The Sun. — 1864-07-18 (London, England)

CHARGE OF MURDER. Emma Howard alias Emma Pudney, 23, a wretchedlooking young woman, was indicted for the wilful murder of her child, George Isaac Howard, otherwise Padney. Mr Walford and Mr Philbrick prosecuted, and the prisoner was defended by Mr Peirce and Mr E. T, Smith. The facts of this case were very simple, and the ev,.dence for the prosecution left no doubt that the prisoner hail not only committed the act imputed to her, but had also attempted to destroy the life of another infant; but at the same time it also established the fact that the prisoner was in such a state of mind at the time as not to be criminally responsible for her actions. It appeared that she lived with her mother at Halstead, and that she had two illegitimate children, the one that lost its life, who was about a year and a half old, and another about four years old. She got her living by silk weaving, but it appeared that at the time the offence was committed the prisoner was in a most miserable state of poverty, and this had, no doubt, affected her mind, and, coupled with her mental condition in other respects, drove her to the commission of the aet with which she was charged. It seemed that on the afternoon of the 28th of March the prisoner left her mother's house with her two children, stating that she could not support them, and that it was her intention to go to the union and ask for some assistance. In about an hour she returned without the children, and when she was asked what had become of them, she replied that she hoped they wero in heaven. A police constable who happened to be accidentally passing the river Colne, towards which the prisoner had been seen walking with her children in the afternoon in question, heard a child's voice cry out, " I shall fall I I shall fall I" and on going to the spot he saw the eldest child hanging by both hands from the branch of a tree and up to its neck in water, and the younger thild floating in the water and apparently dead. He -rescued the first-mentioned child, and then got the second out of the water, but it was quite dead. The constable afterwards went to the house of the prisoner's mother and found her there, and asked her if it was true what he had heard respecting her children, and she replied that it was, and she then said that she would go anywhere with him, but that she wished first to see her dear children. She then said that she first threw the younger child into the water, and that she held the other child to look at him while he was struggling in the river, and then threw him in, and he turned his face to her and called out "Mother, mother I" and she went away. The prisoner did not seem to have attempted to conceal what she had done, and, according to the evidence of her mother, she had been for a considerable period before the occurrence in a low and desponding state, and that fears were entertained that she would do violence to herself, and that since the birth of her last child she had frequently complained of her head, and it appeared that several members of her family had been confined in a lunatic asylum. The statement was confirmed by the testimony of a medical gentleman named Sinclair, who had attended the prisoner, and who stated that she had on several occasions exhibited indications of hor brain being affected. The jury, without troubling Mr Peirce to address them, returned a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity, and the prisoner was ordered to be detained during her Majesty's pleasure. The wretched creature was removed from the bar shrieking, and calling out " Oh my dear children ! oh my dear children I " This concluded the business of the assizes.