Blandford, Wimborne and Poole Telegram. — 1875-04-02 (Blandford, Dorset, England)

BARON PIGOTT.)  Louisa Maniford, 31, glover, was indicted for the wilful murder of her twin infant children, Sarah Ann and Mary Jane, aged one month, at Yeovil. Mr. IL. Cary Batten prosecuted; Mr. T. W.. Saunders defended the prisoner. The case for the prosecution was that the infant, as well as her twin sister, had Mean starved to death. The priaoner is the wife of a leather parer living at Yeovil, and earning 16s. to 18s. a week. On the 14th of December last she was confined of twins, one of whom died on the 11th of January, and the other, whose death was the subject of the present indictment, on the 15th of January. On the 2.3 rd December a medical man was sent for by de prisoner's father, in whose house she lived. Ile came and found the children ailing, and inquired with what food they were being fed, and was told with arrowroot, cornflour, and biscuit, lie explained that this was improper food, and that milk was the only right food, and he gave some medicine to check the diarrhcea which the children were said to be suffering from. On the 6th of January thø. child that died first was brought by the prisoner to the. surgery of the doctor, who plainly told her that he thought the child was bring starved, anddirected that both children. should be fed with milk and water and have a little wine given to them. On the 9th this child- died. On the 10th the second child was brought to the surgery,. and again on the 13th. It was then in an emaciated condition, aad according to the prisoner still suffering. from. diarrluca. The doctor, however, was of a different opinion, and pointed out to the prisoner and to persons who were there that what the child wanted was not medicine, but food. The doctor, on this occasion, asked if the first child was buried, and said, "1 suppose you have kept it to bury with this one I " To which the• prisoner answered, "I suppose it will not live." On the 15th the child (lied, and a post 'Norte ta examination was made, the result of which, showing, as it did, no trace of disease and no inflammation in the intestines, but entire• emaciation, confirmed the doctor in the opinion he had. previously entertained that the child had died of starva, tion, an opinion which was also that of a second medical man who took part in the post mortem examination. On the other hand, the father and mother of the prisoner deposed that the children had been well treated,' and the mother and another witness declared' they had both suffered from diarrhtea. A medical man who had not seen the children, but only heard the evidence in court, was of opinion that it was consistent with the symptoms. that death had resulted from atrophy. It was mentioned incidentally that only three of ten children of the prisoner were living. The evidence of thelast-mentioned witness was relied on for the defence, as showing that the prisoner was guilty neither of murder nor of the minor offence of manslaughter by culpable negligence. The jury took this view of the ease, and acquitted the prisoner. A verdict of acquittal VMS taken in the case of the other child which the prisoner was charged with, murdering, the facts being precisely. similar.  W. J.