The Express. — 1867-03-29 (London, England)

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—NonwicH, MAscn 27.  (Before Mr. Justice Willes.)  Susan Grief, M, a married woman, was charged with the wilful murder of Alfred Grief, at Shernbourne, on the 6th November lag.  Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. I). Brown appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Carlos Cooper and Mr. Ford defended. It appeared from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that the prisoner and her husband resided in a three-roomed cottage with ten of their children and the deceased, who was the illegitimate son of Mary Grief, one of tho prisoner's daughters. The deceased was five years old, and up to the day preceding his death, he had been an exceedingly healthy child. On that day, the sth November, Mrs. Filcher, a neighbour, saw him in the garden vomiting and in a state of great misery, and exhibiting all the signs of having been poisoned by arsenic. On the following day the prisoner called Mrs. Filcher and said, " Jane, Jane, for God's sake make haste or the child will be dead before you come." Mrs. Filcher went into the prisoner's house and found the child on the lap of its mother, Mary Grief. He was dead when she got into the house and his fingers were getting quite dark, his ears purple, and his stomach hot and distended. Mary Grief MAX in great distress and fainted shortly after the child died, upon which the prisoner shook her and said, " Come, come, you are not all that bad." The house was subsequently searched, and on the top of the prisoner's bed was found a paper containing arsenic and it was proved that the prisoner bad sent one of her daughters to purchase some arsenic, but she did not emceed in getting ' any. The prisoner on being shown the arsenic said that she did not know how it got there, and is appeared that her husband, who was a shephenl, occasionally used arsenic mixed with tar for the purpose of dressing sheep. On the Tlnd of November a coroners inquest was held, and the prisoner then asked Mrs. Filcher what she wee going to say about the job. Mrs. Filcher mid that she should say then as she said at first, that it was a poisoned child, and she asked the prisoner how she could be such an old fool as not to take the arsenic off the bed. The prisoner aid, " Oh !I forgot it, but I hope God will carry me through it." The prisoner also said to a policeman before any charge had been made that she knew he suspected her of poisoning the child, and when taken into custody she said that she had had twelve children, and they had been a great trouble to her. The result of the poid-mortem examination was that three grains of white arsenic were found adhering to the stomach of the child, and nine grains were found in a dissolved state. Two grains would have been enough to cause death, and this, with the other appesrances showed clearly that the child had died from the effects of taking arsenic. Four members of the family were taken into custody at different times on this charge, and only two of those who lived in the prisoner's house were called as witnesses for the prosecution. Mr. Cooper, in addressing the jury, cautioned them against being influenced by the reports they bad heard, or the nature of the charge. He did not dispute the fact that the child bad taken arsenic, but he contended that there was nothing to show that the prisoner had administered it, and he commented strongly on the fact that only two of the persons living in the house had been called for the prosecution, and that others had originally been suspected. Mr. Justice Willem having summed up, the jury retired to consider their verdict, and after a short absence retorned with a verdict of Not Quid',.  The prisoner was then charged with the wilful murder of Anna Maria Grief, who was the illegitimate daughter of another of the prisoner's daughters. This child had died when a few months old, souls time previously to the death of Alfred Grief. Mr. Metcalfe stated that the evidence in this case was weaker than that in the preceding one, and as be had no further evidence to convect the prisoner with the death of the child, he did not propose offering any evidence on the charge. The jury then, by the direction of the learned judge, returned a verdict of Nat guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.