Star. — 1824-08-05 (London, England)

WORCESTER, AUGUST 3. Mary Hallpenny,the wife of a farmer at Bretton, in this county, was indicted for.the wilful murder of her servant, Mary Walton, who died on the 21st of March last, accomplished by giving her blows on the head; and throwing her upon the ground. She was also charged on the Coroner s inquisition with the same offence. She appeared at the bar with a very fine child in her arms, and was allowed a seat. She pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr. Cross stated the case for the prosecution. He represented the deceased as an orphan, who was of sickly constitution, and incapable of bearing any severe infliction. On Friday, the 20th of March, she was beaten by the prisoner for some alleged misconduct, and having fallen, was again beaten while on the ground ; and on the Saturday night she died. The prisoner attempted to hasten the funeral, and stated that her servant had died of an infectious fever. From the testimony of the surgeons, the Jury would hear whether her death could be attributed to the usage she had received from her mistress. If they thought a resulted from this cause, they would then decide, under the direction of the Learned Judge, whether the circumstances of the case amounted, to murder, or whether the prisoner was guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter only? Thomas Walton the brother, and Martha Jay the fellow-servant of the deceased, with several other witnes-es, were examined for the prosecution. Two surgeons'who wereexamined, stated, that taking the evidence as true, the death was not occasioned by the treatment the servant had received from her mistress ; and another witness deposed, that she had received a blow on the head by a windlass, which had fractured her skull.  Mr. Justice PARK charged the Jury, who returned a verdict of .vof Guilty; and the prisoner was discharged. Mary Brindle, was indicted for a misdemeanour, in exposing her infant child with intent to starve it, or do it some great bodily harm. Mr. RYAN opened the case for the prosecution, and characterized the offence of the prisoner as one of the deepest moral guilt. It appeared in evidence, that on the Bth of May last, the prisoner was delivered of a male child at a place called the Block-house, near Worcester. On the 13th bf July, she set out, at three o7clock in the morning,' from that place, with the child. At ten in the same morning, it was found deserted in a field near Brimsgrove, among some thrrns, by the side of a pit. The prisoner was then at Bromsgrove, in company with several soldiers, and was followed, and taken in ,he same society at Burton-upon-Trent, in Staffordshire, 54 miles from the spot where she had left her child, which was far from any house, and was not likely to be visited by any one who could preserve the infant from death. The prisoner, being called on for her defence, said she exposed the child to save her own life.  Mr. Justice Pear said the case had been justly represented as of an enormous nature; and he believed was without a parallel for a hundred years. There was an instance so long ago, in which a mother left her child in an orchard where it was devoured by a kite, and she was convicted and executed for its murder, as this woman must have been, had not the child been providentially saved. By leaving it in such a spot, she could intend nothing but its death, though that intent had been happily frustrated. If the Jury believed the witnesses, they could entertain no doubt of her guilt. The Jury immediately found the prisoner Guilty, and she received sentence to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two years in the House of Correction. She held the child in her arms during the trial.  CAMBRIDGE, AUGUST s.