The Sun. — 1859-12-12 (London, England)

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—NORTHAMPTON, DEC 9. Martha Ann Lewis stood charged with having, at the parish of Finedon, on the 17th of August last, killed and murdered Ernest Wallington Lewis ; and further, with having at the same place and on the same day killed and murdered Lizzy Winifred May Lewis. She was also charged with both offences on the coroner's inquisition, and to each charge pleaded not guilty. Mr. Maunsell conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner was defended by Mr. O'Brien. The facts proved in support of both indictments were the same. It appeared, on the opening statement of Mr. Maunsell and the evidence adduced in support of the charges, that the prisoner was the mother of the two deceased children named in the indictment, the boy being two years and eight months old, and the girl a baby of four or five months old. On the 17th of August, about 6 o'clock in the evening, Warren Chapman, who worked with Joseph,Wallington, the prisoner's brother, on returning home went, in consequence of something he had heard. to look for the prisoner. On reaching a pond of Mr. Mackworth Dolben's, he observed an apron with a pair of scissors tied to it lying under a tree upon the bank. and in the pond the body of the boy Ernest W. Lewis, which he took out and found was lifeless. A man named Desborough coming by about the same time drew out the body of the !baby, which was also in the pond. Ephraim Lewis, the prisoner's father-in-law, on going down towards the pond, met the parish constable Parker carrying the dead body of the boy towards Finedon, and went on towards the cottage, of Miss Dolben, about 200 yards distant from the pond, where he found the prisoner seated on the grass under some trees behind the cottage garden, with her head bent down and her arms resting on her lap. On being asked where her baby was she replied. " They are both in the water ; I threw them in." Before the bodies of the children were found the prisoner's brother, who had gone to look for her, had found her at the place already •mentioned gazing towards the pond where search was being made. He asked her where the children were ; she answered " Lower down," and sat still, Exemilig dull and dejected. She was led to the cottage of a Mrs. Archer, where she remained some time in a state of unconsciousness.  It was elicited, in cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution, that up to within 12 months of the day in question she had been of a calm, cheerful, and *happy disposition, but at that time a melancholy had come upon her, which had increased after the birth of her baby. She had left home without any apparent cause, as she had no quarrel with her husband, whom she said she loved. She had on one occasion, it appeared, attempted selfdestruction, and on another occasion, when found by her brother in a lane to which she had wandered, the dejection in which he found her induced him to remonstrate with her and dissuade her from attempting suicide. Mr. O'Brien addressed the jury for the defence, which he said the opening of the learned counsel for the prosecution must eady have led the jury to anticipate was that the prisoner, who it was proved had been a careful, fond, affectionate mother until that sad change of which they had heard had clouded her mind, was not at the time when her children met their deaths by her hand in such a state of mind as to be responsible for her actions.  No motive for the act was suggested on the part of the prosecution. A number of witnesses were called who corroborated the evidence of insanity already given, among whom were the surgeon of the gaol and the surgeon of the Northamptonshire Lunatic Asylum, in whose ,care the prisoner had been under a warrant from the Home Secretary. Both gentlemen gave their opinion in the most decided manner that the prisoner was not, on the day in question, in a state of mind to be accountable for her conduct.  The learned Judge having summed up the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on the ground of insanity. A like verdict was returned upon the second indictment, and no evidence being offered on the coroner's inquisitions, a verdict of Not Guilty was taken upon those charges. The prisoner was ordered to be detained until her Majesty's pleasure should be known. John Byrne pleaded Not Guilty to a charge of wounding William Gent with intent to murder, and with minor intents.  Mr. Merewether conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Cockle defended the prisoner. It appeared from the evidence that about a quarter past 12 a.m., on the lath of October, John Byrne, son of the prisoner, had gut into a conflict in Brookstreet, Daventry, and that the prisoner went to his assistance with a knife. A man named Marriott remonstrated with him, upon which the prisoner struck at him and afterwards at Gent, who was in the crowd near to prisoner's son, and wounded him in two places a little above and below the region of the heart.  Mr. Cockle addressed the j ury for the prisoner, and  The Judge having summed up the evidence, the jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.—Sentenced to 18 calendar months' imprisonment, with hard labour. John Sewell, a boy nine years of age, pleaded guilty to a charge of setting fire to a stac of straw, the property of iis master, at Clipston, on the 25th of July; and William Brown and Charles West to the charge of setting fire to a hovel, the property of Richard Scrivener of Cosgrove, on the 'l6th of August.  The-boy Sewell was sentenced to two months' imprisonment and to be twice whipped, and Brown and West, both full-grown men, each to four years' penal servitude. The Court rose at eight o'clock.