MAGARET WATERS, SARAH ELLIS, Killing > murder, 19th September 1870.

Reference Number: t18700919-769
Offence: Killing > murder
Verdict: Not Guilty > directed; Guilty > no_subcategory
Punishment: Death > no_subcategory

769. MAGARET WATERS (35), and SARAH ELLIS (28), were indicted for the wilful murder of John Walter Cowen.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE, with MESSRS. POLAND and BBASLET, conducted the Prosecution; and MESSRS. RIBTON and PATER the Defence.

CHARLES WILLIAM INMAN . I am clerk to Messrs. Wontner & Sons, solicitors, who are acting in this matter as agents for Her Majesty's Trea-sury—on 11th August I served upon each of the prisoners a notice to produce, of which this is a duplicate—(This was a notice to produce various documents referred to in the evidence.)

ROBERT TASSIE COWEN . I live at 1, Langholme Villas, Loughborough Road, North Brixton—I am a musician, and hold an appointment in one of the volunteer regiments—I have a daughter named Janet Tassie Cowen—she is unmarried, and is now seventeen years of age—in April, this year, she was in the family-way—in consequence of that she went to 164, Camberwell Road, to be confined; at a midwife's, Mrs. Castle or Mrs. Barton's; the name of Barton was on the door—my daughter was confined on 14th May—before her confinement I endeavoured to find a place to send the child to—some time early in May I saw this advertisement in Lloyd's Newspaper of 1st May—I saw it on the day of the issue of the paper—I answered that advertisement to a certain address, and afterwards received this letter (produced) by post—I wrote another letter, and afterwards went to the

Camberwell Station; no one came there—I then received another letter, making an appointment at the Brixton Railway Station—I think I destroyed that letter—I went to the Brixton Railway Station—I can't say the day of the month—I think it was on the Thursday after the advertisement—I there saw the prisoner Waters—I saw her arrive by a train from the City—I had the letter with me.

THOMAS BASSETT . I am a clerk in the advertising department of Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper—I produce a number of manuscript advertisement, there are twenty-seven of them—I know both the prisoners—I have seen them at our office a great many times, sometimes together, and sometimes separately; they brought manuscript advertisements, and paid for them, 5s. each; they were afterwards printed in the ordinary way in the paper—I can speak to these drafts which I produce as being brought by them—I can't speak to all of them; some of them were brought by them—these papers of 1st May and 5th June, were published by us on those dates—I have the two drafts of the advertisements appearing in those papers on those days—I can't say which of the prisoners brought them—I can speak to one of an earlier date.

Cross-examined. Q. Had you received advertisements of a similar kind before 1st May? A. Oh yes, for years, from other persons, who professed to take the care of very young children; from a great many different person—I have seen the prisoners together at our place two or three-times—I can't say whether I had known them before 1st May; that may have been the first time I saw them—I can't say how many times I saw either of them subsequently to the 1st May—I was not called upon to identify them when they were in custody—I believe Sergeant Relf communicated first with me in reference to this; not with me, with our manager—I was not told that there were two women in custody whom I was required to identify; it way that I was to produce the manuscript of the advertisements—I was not taken to see the prisoners, or examined as to their identity—I saw them at the Lambeth Police Court—I was desired to go there by a gentleman from the Treasury, I believe, to take two manuscript copies of advertisements—I saw the prisoners there, at the bar—I was not asked to identify them—I recognized them at once, directly I saw them at the bar—I don't know the dates at which I saw them at our office; I saw them there regularly every week, either one or the other, in April, May, and June, and earlier than that, from January, 1869, to June, 1870—I never saw them anywhere else—I can't swear positively that I saw either of them to fore 1st May in the present year; not to identify them—I can't say that I saw either of them between 1st May and 10th June—I saw one or other, or both, almost every week for more than a year, or thereabouts—I saw them regularly week by week—I have not the slightest doubt they are the persons I saw; I swear that positively—we have had advertisements of the same sort spread over a number of years, from persons professing to undertake the care of children—I can't give any notion of the number of different persona that I have received such advertisements from; a great many—I could not undertake to identify them all, because we had a great many from different persons, who came one week and did not come another.

RICHARD HELP (Police Sergeant W 7). I know Waters' handwriting—I have seen her write, and have writing of hers in my possession.

MR. RIBTON. Q. How often have you seen her write? A. Only once, I saw her write a receipt to me for a hood and shawl, and a receipt for three pawn tickets, on Goth August—she wrote it all—(Read: "August 6.

Received from Sergeant Relf one hood and one shawl, Margaret Waters,") and this receipt for three pawn tickets.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Just look at those twenty-seven advertisements, do you believe them to be in the handwriting of Waters? A. I believe them to be in the handwriting of either one or the other—I do Dot know Ellis's handwriting—I believe this advertisement of 1st May to be Waters' writing, and also this one of 5th June, and these letters of 2nd May.

Cross-examined. Q. Where was show when she wrote these receipts? A. In Horsemonger Lane Gaol—I did not make her write them for the purpose of getting her handwriting—it was in answer to a letter that I received from her—I took the hood and shawl to the prison in consequence of the letter, and also the three pawn tickets, and delivered them to her, and she gave me these receipts.

(The advertisement in the paper of 1st May, 1870, was read as follows: Adoption.—A respectable couple desire the entire charge of a child to bring up as their own. They are in a position to offer every comfort. Premium required, 4l. Letter only. Mrs. Willis, P.O., Southampton Street, Camberwell.")

ROBERT TASSIE COWEN (continued). I answered that advertisement to that rawness and address, and received this letter in reply—(Read: "To J. P. W., Fenton's Post Office, Brixton. Monday, 2nd May. Sir, In reply to your letter, beg to say we are not willing to give our address. In taking a child we wish to do so entirely, never to be claimed. We have been married many jean, but are without family, and have determined upon bringing a little one up as our own. My constant care shall be for the child, and everything which will be for the child's comfort shall be strictly studied. Should you think more of this, and will write saying where and when I can see you and how I shall know you, we shall feel obliged. We have had several letters, so are anxious to decide which child we shall take. Yours respectfully, M. Willis.")—On the receipt of that letter I wrote an answer, and went to the Camberwell Railway Station, but did not see either of the prisoners—the next morning I received another letter—I think I tore it up on my way to the station—it was precisely in the same handwriting as the one of 2nd May—it was making an appointment for that day at the Brixton Station, at 1 o'clock—I am almost positive I tore it up after reading it—I am quite positive I have not got it now—it was signed M. Willis, the same as the previous one—in consequence of that I went to the Brixton Railway Station, and saw the prisoner, Waters come by a train from the City—I had in my hand the letter I had" received that morning—I must have been in error when I said I tore it up on my way to the station—I tore it up after I met the prisoner—I addressed her as Mrs. Willis (I had previously spoken to the ticket collector)—she replied "Mr. Cowen"—we then sat down, and she said "I have had the letter," and I then told her the circumstances about my daughter, I told her that my daughter had been outraged, that she had left me early in the year on a visit, at sixteen years of age, that the child was not yet born, but that it would be in about a fortnight, and she was then at Mrs. Castle's, waiting to be confined—I said, "I mention these circumstances so that you may not adopt an illegitimate child without knowing it"—she replied, "That will make no difference with me"—she then told we that her husband was a representative of a shipbuilding firm, that they

had been married thirteen years, and were without family, and were extremely anxious to adopt a child as their own—she still refused to give me her address, but said she would do so after a short time—she said she should not like the child to be taken from them after they had learnt to love it, or words to that extract—she said that the name she hood signed in her letter was not her name, but the would also give me that when she gave me her address—I said as doom as the child was born I would communicate with her, at the same post-office in Camberwell—I gave her my name and address—she laughed, and said "How funny, I live within a stone's throw of you, and I can almost see your house from my windows"—we then separated at the station—my daughter was confined on the Saturday week following, the 14th May, of a male child, and on the Sunday or Monday I wrote by post to the name and address given in the advertisement announcing it (The letter was called for bed not produced) it was merely to inform her of the birth of the child, and requesting her to call at my residence—she did call on the Tuesday, the 7th, between 2 and 3 o'clock in the afternoon—I told her of the birth of the child—she asked when she could have it—I replied "When will it be convenient for you to take it?"—she said "To night," and an appointment was made for 9.30 that evening, at the Walworth Station, to receive the child—that same night I went to Mrs. Castle's, 164, Camberwell Road, with my land-lady, Mrs. Guerra, who brought out the baby, and I went with her in a cub to the Walworth Road Station—Waters had not arrived—we waited there forty minutes, she then came—she looked at the baby and admired it—she said it was a beautiful child, and she wrapped it up in a large shawl and took it away—she promised to call on me in two or three days—it was about 10.15 when she took charge of the baby—I believe there never was born a more healthy child, so I was told; I don't know, myself, I did not look at it—Waters did not give me any address at that time, she was to call on me—she did call two or three days afterwards—it was on the Tuesday she took the child, and she called I think on the Friday following; I saw her and asked how the child was—she said she was delighted with it, it was a beautiful baby, and that her husband was equally fond of it, "In fact," she said, "it is all a boy"—I then asked when she would bring it, when I could see it she said she was busy making nice clothes for it, naming certain articles, I forget what they were, a hood, a pelisse, and something—I said "Allow me to make it a present of those"—she said "No, I don't require it, I have bought the materials, and I am having them made up"—I then took two sovereigns from my purse and put them on the table before her—she pushed them back to me, and refused to take them, saying "I know you have taken at a great expense, and I won't take it"—she got up to go away and I forced the 2l. upon her, and as she left the room she returned with the 2l. in her hand, offering it back to me—I refused it, and told her to spend it on the child, and when she brought me the child I would give her 2l. more—she then left, and took the 2l. with her—during the whole of the interview she was speaking in praise of the child—as she was going away she said "I pass nearly every day, and I suppose if I call with it you won't turn me away"—I said I should be glad to see her, and it, at any time she called—she did not call again I neither saw or heard of her afterwards—up to that time I did not know where she lived—on the Thursday in the following week, the 26th, toe officer Keef called upon mo—I told him the facts, and in consequence of

what he said I wrote a letter to the name and address mentioned in the advertisement—I posted it in the regular way; it came back to roe through the dead letter office—on Friday, 10th June, at Relfs request, I met him at the Camberwell New Road Station, and there saw the prisoner Ellis—I noticed that she had on the same dress that I had seen on Waters—Relf spoke to her, not in my presence—I afterwards followed her to 4 or 5, Frederick Terrace, Gordon Grove, Holland Road, Brixton; that is about seven minutes' walk from my house, by the public road, but you can walk it across the fields in two or three minutes less—I did not go into the house that night—next morning, Saturday, the 11th, I went to that same house with Keif and Mrs. Guerra—I waited outside, and they went in; in about half an hour they came out and made a communication to me, and we walked along the road past my house—in about an hour afterwards I went to the house and found Relf and Dr. Puckle there, and both the prisoners, and they both had babies in their arms—Waters had the baby that was represented to be my daughter's—I noticed the state it was in, it was nearly dead—I said to her "You appear to be murdering this child"—she said "All I received from you, Mr. Cowen, was 2l., was it not"—I said "Don't speak to me, I won't answer you"—I did not speak to her any more—she was speaking to Dr. Puckle, telling him what food she had given the child, but I really don't recollect what she said—I said to Dr. Puckle, in her presence, "What can be done to save this child?"—he said "A wet nurse"—I sent for one at once, Mrs. Rowland, I remained there till she came—Dr. Puckle, at my request, examined her to see that she was in a proper condition to suckle the child, and the child was given up to her—Waters told me it was the child she had received from me as my daughter's—Mrs. Rowland took it away to her own place to nurse it—I requested Dr. Puckle to attend it—it died on 24th June, a fortnight after—I did not know the child by any name—I did not register it, I wrote to the Registrar to do so—when I was at the prisoner's house I saw ten other children there besides the one I was interested in—I was not at all aware, when she took charge of my daughter's child, that she had other children.

Cross-examined. Q. I suppose, in point of fact, you did not ask her whether she had any other children or not; nothing was said upon the subject? A. There was some conversation of that sort, but it was with reference to children belonging to her sister—she said her sister had a family; that was at the second interview—I had not asked her any question—she volunteered the statement that her sister had a family—I really forget whether she said how many—that was all that was said with reference to family—I did not ask her any more questions—Mrs. Castle is the name of the woman where my daughter was confined—I found her out by an advertisement which was pointed out to me—the child was born on Saturday, 14th May—Mrs. Guerra, my landlady, went with me for the child on the Tuesday following—the distance from that house to the railway station where I met Mrs. Waters, is abduct a mile—we were out altogether about forty minutes before she came—it was not a cold night—I did not make inquiries about her, or attempt to find her out until the policeman called upon me—it was only a few days—she was to have called upon me again—if you understand that I should have taken no further trouble about it, you understand wrong—the only sum of money that was mentioned was 4l., in the advertisement—on my first interview with Waters at the Camberwell Station, when I told her of the circumstances of my daughter, she

said "I want no money; I have merely mentioned the 4l. nominally, to keep a number of applicants from applying"—when I gave her the 2l. subsequently, it was I who first mentioned money—it was not at her solicitation at all—I proposed to make it a present to the child for the clothes she was about to supply—I was in a position to have paid her the 4l. if she had required it, or more—there was no offer made to give her clothes—a parcel of clothes was delivered to her with the child on the night she got it, not by me—I don't know what it consisted of.

CAROLINE GUERRA . I am a widow, and live at 4, Langholme Villas—Mr. Cowen lodges at my house—I remember the prisoner Waters coming there in the early part of May; I can't tell whether it was the 17th, it was on a Tuesday—Mr. Cowen asked me to see her in his presence—when I went into the room she was there with him—he addressed her as Mrs. Willis, and she answered to that name—she said she wished very much for a child, that she had been married a great number of years, and had no family, told both her husband and her were very anxious to have one to adopt and bring up as their own, and they were both passionately fond of children—it ended in some arrangement being made that she was to take the child—that same evening I went with Mr. Cowen to Mrs. Castle's, and took the baby from Mrs. Castle's to the Walworth Road railway station—Mr. Cowen and I went together in a cab, and Waters met us there—Miss Cowen was confined on 14th May—I was present at her confinement, and saw the child; it was a very fine, healthy child indeed, and was so when I took it away—it was not expensively clothed; it had sufficient clothing, and there was a small parcel given with the child—when I handed the child to Waters, she looked at it, and said what a beautiful baby it was; she wit delighted with it, and said it should have every care and attention possible—she took it away with the small parcel of clothes—I saw her again on the following Thursday, the 19th, at my house, with Mr. Cowen—she said both her and her husband were very delighted with the child, it was a beautiful baby; that they were both very much attached to children, that she would do everything in her power for it, and she had been buying it a bassinet, a baby's basket, and a nursing chair—Mr. Cowen then offered her 2l., which she refused, and said that she did not require either money or clothes, all that she wanted was a baby that she could bring up as her own, that they were in a very good position—she eventually took the 2l.—she said she would come again in two or three days, and Mr. Cowen said she should then have the other 2l.—she said it was not money she wished for at all, she did not wish for any money—she did not come again—I did not see her again till Saturday, 11th June, when I went to the house, 4 or 5, Frederick Terrace, with Sergeant Keif—I did not go up to the door with Relf, I waited some little distance off till he beckoned me; I then went in—Relf asked Ellis for Miss Cowen's baby—she said that her sister was not there, and she did not know anything of Miss Cowen's baby—Relf said he; should not leave the house till he saw it, he knew that she was there, and he insisted on the baby being brought forward—she then went to the top of the stairs, and called "Margaret, bring Miss Cowen's baby," and Mrs. Willis then came in with the baby in her arms—by Mrs. Willis I mean the prisoner Waters, the same person to whom I had given the child at the station—it was in a most emaciated condition—I said "Mrs. Willis, you must have been starving this child to death"—she said "Pray don't say such a thing as that, for I have taken every possible core of the child; it

has been very ill, suffering from diarrhoea;" she said that she had had a doctor attending it, and she had also spoken, the day before, for a wet-nurse for the child—I did not take much notice how the child was clothed at that time, I only noticed its appearance generally, it was so dreadfully emaciated and deplorable—I then 'went away, and returned to the house later in the day with some things for the child—on that occasion I went down to the lower room of the house, what they call a breakfast parlour, below the level of the earth; the front kitchen—the room I had been in before was the parlour—in that lower room I saw four or five infants—I think there were three on a couch, and two on chairs, on a bed made up for them—I saw four other children out in the back yard—they were older, I should say from two to three years old; one was four years old—they were merely running about, playing—I asked Waters, who went down with me, what on earth she could want with taking Miss Cowen's child, already having such a number there—she said that the others were children that were paid for weekly, and they were taken away from her after some time; but she wished Miss Cowen's child to be brought up entirely as her own—I knew, at that time, that the child had been removed from the house in the morning—she said she had done everything that was possible in her power for the child—this was about 4 o'clock in the day—I remained there about ten minutes—I saw a child in Ellis's arms; she said it was her own baby.

Q. Will you give a description of Miss Cowen's child when you saw it just before it was taken away? A. It had scarcely a bit of flesh on its bones, and the only thing I should have known it by was the hair; it was not crying or making any noise, not any of them, that I heard; it appeared to be dying almost; it could not make any noise, it was much too weak, I think, to make the slightest sound; it was scarcely human, it looked more like a monkey than a child—when it was born it was a very fine fat baby, and when I saw it there it was a shadow, not a bit of flesh on its bones—it would be much lighter in weight.

Cross-examined. Q. Are you married? A. I have been, I am a widow—I have had a child—this child was never suckled at all—I don't know that taking it away three days after birth, and bringing it up by hand, would be attended with very considerable danger—there are many children brought up by hand that are very healthy—no doubt many are lost—I have not Lad much experience of children—Mrs. Castle handed me the child—I saw the mother—the child was handed to me in the same room with the mother—at that time it was very well indeed—it was dressed the same as all other babies, I suppose; it had everything that was requisite—I don't know that I saw a child named Rose at Mrs. Waters'—there was one baby there which they said was only three or four days old, that was a very nice baby indeed—I think Waters said she had only had it the day before—she told me she bad seen a woman the day before, and she was coming again on that day to take Miss Cowen's child to wet-nurse—she did not mention her name—Mrs. Rowland was the wet-nurse that came neit day and took the child away—I believe Mr. Cowen had sent for her on the Saturday morning.

MARIA EDWARDS CASTLE . I am the wife of William George Castle, and live at 164, Camberwell Road—I am a midwife—the name up outside is "Mrs. Barton, Accoucheuse"—that refers to me—the young woman, Janet Tassie Cowen, came to my house on 18th April, for the purpose of being confined—I attended upon her—she remained until 2nd May, and went

away not confined—she returned on 14th May, and oil that day was confined of a male child—I attended her in her confinement—it was a very fine baby—nobody but myself attended her at the birth—the child was taken away on the 17th May; up to that time it had been fed with milk and water and loaf sugar—it was taken away by Mrs. Guerra—it was quite well then—the food appeared to nourish it, it digested well, it never returned-Miss Cowen remained with me till the 28th—the child was registered in my presence by the Registrar that morning, I think in the name of John Walter—on Monday, 13th June, I was sent for to the Lambeth Police Court—I went to the Brixton Workhouse, and from there in a cab to Mrs. Rowland's, where I saw the baby—it was in a dreadful state, emaciated and weak, it cried very little—Mrs. Rowland had charge of it—afterwards, at the request of the police, I went to 4, Frederick Place, the prisoner's house—I did not go in, I was in a cab with Mrs. Rowland and the baby—another child was brought out and given to me in the cab—I was at the Police Court with the children the whole day—I assisted in removing another child from the prisoner's house to Lambeth Workhouse—(Upon the witness being asked alto the state of this other child, MR. RIBTON submitted that it was not relevant to the issue; the sole question for the Jury was whether this particular child met it death in consequence of the negligence, intentional or otherwise, of the prisoners.

THE LORD CHIEF BARON could not exclude evidence of the treatment of other children who were in the prisoner's cltarge at the same time as the deceased; at the same time, he should warn the Jury not to be influenced by anything done to other children, except as it would tend to throw light upon the question, whether the deceased child met its death in consequence of the treatment to which it was subjected)—The other child that was given to me was about three weeks old—it was in a very dirty condition, and in a sleep that it was impossible to wake it from the whole time it was under my care, which was from about 10 o'clock in the morning, till 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon, when it was left at the workhouse—it was considered the second worst came—it did not cry at all—it was the last baby that died at the workhouse—all the children came under my observation on the 13th—I took part in their removal; there were five cabs and several women engaged in removing them—altogether ten children were removed from the prisoners' house to the Police Court, including Miss Cowen's child—I forget how many of them were babies—they were all in a similar state—one child, about three months old, looked very well—four babies appeared to be in an unhealthy condition—they were all asleep—they roused a little and took their bottles a little at the police-station—that was nut so with all of them, two would not suck at all.

Cross-examined. Q. How long have you been in the habit of receiving ladies? A. Five years—during that period I have received a great many; I am in the habit of advertising—and those advertisements bring me the ladies—some stay with me five, or six, or seven months—I have two or three in the house at the same time—I don't know what becomes of the babies, they are taken away sometimes; I can't say in the same way this child was—I know nothing about them after they leave me—(MR. RIBTON proposed to ask the witness whether, in lier experience, sums of money were often obtained from persons wishing to adopt children. THE LORD CHIEF BARON considered that any answer to such a question would be inadmissible; no practice or system of procuring children for the purpose of selling them could affect the pre-sent case; if it could be proved that that was that object in this particular

instance it might be admissible, but it was not competent to the witness to prove the existence of such a practice. A further question at to whether the witness herself had not obtained turns of 60l. and 100l. for that purpose was also decided to be inadmissible)—When this child was removed it was in its nightdress; children never wear anything else at that age—it was well wrapped up; it had on a set of proper baby linen, with a flannel square, and a good shawl—the child that was about three months old, was a very nice baby, it was wide awake; that was the only one of the babies that looked well, the others were all under a month old, I should think, from their appearance—I saw nine, not at the house, at the police-station—I should think the oldest was about three years and a half, that was a very nice boy, a fine, healthy, strong child—there was another little boy about two and a half—he was very thin, but be appeared well and strong, running about; and there was a little girl, about fourteen months old, fat and well, and two others about eighteen months old—I can't say whether they were boys or girls; one of them looked very pale and sickly, the other did not appear to be ill; it did not look very well, nor yet very ill—there were five, I think, running about; no, two were running about, and the other three were sitting the whole time—they were all right, I did not see anything particular the matter with them, they ate and drank plenty; they were hungry, of course, they had not had their breakfast when we took them away—I had not known Mrs. Waters before this—I know she lived in Addington Square about six years ago—I have seen her there—I don't think I knew her—I called on her from an advertisement that appeared in the Telegraph, to take a child to nurse for one of my patients, but it was not placed with her—I don't know why—there was only one interview—that was the only transaction I had with her, and that is six years ago—the did not take the child; we did no business together, at any rate—she did not decline to take it, my patient declined to give it her, on account of the terms, I think; but I really cannot remember so long back.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. There had been an advertisement in the Telegraph which one of your patients had seen? A. Yes; and in consequence of that I waited on Mrs. Waters—I had never seen or known her before—I don't know what name I asked for; I think it was an initial, at 21, Southampton Street, a stationer's shop—she said it was her advertisement.

ANN ROWLAND . I am the wife of Henry Rowland, of 14, Alma Terrace, Camberwell—on Saturday, 11th June, I was sent for to 4, Frederick Terrace; a servant came—I went there, and received a child from Mr. Cowen, which I was to treat as a wet-nurse—that was the first time I had seen it—it was very dirty and very thin; it had on all new clothes—its person was dirty, I could not get it clean up to the day of its death—it was dirty at the bottom, the thighs, and underneath its arms, and behind its ears was very bad—it did not look as if it had ever been washed—it was dirty behind from not being washed after its evacuations, and under the arms and behind the ears, where children most need washing—it had on a nightgown and flannel, a napkin, a roller, and a flannel belly-band—they had never been washed—they appeared as if they had been recently put on, just as they had been bought—the child's person was wet, and when I came to wash him he was very sore—the child was very thin, his bones were coming through—it could not cry or make the noise of a child of that age—it was asleep—it continued in that state four or five hours before I could rouse it—I

tried—I took it home with me to nurse and to take care of—I have been married twenty years—I had been confined seven weeks at this time—I have had four children, and have brought them up—I have never seen a child in a condition that I could not rouse it or wake it up in four or five hours; I never saw any child in that condition before—I gave it the breast every ten minutes or quarter of an hour—it would just rouse and take the breast—I first gave it the breast four or five hours after it was put into my hands; as soon as it could take it; as soon as it was sensible—the child improved for two or three days; it took the breast very eagerly, and got on well for three or four days, and then fell off—it kept gradually going off after the third or fourth day into the same state of stupor or insensibility—I did all I could for it—Dr. Puckle attended it every day whilst it was with me, and I followed his directions—the child died on 24th June—I had it the whole time, from the 11th to its death—it was under my care and the directions of Dr. Puckle all that time, and everything that could he was done for it.

Cross-examined. Q. You say you were sent for on the Saturday? A. Yes—I had not had any communication from either of the prisoners before that Saturday—I never saw them till the morning I was sent for—I had seen Mrs. Ellis come in for the washing, but I had never said anything to her—I had never been to the house before the Saturday—my daughter was there on the Friday, and she came home and told me that Mrs. Waters wanted me to take a baby to wet-nurse, but she did not come home till late at night, as we were going to bed—her name is Eliza White; she is married—she had been working for Mrs. Waters; I can't say how long—that was the first time my daughter had ever spoken to me about being required as a wet-nurse—the name of the child was not mentioned, nor the sex—my daughter asked me to go there in the morning as soon as I could—in the morning, about 10 o'clock, I was sent for again, and found it was for this child; I saw Mrs. Waters; she asked me to take the child, and then Sergeant Relf came in—I took charge of the child about an hour or as hour and a half after 10—Sergeant Relf was not there when I first went; he came in about five minutes after me—Mrs. Waters told me the child was suffering from thrush and diarrhoea; that was just as Relf was coming in—she said she thought the child required to be suckled, and asked me to undertake it; I did not come to an arrangement as to terms; the sergeant came in before woo could finish the arrangement—I did not see her wash or dress the child—she put the clothes on it; that was after the sergeant came in, while he was up stairs—thrush is a disease that children suffer from—it was suffering from thrush; that and the dirt accounted for the state of its hinder parts; it was also suffering from diarrhoea—some persons use fuller's earth and some use powder for children in that state—I don't think it had been applied to the child, or it would not have been so bad—I took it home to suckle—I suckled my own child at the same time—I had plenty of milk for the two—the bringing up of children by hand is attended with danger to a great many—some thrive, and a great many do not—my own is a healthy child, a fine baby—I am suckling it still, and have always suckled it—I don't think that the taking the child away from its mother at night, to be fed by band, would be likely to endanger its health; if it was well wrapped up it would not catch cold—if it did catch cold, it would not be attended with great danger—Waters did not tell me that the child had had a severe cold

—it had a little cough—none of my children were brought up by hand—both the children slept with me—I made a little bed at the aide for my own, and kept Cowen's child in bed with me—for the first two or three days it seemed to improve—I can't account for the change after three days—it took the breast up to within the last two days of its death—it kept taking the breast very eagerly.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Did it appear to be suffering from cold when you took it? A. No, the symptoms were those of diarrhoea and thrush—thrush is a disease of the mouth and the other extremity—I could not get the child clean, he was so weak and so bad—the dirt did not arise from the diarrhoea; but from not being washed—Its breath smelt very bad; I don't know of what.

MR. RIBTON. Q. After you commenced to suckle it, did the diarrhoea cease? A. After two or three days—I don't attribute that to the suckling—Dr. Puckle gave me some stuff to stop the diarrhoea—it did not stop for a few days—it did not stop altogether, it got a little better, and then it went off.

RICHARD RELF (re-examined.) In consequence of instructions I received I watched the house of Mrs. Castle, the midwife—I found out that Miss Cowen had been confined—I subsequently saw this advertisement in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, on 5th June—(Read: "Adoption. A good home, with a mother's love and care, is offered to any respectable person wishing his child to be entirely adopted; premium 5l., which sum includes everything. Apply by letter only, to Mrs. Oliver, P.O., Gore Place, Brixton "On 8th June I wrote a letter to that address, and on the following day received this letter (produced)—I replied, making an appointment to meet the writer—I received no answer to that, and wrote another on the 9th, appointing a meeting at the Camberwell New Road Railway Station—I went there, and met the prisoner Ellis—I told her that I wished to put a child of mine out to adopt—she said she would be happy to receive it—I asked where she lived—she said she could tell me so far, that she and her husband lived in the neighbourhood of Herne Hill, and that he was a house decorator and painter, in a large way of business—at that time I had toe letter dated the 8th in my hand—I held it up in my hand and said "Are you Mrs. Oliver?"—she said "I am; are you Mr. Martin—I said "I am"—I had taken the name of J. Martin—I said "I have received this letter, is it yours f'—she said "It is"—(Letter read: "To J. Martin. P.O., Southampton Street, Camberwell; Wednesday, June 8th. Sir. In reply to your letter, I beg to say that it would give me great pleasure to adopt, as my own, your little boy, if he is not too old. You omitted to state the child's age, and I wish for one as young as possible, that it may know none but ourselves as its parents. The child would be well brought up, and carefully educated; he would learn a good trade, and be to us in all respects as our own. We have been married several years; but have no family. We are in a comfortable position, have a good business, and a home in every way calculated to make a child happy. We arc both very fond of children; and should you entrust your little one to my care, you may rely upon his receiving the love and care of a mother. Any place you like to appoint for an interview will suit me. I can meet you at any time or place, and should he very glad to have the matter settled as soon as possible. Hoping to have an early reply, I am, Sir, respectfully yours, K. Oliver")—There is no address on the letter—I asked her if she could satisfy me where she lived

—she said "I can't do that; but I will tell you thus far, that it ie in the neighbourhood of Heron Hill;" but she said she did not like anyone to come and claim the child after she had got it—she said she had been married several years, and had had no family; that they wished particularly to get a child to bring up as their own; and if I entrusted my child to her care, it would have a mother's love; it would learn a good trade, and no doubt have her husband's business in time—I promised to bring the child and 5l. on the following night, between 9 and 10 o'clock, and asked where I should meet her with it—Mr. Cowen was in the neighbourhood it this time, so that he might see the woman—I then parted with her, and went into the railway station—this took place at the Camberwell New Road Railway Station—I was to bring the child to her between that station. and the railway arch, and she told me to bring as many clothes with it as I could get—after parting with her I turned and followed her; she turned the corner of the Camberwell New Road; and as I followed I met her returning again, at the corner of a public-house—I invited her to come in and take a glass of ale, and I had some convention with her, and afterwards I traced her to her home, 4, Frederick Terrace, Gordon Grove, Brixton—I saw her go indoors, about 9.30—I passed the house twice within about five minutes—I am not aware that anybody saw me—on the following morning I went to the house, accompanied by Mrs. Guerra and Mr. Cowen, but he remained outside—I went to the door and knocked; it was opened by Mrs. Ellis—the house was a very nice house outside, but there was hardly any furniture in it, and it smelt very offensively—there were six rooms, including the two kitchens, two room on a floor—the basement story consisted of a front and back kitchen—there was a front and back room on the ground floor, and two bed rooms on the floor above that, and a small ante-room—the basement floor was below the surface of the room; that was furnished, there was a sofa, and table, and chair—the house smelt badly; that applied more particularly to the base-ment story, and the bed-rooms—on the ground floor there was hardly a vestige of furniture—when Ellis opened the door, I said "Does Mrs. Willis live here?"—she said "No"—I said "Do you take children in here to adopt f—she said "No, what put that in your head—I said "Is Miss Cowen's child here?"—she said "No, but I know where it is; will you step in and wait?"—I said "No, I shall not leave you a second till Miss Cowen's child is produced"—she then took us into the front room on the ground floor, and called out "Margaret, bring up Miss Cowen's child," and a child was brought up by the prisoner Waters; it was very emaciated, and very dirty, in fact, filthy—it was wrapped up in some old clothes, and was a mere skeleton, mere skin and bone—it was quite quiet, and did not appear to have power to cry, or make any noise—Mrs. Guerra said "You have been starving this child to death"—Waters said the child had been ill, and had been attended by Dr. Harris; that it had plenty of milk, which her milk bills would show—I then asked her if she had got any more children in the house, and she said "A few"—I said "I should like to see them"—she said I could, and I went down stairs into the front kitchen; when I first went in I saw nothing, but I thought I could see something that looked like the shape of a head under some black clothes on a sofa—at last I removed some clothing from the sofa, and there laid five infants, all huddled up together—the clothing I removed was some old black stuff like an old shawl—three of the infant were lying on their sides along the sofa, all close

together; the other two laid on their backs, with their mouth open, at the lower end of the sofa—they were all together, only the three were more towards the head of the sofa, and the others lower down; all five lay in the same direction—they were all quiet, and all appeared to be asleep from some cause—they all had some clothing on, infant's clothes, and very dirty indeed, saturated with wet, and smelt very offensively—I did not see any appearance of food about—two of the infants appeared to me to be dying, the two that were lying on their backs; they were in an emaciated condition—I did nothing towards awaking them at that time—I said "To whom do these children belong?"—Waters said she did not know who the parents were—I said "Are these some more by adoption?"—she said "Yes"—I then said, in the presence of Ellis, "Have you any more?"—she said "Yet, a few; there are some older ones in the yard"—I went into the back yard, and there found five more; they appeared in better condition, one boy was a very fine child—I said to Waters "These children look better, how do you account for that?"—she said "We have so much a week with these"—I then left the house, and fetched Dr. Puckle, the medical officer of the parish—I returned to the house in about two hours with Dr. Puckle, and Mr. Cowen—I believe we were again let in by Ellis, but I am not positive—little Cowen was brought into the room; it was not in the same condition in which I had seen it before; it was cleaned up, I mean it had got clean clothes on—I did not observe any difference in any part of its person—I noticed the child's head particularly, for I have children of my own, and it did not appear to me that its head had ever been washed—the child was very dirty, particularly about the head; it had a good crop of hair, but it looked like a shrivelled up monkey—it was in the same state as before, it did not appear more lively—Mr. Cowen said "Mrs. Willis, you have been murdering this child, "and he shed tears when he saw it—Waters said that the had not; the child had been ill, and she had had Dr. Harris to attend to it; and also that she was going to put it out to wet-nurse that day—I then went down stairs; I found the five infants still there—they had all got nice' clean clothes on then, and were laid in rows on the sofa, and feed-ing-bottles by their sides, and teats in their mouths—I believe three were on the sofa, and two in a little crib by the side of the sofa—they did not appear to be in any different state, except the clothes—they were all in this quiet state, apparently asleep; I mean they appeared to be all void of any feeling, in a state of torpor, unconscious, in a state of stupor—I did not see that they were using the bottles; they contained food—I observed this bottle (produced) on the table, with the cork out and lying by it—this was in the kitchen where the infants were—I smelt it and thought it was laudanum—Dr. Puckle also smelt it; he marked the bottle and gave it to me, and it has been preserved—Dr. Puckle said the only way that might save Miss Cowen's child's life was by putting it out to wet-nurse, so that it could have its natural food—Waters said she was going to put it out to wet-nurse that day, and had sent for Mrs. Rowland—Mrs. Rowland was ultimately sent for again, and came, and Cowen's child was delivered over to her—one of the other five infants was the prisoner Ellis's, and that was in the same state as the others; she said it was her child—it was me of the five that laid on the sofa; it was quiet and asleep the same as the rest—Ellis took possession of it, and the other four remained there till Monday; I then came with the divisional surgeon, and had them removed to Lambeth Workhouse—asked Waters if she could tell me who the children belonged to—she said she

could not, she did not know who the fathers or mothers were—I asked her if any of the children had got any names—she said "No"—I said "How long have you been in this business?"—she said "About four years"—I said "How many have you had in that time?"—she said "About forty"—Ellis said "Oh, more than forty"—Waters said "Oh no, say forty"—I asked whether she could tell me what had become of any of the other children—she said some had been sent away, and some took home—she did not tell me where any of them were at that time—I felt it to be my duty to consult my superior officers as to what course I was to pursue; and having done so, I returned to the house on Monday, in company with Tyers, 195, Dr. Pope, and Captain Baynes—the door was opened to us by Waters—I said to her "Mrs. Waters, I shall take you into custody for not providing proper food and nourishment for the illegitimate male child of Janet Tassie Cowen, whereby his life was endangered"—she said "Very well"—she also said that the children had been attended by the doctor, and repeated that they had plenty of milk, which her milk bills would show—at that time Ellis came up stairs—I told her that I should also take her into custody for being concerned with her sister in having four infants in their possession and not providing proper food and nourishment for the same, whereby their lives were endangered—at the station, after the charge was read over to the prisoners, Waters said "Believe me, what my sister has done has been entirely under my direction; I am the sinner, and I must suffer"—they were searched by a female, who handed me seventy-nine pawnbrokers' duplicates and a marriage certificate, a purse containing 11l. odd, and another purse, found on Ellis, containing 5s. 10d.—I sent the whole of the ten children to the Police Court, and nine of them were taken to Lambeth Work-house, Ellis's child remained with her—as the children had no names, they were numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9—after the prisoners were taken into custody I searched their house, and found there seventeen pawntickets, a receipt, and a medical certificate of attendance on 'Waters' husband—I took possession of a quantity of children's clothing and a milk bill, which I produce—I traced two persons who supplied milk to the house—I saw little Cowen constantly afterwards until 24th June, when he died; I saw it about three hours before it died—I saw the other nine children frequently at the workhouse—I did not get the articles out of pledge that the seventy-nine duplicates refer to; I have seen them in pledge, and there are some here—I produce a list of the articles found in the house, and the things are in Court—(The lift consisted of a large quantity of articles of children's clothing)—They were all dirty—I saw the whole of the articles to which the seventy-nine duplicates related—a great number related to furniture—the best part of the articles are here—I have a list of such as relate to babies' clothing, extending from about January last year to May this year; they amount to about 7l. or 8l.—I produce a detailed list of them; they were pledged with a variety of pawnbrokers.

Cross-examined. Q. At what time on the Saturday did you first get to the house? A. About 9.30—I was in plain clothes—Ellis did not know I was a constable—Mrs. Rowland was there when I arrived—I went there as the Mr. Martin that Ellis had met over night—I had not appointed to go—I had seen her as Mrs. Oliver the night before—I had not given her any notice that I intended to come on the Saturday, no doubt my visit was quite unexpected—I went into the front kitchen, where Mrs. Rowland was—the child Cowen was taken away by Mrs. Rowland on that Saturday—I

went again to the house with Mr. Cowen two hours after my first visit—Mrs. Rowland was not there then, she was sent for while I was there, and came—I did not hear her say that she had been sent for before my visit-as near as I can guess it was between 11 and 12 o'clock on the Saturday when she took the child away—I did not see it every day afterwards; I dare. say I saw it five or six times, for I took a great interest in it—I saw it the game night at Mrs. Rowland's—the next time I saw it I was in company with Dr. Pope, on the Monday—the house was taken by Waters in the name of Margaret Blackburn.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Was this agreement (produced) found in the house? A. Yes, it is signed "Margaret Blackburn," to the best of my belief in Waters' writing.

GEORGE PUCKLE, M.D . I am Medical Officer of Health for Lambeth—Brixton is within that district—on Saturday, 11th June, I was called upon by Sergeant Relf—in consequence of what he said I went to 4, Frederick Terrace, shortly after 11 o'clock—I went down stain to the front room, and there found the two prisoners, and five babies, besides one which was Ellis's—they were all together in the front kitchen—Ellis had hers in her arms, the others were lying in a row, three on the sofa and two in a cot adjoining, or in chairs made up as a cot—one of the five was pointed out to me as Miss Cowen's child—Waters took it out of the cot and brought it to me—I examined it minutely, sufficiently to form an opinion—I examined its lower parts; I took the clothes partly off—it had on the ordinary clothes of a baby of that age, a night-dress—they were quite clean—the body of the child was very much emaciated, extremely wasted, the besides almost coming through the skin—it was a miserably wasted child, no flesh hardly on the bones, the bones almost protruding through the skin, and it had that aged appearance in the face which made it difficult to form an opinion of its age; but I took it to be a month old, and I was informed that was its age—it was not a small child with regard to the size of its bones, I should say it had been a fine child, but at the time I saw it, it was no miserably wasted, that it was nothing but skin and bone—it was in a thoroughly insensible state; the eyes were closed, the limbs hung down, and it appeared in a very profound stupor—I raised the eyelids, and found the pupils very much contracted, not in a natural state—I should say that in ordinary sleep the pupils would be somewhat contracted, but they were contracted more than ordinary, very much contracted—I endeavoured to rouse the child, and used considerable endeavour for that proceed it would not at all rouse with a slight endeavour—I should think it was untter my observation on that occasion quite twenty minutes—I succeeded slightly in arousing it, just to show it was not in a natural sleep—neither diarrhoea or thrush would account for the state it was in—my opinion is that the child was in a state of narcotism, arising from the administration of some narcotic poison—laudanum would be the very thing that I should suppose had been administered, from the appearance of the child—it would be a very improper thing to administer to a child—supposing it to have been affected by thrush or diarrhoea, laudanum, to produce insensibility, would be a very improper remedy—it would be difficult to say what amount had been administered, some would be under its influence with a smaller dose than others—I asked Waters about the child having been ill—she said it had suffered from diarrhaea and from thrush—I saw that it had suffered from thrush, but the thrush was somewhat improving—I asked what food she

had given it, and what medicine; she said she had given it no other medicine than what Dr. Harris had ordered; that he had been attending the child, he had seen it previously, and she expected him that day—I asked her if she had given it any sleeping medicine, or any soothing syrup—she said she had not, she said she had given it cornflour, arrowroot, and plenty of milk, as her bills would prove—from the state of the child, I formed an opinion that it had been either improperly fed, or that it had been fed on such food as had not nourished it—I noticed the other children slightly—I noticed one other child; it seemed very ill—they were all very quiet, I did not examine them thoroughly—they were all quite quiet, and it afterwards struck me as being a very remarkable thing that they should be so very quiet for such a length of time—I was in the room I should say nearly half an hour, so as to know that there was no cry all the time, nor any motion of the children—Cowen's child was given to Mrs. Rowland to take charge of—I ascertained that she was a healthy woman, and capable of nursing the child—I thought her a very suitable person, her baby being only seven weeks old—she had sufficient milk for her own baby as well as this one—at the request of Mr. Cowen I attended the child while it was with Mrs. Rowland—I saw it daily—it rallied for a time, it improved for some days, then there was a return of the diarrhoea, but not very excessively, and the child went off again and did not rally; the day before its death it became in an insensible state, with convulsions—it died on 24th June—in my opinion it died of a combined cause, atrophy, or extreme wasting, with exhaustion and congestion of the brain—my judgment has been formed upon a general view of this case, and the cases of the other children—there is no doubt that many children brought up by hand will die of atrophy; still, my judgment would also be formed from what I saw in this case alone, seeing that the child was narcotised at the time I saw it—in my judgment death arose from want of suitable food sufficiently early, and also from the improper administration of a narcotic—many children die that are brought up by hand; I mean a disproportionate number to those that are suckled—I am unable to form a decided opinion as to the proportion—there is no doubt that with great care a larger proportion would be saved—where a number of children are brought up by hand together, the chances of living would be less—I saw very little of the other children who subsequently died; but I heard of their state from the medical men who attended them, and I also saw them several times—they wore under the care of Dr. Bullen, and Dr. Pope also saw them on several occasions, and from what they told me, and from what I saw of them myself, I have formed an opinion of the cause of their respective deaths—(MR. RIBTON objected to this evidence, at it would open an inquiry into the antecedent circumstances attending the con-dition of each of the children, and would not assist the Jury in arriving at the cause of the death of the child in question. THE LORD CHIEF BARON was clearly of opinion that the evidence was admissible, if the same mode of treat-ment was pursued towards all the children, then the effect of that treatment upon the others became important, in relation to the cause of the death in question)—My opinion is that there was congestion of the brain in the other four children—I was present at the post-mortem examination, and the congestion of the brain formed a very important part of the cause of death of those four infants—I had noticed the condition of those children whilst living, and they all appeared to have been more or less subjected to the same

influence as the infant that was entirely under my charge from the time of its removal, the kind of stupid condition, which led me to believe that narcotic had probably been also administered to them, as I was certain had been in this case—I attribute the cause of their death to a want of suitable food, and probably also to the administration of narcotics—when I went into the front kitchen, with Sergeant Relf, I noticed on the table a small phial, lying with the cork beside it—this is it—I marked it—it contained a few drops of a fluid, which I was of opinion was laudanum—I subsequently examined it more thoroughly, and I am certain it was laudanum—I think it is tincture of opium, which is laudanum—there were only about three drops in the bottle—I don't think it was in a diluted state—I think it was as it would be sold as laudanum—after smelling the bottle, and handing it to Relf to smell also, I again asked Waters if she was quite sure she had not given the child anything to make it sleep—she said she had not—cleanliness is very important with a child, whether brought up by hand, or in the ordinary way—this child was not kept well clean, under the arms and behind the ears, and generally it had not been well washed.

Cross-examined. Q. You say "not well washed;"I suppose then we may conclude that it had been washed? A. I have no doubt it had been washed to some extent; but not habitually well washed—I have no doubt it had been washed at some time; but not as frequently as it ought to have been—a child suffering from diarrhoea would require it more frequently than others—a child taken from its mother three days after its birth, and exposed to the night air, would be liable to catch cold—a good deal would depend upon the kind of evening, and partly on the constitution of the child—a strong child would probably be less liable to take cold than a weakly one—the circumstances of the mother during the period of gestation may in some cases have an influence upon the constitution of the ohild; but this appeared to be a remarkably fine and healthy ohild; I believe it has some influence mentally upon the child; I mean on the nervous system—that might be the case without its exhibiting external signs of it—in the case of an illegitimate child, the mother, endeavouring to conceal the matter, and being under alarm and apprehension, might act upon the child she was bearing—I had no means of discovering whether this child had been so affected or not; it might have been, without my being able to discover ft—in the bringing up of a child by hand it might make a slight difference if it was affected in that way—the bringing up children by hand is attended with very considerable difficulty and danger in all cases; there is a greater risk of the child not living—in all cases it is attended with some risk—I have had a great experience, medically, as regards children who are brought up by hand—it is not a fact that the majority of them die—I cannot give you the percentage—milk and water and sugar would agree, at first, with many children, and disagree afterwards—if the digestive functions became deranged, then the milk Would very likely not agree with it—if the milk was the cause of the derangement, I think it would appear within three days—cow's, milk agrees with most children, with sugar and water—a little sugar is added, because infants will not take cow's milk—it is not sweetened, as a rule—there is more saccharine matter in the human milk, and therefore sugar is added to approximate the cow's milk to it, which would probably make it more likely to agree with the child—I don't think it would have taken the milk without sugar; but if the sugar was discontinued after two or three days, I don't think it would make that difference that it would

disagree with the child—I don't think it would have any injurious effect upon the digestion—if I found an alteration in the food, upon which the child did not do well, I should be disposed to attribute it to the change of food—anything that deranges the digestive organs of a child of that age would be likely to produce diarrhoea, and derange the whole system—thrush may arise from that cause; but it will also frequently arise in infants without any apparent cause—soothing medicines are not usually given to children suffering from diarrhoea, they are given to keep them quiet—I believe it is not an unfrequent thing for those who have charge of them to give them Godfrey's cordial, or syrup of poppies (it goes by different namet), and laudanum sometimes, I suppose—I should never give it to a young infant, I can't say what others would do—a small amount of laudanum might have a tendency to stop diarrhoea; but I think that would be very much counterbalanced by the injury it would do to the digestive functions—a small amount of laudanum might be given by some medical men, for diarrhoea; but not to produce narcotism, or insensibility, or what I witnessed in this infant—if nurses give anything of the kind, they probably do it to keep the children quiet—if given in excess, for the purpose of stopping diarrhoea, it would produce stupor—at the time I saw this child it was Mid to be suffering from diarrhoea; but when it was removed there was not much diarrhoea, at first, when I attended it; very slight, indeed—I think it is probable it had been suffering from diarrhoea—if it had, it had been checked—there was less at the time I took charge of it—I can't say positively that it had suffered from it, or that it had not, I only took the statement that I received—I could not speak with certainty, from my own observation—laudanum forms a principal ingredient in the soothing medi-cines I have named—syrup of poppies is not laudanum; but the active principle is very much the same, it is a narcotic—it is more often than not made up artificially with opium—poppy and opium are different things—you can extract an opiate from poppy—the syrup extracted from poppies is very like laudanum—it is sometimes given by nurses in excess—I am of opinion that there was nothing in this bottle besides laudanum or tincture of opium, which is almost the same thing—either, diluted, would be a very improper thing as a narcotic, and under any circumstances, it would be a very improper thing to give to a child—it would never be proper for a nurse to give Godfrey's cordial or laudanum to a child, not if it was diluted, or to give any soothing syrup—it would be most improper in all cases, unless a medical man had ordered it—I consider that a nurse never should give laudanum to any child of her own accord—I did not know Dr. Harris; I never spoke to him till yesterday—diarrhoea will of itself produce ema-ciation, more or less, according to the length of time it exists, and according to its severity—if an opiate had been improperly adininia-tered for the purpose of checking the diarrhoea, and had checked it, the counter effect would be a still greater derangement of the digestive system—the direct effect of an opiate is to render the liver torpid; that would, in a child of this age, still further increase the emaciation—if an opiate had been administered to check the diarrhosa, I should not be surprised to find a child in a state of emaciation—I had never seen Mrs. Rowland before that day, to my knowledge; I considered her a healthy woman; I depended upon what she told me, and also from an examination of the state of the breast as regarded the state of her milk, and also from examining her infant, which was a very healthy one—I cannot

recollect her age—I think she said she had four children—if a woman has plenty of milk and her health is good, I think she might fairly suckle two children; a good deal would depend upon the nourishment given to her; she would require a greater supply, and she had it—the child improved the first two or three days while with her, it improved when it had the change of food; I account for its not continuing to improve, from the state it was in at the time I first saw it—the diarrhoea returned, but very slightly; it had a little astringent medicine for that, only on one day—catechu, with a small quantity of ammonia; no opium—that was administered, I think, about a week before its death; it checked the diarrhoea—a very small quantity was given; there were several doses at intervals; Mrs. Rowland told me they were given at the proper times—they did not appear to have any other effect than to stop the diarrhoea—one of the injurious effects of opiates improperly administered would be congestion of the brain—laudanum is never applied externally to infants in diarrhoea, to my knowledge; I have never ordered such a thing—I should think a flannel with brandy on it and a few drops of laudanum, bound round the bowels was improper, but it was not on the bowels of the child—I could not undertake to say it was not at any time; I think if it had been it would have been improper; it could do no good—if the laudanum was applied in a concentrated state to the surface, a certain amount might probably be absorbed, which might produce some stupor.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Will you state exactly what took place on the subject of this child having had diarrhoea? A. Waters told me that it had suffered from diarrhoea, that it had been under the care of Dr. Harris, who had seen it the previous day, and she expected every minute he would call again to see it that day; she said she had not given it anything except what Dr. Harris had ordered; she said that on the Saturday morning, I am quite sure of that, because I pressed her very much, knowing that laudanum was on the table, and seeing that the child was suffering—that was her exact answer, that she had not given the child anything but what he had ordered, as far as medicine was concerned—she did not, at that or any other time, say that laudanum had been used in relation to the children, or Nothing syrups, or anything of the kind; I particularly asked that question; I mentioned soothing syrup and sleeping or composing medicines, or anything to make the child sleep; she told me so on two separate occasions, for I pressed her very much; I said "Are you quite Bure that you have not done so?"because I was equally sure that the child had had it administered.

HENRY HARRIS . I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and practice as a surgeon and general practitioner at 2, Northampton Terrace, Denmark Hill, about three quarters of a mile from where the prisoners lived—I know both the prisoners—I first saw them on 9th Hay of the present year; I knew Waters by the name of Mrs. Lackburn—I was sent for to the house on 7th May; I went on the 9th; it was to see a child about two and a half years old—at the same time I saw another child, about a year and a half old, and an infant a few weeks or a month old, which was Mrs. Ellia's; it was a small child—I was not called on to attend the child a year and a half old, I merely saw it there; the one two and a half years old was the one I was called in to attend—on 1st June I was out, and when I arrived home I found I had been again sent for—I got there about 10 o'clock at night—I saw Ellis she said they

had a child suffering from diarrhoea and flickness, which her Bister had brought up the previous evening from Bristol; she said it was about three weeks old—I was then shown a child about that age; Ellis had it in her arms in the front kitchen when I went in—a friend of mine called with me—there were some children in the room at the same time; two young infants, on the sofa—this was in a room below the ground, on the basement—I don't think I saw Waters that night—I did not take much notice of the two children, they appeared to be asleep—I have no means of knowing whether the child I law at that time was Cowen's child, only from what the prisoners have told me—it was a male child, and it appeared to be about three weeks old, and I have heard since from one or other that it was Cowen's child; it was not very lively—I heard that it had diarrhea and sickness, and I prescribed for it a preparation of mercury; the black oxide of mercury, triturated, in the form of a powder, to be dissolved—I took it out of my pocket, and mixed it with water, in the house—I did not administer it—it is not a soporific—it was intended to stop the diarrhoea—this was all on the same day, 1st June—I left directions if the child was not better that I was to be sent for the next morning—I ordered it to have milk and water, with sugar of milk dissolved in it—I was not sent for the next day—I went again on 3rd June, to see another child, my first patient—I don't think I saw this child on that occasion; I was told it was better—I did not make inquiry about the two children I had seen on the sofa, on 1st June—Ellis told me, without inquiry, that they had been left with them for a day or two, until a home could be found for them in the country—I know nothing of the number of children that were in the house—I can't say positively that I saw Cowen's child after the 1st of June—I new prescribed opiates for it, or for any other children there—I should not like to swear that I never saw it again, but I feel sure in my own mind that I did not; I am sure I never saw it professionally—I was not there at all on 10th June; I was there on the 8th, and saw Mrs. Ellia's child—I did not see Cowen's child on 10th, and prescribe for it—I was not expected to call and see it on the 11th—I saw Ellis's child on the 8th; it had diarrhoa—I directed beef tea to be given to Cowen's child—I think that was on my second visit, without seeing it.

Cross-examined. Q. On 1st June, I understand you to say, you did see Cowen's child? A. Yes—it was apparently suffering from diarrhoea; I was told that it was—children brought up by hand are very subject to diarrhoea—it was not more prevalent among children at that time than at any other—the medicine I have named was the only medicine I ordered—I prescribed again, the second time, without seeing it, not the same medicine; I think I altered it then, and prescribed podophyllum, a new American medicine—I think it is in the pharmacopoeia—that was on my second visit, on 3rd June; it was in the form of a tincture; it is called vegetable mercury by some persons—we don't use it as an astringent, we use it more to act on the liver—it is not calculated in any way to produce torpor, or even sleep—I am a homoeopath—podophyllum has been in use as a medicine for several years—it is recognized in our branch of the profession; I can't say that it is universally—I mixed so many drops in water for a tea-spoonful to be given at a dose, so many times a day—I can't tell how long the child took it—I gave about enough to last three or four days—I think I was told afterwards that the child was better—I will not swear positively that I did not see the child after the 1st—I don't remember that anything was

said about thrush; I did not treat it for thrush especially—I ordered sugar of milk; that is not a medicine, it is an article of food sold at the chemists' with printed directions for its use—the effect of it is to make the cow's milk I nearer approach to the mother's milk; I ordered it for that purpose—I thought it very likely that the cow's milk was disagreeing with the child; it will disagree with a good many children, even when diluted—if I heard that a child had had cow's milk, with merely the addition of water, and that it was suffering from diarrhoea, in the absence of any other cause, I should attribute it to the milk—that would be a sufficient cause in many cases—I really did think at the time that the cow's milk was disagreeing with the child—that was my reason for ordering sugar of milk—there are, no doubt, some points of difference in the milk of different cows; the milk of one cow to-day and another to-morrow, might disagree with a child—when I saw the child on the 1st it was in a moderate condition as to cleanliness; I did not strip it—it seemed tolerably clean—I don't think she complained of its food disagreeing with it; she told me of sickness and durrhcea—I don't know what sort of sickness—I daresay I asked her at the time, but I do not remember now—I don't remember that she said its food disagreed with it, and that it was wasting away; she did not say much about that, because I understood she had only had it the previous night—she did not say she had had it three weeks; she said it was three weeks old—I called on the 8th—I don't remember that I made any inquiries then about the child; it was for Ellis's child then—I ordered sugar of milk for that—I did not inquire about the child I had ordered it for before; I supposed it was well then, I had not heard any more about it—I don't know of my own experience that soothing syrups, are often given by women and surces improperly to children—I don't remember saying before the Magistrate that I thought I had not seen the child more than twice—I don't think I did, but I can't swear it; it is possible I may have seen it twice—I went a second time for the purpose of attending another child—I am quite certain I did not twice see Cohen's child professionally—it was Mrs. Ellis I saw when she showed me Cohen's child—I did not see Waters that night—I have seen her, but I can't say on which day—they professed anxiety about the state of its health—diarrheoa is a common complaint with children brought up by hand.

COURT. Q. Did you, when you heard of this child having diarrhoea, desire to gee its motion? A. No, I think not—on the second occasion, I was told it was much better—I believe I did see the motions of Ellis's child.

COURT to DR. PUCKLE. Q. Supposing mental emotion or distress of mind in the mother, during the period of gestation, to have affected the nervous system of the child, which you have said is quite possible; would Rich an effect being produced on the nervous system account in any way for any of the appearances of which you have spoken, for the emaciation, and the stupor? A. No, it would not manifest itself in any such way.

EDWARD POPE . A. I am a surgeon, of 19, Manor Terrace, Brixton, and am divisional surgeon to the police—on Monday morning, 13th June, I was communicated with, and went to Mrs. Rowland's a little before 9 o'clock—I there saw Miss Cowen's child, and examined it—it appeared in a very weak and emaciated state; it appeared to be conscious at that time—I weighed It at the Police Court, the same day, and it weighed 6 lbs. 4 OE.—the proper weight of a child of that age would be double that, I should think—I saw it twice that day, and did not see it again before its death—I was present at the post-mortem

examination—in my opinion, the cause of death was severe congestion of the brain, and emaciation—I considered the peculiar congeition of the brain to be due to the administration of a narcotic, and the emaciation to a want of proper and sufficient food—on Monday morning, 13th June, I went with the officer to the prisoner's house, and went down into the front room on the basement, a little before 9 o'clock; they called it a front parlour; it was below the surface of the earth—I think one of the prisoners was there, but I can't recollect, exactly, who was in the room—I found one infant there; it was asleep—I examined it, and found its bowels were out of order—it was in a dirty state, in a bed made up on a chair—one of the prisoners took the child in her lap for me to examine it—I found the motion of the child in a very unhealthy state—I roused it, and it cried weakly—I should think it might have been about three months old—I then went up stairs to a bedroom at the top of the house, and saw four babise in bed—two of them were in a very dirty state, in a small cradle, placed together, asleep—I did not rouse them—I did not examine them; I just lifted a part of the clothes, and found it in a very dirty state, and left it alone—it was quite wet; everything belonging to the cradle was wet and saturated—the children looked very thin, and were soundly asleep—I examined them again, casually, at the Police Court, the same day—I noticed one of the children very torpid indeed—its mouth was parched, and partially open; the lips were separated—I told the Magistrate I be-lieved the child was then under the influence of a narcotic—that was my opinion—I did not observe that the others were so torpid as that—they were afterwards taken to the workhouse—when I saw them at the prisoner's house, they had ordinary feeding-bottles beside them, with tubes reaching to the mouth—I am speaking of the four—I did not especially examine the contents of the bottles at that time; I looked at it, and pronounced it to be a mixture of corn flour and water—I examined them more particularly at my own surgery, afterwards; not the same day, I should think a week afterwards—I noticed that some of them were sour when they were lying by the side of the children; one particularly I smelt, and it was sour—I unfastened the stopper at the time and smelt it—I did not see anything against the kind of food that was in the bottle if it was sweet, it would do occasionally to give a little corn flour.

Cross-examined. Q. I think, when you were examined before the Megistrate, you did not go into detail, as you have done to-day; you were asked, generally, I think, whether you confirmed Mr. Bullen? A. No I was examined before Mr. Bullen—the Magistrate put a great many question to me, and I went into the same detail as I have done to-day—my attention was first directed to this house on the Sunday before the prisoners were apprehended; that was about 12th June, I think—Cowen's child was at Mrs. Rowland's house when I first saw it—I don't recollect whether I was informed how long she had had it—I did not know Mrs. Rowland—I have no doubt it was being properly attended to at that time—I heard Dr. Puckle partially give his evidence—I believe it commonly to be the case, where an unmarried woman is in the family way, and suffering from the usual shame and anxiety, that the child is affected by those circumitances.

COURT. Q. In what way affected? A. Children are often born with large heads and crooked limbs, and emaciated, and sometimes one limb or other is distorted, and sometimes the body itself—illegitimate children are often born so, parhaps more commonly than in matrimony.

MR. PATER. Q. Supposing a child had been suffering for some days from diarrhoea, you would expect the exhaustion and emaciation to increase, would you not? A. Certainly—some children thrive as well brought up by hand as when fed from the mother—there may be exceptions—a number of children brought up by hand die—if it was a fine healthy fat child when attacked with diarrhoea, the effect of that attack upon such a child reported to be better two or three days afterwards, would not be to reduce it to the emaciated condition in which I saw this child—cow's milk sometimes disagrees with children, and will produce diarrhoea—diarrhoea if continued would of itself produce emaciation in the condition of a child, however healthy—if continued for a fortnight, it might account for the emaciation I found in this child—diarrhoea is very common in young infants—congestion of the brain is produced by numerous causes—a child suffering from diarrhoea, baring a weakly constitution, and perhaps having brain symptoms from its birth, would conduce to congestion—there is a natural sympathy between the brain and the stomach.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Would congestion of the brain produced by narcotics be a matter that medical science could ascertain? A. Yes, I think so—the cause of the congestion in this case I consider due to the administration of a narcotic, coupled with diarrhoea.

DR. HENRY ST. JOHN BULLEN . I am a surgeon, and medical officer of the Lambeth Workhouse—on the afternoon of 13th June, nine children were brought there—I was there at the time—three of them were from two to three years old, as near as we could guess; the others we conjectured to be from three weeks to eighteen months old, or it might be rather more—having no names for them they were numbered from 1 to 9—Nos 1, 2, and 3 were subsequently claimed and removed—they were the elder tnes—they appeared to be in very fair health; I did not discover that there was anything specially the matter with them—Nos. 4 and 5 were the next eldest, the younger about eighteen months and the other rather older—a claim has been made to one of them, but they are still under my care—they are very much better—they were not in good health when admitted, far from it, but they have recovered surprisingly, and I think are now out of danger—as to Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9, the youngest was about three weeks old, and the eldest about three months; they have all died—the first that died was No. 8, a female infant, she died on 23rd June; No. 6, a male infant, died on 26th June; No. 9, a female infant, on 5th July; and No. 7, a female infant, on 11th July—No. 8 we judged to be from three to fire weeks old at the time of admission, on 13th June; it was in a state of great emaciation, and very puny—there were marks of recent thrush about the buttocks, and thush was also present in the mouth and throat; it was in a condition of torpor, inanimate—when I saw it, it had been washed by the nurse—there was a peculiar glazed look about the eyes in the whole four, but in this child especially; the pupil not answering very well to light—the great emaciation was ostensibly attributable to want of sufficient and proper nourishment; and the torpid inanimate condition I believe arose from its being under the influence of some soporific drug—the children were exclusively under my care from the time of their admission to the time of their death—I saw them daily, and several times a day—the first child for the first two or three days appeared to get better under the stimulus of plentiful food; subsequently it rapidly succumbed—the symptoms were occasional sickness, and almost continuous diarrhoea,

which I was unable to arrest—I was present at the post-mortem examination, on 24th June, the day after the death of the child—it was about 22 in. in length; the body and limbs were much emaciated, but there were no marks of violence—there was still the appearance of recent thrush about the bottom part of the person—on opening the head, there was found great congestion of the whole brain structure, both externally and internally the membranes also showed the signs of information; the dura-mater was glued to the skull in some portions, so that it could not be separated, which is an unusual occurrence—those appearances confirmed the view I originally took of the cause of the symptoms—the child weighed nearly 5 lbs.; it was weighed shortly after admission, and again at death; there was not very much difference—the ordinary weight of such a child would be about 12 lbs.—No. 6 was from three to four months old—when admitted it was in a very puny and emaciated condition; the weight takes almost immediately after admission was 6 lbs. 15 ozs.—a child of that age should not have weighed much less than 20 lbs; its length was about 26 in.; it was also suffering from thrush in the same way as the other—the nervous condition was torpid, the eyes having the glazed appearance before described, and there was very little animation about it—it took its sustenance greedily at first, but subsequently the same change took place as in the other; it failed—the alimentary canal was continually disturbed, sickness, and curded slimy dejections—I was present at the post-master examination of that child—I attribute its condition to the same cause as that of No. 8, want of proper and sufficient food, and also a congested state of the brain—No. 9, a female infant, was not so emaciated as the preceding two; its condition, as regards the nervous system, was more lively, and the pupils were not contracted when I observed them—I supposed that child to be from four to five months old—it was emaciated, but, compared with the others, it did not strike the observer so forcibly—the weight of this child, as of all, was not more than that of a new-born child it was about 10 or 11 lbs.—it was weighed soon after admission, not on the day—it had a great deal of diarrhoea; that existed on its admission, and continued with slight intermission, conjoined with occasional vomiting, up to its death—I was present at the post-mortem examination of that child; there was con-gestion of the brain, and also effusion in the ventricles of about an ounce of fluid—I ascribe the death of that child to the congested and inflamed state of the brain, associated with emaciation and diarrhoea—I ascribe the emaciation to want of sufficient nourishment previous to admission into the work-house—from the appearances noticed in this child I could not speak pontively as to the brain having been congested at the time of admission—No. 7 was supposed to be about from three to four months old—I am not certain of the weight of that child at the time of admission; the weight taken at death was 41/2 lbs., but that would hardly indicate what it was on admission, it was so very emaciated—it appeared very ill upon admission, and was suffering from profuse diarrhoea, which was visible upon examina-tion—this child had thrush worse than any of the others, it was quite raw with it, in a fearful condition—they all had slight signs of stupor, with glazed eyes and inanimate condition, but this and the preceding one were not so much so as the two first that I have mentioned—I always connect the occurrence of thrush with the existence of an improper or insufficient dietary; I never knew thrush to arise from any other cause, either through the mother, when at the breast, or when brought up by hand—there was

also a post-mortem examination in this case; the brain was in a much better addition than the others—the cause of death in this case was supposed and believed to be from mesenteric disease, which we found after death—there was an enlargement of the alimentary canal, and induration of the glands—that might be the direct result of insufficient food and nourishment nothing is more common than the result of mesenteric disease, from neglect or insufficient food—none of the children, as far as I could judge, would weigh the proper weight of a new-born infant—from the state in which they were when they came in, I should say they must have been poorly for at least ten days or a fortnight, if not more—they were undoubtedly so poorly that they would urgently require medical attention and care—from the position I hold I have had large experience in the treatment of infants taken from their mothers and brought up by hand—I think the baris of all proper food for infants must be milk, either pure or diluted, according to the age—some farinaceous substance should be added as it grows older—I think a quart of diluted milk per day and night would be suficient for a young infant; half pure milk and half water; that would be sufficient up to perhaps six weeks, after that a larger quantity would be Necessary—I think a pint of new milk, diluted to a quart, would be sufficent for a very young infant, every twenty-four hours, with some form of sugar admixed, and I do not object to a little arrowroet.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. Q. I suppose in the workhouse you have a great many children of that age brought in? A. We had some months ago an unusual quantity; there were, I think, four, five, or six very emaciated children brought in the workhouse, and we did not do very well with them—some of them resembled these children very closely—I do—not know where they were brought from, some were found in the street, some were brought by the police—from time to time we have children, from Tarious causes, given to us to bring up by hand; a woman falls ill, and is unable to nurse her child; or she dies, and in that case, unless I can get mother woman to take the child to the breast, we are obliged to bring them up by hand—it is difficult to get children brought up by hand; I think perhaps the difficulty is exaggerated, but I know it is difficult if persons are un-skilled and donot knowhowto manage them—a large percentage undoubtedly die; I should say possibly one-third; but I should wish my opinion taken for that it is worth, because I have not gone into details—I believe, under anycircumstances, even of comparatively healthy children, a large percentage would I not be successfully reared; I should say one-third would not be exaggerating the loss, from whatever cause it may be—I won't say "No matter how carefully they may be attended to,"I find so much difficulty in getting nurses to carry out the instructions of medical men—I don't see why so many should be loaf—nurses may in private houses give soothing mixtures to Moth a child, but in large institutions we do not allow that—I think the great source of loss is from the sourness of the food; nurses are not sufficently particular in that—in the case of these infants, I directed all the milk should be thrown away immediately it became sour—we tried to keep it as sweet as we could with ice and so forth—there is a difficulty in that, in warm weather it will turn sour in a few hours; if put into a bottle for child at night it will be sour by the morning; it requires very great care, and I may say, great skill to do it—children brought up by hand are generally affected by diarrhoea and thrush—thrush is a very common occurrence in infancy, I know nothing more common; even when brought up at the

breast it is common—when the attempt to bring up a child by hand fails, thrush, diarrhoea, and consequent emaciation is the result, and frequent convulsions, and affections of the nervous system—as to one of the children, No. 9, I did not observe congestion of the brain at the time of admission, yet there was considerable congestion at death—possibly it might have been produced while it was in the workhouse—congestion of the brain, I am bound to state, is a very common occurrence with children, and it may re-sult even from advanced thrush, and from prolonged diarrahcea; it may occur entirely unconnected with the use of any narcotic—I do not think the congestion I found in the others might have been the result of thrush and adiarrhoea—in two of the cases there was a result from inflammation, an adherence of the membranes, that must have taken some considerable time; and in the youngest, the first admitted, there was not time for that result to have taken place, at least in my opinion—there was not an unusual number of children dying in the workhouse about this time—I daresay then may have been six or eight deaths in the course of May, June, and July, in addition to those I have named; possibly you are alluding to some establishment connected with the workhouse, but upon that I cannot speak of my own knowledge—children were sent out from the workhouse, and, for aught I know, they are so still—I believe, with the consent of their mothers, a certain number are removed from the breast to some' establishment at Pimlico, conducted by Miss Broughton—I called the attention of the Board to having heard of an unusual mortality there—I did not know it of my own knowledge—I believe some of the guardians went and inquired into it—I do not know the result.

COURT. Q. In any communication you may have made to Dr. Puckle, with regard to those children after they had been placed under your care, was your report perfectly correct? A. Yes, as far as my judgment went.

CHARLES RATCLIFF . I keep a dairy, in Englcfield Street, Brixton—I have from time to time supplied the prisoner Waters with milk in the name of Blackburn; that was the only name I knew her by—it was at 4, Frederick Terrace—this (produced) is one of my milk bills—it is not the last—I left one on 13th June, the morning they were taken into custody—this bill is up to 1st May, it is correct; it amounts to 3s. 6d. for the week, 6d. a day, that is, three pints per day—that was the general quantity I supplied—I sup-plied her continually from 10th April to 13th June—the last fortnight I supplied a quart a day—it dropped off to that.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you keep cows? A. Yes—I have not any of my own, but I have some on the premises—there are several other persons about there who keep dairies—I enter in my books what I sell—I have not got my books here—I am speaking from my memory when I say that I supplied a quart a day for the last fortnight before 13th June—I have not been desired to bring my books here—no one has asked to look at them—no other inquiry was made of me except to know whether this bill was cor-rect—I was not asked what quantity I supplied for any other period—I only received two half-sovereigns from Mrs. Waters all the time I served her—she did not pay ready money—I delivered the milk at the house myself—I live about ten minutes' walk from her—I know her servant—I never saw her at my place—she never sent for extra milk—she had a bill running with me during the whole of May, and down to 13th June—I received the two half-sovereigns at different times, on account—I sent in a bill every Monday—she is indebted to me now 11s. 11d., I think, the balance of the

whole amount during the time that I supplied her—I can't say whether or set she had milk from other places—I sell milk on the premises, my wife and children sell that—my wife is not here—I can't tell whether the prisoner may have sent to my place for milk, or not—I don't think she knew where my place was—people are in the habit of sending for milk and paying for it, I free customers who run bills with me—there are about half-a-dozen other places should that district where milk is sold—the milk I supplied was pure milk.

COURT. Q. the entire sum now due to you, and the sum that has been paid, for milk alone? A. Yes—it was 4d. a quart—that was from about 10th April to 13th June, and the last fortnight they only had a quart a day.

EMILY PICKARD . I like opposite No. 4, Frederick Terrace, where the prisoners live—I sell milk, I have a shop—I have been in the habit of supply-ing to the prisoner's servant, O'Connor—she used to come to my place far it—I can't say as to the times at which I supplied her—it was three points a week—that was the largest-quantity, and the smallest was one pint—the servant always came for it, and always paid for it at the time; there was no bill.

Cross-examined. Q. You were not examined before the Magistrate? A. No-Sergeant Relf made inquiries of me first about this—that was after the injury before the Magistrate had been finished—I am married, and have three children—no other person serves in my shop—I always serve myself—I was there every day, and all day—I have no occasion to leave the shop till it closes—I am only in the next room, where I have my meals, and I go to and fro to the shop while I am having my meals.

COURT. Q. Do you remember for how long a time you supplied the prisoner with milk? A. I don't know—I can't say at all—the servant always had a pint at a time—never less—she came three times a week—I have a great many customers—I can't say how many—I am positive I never served her with more than three pints of milk in a week.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE proposed to call a witness in order to prove the hading under a railway arch the body of an infant, upon which were articles of dotting and papers that would be traced to one of the prisoners. The evidence of tendered for the purpose of shewing a systematic reception by the prisoners of infants, and the disposition of their bodies after death, so as to the inference that in the case of John Walter Cowen, they contemplated kideath. THE LORD CHIEF BARON was of opinion that such evidence was sholly inadmissible, being quite unconnected with the cause of the death of the child in question.

A certified copy was put in and read, of the registration of the birth of John Walter, son of Janet Tassie Cowen, bom on 14th May, 1870, registered 28th May, 1870.

MR. RIBTON requested that Ellen O'Connor, a witness whose name appeared the back of the indictment, should be called by the Prosecution. MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE declined to call her. THE LORD CHIEF BARON, in the absence of any authority to the contrary, was not prepared to insist upon the witness being called. It appeared that although her name was on the back of the bill, she had not been examined before the Grand Jury; it was a matter in the discretion of the prosecuting Counsel, with which he did not feel himself at liberty to interfere.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE having intimated that, as representing the Attorney-General, he should claim a right to reply, whether witnesses were called for the defence or not, MR. RIBTON submitted that this right was confined to the Attorney or Solicitor-General, when personally representings

he Crown, and referred to "Reg. v. Beckwith," 7, Cox's Criminal Cases, p. 505, and "Reg. v. Christie," 7, Cox's Criminal Cases, v. 506. THE LORD CHIEF BARON: "I think, in principle, I cannot resist the claim of right on the part of the Crown to reply, if the learned Counsel thinks fit to do so. The true ground it this, that the Crown, by its prerogative from time immemorial, has claimed the right, and whether the Attorney-General appears in person, or by reason of accident or other cause, does not appear, and is consequently represented by some other gentleman (whether the Solicitor-General, a Queen's Counsel, or Serjeant, or an ordinary barrister, is utterly immaterial), the Crown does possets the right, and and the Counsel is entitled to exercise it if Jie thinks fit. No Judge who has ever filled the office of Attorney-General, has ever doubted the existencesof the right: having had occasion to look into precedent, and to consider the principle upon which the right really rests, no one who has for any length of time filled either of the chief law offices of the Crown, has ever entertained a doubt upon the subject."

THE LORD CHIEF BARON considered that there was no evidenee against

ELLIS, and directed the Jury to find a verdict of NOT GUILTY as to her.

The following Witnesses were called for the Defence:ELLEN O'CONNOR. In June last I was employed as servant by Mrs. Waters, at 4, Frederick Terrace—I did not sleep in the house during the first fortnight; but after that I remained in the house entirely—I was there about three months—for the first fortnight I went at 12 o'clock in the fore-noon, and left about 10—I thought that the children had plenty of food—we used to have three pints of milk every day from the milkman—there was a milk-shop opposite, I used to go there for milk about three or four times a week—sometimes I used to have a pennyworth, that was a half-pint, and occasionally more, when we were short of milk—I did not buy milk any-where else—milk was also delivered by Ratcliff—we had three pints a day from him during the whole time I was there—I left when Mrs. Waters was taken away to prison—we had a pint and a half in the morning and a pint and a half in the evening from Ratcliff—during the last fortnight I was with her we used to have corn flour; the children were ill—we did not have quite so much as three pints of milk a day from Ratcliff during the last two or three weeks—about that time extra milk was taken in the morning, and paid for, in order that the milk bill should not be increased—milk taken in the morning from the milkman was not paid for; it used to be left all the week, and then she used to pay him on a oertun day—when the children were ill, corn flour was given to them—I prepared their food—I remember Cowen's child coming to the house—it used to be fed with a bottle—I used to fill the bottle—it used not to drink sometimes more than two bottles, and I used to mil a little lime water with it, a dessert spooniul—I don't know how much each bottle contained—if he wanted more than two bottles I gave it to him—it used to be asleep the best part of the day—when it was awake it took its food readily—whenever it wanted the bottle re-filled, I did it—Mrs. Waters attended to the child at night—I did not sleep there during the first fortnight of my service, I did afterwards—Mrs. Waters sometimes used to go out, about 10 o'clock, and come back at I—I took care of the children when she was out—wet supper, and went to bed about 2 o'clock—Mrs. Ellis used to give the little boy Cowen a drop of titty—I mean from her breast—I have seenbe do that very often—the child used to cough a little when it was Mrs. Wasters

Waters said it had diarrhoea—that was a fortnight before she was taken to prison—I never saw laudanum used externally to the child—Mrs. Waters said that she hod nibbed the child's chest with laudanum before she came down to breakfast—the child was not washed very often—Mrs. Waters said it was too ill to be washed, and she said that was the reason it was not tubed so often—it was washed three or four times before it fell ill—I thought the children in the house were properly attended to, only they used to be left to lie in bed very long, the young children.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. How old are you? A. Getting on for fourteen—there were a few toys, four horses and carts, for the children—there was no other servant in the house besides myself—I did ill the house work, and used to attend to the children very often—Mrs. Waters used to wash them, and I generally attended to them—I did not make the bods—I did the scrubbing and cleaning—there were about four-teen persons in the house, children and grown up, during the three months I was there; there was Mrs. Waters, Mrs. Ellis, myself, and eleven children—that was the case during the three weeks before Mrs. Waters was taken to prison—they paid me 2s. a week—I have a mother and father; they knew the sort of work I had to do, but mother did not know there were so many children there, I told her when I had a Sunday and came home—I remem-ber Miss Cowen's little baby coming—Mrs. Waters brought it—I cant exactly tell what it was wrapped up in—it did not cry when it came, it did soon afterwards—it was a very nice child, a very pretty, fine child—Mrs. Waters took it up stain in her bedroom that night—it was put with the other children that night—there were nine children and Mrs. Ellis's baby in the house when little Cowen was brought there—Cowen's child made the elerenth—the children slept up stairs in the two upper rooms—Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Ellis slept with them always—all the eleven children slept in two rooms at the top of the house, the whole eleven slept there together—I used to help to put them to bed—I used to take one or two up for Mrs. Waters then they were put to bed—they used to put some pillows on some chairs, two chairs, and two pillows laid on them—there was only one child on each—there was a bassinet—there were two in that—four of the others slept at the bottom of Mrs. Waters' bed—Mrs. Waters slept in the room up at the top of the house—two of them used to sleep in the back room on a bed-stead, and the other one used to lie in a little crib; that was little Emily, not Mrs. Ellis's child, another child that is in the workhouse—they were Bought down after breakfast by Mrs. 'Waters—I used to put water on the fo for to wash them—the pillows were put on the sofa, and four or five of them laid on the sofa—Mrs. Waters used to wash them every morning, except Miss Cowen's child—she only washed him the first three or four days when he came, and the child began to get ill—it was taken up with the others every night when it was getting ill, and brought down everyday, and put on the sofa in the same way—it was getting worse from the time it was first taken ill—it was a very quiet baby, a very nice child—from the very beginning it used to cry, when it wanted its food, it used to cry a good deal it left off crying shortly after it came there; none of them used to cry hardly, they all seemed to be ill, the whole of them, except one or two they were the elder ones, that used to run about—there was one of the five on sofa, a little girl, she used not to be very ill, she died in the work-house—the children used to be laid all day on the sofa up till about 6.30, sometimes 7 o'clock—I might hear one of them just begin to cry, and I

would go up and put the teat in its mouth, and it would go to sleep again—they were very silent children—I have brothers and sisters of my own, I have got no young ones—I did not hear Mrs. Waters say anything about their being silent—she never expressed any surprise at it—nobody ever tried to rouse them—I used to take them up sometimes after they had been laid down—Mrs. Waters used to take them up sometimes, and hold one on her knee for about a quarter of an hour—they used not to cry much—Miss. Cowen's child began to be bad at the end of three days—he was very silent, like the rest of them—I never heard Mrs. Waters or Ellis talking about them—I never heard it mentioned that they might die—I thought the children were ill—I used to say "That child is ill, aint it, ma'm?"—that was one particular child—little Cowen I used to say it about—I don't remember when I first said that—she said yes, it was ill; she should send for the doctor—that was two or three days before the doctor came—the doctor used to come once a week to see a little boy named Willy—he was older than those that used to lie on the sofa—he could run about and play—sometimes the children would be asleep when they were taken up stairs, and as we removed them sometimes they would wake, and sometimes they would not; but they very seldom woke—they did not remain awake long—I used to hear one or two of them just begin to cry up stairs, and used to go up and put the bottle in their mouths, and that stopped them—persons used to call at the house sometimes—if anyone knocked at the door a double knock, I was to take the children into the kitchen; that was from one kitchen into the other—she said she could not get another child if they heard the children crying—I always did so when they came—sometimes there would be one a day—someone would come, perhaps, and knock a double knock, and then we would take the children into the other room before we undid the door—that happened several times while I was there—when people came they were shown into the down stairs parlour, the room from which the children had been removed—there were never any more than eleven children while I was there, but there were some taken away—four or five were taken away in my presence; four and Miss Cowen's child—that was taken away by a wet-nurse, and four more besides that—Mrs. Waters took four away, and she brought fresh ones back—I don't know how long that was before she was taken away herself—they were taken away one at a time—there were two taken away one night, and Mrs. Waters said she should be too late to catch the train, and they brought them back—I think there were four children brought into the house while I was there, besides the ten who were there when she was taken away—those four were infants; one of them was six months, and that was taken away by Mrs. Waters about 10 o'clock at night—she came back the same night without the child—the two that were taken by Mrs. Waters when she said she missed the train were taken another night by Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Ellis, each carried one; they took them away about 9.30 or 10, and returned about 12.30 without the children—he took away one on another night, about two or three weeks before she was taken; it was taken away about the same time, 9.30 or 10, and she came back about 12.30—she said she had taken the children home—son times they used to have a cape on, sometimes a shawl and a hood, when they were taken away—I remember a shawl and cape and a hood being brought back—the four children that were taken away were ill; one of was not very ill, but three of them were—I don't know what they were ill of—they used to cry sometimes, and I made them food and put it into the

bottle for them, but generally they were as silent as the other children, and slept a good deal, nearly all day—I used to give lime-water to all of them except Mrs. Ellis's baby and a little girl named Emily—Mrs. Ellis gave me 2d., and I gave it to a man for some lime where they were building houses—I don't know what the lime was being used for—Mrs. Ellis gave the man 2d. and a pot of beer, and asked whether he would be kind enough to give me some lime, and I took that lime to Mrs. Waters, and she told me to put a piece about half as big as the palm of my hand into about a quart of water, and leave it to stand for an hour—I then used to put a dessert spoonful into each bottle, except Mrs. Ellis's baby and little Emily—Mrs. Ellis said she did not believe in it—on the Friday night, before the gentleman came on the Saturday, Mrs. Ellis came home tipsy—I knew Mrs. Waters by the name of Blackburn—Mrs. Ellis came home tipsy about 9.30 on the Friday night—Mrs. Waters said "Who has been making you tight, Sarah?"she did not make any answer, and Mrs. Waters said "Did you meet them at Camden Station f' and Mrs. Ellis said "Yes, and it is all right"—I saw someone walking up and down at the door, and look in once or twice; that was just after Mrs. Ellis came in—Mrs. Waters said "Who was the man looking down?"and she said "You nasty cat, you have ruined me!"—she said that Mrs. Ellis had done her out of 8l. that night—I have been sent for letters very often; I used to go very nearly every morning, and some-times about four times a week—I used to go to the post office in Zoar Place in Brixton, and Cold Harbour Lane, and also one in the Mostyn Road; that was the nearest—I used to ask for letters addressed to Mrs. Oliver at Zoar Place, and at Cold Harbour Lane I used to ask for Mrs. Furley and Mrs. White—I used to get letters—sometimes four and sometimes six at Zoar Place—we used to get about half-a-dozen letters a day—I don't think I ever got more than half-a-dozen—I used to give them to Mrs. Waters—Mrs. Waters used to read them, tear them up, and burn them after she had done with them—I did not hear her say what they were about.

COURT. Q. Mrs. Waters had no husband? A. No—she said she was a widow—Mrs. Ellis said she had been married, and had left her husband.

MR. RIRTON. Q. You were examined before the Magistrate? A. Yes, on two occasions, for the prosecution—I have given my evidence in full to the Solicitor to the Treasury, and I was desired to attend here by the same gentleman—the children that were taken away used to be washed in the morning, and sometimes their faces used to be sponged when they were taken out—they looked very ill when they went away—one was not very ill—Mrs. Waters said she had one child to take care of for two or three days, and the parents of it were going to look out for a home for it in the country; that was one of the four—she used to say she was going to take them home to their parents, or take them to a better home in the country—she said she was taking them home—I don't know how long the two had been with her that she took out when she missed the train—I saw a lady come one Sunday to see a little boy named Willy—she saw him—he was about two and a half years old—he was very delicate—he could run about and play—the lady did not take him away; he remained at the house until they were taken prisoners—he was taken to the workhouse, and claimed—there was a little girl named Emily—she was a year old, I think—she was a fine child, very stout—she is in the workhouse now, I believe—she used to sleep in the crib up stairs, alone—there was another child of the name of Rose; she was four days old—Mrs. Waters only had it on the

Friday night before they were taken—that child was taken to the work-house, and died in the workhouse—that came on the Friday, and she was taken the following Monday—it had its food on the Saturday—Mrs. Waters brought that child about 4 o'clock in the afternoon—Mrs. Waters seemed to be fond of children; four of them used to sleep with her—I have seen her carrying them about sometimes, not very often, and washing them—she washed them all every morning, except Miss Cowen's child, and that she said was too ill to be washed—she seemed fonder of that child than the others—I have seen her nurse it—I told her on one occasion that it looked ill—it was very ill one day, and she sent for the doctor, at Denmark Hill; it was Dr. Harris—he came in the evening, and the child was shown to him—I was in the other room, taking care of the children, when he came, and Mrs. Ellis took the child in to show him—she was in the room with him about ten minutes—he brought it some medicine; it was like water—the medicine was given to the child every morning by Mrs. Waters, a teaspoonfull of the mixture, by itself—there was no other medicine given—she used to send for some brandy sometimes—I used to see her mil up a little drop for the children, about a teaspoonful in a wine-glass of water—she used to give that to the children, with a spoon—she said the child was ill; that was Cowen's child—she used to give the medicine to the child in the morning and in the night, twice a day, for about a week—the child did not seem to get any better; nothing seemed to do it good—she used to mix up a little isinglass with some sugar, sometimes, and give it to it—I used to mix the corn flour, and put it in the bottle—some hot water was put to the milk, to warm it, and some sugar—I used to give it to the children myself—Mrs. Waters might give it to Cowen's child sometimes—she would have the child on her knee, and it used to be lying on the sofa—the bottles were laid on the sofa, by the side of the children; and when they wanted it I used to put the teats in their mouths—Mrs. Waters said the lime water was put in the milk to keep sickness away from the children—Mrs. Ellis did not seem to approve of it—the children were dressed before they were taken away—they had as good clothes as she had to put on them—they used to have flannel on, and a nightgown and a shawl—I mean the four children that were taken away at night—they used to be wrapped in a shawl, and sometimes one of them would have a cape—they were comfortably wrapped up—when they were brought down in the morning they were laid in the front kitchen, on the sofa, and they were taken into the back kitchen and washed, and carried up again at night—I earned them up sometimes, and sometimes Mrs. Waters, and put them to bed—the children that could eat bread food were fed three or four times a day—that was the elder children—the babies were fed once or twice a day, and then they used to have their bottles—they used to have corn flour very thick, and fed with a spoon—I have seen Mrs. Waters give Cowen's child corn flour with a spoon—Cowen's child got very ill after a day or two, and did not seem to improve—the medicine the doctor gave it did not seem to do it any good—it had a little cough—I used to go over to the baker's for sponge cakes—sometimes I got a penny sponge cake for one of the children, and sometimes I used to go for sally lunn cakes—I used to pay a penny for that, and sometimes 2d.—I did not do that every day, very often—I used to sop it, and give it to two or three of the infants, who used to eat sop, some of them that died in the workhouse—I used to give sop to them—the child that came on the Friday night had milk and corn flour.

GEORGE NEWPORT PICKSTOCK . I live in Rye Lane, Peckham, and am a member of the Royal College of Physicians, of London—I professionally attended Mrs. Waters from 22nd September, 1868, to the beginning of this year—I left off attending her about a year ago, and have never seen her since—I have been called in to see infants that were ill, when she lived in the Bournemouth Road, and have prescribed for them—I never saw anything in her conduct but uniform kindness and motherly solicitude—opiates should never be ordered for children—of course, they are sometimes ordered; but under very peculiar circumstances—infants, are so wonderfully susceptible to the effects of opium, it kills them like a shot, almost—there is a mixture called paregoric elixir that is sometimes given, a soothing syrup, that contains a small proportion of laudanum, two grains or a grain in an ounce, or something of that sort—that is given frequently; but very wrongly—I do not hold with giving children any opiates—women will do so upon their own responsibility; but medical men do not—paregoric elixir is prescribed for some children for cough, and, as a soothing medicine; if given in excess, it would produce narcotize, stupor—if children, suffering from an overdose of an opiate, rally for two or three days, I should decidedly think they had got over the stupefying effects of it; reason and experience teaches that—I have not heard the medical evidence in this case—if the stupefying effect of laudanum passes away quickly, the patient invariably recovers—lime water, properly made, is used to check the acidity of the milk—I have heard the evidence about the lime water; it was improperly made—it would not have been improper to put a dessert spoonful of it in the milk, if it had been correctly made—this was too roughly made—there would be nothing positively injurious in it—it would have the effect of neutralising the acidity of the milk.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. For how long, alto-gether, did you attend this lady and her establishment? A. I first knew her on 22nd September, 1868, and attended her till the beginning of this year, about a year and three months altogether—she came to me on 22nd September, to engage me to attend a lady in her confinement, and I did not see anything of her then till the confinement came off, that was in November—I attended the child; it died at the prisoner's house in Bournemouth Road—I delivered the lady with instruments; it was a very critical case—the child was delivered with forceps—the mother did not suckle it—she had come up from the country—the child was not taken away from the mother until she returned to the country, about a month or so after the birth—the child then remained with Mrs. Waters; it was brought up by hand, and ultimately died—I thought it could not have lived, it was a very puny child; it did not breathe for half an hour after it was born—there was another instance in which a lady was delivered of twins at Mrs. Waters' house—she was under my care—an aunt, or some relation, took the twins it ay—I did not see them afterwards—those are the only two instances, there were never more than four children at Mrs. Waters'.

MR. RIBTON. Q. Never more than four whilst you attended them? A. Yes—the prisoner was quite a nuisance to me; if I was not at home she would send for other doctors directly—she seemed wonderfully desirous of attending to them—two of the four children died, and two, I believe, were then to her late place.


The Court directed a reward of 20l. to be given to Sergeant Relf.

View as XML