The Barrow Herald and Furness Advertiser. — 1871-07-15 (Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, England)

THE BAY6WATER TRAGEDY.  At the Central Criminal Court, on Thursday. Flora Newington, alias Davey, aged 37, described' as married, was indicted before Baron Channel, charged with the manslaughter of Frederick Graves Moon— Mr. Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Poland, and Mr. Stiaight appeared for the prosecution ; and Serjeant Pan-y. Mr. it. James, QC., Mr. F. 11. Lewis, and Mr. Walter Ballantine for the defence. The roust with crowded, there being as much anxiety to obtain admission as was exhibited on the previous day to hear the opening of the trial of Pook. The prisoner, whose appearance has much improved since her examination before the magistrate, was accommodated with a scat.  Mr. Difliird, in opening the case for the prosecu tion, said the accused was indicted for manslaughter, and the circumstances out of which the case arose were these. On the 24th May last, having a previous appointment with Mr. Moon, the defendant dined with him. There appeared some little misunderstanding, but that passed away. In the course of the evening two young ladies came in, but they afterwards left the room, which he might say was a comparatively small apturnent, and somewhat overcrowded with furniture. Having described the position of the furniture and the patties, he Braden the sideboard was the kn;febasLet. From statements made by the prisoner, it seems that after they were left alone some quarrel arose. It appeared that the deceased had reproached her in an apparently unjust manner. She was called in the indictment Mrs. Davey, and it would be seen that a Captain Davey was in the habit of visiting her, and it might turn out that it was that gentleman who was the (WISP of the reproach. Putting the case as favourably as possible towards her, and taking her statetuent that the deceased's reproach and a threat to throw a bottle at her head, were made, it would be for them to say whether these eireutustances would justify the offence. Then, agaio, it was said that there was a struggle, but he was unable to give any evidence of this. A scream was, howevet, heard, and Mr. Moon was found I dying on the floor. The prisinier's clothes were J discovered to be bloodstained, but that would not J be mattnial, as this would have been the case under I whatever circumstances the catastrophe occurred. : No one but herself' could tell the exact mode in j which the disaster to Mr. Moon occurred. The july would have to take the circumstance of her ' being in a passion and her being obviously the I worse for liquor, and putting these facts together I it would be for them to Kay whether in a fit of ungovernable passion she stabbed the gentleman. If she did this she was guilty of the crime of manslaughter. The grand jury had thrown out the I bill for wilful murder, and the present jury would I be relieved, fortunately, from considering that Icharge. Considering dte length, depth, direction, j and general appearance of the wound, they would j have to say whether the suggestioh made as to the deceased leaving fitiltai on the knife was a probable one. The jury must call to their ituagination the hypothesis of .a struggle, and say whether a fall uf the two bodies together could have produced such a wound. They would also have to bear hi mind that in the first instance the prisoner said she must have caused Mr. Moon's death, and could not tell how. It might have beets the ease that, blinded ith passion she inflicted this blow, and afterwards, when-she had had time for reflection, told a tissue of falsehoods, fur which it was impossible to account. She told Mr. Folcaiut that Fred had burst a blood .vessel. and died. Ile was atlaid it would be his duty id lay before them statement's made at an antecedent period. She had used threats towards the deceased, and she might have nursed her vengeance until some add:tioaal provocation coming upon a mind already ill-disposed, and the knife being near her hand, may have induced her to inflict the blow which caused the death of the person with whom she was living. The jury would have nothing to do with the degree of crime, their duty being only to ascertain what was the fact, and from what cause the fatal blow was inflicted. The letuned counsel then proceeded to-call sitneaaes. The its idt'llee was a repetition of that recently published, and was not concluded when the court rose.