The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle. — 1882-01-21 (Stourbridge, West Midlands, England)

NOT GUILTY ON THE GROUND OF INSANITY.  At the Bedford Assizes, Jane Haynes, aged 25, was charged with the wilful murder of her infant son, George Newman Haynes, ned ten months, at Till. brook, on the Bth of November last. Mr. G. Lathom Browne prosecuted; Mr. W. Attenborough defended.  The prisoner is the wife of Corporal Haynes R.E., who is epgaged on the Ordnance Survey. The husband and wife had lived on the most affectionate terms, and the deceased was_ their second child. Shortly after the prisoner's confinement in January last she was attended for white swelling of the leg by Dr. Kisney, the medical officer of Bedford Gaol, who did not then observe anything wrong with her mind. The progress of the survey took her husband and herself from Bedford, and about the end of October they took up their residence at Tillbrook. On the 24th of October the prisoner was attended by Dr. Hallett, of Kimbolton, who found her in a very despondent condition, and stating that she did not care whether she lived or not. The deceased was weaned a few days after this, and the prisoner ceased, on the 4th of November,ito Wash either her children or herself. On the 7th of November her husband requested a neighbour, a Mrs. Gell, to come and fetch the two children to her own house for the night, as his wife was unable to look after them properly. Mrs. Gell accordingly came to fetch the children, and found the prisoner in a very strange and excited state wandering to and fro, a,cl saying that she was no wife and no mother and could not tell the reason. Mrs. Gell took the children to her home, and returned with them the next morning, the Bth. The prisoner then asked her to take some washing out, and she did so, and looked in again about mid-day. She saw the prisoner in the house, and asked her where the baby was, and the prisoner said he was still asleep. The prisoner's husband later in the day sent for the police, and the constable, on entering the upper room, found the deceased lying on the floor near the bed with his throat cut and quite dead. Dr. Hallett was called in and found prisoner in a wandering state of mind. She stated to the constable that she had put the child to sleep after it was brought back by Mrs. Gell, and that when it was asleep she cut its throat. She did not know what made her do it ; she supposed it was the Devil. It was a little dear, and she loved it. She asked the constable if he thought it had gone to Heaven. She went to her workbasket. and produced a razor, and said: " That is what I did it with." She added "It is no fault of poor Tom. He is a good husband to me; much better than I am a wife to him, for I am no good at all to him, and cannot do anything.' When she was taken to the gaol Dr. Kisney observed a depression of manner about her which led him to give orders that she should not be left alone either day or night, for fear she should do herself harm.  • The witnesses for the prosecution having deposed to the above facts, and Mr. Attenborough having commented upon them, His lordship, in summing up, told the jury that the killing was prima facie murder, and it lay upon the defence to show that it was otherwise, though this might be done out of the mouth of the witnesses fir the prosecution. The mere absence of motive must not be taken to suffice. That would be a most dangerous doctrine. On the other hand, it might be a weighty consideration when taken with the other circumstances. No skilled witness who had devoted his attention to cases of insanity was called for the defence,- but the evidence for the prosecution had been most fairly laid before them, ad both the medical men who had been called for the Crown had made n secret of their own opinion that the prisoner's state of mind was such at the time as to render her unaccountable. If the jury thought that the prisoner was not aware at the time of the nature of the act she was committing it would be unnecessary .to consider the further question whether she knew what she was doing was wrong.  The jury, after a few` moments' deliberation, found a verdict of Not Guilty, on the ground of insanity, and his Lordship ordered that the priioner should be detained during her 'Majesty's pleast;re.