The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1871-05-19


ceeded. The testimony elected from the pros
ecuting witness set forth that the said Annie
E. Hill was taken sick on Saturday, March
| 25th. and remained so for some days; that she
had previously made known her condition,
and stated the period when she expected to be
confined, to which her sickness corresponded;
! that witness had been In to see her frequently
and ninistered to her needs, advising, at the
same time the calling in of a nurse or ply
sician; that on the night of Sunday, March
26th, about II o'clock, while witness sat read
ing, she heard the cries of a young infant; and
shortly after heard some one walk across the
floor of the adjoining room, Doth parties re-
side in same house on the river bank, and on
same hoor,) raise window and throw some
thing into the river; next morning witness
went in to see defendant, and while there in
quired for the body, and was told it was [gone;
thinking of the raised window and the throw
ing out, she inquired "My Godl you did not
throw it in the river, did your" to which de-
fendant made no answer, but afterwards ad-
mitted she had done SO.
Mrs. Shriner testified to the admissions of
the defendant as to her condition; had washed
her bedding and underclothes for her after the
time stated, and found indubitable evidence Of
childbirth, portion of the unbiicus being
found in one of the sheets.
There were eight witnesses for the prosecu-
ton, all of whom bore testimony to the ad-
missions of the defendant relative to her con-
dition and expected confinement. Several of
them also testified to her acknowledging the
confinement, and the burial of the infant in
the cellar, several days after. Those were the
main points elected for prosecution.
For the defense, the main point attempted
to be established, and mainly relied on, was
the continuance of the catamenia during the
apparent enchient period, which, however,
was admitted by all the physicians examined,
to be no certain proof that pregnancy did not
exist. The other point set up was that de-
PENDANTS appearance was produced by pad
ding, in order to deceive her "friend" and in
duce him to marry her.
After a hearing OF the case, and. an argu-
ment for the defence, the accused was dis
charged.
Perhaps we may be travelling out of our
province to condemn the decision of the JUS |
tice in this case, but we cannot justify pro-
ceeding 50 apparently contrary to the best
interests of society. The testimony of the
witnesses for the prosecution was of very
positive nature, and implied the commission |
of crime too prevalent already to be lightly |
ignored by those having the interests of socie-
ty in charge. The evidence of the physician |
who examined the defendant, was, on cross
examination, positively damaging to the
point set up by defence, while all the physi-
clans admitted the possibility of pregnancy
existing with presence Of the catamenia. The
padding process said to have been resorted to,
was the most fimsey pretext ever submitted
to court upon which to ask discharge,
when the witness who told the
story and the principal who attempted to con-
firm it, differed so widely as to the appliances
used. Defendant should have been held for
trial before court, that fuller investigat alton
might have taken place.