the man he saw ride away on the deceased's horse, and the prisoner immediately pointed out Thomas Ockewell as being the person, insisted that it was so, and added, that while he was in the field near the place of the murder, he happened to hear a report of a pistol or gun, as he was but a little way from the spot; and that before he heard the report he heard a person say, "Hollo," and another, whom he considered to be on horseback, answer, "Hollo, won't you let me pass?" He then heard the report of the gun or pistol, and in two or three minutes afterwards he saw a man ride away, and turn off the road at a little distance down a lane; the man was dressed in a smock frock, and had a short gun or blunderbuss in his hand. In consequence of the suspicion thus excited against Thomas Ockewell, witness took him to Oxford, where he said he was at the time of the murder, and where, after inquiries were made, witness most satisfactorily ascertained that Ockewell was there at the time of the murder, and the magistrates accordingly discharged him. The magistrates at his examination asked the prisoner why he had not had the humanity to go back, after he had heard the report of the gun or pistol, and endeavour to assist the poor man, who he must suppose was wounded, or perhaps killed, from what he had stated to have heard pass, He said he was so frightened that he made the best of his way home.

James Kibblewhite, of Drunsdon, proved that on Friday evening, the 7th of May 1819, he met the person now present in Court, Thomas Ockewell, on the road towards Oxford,

near a bridge called Spargesbridge, at or near the city of Oxford. Wit ness had known the said Thomas Ockewell for ten years, and is quite sure he is the person he so met, and that the time he met him was about eight o'clock in the evening on the said 7th of May last.

Robert Hunt proved that he saw a pistol in the hands of the prisoner two or three days before the murder was committed: it appeared to be a large horse-pistol, similar to the one now produced.

James Smith proved his making a worm or screw to the ramrod of the pistol now produced, for Robert Watkins, on Wednesday the 5th of May last.

James Lansdown deposed to the seeing Edward Watkins on Wednesday morning, May the 12th, go to the garden of the prisoner's father, about half a mile from Wootton-Bassett, and get into a ditch there, where he remained 8 or 10 minutes, wher he got out of the ditch, and walked backwards and forwards; then go into the ditch again, and appeared to do something to the grass, as though he wished to hide something there. Witness informed the Mayor (Mr Harding) of what he had seen; whereupon they both went together to the spot, and there found the pistol now produced hid behind a bush under growing grass, and which appeared to have been pushed back over the pistol in order to hide it.

The prisoner being called on for his defence, said that he knew nothing about it, that he never had that five pound note in his possession, and that he never wrote those letters. Verdict-Guilty,-Death.

CHILD MURder.

Western Circuit.-Exeter, Friday, August 6.

THE KING V. FRANCES CLARK,

alias PUTTAVIN.

This case excited considerable interest, from the circumstance of the unfortunate criminal having been twice before indicted and tried for the same offence. On the first indictment she was acquitted, in consequence of the name of the child she was supposed to have murdered being stated to be George Clark, instead of George Lakeman, by which name it was proved to have been christened. The second indictment, stating the death to have been occasioned by the poison having descended into the stomach, was thought not to have been supported by the evidence of the professional men who were examined, and who stated that no part of the poison had so descended into the stomach, but that the inflammation it caused in the throat had, in fact, occasioned the death of the child by suffocation. The present indictment charged her with the murder, by compelling the infant, on the 4th of October 1817, to take a large quantity of oil of vitriol, by means whereof he became disordered in his mouth and throat, and, by the choking and suffocation occasioned thereby, died on the following day. A second count stated him to have died of a certain acid, called oil of vitriol, administered by the prisoner, and taken into his mouth and throat, whereby he became incapable of swallowing his food; and that his death was the

consequence of the inflammation, injury, and disorder occasioned there. by.

Upon the prisoner being arraigned, she pleaded, specially, her former acquittal. The Clerk of Assize demurred to the plea. The prisoner joined in the demurrer.

Mr Justice Best.-My own opi nion is, that the plea is bad; but as the two Judges at the former trial thought the evidence adduced not admissible under that indictment, I shall follow this course-I shall overrule the plea, and pronounce a judgment of respondant ouster. If she plead not guilty, she may have a writ of error to the Court of King's Bench, or otherwise I will submit a case for the opinion of the twelve Judges.

The prisoner then pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr Selwyn then opened the case on the part of the prosecution; but we have thought it unnecessary to report any thing but the evidence which was adduced, and which was as follows:

William Veysey was the first witness called. He stated, that he was a labourer at Buckfastleigh; that the prisoner lodged at his house in the month of October 1817, and had lodged there for sixteen weeks before the 24th of that month; that three weeks before the 24th, the prisoner was brought to bed of a boy, who the prisoner told him was to be called George Lakeman; but witness was not present at the christening. Witness has two rooms, one within the other: prisoner slept in the inside one; and there was no way to it without passing through his room, which was the outer one, where he was the whole day of the 24th, ill and in bed. Witness recollected the prisoner passing through

his room into her own, about two in the afternoon of the 24th, with her child. She staid a minute or two, and went down stairs without the child; but returned in a minute or two at farthest, when he heard her, a minute or so after her return, cry, "The child is dying." The child had not before been crying; it cried as if strangling. She repeated the child was dying. Prisoner went down again with her child and returned. The child was healthy.

Cross-examined by Mr Tonkin.Witness took no particular notice of the child on that day. Prisoner did not appear alarmed when she cried out the child was dying; when she ran down, she did not appear in great distress.

Sarah Maddick is in her twelfth year, and knows the nature of an oath. Witness lived with Susannah Veysey, the wife of the first witness, in October 1817. Prisoner lived there at the same time. It was a bout the time of Buckfastleigh fair. A little before the fair, prisoner desired her to go to R. Butcher's for a pennyworth of oil of vitriol. R. Butcher is a druggist. Prisoner gave her a penny and a bottle. Butcher gave her a pennyworth of oil of vitriol, which she gave to prisoner. Butcher told her to tell prisoner not to drink it, or it would kill her. Witness told that to prisoner, who said, "No, no." No, no." When witness brought prisoner the oil of vitriol, she was by the fire, down in the kitchen. Prisoner told witness not to tell Susannah Veysey that she had been for oil of vitriol. When she went to the shop, she told her to say it was for the people of the house, and said she would give witness a penny at Buckfastleigh fair, and when she had a child, and got to her mother's, would give her a habit shirt. This was six weeks before she was

brought to bed. Prisoner did not tell her why she was to have these things, only that she should have them.

Sarah Tapper is the daughter of the first witness, and lived with him in October 1817. Witness recollects seeing prisoner at 6 o'clock in the morning of that day, and again between ten and eleven: prisoner was by the fire suckling her child, and nothing was then the matter with the child. Witness was going to suckle her own child; her child was ill: witness told prisoner so: prisoner said, "I do not think mine is a long-lived child." Witness asked why she thought so, and said, your child is much more likely to live than mine was at three weeks old. Prisoner said she had a nice bosom of milk to go a wet-nursing, if her child should die; but added, if her child died, she would dry up her milk and go into the country. She said she was going to have her order next day, but did not think the child would live long for any order. Witness went to work, but returned about half past 12. Prisoner was then sitting in the same place. Witness asked prisoner why she had not dressed the child; to which she answered the child had been asleep all the forenoon. Witness saw prisoner about 2 o'clock the same day; she was in the kitchen with the child in her arms, in a dreadful way, crying the child was dying. Witness observed something on the child's mouth and nose. The child was very bad, the back part of its mouth and throat being all purple. Some liquor was running out of its mouth. It ran upon the whittle and apron, which were stained red. Witness asked if the child had bled. Prisoner said, "Yes." Then she saw her wipe the child's mouth with her apron, which was burnt by it, and turned the same colour as the whittle. The prisoner tried the child to suckle, and witness tried it too,

but it would not. The child never closed its lips after; it lived twentytwo hours. Witness was in prisoner's room two days after, on the 26th, with her little sister, who took a spoon out of her mother's box, where the prisoner kept her bundle. Witness took the spoon and wiped it, but the white fur would not come off. It was an iron spoon; the white was in the bowl of the spoon. Cross-examined. When prisoner in the afternoon said the child was dying; she was not crying herself, but the child was.

Susanna Veysey.-I am the wife of William Veysey. On Friday the 24th of October, I went down into the garden near the house, and on my return I heard a dreadful screeching, the screeching of the prisoner. I came in while she was screeching; she was kneeling in a chair, and had the child in her arms. She said the child was dying, upon which I said, how can the child be dying, since it was quite well when I parted from you. I asked her to give me the child, but she said she would not spare the child to any body. She ran up stairs with the child; I ran after her she ran half way up, and came down again; I took the child from her; some liquor was boiling upon the child's mouth with froth. The back part of the mouth was purple. There was something on the child's nose, which turned red, then white: there was a place on the cheek that seemed burnt with the liquor that ran from the mouth. I asked what she had done it for; and she said it was her mother's fault. I sent for the doctor. Prisoner staid in the house. The child's whittle seemed bloody; I put my finger to it, and put my finger to my tongue; it burned my tongue. I said, "What have you done to your child? You know that you have given it oil of

vitriol: where you had it I know not." Prisoner did not answer. The child was three weeks old; and up to that time, it was quite healthy. The child died the next day, about twelve o'clock. I know about oil of vitriol. I never had it in my house. I had used it when a young woman for the toothach; and it burnt all the teeth out of my head. I found a bottle in the fire the Tuesday after. The bottle on taking out broke, and the liquor was spilt on a stick which was in the fire: it burned the stick. I found vitriol in the bottle: I kept the bottle some time, and showed it to the constable, who had it a week in his possession. It was produced at the former trial, and then broken, being let fall.

Richard Butcher, a druggist at Buckfastleigh, corroborated the evidence of Sarah Maddick, and added, that the oil of vitriol she took away was sufficient to cause death.

Thomas Rowe.-I am a surgeon at Buckfastleigh; I was called to Veysey's house at a quarter after two, to see the child. It looked as if it had been strangled; the mouth was burnt and excoriated, and some white liquid ran from the lips. I remained twenty minutes, and attended again at half past seven. Next day the child was very bad, and convulsed all over. I impute the state of the child to the application of some acid. Oil of vitriol would produce the same appearance. I ascribe the death to suffocation from swelling of the throat. I have been twenty-six years a surgeon.

Cross-examined.-A person could not know oil of vitriol from any other corrosive acid by the taste. I myself could not; a chemist perhaps might. If oil of vitriol were applied to a person's mouth, I think suffocation is not the only mode by which it would operate. It would

dissolve the coats of the stomach; but it might operate both ways, and produce mortification, or such general inflammation as would cause death.

Nicholas Churchill.-I am a surgeon at Buck fastleigh, and was called to a child at the house of William Veysey, at four o'clock in the afternoon of the 24th of October, and found the child breathing with difficulty, and unable to swallow. The whole surface of the body was livid, and the surface of the mouth destroyed by strong mineral acid: from the appearance of the nose, I am convinced it was oil of vitriol. While the matter was fresh in my mind I tried oil of vitriol on my own finger, and the colour produced was exactly the same as that on the child. Oil of vitriol, if dropped on linen, would destroy the texture, and turn it brownish; the apron was checked blue and white, and was turned red. The die of the blue is indigo, and the natural effect of oil of vitriol would be to turn it red. I think a person might distinguish oil of vitriol from other acid. I think the child died from inflammation, causing swelling and suffocation, and that that was occasioned by application of a strong acid, which I believe to be oil of vitriol.

Cross-examined.-I did not open the body. If oil of vitriol were poured suddenly into the mouth, it is possible, but not probable, that it would find its way into the stomach. The throat would contract. If it got to the stomach, it would not so suddenly cause death as inflammation of the throat and suffocation would. It would excite vomiting. The child did not vomit, as far as I saw.

Prisoner put in a paper denying ker guilt. She alluded in it to her having brought up other children tenderly, complained of prejudices against her, and stated that on the

former trial three masters had sent up a good character of her.

Mr Justice Best observed, that a charge of murder must be considered as proved where the death is occasioned by the act of the prisoner, unless the evidence is sufficient to reduce it below that degree of crime. The only question here was not the degree of guilt, but whether the child died by the act of the prisoner. If the evidence now adduced could have been adduced under the former indictment, then she has once been tried, and cannot be tried again; but this is a question to be submitted to the twelve Judges. The question for the Jury was, did the poison, by the means stated, produce the death of the child? The learned Judge then commented ably on the evidence, and observed, that many circumstances of small import individually considered, when occurring together, acquired a cumulative force, which in many cases gave to circumstantial evidence a weight beyond that of almost any single positive testimony.

The Jury, after a pause of a few minutes, pronounced a verdict of Guilty. Objections were then taken to the indictment, which the learned Judge stated should form part of the case which he intended to submit for the opinion of the twelve Judges.

COINING.

Staffordshire Assizes.-Crown Side, August.

Joseph Wilkes, Thomas Earp alias Reddall, and John Duffield, stood indicted for having, at the parish of Darlaston, in the county of Stafford, feloniously and traitorously made