stantially, but was unsupported by any other testimony, and it was not shown at all that the woman had appeared to have been pregnant near that time.

On cross-examination the younger witness fenced a good deal with the questions put to him by the defendant's counsel, and denied statements which it was alleged he had made to various persons respecting the case. The elder (Hugh Williams), on cross-examination, gave a most extraordinary statement of his adventures with a ghost, who had frequently carried him through the air, and had haunted him in various shapes, until he had obeyed a mandate given him to throw a pair of pistols, taken from an old mansion-house, into the river Usk. He further deposed most positively to his power of seeing in the darkest night as well as by day. On some points of detail his statements in the witness-box varied from his depositions before the committing magistrates, and on one or two points he contradicted his testimony given on examination in chief. The only other witnesses called were two women, who deposed to statements made by the lads; but, on the whole, their evidence told in favour of the accused.

The jury expressed a wish to hear the prisoner's counsel; after which they stated their opinion that it was unnecessary to call any witnesses for the defence, and acquitted both prisoners.

The trial of this extraordinary case occupied two days.

24. CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE THAMES. The contest for the championship of the Thames, which was decided this day, drew a prodigious concourse of persons

to the banks of the river, and crowded the noble stream with craft of every description fewer than ten steamers accompanied the match.

no

The "champion " in possession was Robert Coombes, who, in the course of 20 years, had raised himself to that aquatic pre-eminence by defeating every competitor in succession, and had held the sculls for some years. He had, moreover, defeated the champions of the Tyne, and was, in fact, considered invincible. He was now in his 43rd year, and his rowing weight 9st. İlb. His challenger was William Cole, a young man hailing from Chelsea, and unknown to fame otherwise than by his winning Doggett's coat and badge. He was 25 years old, and weighed 9st. 8lb.

The match was for 2001. a side, and the honours of the river. The course was from Putney Bridge to Mortlake, a distance of 4 miles. The betting was all in favour of the veteran.

Cole took his station on the Middlesex side of the centre arch, Coombes on the other. On the signal being given, Coombes dashed his sculls into the water with almost the rapidity of lightning, and took a lead of something like a quarter of a length, which he retained but for about 20 yards, and then the competitors were scull and scull, and no two rowing men ever so ably displayed the perfection of style, while their pace and heavy one-handed labour was surprising. Within 50 yards of the starting place Cole's boat began to show in front; off the Messrs. Searle's it was three-quarters of a length in advance, and, ere the arrival at Craven Cottage, had drawn clear, and he was still row

ing very powerfully, closely pressed by Coombes. The speed of Cole was unabated, and the cheers of encouragement by the partizans of either rent the air. Cole drew a trifle more in advance, but a firstrate "spurt" brought Coombes's boat again within a yard of his adversary's stern. Coombes here performed a zigzag motion in the rear of his opponent, and certainly did not mend his position by his steerage. Both shot the water towards Hammersmith Bridge, Surrey pier, and the dashing work of Cole put him through the bridge a clean length and a half in advance; but between this and Chiswick Eyot, the champion had applied himself so vigorously to his task, that he forced his way within a yard or so of his opponent, and his rowing was here so strong that his friends began to look up; but he was not good enough; and although he continued stroke after stroke for three minutes in the same position, Cole again increased the gap between them to a boat's length; on nearing the railway bridge at Barnes, it was again lessened by another desperate effort of Coombes, but he could not get in front, and although he rowed as long as nature would serve him, he could not win, although by dint of the most determined exertion he decreased his adversary's lead. Cole kept in advance, and won by half a clear length, doing the distance in 25 minutes 12 seconds.

The patrons of Coombes were dissatisfied with the issue of the contest, and arranged another trial. It came off on the 14th of October, with the same result, and the veteran was finally compelled to yield the championship to the youthful strength of his challenger.

25. THE ALBURY MURDER.Kingston.-John Keene, 20, and Jane Keene, 25, his wife, were indicted for the murder of Charles Broomer, the illegitimate child of the latter prisoner, by casting it into a well.

The murder was committed twelve months ago, and the circumstances of the discovery and conviction were somewhat singular.

The deceased child was born in May, 1848; and was, as stated, illegitimate. Some time afterwards the mother went into service; but about eighteen months before this trial she was married to the prisoner. The child was then out at nurse, but it was brought home to her when she was married. Another child was born at Christmas, 1850, when the prisoners had been married about a twelvemonth.

Ann Broomer, the mother of the female prisoner, said

I last saw the child Charles alive in January, 1851,-after this time both prisoners were in the union. I went to see them in the workhouse, and inquired of my daughter where Charles was, and she told me he was in London. Her husband was present at the time, and said something, but I don't know what it was. I saw both the prisoners at my house after this, and I again inquired for the child, and they both said he was in London. I saw nothing more of them until reaping time, when my daughter came to me and said that Charles was dead. I again inquired for the child after this, and my daughter, in the presence of her husband, said that he was dead, and the male prisoner turned his head away and said the same thing. I saw no more of my daughter after this until the night

66

She

she broke it out" to me. then said that her husband had made away with her child, and that he had threatened her life if she said anything about it. When the male prisoner said that the child was dead, he also said, "Don't fret yourself, mother; it is all right; the child is dead." In consequence of this statement by my daughter I made a communication to Mr. Hooper, the clergyman of Albury, and the prisoners were afterwards taken into custody. Mr. Radley, superintendent of the police, said-I went on Monday, the 26th January, to the house where the prisoners were living at Guildford. I found the female prisoner there, and said to her, "I dare say you know what I am come about?" She replied, "Yes; you are come about my child. Oh, Mr. Radley, my husband has murdered it, and I hope he will confess all." Soon afterwards I saw the male prisoner near the house, and told him he was charged with the murder of his wife's illegitimate child. He said that the child died in London a twelvemonth ago, and I then took him into custody. He made several evasive statements as to what he had done with the child in London. He then asked me where his wife was, and whether she was in custody? I made him no answer, and he said, "Is she going to Sheen, to show you where the child is?" I gave no answer to this question. On the following morning I saw the male prisoner again, and he then said, "She may say that I drowned the child, but I never put it in no water." I said nothing to the prisoner to induce him to make those statements. The woman at this time was in charge of the

police, and by leave of the magistrate, the prisoners were allowed to see each other at the policestation. When they were together the woman said to her husband, "Oh, John, go on your knees and confess your sins before God, for you know you murdered my child; and if you don't confess I must do so, or I must tell all about it." The male prisoner made no answer to this and he was removed. After he was gone the female prisoner said that we should find the child in the Warren well, near Albury Heath. The parish of Sheen adjoins that of Albury, and I believe the well is in Sheen parish. The female prisoner, on the same day, made another statement to me. She said that she had left the union-house a twelvemonth before with her two children, and that her husband met her, and that they walked over the downs to Albury; that while they were on the road her husband got a stick and beat the

on

elder boy very much. She said she complained to him of his conduct, and said it was her child and she would not allow him to beat him, and he knocked her down and ill-used her. On the day the child was murdered she said her husband and herself went to the Warren with the children; her husband was carrying the boy Charles and she the other child; that she missed her husband for a short time, and on looking round she saw him by the side of the well with the child in his arms; that she ran to him, but before she could get up to him he had thrown the child down the well-that she heard the child hit against the side of the well, and heard it splash in the water. She said to him, "Oh, John, what have

you done with my child?" and he replied, ". you and your child; and if you ever say a word about it, I'll smash your brains out." She said she remained by the well till she saw some one coming, and then her husband wanted her to go on with him to Guildford, but she would not do so, but went to sleep at Albury, and her husband went to his mother's at Guildford. She said she should have named the occurrence before, but was afraid to do so on account of her husband. Witnesses, who searched the well, proved finding at the bottom the remains of a child in a very decomposed state; but the fragments were sufficiently collected to enable a surgeon to decide that they were portions of a male about 2 or 3 years old. Some fragments of clothing were also found, which persons who had had charge of the child were able to state were such as he wore.

Other witnesses deposed to circumstances which identified the time and place where the prisoners and the deceased child were seen with those confessed by the female prisoner.

The course adopted by the counsel for the defence was somewhat similar to that which excited so much remark when taken by the counsel for the Mannings; that of each throwing the crime upon the other.

Mr. Robinson, for the male prisoner, urged that there was nothing against him but the statement of his wife, which was no evidence in law. The prisoner had never been seen near the spot; and there was nothing but the evidence of the female prisoner to connect him with the deed. The false statements of the female were strong evidence of guilt; nor was VOL. XCIV

it possible, if she had really witnessed such a horrible act on the part of her husband, she could have gone to the cottage of an acquaintance, as the evidence showed she had done, and betrayed not the slightest emotion. From the state of the evidence, the jury might fairly be of opinion, that the case had not been made out against either; but at any rate, they would not be justified in finding the male prisoner guilty.

Mr. Charnock, for the female prisoner, deprecated the attempt which had been made to throw the guilt upon the wife. The defence he had now to offer was the same that had always been made by the female prisoner; and he now, as she in the first instance had done, boldly charged the man with the murder, and said that if the woman had had any share whatever in the matter, it was merely as an accessary after the fact, for which, by the law of England, as a wife, she was not amenable to justice. He was surprised that the attempt should have been made to fasten the guilt upon the wretched prisoner of having destroyed her own offspring. appeared to him there was not the slightest foundation for such a suggestion. If she had really been the guilty party, it was not likely she would have made the avowal she did, upon which avowal alone the present inquiry was entirely founded. The only crime proved against his unhappy client was, that out of love and affection for her husband she had concealed the dreadful crime he had committed until her agonized feelings would not allow her to retain the secret any longer, and, in the anguish of her heart, she had made the statement to her mother,

E

It

and thus relieved her bosom of the dreadful weight that was upon it. In this way he accounted for her having told so many falsehoods with regard to the child; and he submitted that it was clear her only motive was to shield her husband and prevent inquiry.

The jury found the male prisoner "Guilty of murder, and acquitted the woman. The convict was executed on the 13th April, doggedly persisting in his innocence, and asserting that it was the woman who murdered the child. 25. MURDER AT GREAT THURLOW. William Robinson, aged 82, was indicted for the wilful murder of Ann Cornell, at Great Thurlow, on the 30th August last. The prisoner, who appeared in the dock almost in a dying state, lived at Great Thurlow near Newmarket, with his daughter-in-law, Mary Rollinson, the widow of his deceased son George, who died in 1850. In 1851, one Jermyn one Jermyn courted Mrs. Rollinson; and the old man strenuously opposed the match, but without effect, it being determined by the lovers that they would marry, and remove Mrs. Rollinson's furniture from the prisoner's house. Under these circumstances, it was shown that one day in August, when Ann Cornell, the sister of Mary Rollinson, came to dine with her, they were both taken ill immediately after eating some pudding made of flour, kept by Mary Rollinson in an open trough, and eventually Ann Cornell died, and was buried, it being then supposed by the medical man attending her that she died of English cholera. Before this, similar, but not fatal, symptoms arose after Mrs. Rollinson had partaken of dinner. In October she was again taken most

violently ill after eating dumplings for dinner, as were a friend and two children. Suspicion of poison then arose; and by the advice of a friend, the dumplings which remained uneaten were given to a cat and a dog. The former refused to do more than taste it; but the dog ate the whole dumpling, and immediately after brought it all up again. The remainder of the dumpling, the vomit, and the flour in the trough and basin from which the dumplings were made, were analyzed and found to contain arsenic in precisely the same proportions. The consequence of these discoveries was, that Ann Cornell's body was exhumed, and on examination by skilled surgeons, little doubt remained that the poor woman had fallen a sacrifice to arsenic. All the rest of the parties, who had no fewer than four times been recently affected with symptoms indicative of the administration of arsenic, fortunately survived; but the old man was taken into custody on this charge, in support of which, besides the above facts, it was proved that he had frequently bought arsenic at the village shop for mice, and that he had on one occasion cautioned a friend of his daughter-in-law not to eat or allow any of her children to eat any of her victuals, as it might make them sick. The jury found the prisoner "Guilty," and the learned judge passed sentence of death upon him.

--

26. MURDER AT PRESTON. Bury St. Edmunds. William Baldry, aged 50, was indicted for administering poison to Mary Ann Baldry, his wife, with intent to murder her, at Preston, on the 6th of December last.

The prisoner was a respectable