The Sun. — 1862-06-25 (London, England)

CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER..  At the High Court of Justiciary, held yesterday, Mary Scally, , or Scolly, was placed at the bar, charged with murder, in so far as on Monday the 3d March, 1862, at or near the part of the Forth and Clyde Canal known as Castlecarry Bridge, in the parish of Falkirk, she wickedly and feloniously attacked her male illegitimate child, then about four or five days old, now deceased, and did throw or put into the Canal, and leave it there, in consequence whereof it was drowned and deprived of life, and was thus murdered by her; or otherwise, that she attacked and assaulted the child by obstructing its respiration with her hand, by which it was suffocated or strangled. The prisoner on the charge being read over to her, pleaded guilty to culpable homicide. This plea having been accepted by the SolicitorGeneral,  Mr. Badenoch Nicholson, who appeared for the prisoner, proposed to adduce evidence as to the character of the prisoner. John Malcolm, examined by Mr. Nicholson, deponed—l am a farmer at Bothkenna, Orchardhead. The prisoner was a domestic servant in my employment for three years previous to last Martinmas. She bore an excellent character while in my employment. She was a kind and obliging girl. Rev. Mr. Stevenson, examined by Mr. Nicholson —I am minister of the parish of Bothkenna. The farm of Orchardhead is in my pariah. lam aware that the prisoner was a servant at Orchardhead. I had frequent opportunities of knowing her character, which I considered very good. Mr. Nicholson then briefly addressed the Court for the prisoner. He said she was between nineteen and twenty years of age, and when her youth and the circumstances of the case were taken into account, he had no doubt their Lordships would deal leniently in the case. no 'prisoner's father had used language towards her which no amount of vice on the part of a child could justify a c,":,!her in using. When the prisoner was only three days delivered of the child he told her that she would not be allowed to sit at his fireside with any man's child, and thcn drove the girl from the house. Considering the manner in which she was compelled to leave the house—a poor girl driven from her father's house in a cold wintry day—he thought he need not ask the sympathy of their Lordships for the prisoner in her wretched circumstances. The Lord Justice-General, in passing sentence, said that it had been proved tilt the prisoner was a person of good character, and her ounsel had stated the circumstances under which she had committed this offence. The prisoner was relieved from the charge of murder, but she was still convicted of into an act of violence towards this child, The indictment stated that shedeprivbeyd tthhreowchinilgd ito of life thein one of two ways, either Canal, or by feloniously attacking and assaulting it with her hand, or in some other way obstructing the respiration of the child. He presumed it was not the first of these. If it were, it were difficult to understand how her case could be anything else than murder. In regard to the second way, it was possible that the prisoner may not have apprehended g ht ensue,theand atheteedreshualtrshwlyh,icbhut withoutmi intentionmighotf hparvoe. ducing death, although exposing life to risk. The Court were disposed to ta a lenient view of the case, but the punishment could not be limited to imprisonment. The sentence of the Court was three years' penal servitude. The prisoner, who sobbed and moaned heavily during the whole of the proceedings, was then removed.  A