The Sun. — 1850-01-10 (London, England)

THIS DAY.) THE TRIAL C.F SARAH DRAKE FOR 3I ORDER. Thomas Kinder—l am superintendent of the Nottingham,hire police. In consequence of information received from constable Smith, I went to North Leverton. and saw the box opened. I afterwards came to London, and went with one of the metropolitan police to No. 33, Harloy-street, where we saw the prisoner in the housekeeper's room. I asked her if sha was Sarah Drake. She said yes. I said " From Nottinghamshire?" She said yes. I then said I had to h e of murdering her child, aLewisppreDnd ra keon a . her sh She said, acihda, Trio w do you know that?" I said a dead body had been found in a box, which had been sent to North Leverton, and round the en sat t o h body was found an apron marked '• Sarah Drake." She then ak t t e downm a raynide bblgo a. roo n toii ce.ryo. She was afterwards ffi ce. Witcher, the policeman who accompanied the preceding witness to 33, Harley-street, proved that he found there some aprons belonging to the prisoner, marked " S. Drake," and that he received a bunch of keys from the prisoner, one of which fitted the box in which the child was found. Mrs. Johnson was called, and identified the clothes found in the box with the body to be the clothes of the child, Lewis Drake. Mary Ann Briggs, the searcher at the Marylebone Police-office, proved that she searched the prisoser, and whilst she was doing so she asked the prisoner what she was charged with. The prisoner did not answer, and witness asked her a second time. She then asked if witness was a married woman. Witness replied she, was and had a family. Prisoner then said, "You can feel fur me," and added, "it is all about a child." Witness asked if it was a new-born baby. She said it was not, it was two years old and she had hung it. She also said that she owed a woman who had kept it some money and she (the prisoner) had done it in a moment. She said she had sent the child to her sister to be buried, and that her sister had made all the noise about it, and that she (the prisoner) would be hung for it. Cross•cxamined—l only asked her what she was charged with. She said the woman had been with her about the money, and she had done it in a moment. The letters written by the prisoner were then put in and read. Those letters have already appeared in our columns. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. COLLIER, for the prisoner, submitted that one part of the case for the prosecution had not been made out. It had not been shown that the child alleged to have been murdered bore the name stated in the indictment. The first two sets of counts in the indictment described the name of the child respectively to be Lewis Drake:and Lewis Taverner; and the evidence of his name having been either the one or the other was, that he was, when addressed, uniformly addressed as " Lead," but that on one or two occasions, which Mrs. Johnson mentioned to persons, although she did not remember to whom, the child in her custody was called Lewis Drake. That, standing alone would not be sufficient evidence to show that the child's name was Lewis Drake by repu-ation. There was, another count in the indictment in which it was alleged that the child's name was Lewis only, and that it was an illegitimate child. Now there was no proof of the child being illegitimate. Tin re was only the evidence of the brother, who said he thought his sister was not a married woman ; but he proved that his sister had IN en from home for a period of thirteen years. For anything the brother knew she m'ght have been married. Mr. PARRY followed on the same side, contending that there was no proof that the prisoner was either a single or a married woman, and that, assuming that:she was a married woman, and that the child was, therefore, it! 1,11,; 4.1if1 ovn 1w Lord Coke, a bastard couid not have a surname. It there were two perfectly fair but contrary inferences