The Times 1851 - 1860 Feb 26 1856 Carlisle Assizes (part 1)

Feb 26 1856 Carlisle Assizes (part 1)

The Times - 1851 - 1860

SPRING ASSIZES. NORTHERN CIRCUIT. CARLISLE, FEB 26. CROWN COURT. -- (Before Mr. Baron MARTIN.) Jane NATTRASS, a farm servant, aged 29, was indicted for the manslaughter, and, on the coroner's inquisition, with the wilful murder of her newly-born male child at Lanercost, on the 26th August last. Mr. MONK and Mr. M'OUBREY prosecuted, and Mr. Campbell FOSTER defended the prisoner. It appeared from the evidence of a witness named Elizabeth HIND that she and the prisoner lived neighbours under one roof, at the village of Lanercost, in this county, and that they were in the habit of going out together to work in husbandry. The prisoner's father and a little boy lived in the house with her, but the father was frequently from home. The witness and her husband and three children, the eldest of whom was seven years of age, lived in the adjoining house. On the 26th of August last Elizabeth HIND knocked at the prisoner's door in the morning, as she was going to work, to ask if she would go with her. The prisoner said she was poorly, and could not get up, but that she perhaps might be able to go to work in the afternoon. At dinner time Elizabeth HIND again knocked at the door of the prisoner's house. She was alone with her little boy, four years old, her father being from home. HIND asked how she was, and she still complained that she could not get up - that she was sick. Mrs. HIND offered to do anything for her, but she declined assistance. Mrs. HIND again went to work, and did not return till 9 o'clock at night, when she was met by her own children, who told her that Jane (the prisoner) was dying - that she had been screaming out. She immediately went to the prisoner's door, which still remained locked, and asked her how she felt. She replied that she was very poorly. Mrs. HIND and other neighbour women then went to the window, and asked if they should get anything for her or for her little boy, but she still declined, and said they had enough in the house till morning. Half an hour afterwards the prisoner opened the door and called Mrs. HIND, who, on entering her room, found the fire lighted and the prisoner seated, undressed, at the edge of the bed. Seeing marks on the floor, Mrs. HIND asked what was amiss, when the prisoner said it was all over and she must make the best of it. Mrs. HIND then saw a petticoat under the bed-clothes stained with blood, and on looking at it found a newly-born child, still warm, folded in the petticoat and under the bed-clothes. On questioning the prisoner about it, the prisoner said the child had been born about 5 o'clock, that she had tried to rise and dress it, but fainted. She had tried to give it some nourishment, but had fainted and could not, that the child had cried, and she thought she had heard it "ruttle" a short time before. The petticoat in which it was folded had been placed under her, and she had folded it over the child, as she could not raise it. This evidence was confirmed by other witnesses, neighbour women who went into the prisoner's house. She had never said she was in the familyway, and, except for the clothes which she had for her last child, had provided no clothes for her baby. She also said that the child was born before its time. Mr. GRAHAM, a surgeon in the neighbourhood, who had examined the child and made a post mortem examination of it, stated that he found no external marks of violence upon it whatever, and that in his judgment the child had died of suffocation, which might have been caused by the wet petticoat folded over it. On cross-examination he stated that the child might have been suffocated by lying simply on its face. A woman might be so debilitated by a severe labour as to be wholly unable of herself to assist her child. Such a labour would also debilitate the child, and render it less able to make any instinctive attempts to breathe and save itself from suffocation from any covering pressing on its mouth. Very little would suffocate a child under such circumstances. For the defence it was urged that the prisoner, supposing her statement to be true, - and there was no other evidence as to her condition after the birth of the child until Mrs. HIND's arrival, at half-past 9 o'clock, - had done all in her power to preserve the life of the child. She was alone and without assistance, and her screams, heard by the children, had testified to the suffering she had endured. It might well be that she had fainted, as she had said she had done, and that the child had then died under the bed-clothes from suffocation and want of attention. If so, it was not in her power to do anything more than had been done to preserve the life of her child. She had called assistance as soon as it was obtainable. His Lordship having summed up the evidence, directing the jury that they might, if they thought the circumstances warranted it, find the prisoner guilty of concealing the birth of the child, if they should not be of opinion that she had caused its death either wilfully, in which case it would be murder, or negligently, by not taking proper care to preserve its life, which would be manslaughter. The jury found the prisoner Guilty of concealment of birth. His Lordship, in passing sentence, said, taking into consideration that she had been in custody on this charge about six months, and the suffering and shame she had already undergone, he should sentence her to be imprisoned one week.

 

< Prev		Next >