Northern Times. — 1857-12-09 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER.—Bridget Larkin, a middleaged, tidy looking female, stood indicted with having, on the 12th of November last, murdered her new-born male child, at Blackburn. She was also indicted for having concealed the birth of the same child. Thri evidence in this case went to prove, that on the day in question three little boys were playing by the side of a house near Blackburn. They saw something floating away, and thinking it was a great prize, they fished it out of the brook, and took it to a quarry, to see its contents, when, to their surprise, they found in it the body of a ma'e child. They immediately conveyed it to the police authorities, who took steps to find out its parent, and from the clothes in which it was wrapped, and a piece of iron that had been placed in the bundle, it was discovered that the prisoner was the parent of the child, and upon her being apprehended, she admitted the fact of having been delivered of the child, but denied that she had been the cause of its death, although she stated that after she had fr.und out that the father of the child would not marry her, she had crawled from her house, and had placed the body where it was found. he medical person who had been entrusted with making a pose niert,ni examination of the body, gave it as his opinitn that the child had been born alive, and that it had lived for eight or nine hours. He also spoke to certain marks on the child's neck, and froth all that he had seen, and the medical tests that he had applied, he believed that the child had died from strangulation. Mr. Tindal Atkinson, who had been instructed by his Lordship to defend the prisoner, then addressed the jury on her behalf, and in thing so appealed to their sympathy for the woman, who through the villiany of some scoundrel who had compassed her ruin and then had refused to marry her, and had thus brought her to the present painful position in which she was placed. Ho then argued that although the child might have been born alive, still it might have died from exhaustion, in consequence of her having no assistance in her time of trouble, and if so that wool: not be murder. His Lordshij in summing up Ihe evidence said, the prisoner was chargal with the wilful murder of the child, and if they were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt, that that'child had met with is death at the hands of the priserien there could be no doubt but that the offence would be fully proved. In this case, there were points in which there were no doubts. There was no doubt of the child being born, there was no doubt but that the child was dead; therefore, the only question that they would have to decide was, how did it come by its death? Having reviewed the evidence with great minuteness, he said that if they believed that the death of the child was caused by the prisoner's, wilful acts, they would find a verdict of wilful murder ; but if, on the other hand, they had a reasonable doubt on the subject, and believed that the child had died front exhaustion, then they would find a verdict of guilty of concealeig the birth of the child. The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of guilty of the minor offence, and his Lordship sentenced the pr:soner to two years' imprisonment.