Sarah Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper Articles

Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 10 Jun 1863
Page 5 Column 4 & 5

CASE OF SUPPOSED CHILD MURDER.

On Wednesday evening last as some persons were walking by the side of the river in the Priory Fields their attention was attracted to an object, having the appearance of a bundle in the water. On its being brought to the shore, it was found to contain the dead body of an infant male child. Information was given to the police, who took charge of the body. On Thursday morning an inquest was held at the Sun Inn, Firepool, when the evidence given below was adduced.

Job MOUNTSTEPHENS, of Bridge-street, said that on the previous evening as he was walking by the side of the river towards Firepool Weir, a man named WILLEY, directed his attention to something in the water, about ten yards from the end of the pavement. He left several persons in the care of it, and returned in a short time with two policemen. The body had then been taken out, and removed to an out-house near that place. It was wrapped up in a piece of flannel, and a brick attached to it.

Joseph VIRGIN, of North-town, stated that between five and six o'clock on Wednesday evening, having had information that a child had been found in the water at Firepool, he went to the spot. He saw the body of an infant in the water, and he took it out with his net. It was about fifteen yards below the pavement, and about four feet from the bank. He took it out. It was wrapped up, and a brick was tied to it.

Mr C. H. CORNISH, surgeon, said: Last evening about half-past seven o'clock, I saw the infant child which the jury have just viewed. It was very tightly wrapped up in flannel, the only parts exposed being the knees and part of the legs. The flannel was secured by a tape, and about three parts of a brick was attached to it, enclosed in a pocket as usually worn by females. On examining the child, no external injury appeared. It was much decomposed and swollen, and must have been in the water ten days or a fortnight. I can't tell the cause of death without a further examination. From the examination I made of it I should say it was teething, and if so, it must have been 3 or 4 months old.

The Coroner said that this was all the evidence which the police had yet been able to produce, but as Mr CORNISH had stated that it was impossible to tell the cause of death without a post mortem examination, and as the evidence led no other conclusion than that the child was put in the water with the intention of destroying it, he should under the circumstances feel it his duty to adjourn the inquest, to give Mr CORNISH time to make his report, to afford an opportunity to the police to make further enquiries as to who placed it there. The inquest stood adjourned till Tuesday next.

APPREHENSION OF THE SUPPOSED MOTHER, AND EXAMINATION BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES.

Mary GREGORY, a respectable young woman, of Rockwell Green, Wellington, and formerly a servant at Norman MACDONALD's, Esq., in this town, was brought before the Magistrates on Saturday, on a charge of wilfully murdering her infant male child. The case excited great interest, and the court was densely crowded with curious listeners, and in the approaches and neighbourhood of the court there were hundreds of persons waiting to see the prisoner conveyed to the station. The prisoner seemed thoroughly to realise her position, and her mother and sister who were present appeared to feel acutely.

The prisoner was asked by the bench if she desired anyone to appear for her. She replied that she did not.

Joseph VIRGIN was the first witness called. His evidence was similar to that given at the inquest reported above.

Mr C. H. CORNISH repeated his evidence as given at the inquest.

Mr NEWTON: Will you describe a little more fully how the pocket was attached. Was the same tape used for the purpose as was used to tie around the flannel? - Witness I cannot state positively. The tape went round and round the body and behind there were two or three ends which were tied, and a large pin was attached to the pocket and tape and assisting to unite them together. The brick was not entire; it was about four fifths of one. It was painted on one side.

Mr PINCHARD: Can you form any idea as to the time the child had been in the water? - I should think from eight to ten days, or it may have been a fortnight. I observed on Wednesday that it was the body of a newly born child. On Thursday I made a post mortem examination of the body. I found the stomach empty, the lungs highly congested with very little air in them, and the heart and bladder empty. There was a clot of blood on the crown of the head under the skull cap. The brain was in too great a state of decomposition to enable me to make an examination of it.

Mr PINCHARD: Will you explain more fully where the clot of blood was? - It was on the dura mater. I could not see from the state of decomposition in which the body was whither there was any mark corresponding with the clot of blood.

Can you form any opinion as to the cause of death? - I believe the cause of death was suffocation, or asphyxia as it is called, occasioned either by pressure of the flannel on the mouth or by drowning.

When you say that the whole of the body was envelloped in flannel do you mean the head also? - Yes. The head particularly was tightly wrapped up there being two folds of flannel around it. From my examination I should think the child was from a month to five weeks old. P.C. MOORE was present at the examination, and I handed to him the flannel, the tape, the pocket, and the brick.

William MOORE said: I am an officer of the Somerset County Constabulary. I was present when Mr CORNISH examined the body of the child. On Thursday the examination took place in the shed belonging to a man named BARTLETT at Firepool. Mr CORNISH, after the examination, handed me a piece of flannel, a pocket with a brick in it, and several pieces of tape. I took the articles to the Station and washed them, with the assistance of acting sergeant FREEMANTLE. I handed them to Mr. GOLDSMITH, on the evening of the same day.

John GOLDSMITH: I am Superintendent of Police. I produced the articles which I received from constable MOORE, namely a piece of common house flannel, several pieces of common tape, and some pieces of cotton strings, a pocket apparently of a woman's dress, and a brick. These are the articles which I received from MOORE on Thursday last. I was present when they were washed. I have had them in my custody ever since. I was pursuing my enquiries yesterday, and in the afternoon about four o'clock I met the prisoner in High-street. She crossed from the opposite side of the street towards me apparently to meet me, and walked in front of me. I overtook her and asked her if her was Mary GREGORY. She said “Yes, I have been to your house to look for you.” I said, “Why have you been looking for me?” She said “You sent a policeman to make enquiries after me to Mrs WILLAWAY's and I can't rest.” I said “Have you had a child lately?” She said, “Yes.” I said, “Where is it?” She said, “I will tell you, sir, when I get to your house.” No more passed till I got to my office. When we got in the office she sat down and was going to make a statement, and I then said to her “You had better be careful what you say, I will now tell you that I charge you with the wilful murder of your male child by drowning the same in the river Tone on Whitsunday night.” She was crying bitterly and exclaimed two or three times: “Oh dear, oh dear, what shall I do!” at one of the exclamations, she said, “My child's dead.” She said nothing more then. She was removed from the office after being searched, into what is called the guard-room. In consequence of an application through a constable, I took her some notepaper and an envelope. She then asked me if I was going to Wellington, to search her mother's house. I said, I was, and she said, “Will you take a note for me?” She wrote a note in my presence, directed an envelope, and handed it to me as it is now, unsealed, and required me to hand it to her mother. She added “I hope you will break it to her as easy as you can, as I am afraid it will be her death. I don't care what they could do to me, if it were not for my poor mother.” I went on to Wellington and delivered the note by reading it to her mother and father. I searched the house with the mother, and found this dress in a bedroom there, from which a pocket was torn out. I brought the dress to Taunton last evening into the room where the prisoner was, and put it on the table immediately opposite where she sat. She took the dress in her hand and said, “That dress in mine, it is the one I wore.” This morning I have compared the pocket with the dress. I find they correspond. The pocket fits the dress where torn off.

Sarah OATEN: I live at Lyngford, in the parish of Taunton St. James. I am wife of Samuel OATEN. I know the prisoner. She had lodged with me. She came to me on Tuesday before the 11th May and asked if it was convenient for her to stop at my house a few days or a week. I consented and the prisoner came. She was confined on the 11th May of a boy. She remained till Whitsunday on which day she left between 8 and 9 in the evening. On the previous day she said she intended to go by the nine o'clock train to Wellington. She took the baby with her. The child was then alive in good health. Prisoner wore a merino dress such as that produced by Mr GOLDSMITH. The next morning (Whitmonday) prisoner came again to my house between eight and nine o'clock. I asked how she was and she replied she was tired. I asked how the child was, and she said it was pretty well, and that it was home with her sister. She brought back a shawl which had been lent to her, and a cloth. The Friday before she left my house, leaving the child with me, and on her return, after an absence of about three hours, she said she had seen Mr WHITWHAM and had registered the child.

Elizabeth POWELL: I am the wife of William POWELL, and reside at Rockwell Green, in the parish of Wellington. The prisoner is my sister. I have no other sister. She did not on Whitsunday, or at any other time, bring a child to me. I never saw her child, and was not aware that she had one till yesterday, when Mr GOLDSMITH told me.

Mr GOLDSMITH said this was all the evidence he was prepared with, and asked for a remand.

The prisoner was then remanded for a week.

The Magistrates informed the prisoner that if she desired to consult any legal adviser the prison authorities would permit her to do so.

THE ADJOURNED INQUEST.

VERDICT OF WILFUL MURDER.

The adjourned inquest was held on Tuesday afternoon, at the Railway Hotel.

The first witness examined was Mr C. H. CORNISH, surgeon, whose evidence respecting the post mortem examination was similar to that given before the magistrates on Saturday last.

P.C. MOORE was next called: He deposed to his being present at the post mortem examination, and receiving the flannel, pocket, brick, tape, &c., from Mr CORNISH, and handing them over to Mr GOLDSMITH.

Mr GOLDSMITH repeated his evidence as given on Saturday.

Mrs OATEN, at whose house Mary GREGORY was confined, in addition to her previous evidence, said that she proposed to take charge of the child but GREGORY said she did not what her to do so as she should take it to her sisters' at Wellington. On Whit Monday when GREGORY came back she packed up her things, and about twelve o'clock they went to the railway station, where witness left her. Mary GREGORY, on Whitsunday night wore a dress similar to that produced by Mr GOLDSMITH. She had worn the same dress previously. The piece of flannel produced by Mr GOLDSMITH was similar to a piece she had given to GREGORY for the infant.

By the Foreman: When Mary GREGORY came to my house she had no clothes prepared, but she had things to make them.

By Mr GOLDSMITH: The things produced appear to be the strings of the baby's night dress. Mary GREGORY lived Mr MACDONALD's as cook until a week of her confinement. She left her place on the Monday, and came to her on the Tuesday. Witness washed at Mr MACDONALDS' and that was how she became acquainted with her.

Elizabeth WYATT was next examined, she said: I am a midwife, and live in Foundary-row, St James's. I know Mary GREGORY, I attended her in her confinement at OATEN's house. I told her I could not come to her every morning to attend to her as I usually did as it was so far off; but that I would call again in two or three days. I also said “ You have got a fine boy, mind you take care of it.” She said she would. On the following Thursday I saw her again. I said to her. “You must have this child registered before it is six weeks old, or you will be fined. Shall I send Mr WHITWHAM out?” She said, “Don't tell him, for I will come to your house as soon as I am able.” I said I would show her where he lived. I never saw her afterwards. During my attendance on her I said that she had had a child before, but she made me no reply.

Elizabeth POWELL after giving his former evidence, said her sister had been living at Mr MACDONALD's for two years past, except for a month when she was home ill.

Arabella MARKS said: I am wife of Thomas MARKS, a grocer, residing in Bridge-street. I know Mary GREGORY. She lived as cook at Mr MACDONALD's. She was in the habit of coming to my house occasionally. She left Mr MACDONALD's service on the 4th May. The next day she told me she was going to stay at Mrs OATEN's. She left her luggage at my house. On Friday the 22nd, she called at my house about eleven or twelve o'clock, and told me she was going to Mr WOOLAWAY's about a situation I told her I heard she had had a baby, and she said, “How can people say such things? I don't know what sort of people there are in the world, to rise such reports.” I have not seen her since.

Francis Drake Sainsbury WHITSHAM: I live in Harmony-row. I am registrar of births and deaths for the district of Taunton St James. Samuel OATEN's house at Lyngford, is in my district. On Friday before Whit-Sunday, no one from that house called to register a child. No one calling herself Mary GREGORY has registered a birth of a child within the last month. One day last week, knowing there had been a birth in the house, I called at the house to register it, but found the mother had left.

Harriet WOOLAWAY: I am wife of Wm. WOOLAWAY, and live in Church-square. I knew Mary GREGORY. She was stopping at my house from Wednesday to Friday. On the latter day a police constable came to my house, and in the kitchen asked if Mary GREGORY was there. Soon after the policeman left, Mary GREGORY came from a side door into the kitchen. She was in great distress of mind, and wrung her hands and said, “What am I to do?” I said “You must not stay here, the policeman has been her to enquire for you.” I told her “The best thing you can do is to give yourself up to Mr GOLDSMITH.” I said to her “What ever have you done?” and she exclaimed “I have had a baby, I have done it – I have done it myself.” She continued wringing her hands, and I said “Have you destroyed it?” She repeated the words “I have done it, I have done it.” I saw Mrs REDWOOD, Mary GREGORY's mother, on Saturday.

Mr GOLDSMITH: What conversation passed? I cant recollect. They were crying most of the time. I told Mrs REDWOOD what Mary had told me.

Was any gentleman's name mentioned? - I cant recollect.

A Juror: Did anything pass as to who was the father of the child?

The Coroner: That is not material to the present enquiry. If it should implicate any other party it would be right to put it.

Charles BARTLETT said he saw the child taken out of the water. He took it to his outhouse, and it was not touched till it was seen by Mr CORNISH.

This being all the evidence, the Coroner remarked that the enquiry before him was very different to that before the Justices of the Peace, the one being simply to ascertain the cause of death of persons found dead under peculiar circumstances, the other to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to commit for trail any person brought before them. Having read over the evidence relating to the discovery of the child, and the post mortem examination, he said that asphyxia might be caused either by smothering, drowning, or hanging; but by hanging in this case it could not be, because there were no marks of violence about the neck. If death was caused by its being smothered by the flannel, or by drowning, it would be their duty to find a verdict of wilful murder. In the next place the jury would have to consider by whom death was caused. He then referred to the evidence affecting Mary GREGORY, remarking that great credit was due to Mr GOLDSMITH for the pains he had taken in finding out the history of this child and left it to the jury to say whether the evidence was sufficient to lead them to the conclusion that death was occasioned by Mary GREGORY.

The jury after a short deliberation returned a verdict of WILFUL MURDER.

Back to Miscellaneous Page

Back to Home Page

<NOTES: Sarah OATEN is Sarah FACEY daughter of Mr FACEY and Mary, wife of Samuel OATEN
Samuel OATEN son of Thomas OATEN and Hannah NEWBERRY, husband of Sarah FACEY>