The Sun. — 1851-08-23 (London, England)

PLATT.) Ann Shaw, 27, was charged with having, at Ashtonunder-Lyne, on the 15th of;June last, wilfully murdered her infant child. Mr. Pollock and Mr. Millward appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Monk defended the prisoner. It appeared that the prisoner, who is an Irishwoman, residing at a house in Lees, near Ashtonunder-Lyne, kept by a woman named Fogg, and earned her living by washing. Her sister, who resided near her, had often accused her of being in the family way, and although she had been confined a year or two before in Ireland, she denied that she was in that state at the time in question, though she was large from another cause which had ceased. On Sunday, the 15th of June, as a man named Adshead was proceeding through Cockfield, a few hundred yards from Mr. Fogg's house, he found a child newly born, lying dead on the grass, wrapped up in brown paper, over which was a piece of bedticking, and also a piece of print. The child was dead, having a piece of thin cord round its throat, its feet tied up to its neck, and its arms folded across its breast, so that it was doubled up like a ball. It was then taken to Mr. Elliott's, the surgeon, who made a post - mortem examination, and on applying the usual tests, he gave it as his opinion that the child had been born alive, that it was fully grown, and that death had been caused by the cord which was found round the neck having caused strangulation. The police then proceeded to make inquiries, and the prisoner was examined by the medical man, who gave it as his opinion that she had been delivered, but could not state how recently. They then searched the prisoner's room, and in a box, which she acknowledged to be hers, some brown paper was found, and also some ticking, and a piece of print. On comparing these with the ticking and the print found with the body of the child, they resembled each other in all respects. Some of these the prisoner acknowledged to the police were hers, and wondered how they had been found where it was described they had been. In addition to this evidence, the prosecution relied upon marks which were found at the bottom of the prisoner's box, and which led those who saw them to the conclusion that they might have been caused by a new-born child having been laid in it, and these marks were only the impression of the body and head, and not of the legs of the child, which would have been the case had the child's legs been tied up to its neck, as the legs of the child in question were found to be. Various witnesses who resided in the house with the prisoner, and who slept in the same ruom with her, stated that they had observed that she had increased in size. One of them had given her some medicine to alleviate her sufferings, which she did not understand proceeded from pregnancy, but from another cause. The witnesses likewise stated tbat a child could not have been born in the bedroom of the prisoner without their hearing or being aware of it. The underclothes of the prisoner and other linen which had stains upon them were adduced to show that a birth had taken place, but the medical man did not assert confidently that the marks found would inevitably lead him tothatconclusion.  At the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. MONK asked his Lordship whether there was any occasion for him to address the jury, 28 there was no evidence that the prisoner had been delivered of a child ; but the jury seemed desirous that the Learned Counsel should address them. Mr. MONK then addressed the jury, and said that there was no evidence whatever to support the charge of murder against any person whatever, and that the mode and manner in which the child was found, at most would only show that the person, whoever she was, who had been delivered of this child had endeavoured to conceal the birth, by disposing of the body ; but he would contend, with the greatest condeuce, that there was no evidence whatever in the j  whole case which could justify them io coming to the conch.vion that the prisoner had been delivered of any child at all. His LORDSHIP having summed up, Tne jury returned a ver,iict of Not Guilty. 1