The Sun. — 1860-11-28 (London, England)

OLD COURT.  ALLEGED CHILD MURDER AT HOMERTON. Emma Padfield was indicted for the wilful murder of her infant, Augustus Padfield. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Best, of the Oxford Circuit.  From the lengthened reports that have already appeared in The Sun, during the time the prisoner was under *mini nation at the Worship-street Police-court, it is unnecessary on the present occasion to give more than en outline of the facts to refresh the memories of our readers.  It will be recollected that the prisoner was a domestio servant, and hasi for some time lodged in the house of a labouring man, named Mead, at Lea Bridge, Bow. For some time she had a child with her a boy, about three months olds; that about 12 o'clock on Monday, August 27, the prisoner left the house, taking the child with her, which was then in a sound healthy state, and did not return home till about the same time that night, after Mead and his wife had gone to bed, when she was admitted by Mead, who saw that she was without the little boy, and to whom she accounted for the child's absence by stating that her sister had taken it with her into Somersetahire. On the following day prisoner left, asserting that she had got a situation, and was going to it. Nothing more occurred about her or the child till 11 o'clock on Wednesday, when Mrs. Mead happened to look into the cesspool of her house, and to her astonishment perceived the body of a child lying on its back, with the legs uppermost. She despatched a messenger for her husband, who procured a constable ; and upon the body being extricated, it was found to be nearly black, the left arm missing having apparently been chopped off near the shoulder. The infant was conveyed to the station, while the cesspool was emptied, but the limb mentioned could not be discovered.  On the discovery of the body the police instituted inquiries relative to the prisoner, and found that she had gone to live at Notting-hill, and on proceeding thither, Inspector Bowler called at a house in Lansdowne-road, and there prisoner opened the door to him. On being asked if her name was Padfield, she said it was not, but that it was Bride. The inspector informed her that he knew her name was Padfield, and told her that he must see her in the presence of her master and mistress. She  took the constable to them, and in their presence he told her he was a police officer, and had come to appre hend her on a charge of killing her child. She said she knew nothing about it, but admitted she had given birth to a child at Lea-bridge about the month of June. On being asked what had become of that child, she said the friends of the young man who was the father had taken it away to keep. She was then informed of the finding of the body, as above mentioned. She said, " I've been in great distress and wanted bread, but indeed I did not do it myself." Her box was then taken possession of, in which there was a considerable quantity of apparel and other things, including a quantity of baby-linen, several letters, etc. In her master's kitchen prisoner said to the officer, " If you take me into custody all will come out—l'll let it all out. The father has behaved cruelly to me in not supporting it." On the body of the child being examined by Dr. Gay, senior surgeon of the Great Northern Hospital, he gave it as his opinion that the child did not die of any natural disease, but of suffocation. Referring to the amputation of the left arm, he said it had been taken off about an inch below the joint; an attempt had been made to take it off by the shoulder, but had failed, and it appeared afterwards to have been separated from the body by fracture of the bone. The skin appeared to have been cut with a tolerably sharp instrument, though the edges were jagged. He thought the suffocation might have been , produced by drowning. Mr. Best having addressed the jury for the defence, The learned judge summed up the evidence. The ury had not returned a verdict when we went to press.