The Sun. — 1850-03-25 (London, England)

TALFOURD.) Robert Curtice Bird, described as a farmer, aged 31, and his wife, Sarah Bird, aged 34, were indicted for the wilful murder of Mary Ann Parsons, a parish apprentice, by striking and beating her to death. The facts of the case have already been fully before the public. Much interest was excited as to the event of the trial.  It appeared from the evidence that the deceased was fourteen years of age ; she had been taken into the service of the prisoners from the union workhouse on the 29th of September last, when she was in perfect health. On the 4th of January she died, and her mother, upon going to see the body, found it covered with bruises, and a considerable sore and abcess on the back, over which a plaster had been placed. There were marks of blood between the shoulders, and other signs of ill usage having been inflicted. The prisoners had admitted that they had punished the child ; and the female appeared very de sirous that no inquest should be held upon the body. Evidence was given by several persons, who had seen both the prisoners ill use the child. The medical witnesses at some length described the injuries inflicted. Death was found to have result4d from congetion of the brain. There were several wounds on the back of the head, and either of those injuries were likely to produce effusion, although it could not positively be stated that they had had that effect in this instance.  Mr. SLAD having addressed the jury for the pr soner',  The Learned JUDGE alluded to the medical testimony, and said he thought there was a want of that positive evidence which was required in so serious a matter.  A lengthened argument then took place, when his Lordship remarked that the evidence failed to bear out the injury which had been alleged. and both prisoners were accordingly Acquitted by the jury.  NORTHERN CI ItGiilT.—Liverpool, March 23.; (Before Mr. Baron ItoLrE.) George Winterhottom, aged 49, was indicted for manslaughter, in baying caused the dHath of John Siddall, at Oldham, in February last, by putting him into a vapour bath, and immediately afterwards potting and exposing him to cold in a shower-bath, whereby his lungs became congested, of which congestion he died.  It appeared from the statement of Mr. Monk, for the prosecution, that the deceased was a youth of the age of 17, who was in a consumption, and had consulted the prisoner, a person who, until a few months before, had been an operative in the cotton trade at Oldham. Die prisoner called himself a herbalist, and had in his house what he called medicated and renovating baths. He placed the deceased in a hot steam bath, and as soon as he was taken out he placed him in a cold shower-bath. The youth had bee❑ treated in this manner several times previously to the 10th February last. On that day he was again subjected to the same treatment. On his being taken out of the cold bath an emetic was given, and he became very sick. He requested permission to lie down. After a few minutes prisoner went up stairs, and in a few minutes returned, saying the deceased was in a fine sleep. In less than half an hour afterwards the deceased died. On a post mortem examination it appeared that the left lung of deceased was full of tubercles, and incapable of the function of respiration. That the right lung was congested until it was almost solid, and could not respire. This was the cause of death. It was alleged that the treatment was grossly uwkilful, and had pro luoed the congestion of the lungs.  At the close of the opening of the Learned Counsel, Mr. POLLOCK asked his Lordship whether from the case, as stated on behalf of the prosecution, the charge of manslaughter could be sustained. His LORDSHIP said that mala fides must be shown, or such an amount of ignorance as implies mala fides. The question was, whether the prisoner had done his best, for if that was so the prisoner ought not to he tried for manslaughter. All great improvements had taken place in opposition to the old practitioners. And if people were liable to be tried tor acting contrary to the regular system, no one would attempt to make new discoveries in medicine. When a person had acted bona fide, a charge of manslaughter, according to the late case, cannot be supported. Verdict, Not Guilty.