Lancaster Standard and County Advertiser. — 1898-06-10 (Lancaster, Lancashire, England)

REMARKABLE CHARGE OF CHILD  111:RDER.  DISCHARGE OF THE ACCUSED.  On Tumday, al Settle. before Mr. W. Morrison, M.P., and other magistrates, Annie Tarn. 26, of Halton West, was chanted on remand with the murder of her illegitimate son, Ralph, aged six months. James Wllllam Scott, farm labourer, sou of the former prisoner's halt-simer, and Robert Taylor, ot the Plough Inn, Wigglestworth, were charged with being accessories alter the fact. The circumstances of the case, as given at the List hearing, were that the female prisoner, who wan formerly ID service at Wiggle.l.o.l.ol, went to stay with a Mrs. Emmett, at Keighley. in October. and mire birth to a male child on the 21st December. Mrs. Emmett was confined about the! same time, but her child died, and she then nursed the prtenner's baby as though it were her I own. On January 9th the prisoner went away,' leaving the child behind, but about the middle of • March she returned to Keighley and told Mrs. Eramott that she was going to take the child to "Aunt Maggie," who was going to meet her at Settle station. The prisoner left Keighley with the child, but it had not been seen since. On the 27th ult, the prisoner wrote to Mni. Emmott, and in consequence of the statements contained in tier letter she and the two male prisoners were arrested. When charged Tarn said. 'Well, Fro nowt to say; you know all the facts; you will find the body somewhere about the Plough Inn, if 'faylor has not destroyed it." Taylor stated that he hail nothing whatever to do with it, and Scott said, "I am not a murderer, but I know I have assisted her." _ .  Mr. G. M. Robinson, of Settle, appeared on behalf of the Treasury to prosecute. Mr. Withers, Blackburn, defend.' Taylor, and the female prn saner was defended by Mr... Hodgson. of Laorooter.. .  At the outset of the ors...slings Mr. Robinson gated that, notwithstanding a very diligent search, the police had not been able to find the body. Having regard to that fact, and having weighed very carefully indeed the evidence which the pollee had got together. he felt that the evidence would be insufficient to convince a jury that absolute and proper proof of the crime had been established, and he therefore proposed to offer no evidence.—lo this view the Crown authorities eoncurred, and under these circumstances it wan only fair to the prisoners that he Arnold ask the magistrates to discharge them. He wished to state. however, that the action of the police had been absolutely iwitified. He might have adopted another course and asked for a remand. but he did mot think such action would be fair to the prisoners. The prisoners were then discharged. Mr. A. Hotimmin. on behalf of Tarn, Mid lie should have submitted that there was no evidence whatever against his client. Mr. Withers drew attention to the fart that before the last court he had been refused an interview with his client Taylor except in the presenee of a police officer, lie thought also that tie. police might have pursued their investigations a little farther. instead of bringing his elent oat of bed. no they did. without a scintilla of evidence against him. Being told that it was the practice in that court that prisoners should not he allowed the privilege of Peeing their solicitor alone, he had written to the Home Secretary.' who hail forwarded him a copy of a circular named in February. lit 96, which stated that to require the interview to take place in the hearing of an officer Rog unnecessary in the interests of justice, and thcrefore undesirable.  The Chairman: I thought there wan a common law right by custom. Mr. Wither', And by fairness. too. fin behalf of the police Mr. Robinson replied that the matter had not been rushed. the police haring had it in hand for six weeks.