The Sun. — 1859-05-27 (London, England)

LAMBETH.—THE ALLEGED CHILI) MURDER, AT PECKHAM.—The Hon. G. C. Norton wts engaged for a considerable time in fin they investigating the charge against Elizabeth Beagin Df havinc, caused the death of her male illegitimate infant in the month of October, 1857, and burying it in lime in the garden of her house in Camdensquare, Peckham, where its remains were found. When the prisoner was placed at the bar, Inspector Dann, who has charge of the ease, informed the magistrate that he had served a summons upon Mrs. Smith, sister to the prisoner, and who is also wife to the father of the deceased child, for her attendance as a witness ; but she was unable from indisposition, to be present; and he received the certificate he produced from her medical attendant stating that she could not be in attendance before a week. He (Inspector Dann) also served summonses on a person named Gill and his wife, and both were in attendance. James Gill, who stated he resided at No. 6, Gunpowder-alley, Shoe-lane, Fleet-street, described himself as a tailor, and who had formerly belonged to the City police, was here called, sworn, and examined at considerable length. He said that about the time (October, 1857) George Beagin, brother to the prisoner, called on him and informed him that an unpleasant occurrence had taken place at his father's ; that his sister had 'given birth to a child, of which her own brother-in-law was the father; that the child was dead; and that the whole thing had been unknown to the family. He further said that Mrs. Smith had stated, as he (witness) had been informed by her brothers, that she would rather have paid a pound a week than that the child should have died, and further, that Alfred Beagin had acknowledged that he dug the hole in the garden for the burial of the child, but had not buried it himself. The witness further stated that he had been consulted by both George and Alfred Beagin about bringing an action against their brother-in-law, Mr. Smith, to punish him for his indiscretion, and also coupling with the act of Seducing their sister, another which took place at Erith, respecting his (Smith's) wife. Witness, in consequence of this application, saw Mr. Smith, and on telling him of the affair at Erith, he offered him £2O to give up the author of this information. He led Mr. Smith to believe that he should give up the author, and several letters passed between them on the subject. At his first interview with Smith he gave him £l, and he might altogether have received as much as .E 5 from him, but certainly not £2O, as he had promised. When shown a receipt for £lO received from Smith upon a solemn promise that the affair of the child should be kept a secret, and which bore the name of "George Greaves" and asked whether the signature was not in his handwriting, the witness fenced in every possible way, and although ultimately admitting the fact, he declared he had no portion of the £lO. Mrs. Gill was next called, but her testimony was, if possible, more unsatisfactory than her husband's. She, as well as her husband, denied that they had told the officer, Hall, anything about the death of the child, the precise place in which it was buried in the garden, or saying anything whatever about the canal. _ _  George Hall, 176 P, was then sworn, and said that both witnesses had informed him that the prisoner had said that if she had fifty other children she would not do so again, for while lyiiW on the deceased she felt it kick her in the stomach. They also described the precise spot where the body was buried in lime, and said that it had been contemplated to take it up and throw it into the canal. Both witnesses affected much surprise at the officer's statement, which they denied, but in such a way as to leave no doubt in the minds of all who heard them that the officer stated the truth ; and, after a lengthened examination, the prisoner was again remanded, for the attendance of Mrs. Smith and other witnesses.