The Sun. — 1862-06-25 (London, England)

CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER..  At the High Court of Justiciary, held yesterday, Mary Scally, , or Scolly, was placed atthetar, charged with murder, in so far as on Monday bar, charged 3d March, 1862,anl at knownor s nears t e partshseear ry of the Bridge,Po in and Clyde Canal the attackedpa r is h boefrFma laklier k illegitimate, wickedly child, and thenfeloniously about four or five days old, now deceased, and did throw or put into the Canal, and leave it there, in consequence whereof it was drowned and deprived of life, and was thus murdered by her; or otherwise, that she attacked and assaulted the child by obstructing its respiration with her hand, by which it was suffocated or strangled. The prisoner, on the charge being read over to her, pleaded guilty to culpable homicide. This plea having been accepted by the SolicitorGeneral, Mr. Badenoch Nicholson, who appeared for the prisoner, proposed to adduce evidence as to the character of the prisoner. John Malcolm, examined by Mr. Nicholson, deponed—l am a farmer at Bothkenna, Orchardhead. The prisoner was a domestic servant in my employment for three years previous to last Martinmas. She bore an excellent character while in my employment. She was a kind and obliging girl. Rev. Mr. Stevenson, examined by Mr.. Nicholson —I am minister of the parish of Bothkenna. The farm of Orchardhead is in my parish. lam aware that the prisoner was a servant at Orchardhead. I had frequent opportunities of knowing her character, which I considered very good. Mr. Nicholson then briefly addressed the Court for the prisoner. Ho said she was between nineteen and twenty years of age, and when her youth and the circumstances of the case were taken into account, he had no doubt their Lordships would deal leniently in the case. The prisoner's father had used language towards her which no amount of vice on the part of a child could justify a father in using. When the prisoner was only three days delivered of the child he told her that she would not be allowed to sit at his fireside with any man's child, and then drove the girl from the house. Considering the manner in which she was compelled to leave the ) house—a poor girl driven from her father's house in a cold wintry day—he thought he need not ask the sympathy of their Lordships for the prisoner in her wretched circumstances. The Lord Justice-General, in passing sentence, said that it had been proved that the prisoner was a person of good character, and her counsel had stated the circumstances under which she had committed this offence. The prisoner was relieved from the charge of murder, but she was still convicted of an ect of violence towards this child. The indictment stated that she deprived the child of life in one of two ways, either by throwing it into the Canal, or by feloniously attacking and assaulting it with her hand, or in some other way obstructing the respiration of the child. He presumed it was not the first of these. If it were, it were difficult to understand how her case could be anything else than murder. In regard to the second way, it was possible that the prisoner may not have apprehended the result which might ensue, and might have acted harshly, but without the intention of producing death, although exposing life to risk. The Court were disposed to take a lenient view of the case, but the punishment could not be limited to imprisonment. The sentence of the Court was three years' penal servitude. The prisoner, who sobbed and moaned heavily during the whole of the proceedings, was then removed.  A