living with his wife and one child in a cottage at Chiddingley. Up to the day before his decease (the 7th of January last) he had been in good health; he then became very ill, vomited much, and died on the evening of the following day. As his wife had called in no medical attendant, and gave as a reason that the deceased had died suddenly, a coroner's inquest was ordered to be held on the body. A surgeon examined the corpse, and having discovered appearances of a strangulation of the intestines sufficient in his opinion to account for death, he examined no further; gave his evidence accordingly; the jury returned a verdict of "Natural death," and the body was buried. Circumstances, however, were known to the neighbours, who on this verdict being given, began to talk of them. The body was exhumed and re-examined; the intestines removed and sent to Dr. Taylor of Guy's Hospital for analyzation. His skill speedily discovered arsenic in the stomach, in every part of the intestines, and in the very substance of the coat of the intestines. The quantity still in the body must have amounted to eleven or twelve grains -three or four grains being sufficient to destroy life. There could be no doubt that the deceased died by poison. There could be little doubt that his wife, the prisoner, was one of the perpetrators of the crime-she had bought arsenic; had first concealed, and then misrepresented her husband's illness; and had carefully removed all traces of the unfortunate man's suffering. It was a question whether she had not a partner in her crime. The prisoner, when placed before a magistrate, had made a

statement implicating another person-an accusation which led to a narrative equally disgusting and atrocious. This statement was to the effect that on the night the constable came to her house, one James Hickman was there, and he hid himself in the pantry till the constable was gone, and then he let himself out. The next day she saw Hickman, and he told her that he had put the poison into the onion pie while her back was turned. She said that she asked him whether he had ever given him any poison at any other time, and he said he had put some into some milk. He then told her not to say anything about what he had done, or else he would run quite away from her. The statement then went on to say that after this Hickman showed her a parcel of poison on several occasions; and when she complained of her husband stopping out late at night, Hickman said that he would give him something some day that should keep him out a good deal later.

James Hickman, a young man about 20, was now made a witness. He said, I know the prisoner Sarah French. I first went to her house along with her sister Jane Piper, about twelve months ago. I was courting her sister at that time. About last Christmas Jane Piper went along with some one else, and I left her company. About last Michaelmas I began going to the prisoner's house again, and one evening when the prisoner's husband was absent, she asked me if I liked her as well as I did her sister. I said, "No," and she said, " "Why not?" then said, "Because you are married." She then asked me if I

I

should like her if she was not married, and I told her that I liked her very well. This was about a month before Christmas. I went again to the prisoner's house after this two or three times a week, to spend half an hour, and I used to see to the prisoner's little boy. I used to go afterwards to read to the children. I used to read good books that the parson gave them. I was often there when the prisoner's husband was out; and when this happened, the prisoner more than once told me that she liked me, and she used to kiss me. She never did this when her husband was there. She used to say that she loved me; and she once gave me a ring, and told me to keep it in remembrance of her. The prisoner once or twice sat upon my knee. She did this of her own accord, and not at my request. She used to talk to me about her husband's health; and she said he had something bad the matter with him, and the doctors could not do him any good. She also said that he was frequently taken very bad in his inside at night, and that it would kill him; and she asked me if I would have her if her husband were to die. I told her I did not know-I did not mind much about it. I also said I did not see that there was any signs of death on him; and the prisoner said, if I knew as much as she did, I should think there were and she requested me not to say anything to any one about what she said. No improper intimacy took place between me and the prisoner before the death of her husband. She used to sit upon my knee and kiss me, and say she loved me, and that she should be happy if she could have

me.

I was at the house again on another evening after Christmas, when French and his wife were present. They were having supper; and I saw a pie, some bread and cheese, and butter on the table. French was eating some of the pie, and I saw him help himself, and no one but him ate of the pie. The prisoner and her child had bread and cheese. Neither the prisoner or the deceased offered me any of the pie. All I had in the house was a cup of tea, which was given to me by the prisoner. After the prisoner's husband had eaten his supper, he went out of the room, and the prisoner said to me, "He does not seem very well to-night." I was always on friendly terms with French. After her husband went out of the room, she said she did not think he would go out with me, as he did not appear to be well. The witness then detailed circumstances of the deceased's illness, and his wife's conduct. He went to the cottage the day after French died. I asked the prisoner if her husband was dead, and she said he was, and that he had died about a quarter before 12 the night before. She said they had laid laughing and talking together till just before he died; and that he suddenly turned round and looked at her and smiled, and then closed his eyes and died almost immediately. On the day the first inquest took place, the prisoner told me that the doctor had come and opened him, and that he had found a gut tied in a knot, and this was the cause of his death. On the Sunday after the funeral, I was at the prisoner's cottage. Her sister had stayed there up to that time; but she went away

about 8 o'clock, and the prisoner accompanied her. On the same Sunday the deceased was buried, I passed the night in the house with the prisoner.

Baron Parke. - Was this on the very day of the funeral?

He

Witness.-Yes, my lord. continued-Jane Piper, the prisoner's sister, slept in the house the same night. I don't recollect that the prisoner said anything to me about marrying her on this night, but upon one occasion she did ask me to marry her after the funeral; and she said she should like to be married directly, but I told her I thought it would look best to stop a twelvemonth pretty near; and the prisoner said if she did, she thought it very likely I would not have her. Her son was in a little bed by the side of the one in which we slept. mained all night in the house at the request of the prisoner. The prisoner's sister slept in the same bed with us; and she remained in the cottage seven or eight days, and I helped to remove some of her things.

I re

On cross-examination, witness said: About a month or six weeks before Christmas, I heard that the prisoner had got some money. She told me so herself. She said she had got 500l. I am sure she mentioned 500l., and not 1007. She told me that one of her sisters had got the money. I broke off with Jane Piper a little before I heard of the prisoner having this money. I heard about the money before I broke off with Jane Piper. The prisoner told me that if I had her, she would keep me without work; and of course I should be very glad to be kept without work.

The counsel for the prisoner

urged that it was not proved that the prisoner had administered the poison: the fairer presumption was, that it was the witness Hickman who was the guilty party-he who certainly had a stronger motive than the prisoner to get rid of the deceased, because he admitted that when he heard the prisoner was entitled to a sum of money which would enable him to live without work, he immediately broke off with his former sweetheart, and was evidently aware that he could not have the money unless the husband was dead. He did not mean to charge Hickman with the murder; but he had a right to argue that there was a possibility of his having committed it, and if he succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner, she was entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and ought to be acquitted.

After a long consultation, the foreman of the jury said, "We find the prisoner guilty of murder; but some of the jury are of opinion that the poison may have been administered by some other party, and that the prisoner was only an accessory before the fact; and we wish to know whether that makes any difference."

Baron Parke asked the jury if they were unanimously of opinion that the prisoner either administered the poison herself or knew of its being administered by some one else.

The jury said they were unanimously agreed upon those points.

Baron Parke. Then that amounts to a verdict of "Wilful murder;" and his lordship passed sentence of death upon her.

She was executed on the 10th April, having fully admitted her guilt to the chaplain of the gaol.

20. THE ITALIAN OPERA-HOUSE. -It had been well known for some time that the management of Her Majesty's Theatre was in a state of great embarrassment. Many causes were assigned for a condition of things so destructive to the amusements and conversation of the fashionable world, and to the real interests of art; but that which probably struck the fatal blow to Mr. Lumley's prosperous course, was the unfortunate undertaking of the Italian Opera at Paris, which the disturbed state of France rendered a ruinous business. A very large and influential meeting of the most eminent habitués of the opera was held in the concert room, when most gratifying testimony was paid to the ability of Mr. Lumley's management; and it was resolved

"1. That, considering the beneficial influence which Her Majesty's Theatre has exercised for nearly a century in promoting and extending the musical tastes of the country, it is desirable that measures should be taken by this meeting to support Her Majesty's Theatre.

66

2. That, considering the energy and perseverance which the director of this establishment has displayed in the cultivation of the highest works of art, and in providing for the public taste and amusement, during a period of extraordinary difficulty, this meeting will support and assist the director in his efforts to surmount the difficulties of the establishment.

"3. That, with the view of establishing an immediate and available source for the purpose of carrying on and conducting this establishment during the present season, a fund be raised, to which all friends and well-wishers of the

theatre be invited to become subscribers, and that a committee be appointed for the purpose of receiving such subscriptions, and applying the same in such a way as they shall consider most conducive to the interests of Her Majesty's Theatre."

This engagement, however, came to nothing; and afterwards a company was formed for carrying on the establishment under a board of managers, and a capital of 190,000l. was subscribed; but as the managers failed to obtain either a charter or an Act limiting the liabilities of the shareholders, this scheme also fell to the ground, and early in the following year (1853) the furniture and decorations of this magnificent establishment were advertised to be sold under a levy for rates and taxes; and the scenery, dresses, and properties, by order of the mortgagee. This result is deplorable on considerations of the highest taste; and will throw out of employment many hundreds of industrious and deserving persons.

23. HORRIBLE CHARGE OF MURDER.-Brecon.-Thomas Phillips and Margaret Morgan were placed at the bar, charged with having murdered a new-born infant by casting it to a sow, by which it was torn to pieces and devoured.

The horrible details which were given on the preliminary investigation of this case had excited the greatest horror and disgust; and the trial was watched with great interest.

The principal witness was a young man named Hugh Williams, 24 years of age, who lived in the service of the male prisoner, at a farm called Pentrenaboth, near Devynnock. The witness stated, that on some day in March, 1850,

an older servant of the prisoner was obliged to leave the farm for a few days in consequence of an injury, and that on the night previous a boy named Thomas Davies came to the house with some clothes for him, and remained there to assist about the stable and foldyard. He then proceeded to state, that after feeding and cleaning the horses early in the morning, they tried to enter the farm-house for their breakfast, but found the door fastened, and that the prisoner Phillips spoke through the window, ordering him (Williams) to go to a wood at a short distance for a load of sticks. The younger witness (Davies) said that he then went to the garden to bring a hen, as he had been previously ordered by the female prisoner, and that, while so engaged, he saw Phillips come out of the house, bearing a new-born infant on a flat tile-stone, which, after looking carefully around, he deposited on the ground in a corner of the foldyard; that he then went through a beast-house to the pigsty, and drove a sow to the spot where the child lay; that he then retired, while the sow caught hold of the child's thigh and bit it off. The boy positively swore that he then heard the child utter a cry, and that, on his getting over the hedge to drive the sow away, she ran at him furiously, and that he ran back; that she then caught hold of the child in her mouth, and commenced tearing and eating it, when he again heard it cry distinctly. Both witnesses then said that at that moment Williams came up from the meadow on his way from the wood, and caught hold of the child's arm, when the sow caught him by the arm, which frightened him so much that he

let go his hold. They further stated, that by the time the sow had completed her horrid meal, the prisoner Phillips came forward and, threatening that he would kill them if they mentioned what they had seen, drove the animal into the beast-house; that they climbed up to a kind of hole in the wall, through which they saw him tie the sow to a post, and wash her jaws and head from the blood with which they were covered with a scrubbing-brush and a bucketful of water, after which he released her and returned into the house. The only part of their evidence which implicated the female prisoner in the alleged transaction was a statement that while the sow was eating the child she stood at the door of the house lifting her hands and groaning; and they further deposed that the door of the house was kept fastened the whole of the day and night, and that the prisoner Phillips said they could not get any food because the servant girl was poorly; that they were therefore fasting all that day with the exception of some bread and cheese brought to them by Phillips at dusk, and that they slept in the barn that night. Notwithstanding the horrible nature of the alleged occurrence, Hugh Williams said that he had continued in the prisoner's service until the following November, and after a few months' absence, returned and remained with him until some time in February last, when on his leaving a quarrel occurred, and the accusation was first made public. It also appeared that the boy had been occasionally in the service of the prisoner at periods before and after the date of the commission of the crime. The evidence of both witnesses was given very circum