The Sun. — 1858-03-24 (London, England)

EALLA. GROOM'S mistress, who sent a bowl of milk daily from her farm for his use ; while Mrs. LAY, who had care of him, conceived so warm an affection for her nurseling, that she was induced to continue the arrangement to her own loss and inconvenience rather than part with  ''`There was no concealment of the circumstances. The error of the unhappy young woman was notorious : she had been betrayed, and was enduring the penalty. She had even stipulated on entering service, that she should be allowed to visit it every Sunday, and had regularly devoted all her leisure hours to it, manifesting the utmost fondness and maternal love for the baby boy. There was, therefore, no urgent motive for its destruction. Her character did not depend on its removal, nor was it for a moment alleged that she was " keeping company" with or courting any person who might be deterred by the responsibility. Under such circumstances, every presumption was in favour of the prisoner, and th© inculpatory evidence should have been of the clearest and most convincing character to warrant a conviction.  But what were the facts 7 She took the child from its nurse avowedly with the intention of visiting her family, who were well aware of its existence, and declaring that she would bring it back on the following Monday. It was therefore manifest that she would have to render a stringent account to the nurse, who was so much attached to it, as well as to her mistress and many others, of the cause of its disappearance. At eight o'clock in the evening she left the station, taking the child with her, without the slightest attempt at concealment. When she arrived at her mother's house at ten o'clock the child was gone, and she appeared "faint and sadly." She said nothing about him, but he was found in a pond which his mother must have passed on her way from the railway station.  These were suspicious circumstances, and fully warranted her apprehension, and, if the child had been drowned, her conviction. But the very first link in the chain of evidence was defective. Two medical gentlemen had examined the body, but one alone was produced on the trial—a matter that should have causel serious doubts in the mind of the jury, for it isthe bounden duty of the prosecution not to spare any expense in producing every witness that could throw any light on the subject, and the absence of such a person leads to the reasonable presumption that his presence would not seriously affect the prisoner, even if it were not favourable.  The other medical witness admitted that, although he adhered to the opinion that death was caused by immersion in the water, "it was difficult to speak positively, and it might be that the child having been accidentally su jocated or smothered had afterwards been thrown into the water." This was the defence set up--and by no means an improbable one ; but yet the jury convicted, and the judge sentenced the wretched girl, who heard the fearful sentence pronounced with heart-rending cries and sobs. We cannot believe that the learned and humane Chief Justice will permit that sentence to be carried into execution, when the very first requisite was wanting, and it was not established, that the unfortunate child wbaiti:ewrhaduom„he murdered, or that its still more unfortunate many hcriminal fondly intention cherished against up t o thete very iaut 11,,,„of lna existence.