Bargoed Journal. — 1904-08-06 (Gelligaer, Mid Glamorgan, Wales)

GRANDMOTHER 'SITERRIBLEIACT AT SENGHENYDD.  .35F-1 Verdict and Sentence. At Glamorgan Assizes on Monday, (before Mr. Justice Wills), Margaret Evans, 45 years of age, described as a charwoman, was charged with feloniously wilfully, and of malice aforethought, killing and murdering a child, Mabel Evans, af Eglwysilan, on July sth. Mr. Lleufer Thomas Thomas prosecuted, and Mr St. John Francis Williams defended. Mr. Lleufer Thomas said the scene of the tragedy was Coomereial-street, in the small town of Senghenydd. In one house lived a man named John Evans and his wife and the murdered child. In another house in the same street lived the child's grandmother, the prisoner. Prisoner was usually a well-behaved person, but occasionally gave way to drink. On the Sunday before the Tuesday, the sth of July, the date of the alleged offence she did not appear to have had any drink. She went to her daughter-inlaw's house and had some tea, and she did not appear to have been drinking until the Tuesday. She was seen by Mrs. Evans in a semi-nude condition outside her own house that morning, and was persuaded to dress herself and come inside. She remained in Mrs. Evans's through the day, and was seen to be nursing the child about one o'clock. In the course of the evening her daughter-in-law, Mrs. Evans, went oat. The child was in the cradle and subsequently a little boy gave cries of alarm and Mrs. Evans rushed to the house, and saw the prisoner holding the baby over the fire. It was found to be terribly burnt. The neighbours and a doctor attended to the fearful injuries. It never rallied from the shock, and died next morniong. To a neighbour, Mary Jones, prisoner said, " I don't know what came over me to do it." She afterwards told another person that she took the baby out of the cradle, put it back, and then put it on the fire again, and added, " I am very sorry for doing it." To Mrs. Jones and to the. Police-sergeant she made statements which showed that she realized she had done something wrong, and expressed regret for it. It would be from these circumstances that the jury would be asked to draw the conclusion whether the prisoner at the time had sufficient command of her families to know that she had done wrong. The law assumed a person to be sane until proved insane. There were elements of some amount of design, if not of deliberation, on the. part of the prisoner in committing the offence.  His Lordship, in summing up, said the burden of proving the insanity of a prisoner rested with the defence. The jury should be careful before they accepted sueh a plea, as ft was only natural that an excuse should be searched for for such a terrible act. The defence had called no evidence on the point of sanity. Although drunkenness was no excuse for crime, yet if if a person was by drunkenness in such a state that he or she could form no intention of any kind, the prosecution , could not prove the necessary intent. Even if insanity was caused by prisoner's own excesses, it would justify a special verdict—that was if .it amounted to disease, and not a mere temporary derangement. If they found that the prisoner did not realize the nature of the act she was committing, then the verdict must be that she was insane it the time.