case was by supposing that the prisoner was insane at
the time when she committed the fatal act, of which her
own confession was the only evidence. Chief Justice
Jervis, in summing up, observed that, if she was capable
of distinguishing right from wrong, she could not be
acquitted on the ground of insanity, and that the real
question was, whether the jury thought that she really
intended to kill the child in the manner described by
herself. The jury found a verdict of "Guilty," with a
recommendation to mercy. The learned judge said that
he would forward that recommendation to the proper
quarter, but for him there remained only the duty of
passing sentence of death, which he accordingly did.

At the Central Criminal Court, on the 3d inst., Charles
Saunders was tried for the Murder of Mr. Toller, on the
road near Chadwell Green, on the 8th of February [See
Household Narrative for last month]. In defence, the
plea of insanity was set up, but ineffectually, for the
jury with very little delay returned a verdict of guilty,
and the criminal was sentenced to death. He has since
been reprieved.

At Durham Assizes, on the 5th inst., George Wellborn,
an engine-driver, was tried for the Manslaughter of Mr.
Thomas Grainger, the Edinburgh engineer, at Stockton.
Mr. Grainger died of the hurts inflicted by a collision at
the junction of the Clarence and Leeds Northern Railway
on the 21st July last. He was seated in a passenger-
train; as it was passing some points at the junction, a
goods-train, under the charge of Wellborn, ran into it,
destroying a number of the vehicles and cutting the
train in half. There could be no doubt that Wellborn
had been negligent in shunting his train. The passenger-
train was thirteen minutes behind time. The prisoner's
counsel urged that he had not been so grossly negligent
as to warrant a conviction for manslaughter. The Jury
returned a verdict of Guilty, but added a recommendation
to mercy. The sentence was six months'
imprisonment.

A case was tried at the Middlesex Sessions on the 8th
inst., which excited much attention in consequence of
the Judge having Altered the Sentence on the Prisoner in
consequence of her deportment after it was pronounced.
Mary Hill, a woman of the town, was indicted for stealing
a gold watch, the property of T. Unwin, from his person.
One night about the end of August last year, the
prosecutor, a clerk on the Eastern Counties Railway, was
accosted in the Hackney Road by the prisoner, whom he
at first repulsed, but afterwards accompanied to a court.
After remaining there a short time, she took him to
another court, where he had not remained long when
two men came up, and one of them struck at him, and
wanted to know what he was doing with his wife. The
prosecutor, very frightened, ran away, and when he got
into an adjoining street he missed his watch. On another
day he saw the prisoner at a public-house, and gave her
in charge, but she was rescued by a gang of thieves she
was with, and on another occasion he met her and
charged her with the theft of his watch. She said if he
wished to have anything to say to her on such a subject
he must go with her to her mother's; and he went with
her to a house in Abbey street, Bethnal Green, and
when the door was opened, and she had got inside, it was
slammed in his face, and he saw no more of her until he
again met her at a public-house. He gave her in charge,
and after some resistance, she was locked up. The
prosecutor most positively swore to her identity. The
defence was that after such a lapse of time the prosecutor
might be mistaken as to the person, but the jury found
her Guilty. The Assistant- Judge, Mr. Sergeant
Adams, asked if anything was known of her previous
character, for if there was, it was a proper case for
transportation, as this system of robbery with the aid of
bullies was a very serious thing. The police-officer in
this case said she was the associate of reputed thieves
and bad characters, and she was with a regular gang
when she was taken into custody. The Assistant-Judge
then sentenced her to seven years' transportation. The
prisoner, who had gone down on her knees imploring
mercy, on hearing this rose up, and screamed out to the
policeman, "You—— pig! oh, you—— pig! You
—— perjured thief." The Assistant-Judge: The sentence
upon you now is, that you be transported for ten
years. The prisoner repeated her exclamations, and was
so violent that she had to be removed by two officers.
[This case having been brought before the House of
Commons by Sir De Lacy Evans, Lord Palmerston stated
that the original sentence only was to be carried into
effect.]

At the Derby Assizes, on the 12th inst., Thomas
Morgan was tried for Bribery at the last Derby Election.
He pleaded guilty to the charge of having bribed a person
named Sharratt. The defendant's counsel stated, that
his client had, by his advice, confessed himself guilty of
the charge; but he repeated his assertion that he
originally came to Derby without any unlawful intention,
though he had afterwards fallen into the hands of persons
who had persuaded him to violate the law. The counsel
for the prosecution did not desire that any severity of
punishment should be inflicted upon the prisoner, who
was, no doubt, a tool in the hands of more guilty
persons; but if those who had supplied Morgan with
the money could be discovered, they certainly would be
prosecuted. The Judge thought that under the
circumstances justice would be satisfied by requiring the
defendant to enter into his own recognisances for his
future good behaviour, and the defendant was bound
accordingly.

At the York Assizes, on the 14th, two young men
named R. Drew and W. Andrews, were tried for
Shooting at the Gamekeepers of Lord Hawke, with Intent
to Murder them. Lord Hawke's preserves are at
Womersley, near Doncaster. About midnight, on the
24th of November, the keepers were in the preserves,
when they heard some guns firing in the woods; upon
which Mitchell, the head gamekeeper, an assistant
named Hepworth, and five others, proceeded towards
the spot where they heard the firing, and came up with
five persons, armed with guns. The poachers advanced
towards the keepers in a line, with their guns presented;
upon which Mitchell called out to them not to use their
guns, but the poachers continued to advance, and to
throw stones at the keepers, who made some show of
attempting to lake them, but it became evident that
the poachers would resist to the last extremity: upon
which Mitchell, who had been told that his men held
back, cried out to the poachers, "Now we can't take
you, go away like men," but they kept on crying out,
"Shoot, shoot," upon which Mitchell said, "Don't
shoot, we have got guns as well as you; if you shoot, we
shall shoot." The poachers then took stones from their
pockets, which they threw at Mitchell, who protected
his face with his gun-stock. The keepers then retreated,
and Mitchell, turning his head, received a shot which
took effect upon his neck and face and destroyed one of
his eyes. He cried out, "I am killed," and fell
insensible. Hepworth then received a shot on his right
arm and back, which brought his arm, in which he
carried his gun, to his side, and as he was putting his
gun into his left arm it went off. The two shots were
fired by Drew. Hepworth's gun had scarcely gone off
when he received another shot in the hand, which was
fired by Andrews. The keepers were positive as to
Drew's identity, and spoke distinctly to seeing him fire
two shots from behind a tree. This evidence was
confirmed by that of one of the poachers who was called as
an approver. The prosecutor (Mitchell), on presenting
himself in the witness-box, appeared to be a stout, hale
man, in the prime of life, but he was blind, and was
led into the box. Hepworth, the under-keeper, was
also badly wounded, seventy shots having been extracted
from his body. It was contended for the defence that
there was no sufficient corroboration of the evidence of
the approver so as to fix the two prisoners, and that the
evidence of the approver could not be relied on, as he
had been influenced by the reward of £100 and the
offer of a free pardon. Mr. Baron Martin observed, with
respect to Andrews, in summing up, that he was not the
first to fire, and had not fired until there had been a
shot in return, when it might be presumed his blood
was up, so that there might be less of deliberate intent
in his act than that of the prisoner Drew. The jury
found Drew Guilty with shooting with intent to murder,
and Andrews of shooting with intent to do some grievous
bodily arm, but strongly recommended them to mercy
on the ground of their previous good character. His
Lordship, on passing sentence, said but that for the