The Sun. — 1860-03-22 (London, England)

CROWN COURT. (Before Lord Chief Justice Erle.) Caroline Martin, 28, an unmarried woman, was charged with the wilful murder of her female illegitimate child. The coroner's jury returned a verdict of manslaughter only against the prisoner, but she was subsequently committed by the magistrates upon the charge of wilful murder, and the grand jury having returned a true bill, she was put upon her trial for the more serious offence.  Mr. Attree and Mr. Hurst conducted the prosecution I Mr. Itoupell was counsel for the defence. It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner was in the, service of a lady, named Payne, residing at Carlisle-parade, Hastings, and in the beginning of February last she was discovered ir to be in thee family way, and her mistress made an arrangement that she should go home to her friends at Hawkhurst, to lie in, on •the 10th of that month. During the night of the 9th the prisoner -Was taken very ill, and in consequence of what was obsefted by a fellow-servant, she made a communication to the prisoner's mistress on the following morning, aid she put some questions to the prisoner, who admitted that she had been delivered of a child during the night, but said that it was dead: A medical gentleman, named Savery, was then sent fOrl arid he asked the prisoner what had become of the child, and she told him it was in a box at the foot of her bed, and he there found a newly-born female child, apparently of full growth. The child was at this time alive, but in a very weakly state, and notwithstanding every endeavour was made to restore it, the child died in the course of the same day. Upon a post-mortem examination all the vital organs were discoteted to be healthy, and there were appearances of slight wounds upon the neck and cheek of the child. These injuries were suggested to have been caused by a broken steel petticoat-hoop, which was found in a drawer in the prisoner's bedroom, with blood upon it, but there was considerable doubt upon this point, and it also appeared that they were not of a nature likely to have caused death, and the evidence appeared rather to show that the fatal result was the consequence of the neglect the child had sustained after its birth, through the prisoner not having made any attempt to obtain assistance. Mr. Roupell made a very feeling address to the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and he urged that she really believed the child was dead when she placed it in the box, and that in her distress and agony tt,t the moment she could hardly be held responsible for her at:t!ansThe learned ;judge having summed up, The jury retired to consider their verdict, and in faobuonudt hthaelfparnisohnoeurr guilty rfemiiiarunseldauinto court and Moore, 0, a diminutive gi-rri llartiet y'o • • P at the bar to plead to an indictment, which charge 4 her with the Wilful murder of her illegitimate child, Alfred James Moore. ,ter. was inlaced There was a second indictment against the prisoner, Which charged het with the capital offence of feloniously administering to the same child a large quantity of deadly poison, called white precipitate, With intent to murder it. When the prisoner *at; first called upon to say whether she was guilty or not guilty, she replied in a low voice, " not i Lord Chidf Justice Erto,tosldhothwe opurlidsonpelread that i she would take his adv f thehe guilty, and he gave her d be resetaaunsde thought it probable that s e hthdeidandovticuen, t uilty to The prisoner then pleaded no g precise nature of the charges made against both the her. charges. roceeded The indictment for murder was not p with, but the prisoner was given in charge to the jury for the offence of feloniously administering poison to the deceased child with intent to murder. • Sergeant Ballantine was specially retained, with au iulgu Ow' Hon. G. Denman, to conduct th one prosec ut.ion. The prisoner 144 no o=ol, but up