The Warwickshire Herald. — 1888-03-15 (Birmingham, West Midlands, England)

THE ALLEGED CHILD MURDER AT ASTON  DR. BARK AND THE JUDGE.  At the Warwickshire Assizes on Tuesday, before Baron Huddleston, Elizabeth Chesshire (20), press worker, who lately lodged in Pugh-road, Aston, was charged with murdering her newly-born illegitimate child at Aston, on the 30th of December, and on a second count with concealing the birth of that child.—Mr. T. S. Soden and Mr. Q. C. Coltnore (instructed by Mr. Joseph Rowlands) appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Hugo Young (instructed by Mr. Briggs, Derby) for the prisoner.—Evidence having been ;given similar to that given before the Aston Bench, and already reported in our columns, Mr. Hugo Young, for the defence, submitted to his lordship that there was no case to answer.—The .Judge: Not the least; there is no evidence of the cause of death.—Mr. Bark (recalled) said that death was caused by strangulation due to the handkerchief being tied round the neck. - Subsequently his Lordship pointed out to Mr. Bark a discrepancy between the evidence he had given during the morning and that given before the magistrates, and peremptorily ordered him to stand down.--Mr. Hugo Young addressed the jury at some length, pointing out the improbability of the girl having murdered her baby, and adversely commenting on the evidence of the medical witness. With teference to the minor count, he contended that the prisoner was only anxious to conceal the birth from the young women in her bed room. —During the learned counsel's remarks the prisoner fainted away, and it was with some difficulty she was brought round again.—His lordship, in summing up, spoke in exceedingly strong language of the medical evidence, and, referring to the contradictory statements of the witness, said the evidence was a discredit to him as a medical man, and also apart from his profession. —The jury found the prisoner guilty of concealment of birth, and she was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.— The Judge: I wish the doctor to stand up.—Mr. Bark: My, lord, may I explain ?—The Judge: I want you to explain how you made one statement before the magistrates and another here to-day.— Mr. Bark : I am glad to have that opportunity. %Then the case was before the magistrates the counsel asked, with a strong emphasis on the word "possible," whether it was possible for this woman to have tied the handkerchief round the child's neck. Recognising not the medical facto of the case, but the strong emphasis on the word "possible," I said it was.—The Judge: Then why did you swear now it was not possible? Mr. Bark: Because on further consideration, and after consulting with medical men, I have come to the conclusion that It was not possible.—The Judge: That is the result of asking other people ; it is not your own knowledge. I can only say that explanation is not satisfactory.—Mr. Bark : It is not simply the result of asking other people, but of more deliberate consideration than when I had to answer on the spur of the moment.—After some further remarks Mr. Bark observed that he had been represented as being almost as bad as the culprit. With an experience of 1,200 cases he should know something more of the things going on in a lying-in room than lawyers knew. —The Judge : I think so too, and that is the reason lam surprised at your exposition to-day.--The witness then left the box.