The Sun. — 1857-02-07 (London, England)

OLD COURT. (Before Mr. Baron Bramw(ll.) Martha Rebecca Jukes, 30, a poor destitute-looking creature, was indicted for the capital offence of administering potson:to her child, William Jukes, with intent to murder him, It appeared that the pritioner formerly lived at Stepney with her husband, and a short time back Bile went to Yarmouth for the purpose of buryi,g her father, and upo❑ her return she found that her husband, during her absence, had destroyed himself, and she was 1-11, with her civil in a most destitute and miserable condition. She fur some time vainly endeavoured to support herself and child by needlework, but Ending that she was unable to do so, it appeared that she purchased some latrlanuot at a ch Anist'..t, and in a St of desperation she took a quantity of it herbel , and administered the remainder to her child, and both their lives were in consequence nearly sacrificed. The prisoner, after committing the act, said that her object was that she and her child should go to Heaven together. The jury, after a short deliberation, said that they were of opinion that the prisoner committed the act while labouring under temporary insanity, produced by the circumstances in which she had been placed. Mr. Baron Bramwell said that this amounted to a verdict of acquittal o❑ the ground of insanity, and be ordered the prisoner to be detained during her Majestj 'Et pleasure.  William G'ayl ni surrendered for the purpose of receivng the judgment of the Court. The prisoner, it will be remembered, was convicted two or three sessions back of administering a poison*, ingrediett to his wife for the purpose Of procuriog carriage, but a point ,ofIA w was reserved for the con deration Orthe Court or Criminal Appeal as to the prd-priety of the verdict, there being some peculiar circumstances in the case. The conviction has since been confirmed, and the prisoner, who was admitted to bail, was therefore ca led up for judgment. Mr. B iron Bramwell said he was directed by the learned judge who tried the prisoner to state that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he coesidered the purposes of justice would be answered in this particular case by a sentence of one month's imprisonment with hard labour, and he now, therefore, passed that sentence upon him. Henry Holding, 19, was charged with committing an assault of an atrocious character upon Win. Smith. Mr, Caarteen prosecuted. The prosecutor was a lad 15 years old, who stated that he was by birth an American, and that at the time the offence was committed he was on his way to Liverpool to seek a .hip, and he said that he met the prisoner and walked with Lim as far as Barnet, and in a field in the neighbourhood of that town he represented that the matter occurred which was the subject of inquiry. His statement was confirmed apparently in some particulars, and the jury, after a little deliberation, returned a verdictof guilty.  Mr. Baron Bramwell thereupon ordered sentence of death to be recorded, but he evidently felt that there was cous,derable doubt as to whether the prosecutor was telling the truth, and be directed the officer to go with him to one or two places where he represented he bad been on the night previous to the occurrence, and make inquiries, and they left the court fur that purpose. Shortly afterwards the constable returned, and stated that as be was going along with the boy Smith in a cab to make the necessary inquiries ho told him it was of no use to proceed any further, as he had not told the truth in the matters that were to be inquired into, and he therefore brought him back, to await the instructions of the Court.  Some discu,Pion then took place as to what course should be taken under these circumstances, and eventually Mr. Baron Bramwell directed the prisoner to be brought back, and lie asked the jury to reconsider their verdict, and they almost immediately returned a verdict of not guil y. The learned Judge then ordered the boy Smith into custody, with a view, if the facts shoal admit of that course being adopted, that a prosecution for perjury should be preferred against him.