The Sun. — 1860-01-12 (London, England)

GUILDHALL—Janet Stewart Payne, about 40 years of age, was charged under the following circumstances :  The prisoner was charged, in the first instance, with being drunk and disorderly, and the evidence given on that occasion went to show that she was in a beastly state of intoxication, having a poor little child about three or four years of age in her possession, and the mode in which she was carrying it, and the general treatment it received at the prisoner's hands induced several persons to interfere. One person deposed that he saw the prisoner carrying the child by its heels, with its head hanging downwards, and another that while the child was in that position the prisoner struck its head twice against a wall. The child was produced in court at the time, and presented ono of the most frightful spectacles ever presented in a court of jus. lice. Its legs and arms were scarcely larger than a man's thumb, while its face had more the appearance of a skeleton's head covered with parchment than that of an infant of such tender years ; indeed, in such a dreadful state of emaciation did it appear that the general opinion of all was that the child could not surviyethe fearful neglect and treatment it had received. It was shown that the character of the prisoner was that of a notorious drunkard, and that when taken into custody she had not long left the Whitechapel Workhouse, where her child had been under the doctor's care for some time previous. The child was represented to be in a very precarious state, and the prisoner was therefore remanded until yesterday, after receiving a caution from Sir B. W. Carden to the effect that through her Nile and beastly propensity she had sacrificed her child and would probably have to answer a charge of murder or manslaughter. The poor little sufferer was then taken back to the West London Union, where every care and attention was bestowed upon it under the superintentence of Mr. PJ fillips, the master of the Union, but unfortunately without avail, for death terminated its miseries on the second day. Mr. Phillips attended before Sir. It. W. Carden, and explained that since the last hearing the child had died, and an inquest had been held upon its body. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that the child died from exhaustion produced by fever, accelerated by exposure and the treatment it received at the hands of its mother. The jury also thought the Whitechapel parish authorities were to blame in allowing the child to be taken out of the union when in such a precarious condition. Sir B. W. Carden inquired if the evidence of the persons who saw the prisoner ill-treating the child was taken before the coroner ?  Mr. Phillips said, it was, but the surgeon not having made a post morteni examination could only say he saw no marks which could justify him in supposing that the blows the child receivedwhen struck against the brick wall were the cause of death. His opinion was that the child must have died, but that its death was accelerated by neglect. The prisoner began to cry on hearing of the fate of her unhappy child, and endeavoured to make a display of maternal love and sympathy for her departed offspring. Mr. Phillips said, the neglect was not attributable solely to drink, as the prisoner had allowed whole days to pass while in the workhouse without ever looking at her child, although she had opportunities every hour of the day. The feeling of the jury was so strong with regard to the prisoner that they would have returned a verdict of manslaughter had not the coroner pointed out to them that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a convict ion.  Sir It. W. Carden remanded the prisoner for a few days, and on being removed she said she was very sorry she ever left the workhouse.