercy Of
the court.
= Lord Peterborough summed up the cvi
t dence, & LETT it to the jury to say, whether
or both OF the prisoners were guilty the
: nfence imputed to them; aud whether
: they were guilty Of the lesser or greate'
= count laid in the Indictment. The argu
g IneEt Of the counsel in favor of Jarvis was
l. not correct, for although hers was not tn,
/. hand that tied or inflicted the torture up
). on the infant, yet she was aiding and as
- sisting, aud not preventing the crime. Tn,
g Jury instantly found both prisoners guilty
{ upon the first charge.
j. Lord Peterborough, in r.ssing sentenc,
o upon them, amimadYerted, in strong terms
p upon the horlid offence nf which they IVA,
J. been convicted an offence, he said, which