Star. — 1823-07-18 (London, England)

WORCESTER, JULY 16.  Elizabeth Gibbons, a single woman, was indicted for the wilful murder of her female itlegizimate child. The body was found in the river Stour. Mr. Justice PARK summed up at great length, and left it to the Jury to say if they were satisfied that the child c as born alive; and if so, that it was wilfully and maliciously destroyed by the mother; and if such were their opinion, they would return a verdict of Guilty. If they were of opinion it was not wilfully destroyed, but that she supposed it lifeless when she threw it into the water, it being in a torpid state, they .would acquit her. Before the Jury retired, the prisoner said, that she supposed the child was dead when she threw it into the water.  The Jury consulted for a short time, and at four o'clock last evening, returned a verdict of .‘ Not aunty of the murder, but Guilty of concealing the birth of the child."  She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the County Jail. Mr. Justice PARK said, if the verdict had been that of Guilty, no one who had heard the evidence could have denied its justice, and he should have left her for execviiion on Friday. He gravely admonished her upon her future conduct.  She was then carried from the dock apparently insensible.  LINCOLN, JuIAT 15.  John Siorr was indicted for the wilful murder of Sarah llumstance, by administering to h'er a quantity of arsenic.  Sarah Humstance, the sister-in•law of the deceased, stated that the late Sarah Humstance lived as servant with Mr. Walker, of West Keals, in the Fen.. On the 4th of April last, she visited the deceased at Keal, and found her very ill in bed, and complaining of soreness in the throat. On the following day she again went to see her, for the purpose of removing her home, the deceased having expressed a strong drsire to be taken from Mr. W'alker's house. As she, with some other females, were raising her from the bed, they found a dead child, recently born, which was wrapped up and taken home in a cart with its mother. On the road they stopped at a public-house, and the diceased there drank some wine and water, after which she seemed.to be much revived, but before she got home she died. The mother and the child were buried together in one coffin, and they were afterwards taken out of the grave to be e;amined by a surgeon. The evidence of the other witnesses did not go to prove the cbarge. Mr. Baron Ganaow, said, in his opinion the case had failed in all its points. In the first instance it had not been proved that the deceased died by poison, and if it had there was not a shadow of evidence to shew that it had been administered by the prisoner. In order to bring home the charge to the prisoner, the Jury must clearly understand that the deceased did not die' a natural death; and even if it had been a fact Completely established, that she did die by taking arsenic, they would ask, in the absence of all evidence which could affect the prisoner, whether it was not possible that she had taken it herself with a view to self-destruotion? It was impossible to say the prisoner was properly charged by legal evidence with the death of this party, and his Lordship therefore would not call upon the prisoner for his defence ; and he aaled, if the Jury acquiesced in his view of the case, they would pronounce him not guilty. There was good reason for supposing there had been an imprOper intimacy between the prisoner and the deceased, and as theyoung woman had died prematurely, the prosecutors acted perfectly consistent with their duty to. the pu'olic, in thoroughly investigating the case to the. bottom, and having now done so, his ;sordship conceived that it plainly appealed there was no fonn4. tion for the charge. The Jury immediately acquitted the prisoner. There were other indictments against the prisoner,' charging him with administering. certain deleterionel and poisonous drugs to Sarah. Hi:nuance, for . the, purpose of destroying ber.iinborn infant. This accts= sation could only be supported by the same evidence as was brought forward on the above trial, and the Court considered that as being 400 loose and vague to beat all relied upon, and therefore suggested that the.prisoner should be acquitrasi without again examining the witnesses. The Jury were of theome . opinion, and.directly acquitted the priipner:. • • •