The Express. — 1852-01-12 (London, England)

SARAH ANN HILL. This woman Lad for some time past been suspected of being pregnant, but had constantly denied the fact. A surgeon indeed had charged her with it, but it does not appear that he was examined on oath. She had been residing up to the 19th of October with a family named GILL, with whom she generally stayed when she was out of place. She signified to them, on the e__ver22• g to a situation she had obtained at Dews...of the day in question, her intention of ru;',7); the early train the next morning. At about five o'clock she stopped at the Glue door, bidding them good bye, and requesting them to send her things after her. It was found afterwards that she had missed the train, that she arrived, however, at her situation at Dewsbury on that day, had proceeded about her work as usual, and continued in the performance of her duties until the 2nd of November, when she was arrested on suspicion of child murder. The grounds of suspicion were tho following :—At about half-past 5 on the morning of the 20th, a woman had applied at the Wakefield station for a ticket for Dewsbury; the train, however, had started a few minutes before. After she had gone, a man who was extinguishing the lights in the office found a hat-box, upon opening ho saw contained the dead bar at a child. A neighbour of the GILLS had seea Cie phone at about ono o'clock in the modem mem Ouzli• yard, coming in the direction Ikea a plies where afterwards some clothes were Mad stained with blood. This is positively the whaled the circumstantial evidence against the women. If the force of this is supposed to be strengthened b 7 some declarations made by her after steisidttile—and which seemed dictated by despair' ad Y umettiod state of mind,—it appears to us tent the cast:odictory nature of these amedefte wee salkdeat to remove them out of the sphere of the oeselisation of the jury. It is to be noted that it visional that the hat-box did not barn ee the weses--that young GILL, who left the home abed the ease time as the accused, did not see her envying a hatbox—that the clothes could not be idimaillisti se belonging to her. In addition to this, there is the evident improbability of a woman, after sabring the pangs of delivery, being able to walk six miles,—to undergo the hard labour required of a servant,—and to continue at work for a fortnight. Yet this girl Hitt is found Guilty, ordered to be hanged, and having—only the day before her execution—been respited for a week, will yet be publie'y strangled unless the authorities can bo induced to spare her life. It is not our business here to quarrel with the docimien of the jury in either of the three cases we have quoted. Whatever may be o ur opinion as to the strength of the evidence against the former of the women, or  the want of evidence against the latter, we mot remember that no two minds take exactly the tame view of the same statement of foots. AU that we wish to point out at the present momeat is the utter impossibility of laying down any rule to enable as to infer a eon/tent connexion between the evidence laid before juries and the verdict they return. It appears to us mist certain that the jury which acquitted Fitaxer.s Coma, after a short consultation, ought to have acquitted SARAII ANN HILL without any consultation at all. At the same time, we are surprised to find that, while a jury can be found which pronounces the latter guilty of murder, another should be found affixing the verdict of manslaughter to deeds like those of Tiwitts