The Pontypridd District Herald and Rhondda Valley, Llantrisant, Caerphilly, and Mountain Ash News. — 1893-03-11 (Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan, Wales)

THE LAMBETH TRAGEDY. • At the Central Crimint4 Court, London, on Tuesday before Mr. Justice Hawkins, Frederick James Chapman, ironmonger's assistant, was charged on an indictment with the wilful murder of his male child at 47, Vaasall-road, Brixton on January 22. Mr. Matthews, in opening the case, said it was one of an almost indescribably painful character, and if intense sympathy were to he felt for anyone it must be for the prisoner at the bar, who was a man of excellent character. At the time when he married his wife had been a widow with two children, and after living at various places they eventually took up their abode at Vassall-road, where they appeared to have lived on the most affectionate terms. In the month of December last the prisoner received a letter from his brother who was a sergeant-major and drill instructor in a Volunteer regiment at West Hartlepool, stating that his wife had left him, that his home was in danger of being broken up, and asking that Mrs. Chapman might be allowed to go there, and take charge of affairs until the difficulties were surmounted. The prisoner consented, and hie wife went to Hartlepool. While there the amused wrote to her, addressing her as "hi. darling wife," entreating her to do all she could for his brother, and concluding with the expression, "Good-bye, sweetheart. God bless you " He also wrote to his brother, addressing him as "Dear Al," and promising to do everything he possibly could for him. Notwithstanding all this (proceeded the learned counsel), it came to the knowledge of the accused that his wife and his brother had carried on a guilty intercourse while at Hartlepool. The result was that when Mrs. Chapman name back and gave birth to a child—she having been enoeinte when she went to Hartlepool--it was discovered that the infant was suffering from an infectious complaint, which the accused himself had also contracted after the woman returned. One could imagine the state of mind in which the prisoner was when he heard his wife's confession—for she had confessed—and it was while thus distressed that he took the child, a few days after birth, and drowned it in a pail of water. In the course of a statement which he made at the police-station, he declared that the child suffered from a disease, and that he feared if it lived it would be a lasting disgrace to both him and his wife. In conclusion, the learned counsel said that before wilful murder could be established there must be the intention to destroy life, but he submitted to the jury, with the indulgence of his lordship, that such was the prisoner's grief such his wrath and indignation, that he could not reasonably be convicted of wilful murder, and that the crime should be reduced to manslaughter. There was some applause in court when the learned counsel sat down.  Mr. Thompson acknowledged the charitableness of Mr. Matthew's speech, which did credit to him, as 1111011211Ment of the Bar. He (Mr. Thompson) was quite prepared to accept a plea, on prisoner's behalf, of guilty of manslaughter. The Judge remarked it rested with the jury to say whether they would agree with this course. Personally he thought the case was one of the very saddest ever unfolded before a criminal court.  The jury at once returned a verdict of manslaughter, accompanied by a strong reaommendation to mercy. . . . .  Mr. Thompson having addressed the Court in mitigation ef punishment, and read a statement prepared by the prisoner. His lordship said he would like time to consider how far he could carry out the recommendation of the jury, as it had his entire sympathy. He would pronounce sentence on a later day.