TELEGRAMS
Dunedin, May 26.
The Hairlahi's shipment of sugars were offered for sale, and a fourth only sold, the importers being disinclined to sell at the prices offered. Finest whites, £37 11s 6d, all sold; second whites, £38. An unemployed meeting was held to-day, and adopted a petition to the Council. John McLaren heads the movement. The Heart of Oak crushing for the week yielded 150 ozs. out of fifty tons of stuff. A servant girl named Bridget Gee murdered her newly-born infant. The inquest was adjourned to allow of her being present. -Press, 27/5/1871.
INQUEST.
An inquest was held at the Glasgow Arms Hotel, yesterday afternoon, touching the manner in which a male child born of one Bridget Gee there, on the previous night, came by his death. The woman mentioned, having been confined of the child on the previous evening, was of course unable to attend the inquest.
The Coroner, Dr Hocken, addressed the jury, telling them that they were called to inquire into a case stated to be one of infanticide, a crime almost unknown in this community; therefore it was the more important that they should diligently inquire into the matter so as to prevent recurrence of this crime. He had taken this opportunity of taking the witnesses' depositions, before any of the facts concerning the case should fade from their memories. The mother was in bed, and he was sorry that she could not attend, but it was but just and fair to her that the inquest should, on evidence being taken, be adjourned to another day so as to allow of her being present to cross-examine the witnesses and to make her statement.
Mrs Aikman deposed, my husband is a publican, and keeps the Glasgow Arms Hotel. The girl Bridget Gee came into my employment about last Christmas. My attention, about a fortnight ago, was drawn by a party to the fact that she was pregnant. I, on that account, gave her notice to leave. She was to leave next Wednesday. Yesterday afternoon, a little before five o'clock, she told me she felt quite faint, and could not prepare the tea. I told her she could go to bed, and that I would get the tea myself if she did not get better, and that if she felt better she could come and assist me in getting it. I did not take any particular notice of her appearance previously. She that day till then did her work as usual. She went upstairs to her bedroom, and I did not see her again till eight o'clock that evening, when I brought her a cup of tea. I then left the room. There was no light in the room; it was quite dark. She did not say anything when I brought her the tea, nor did she make any complaint. I went up again, in a little more than an hour afterwards. I said. "Bridget, you are in the family way." She made no reply. I again repeated this to her, and she seemed to hide her head and say "Yes." I asked her "if it was a young man," meaning a single man. She said "Yes." I then left the room, and did not see her again till one o'clock to-day. My reason for not seeing her, or for not sending for anyone to attend her, was that I had no servant in, and because Mrs Hindle came in soon after I left, and attended her. I believe the scissors produced belongs to the kitchen, but I cannot swear to it. I did not hear her make any cries indicative of approaching labour, nor did I lately see her take any medicine. She was anxious to leave before the time of notice expired. I did not give her notice to leave until last Wednesday, when she was to leave in a week from that time. She did not ask for any medical attendance.
Mrs Hindle: I live in Princes street. My husband keeps a glass and china ware shop. Mrs Aikman came for me at about ten minutes past five o'clock last evening, and told me that "Bridget" was bad, and asked me to go and see her. I came at ten minutes past six p.m. I asked what was to be done with her. She was leaning on the side of the bed in her daily working clothes. She said she did not know. I told her that she had better get into the bed. She got on the bed with her face towards the wall, and lay that way. I told her she had better go to the Hospital, or to get a doctor. She said she would not go, and she did not want one. She insisted on stopping at the hotel till morning. I was out for a few minutes, and then asked to examine her, which I did by passing my hand over her stomach, outside her clothes, and found, so far as I could judge, that the child had not come away. I was in and out with her, never leaving her for more than five or ten minutes at a time. I brought Mr Hindle in to persuade her to go to the Hospital, as I thought it was not safe to leave her here; but she would not go. She became easier about 11 or half-past 11, so I left her by herself. I said to my husband that I would go to her again. He, in reply, said he was determined to go for a doctor, and he went at once. That was about half-past 11. Dr Borrows, when he came, which was before 12 o'clock, sent for me to the hotel. When I came, I found him attending her. I never saw the child till Dr Borrows had seen her. When Dr Borrows insisted on her showing the child, she produced it from where she had it concealed, and gave it to him. I afterwards found that the child had been born before I first came, and had been hidden by her under her clothes, thus deceiving me when I passed my hand over her stomach.
Dr Borrows: I was called upon about half-past 11 o'clock last evening by Mr Hindle, who wished to consult me about a case at the Glasgow Arms. He said there was a young female there whom he knew to be in the family way, and that she was threatened with premature labour. He was rather at a loss what to do. He did not ask me to go to her, but rather asked advice as to the propriety of taking her to his house or to the Hospital. I told him I could not tell him what to do until I had seen her. I went and saw her at a quarter to 12 o'clock, lying in bed with some clothing on. She was partly undressed. I sent Mr Hindle for his wife, as I rather wished that she be present when I made the examination, and partly because I wished to get him out of the way. Mrs Hindle came. The girl did not wish to be examined, seemed to be unwilling to be examined; and when Mrs Hindle came in, said she felt better, that she had had some nice sleep since she was away. I insisted upon examining her. I had not from then the least doubt that she had been delivered of a child. She made considerable resistance whilst I was making the examination, giving me much trouble. Considering her state, I did not wish to shock her too much, and asked her if she had had a child. She first denied having had a child. I told her that she must produce it. She then after some hesitation half sat up in the bed, and turned up the back part of the mattress on which she lay, and handed me a bundle covered with calico cloth, tied with a knot of the cloth, and containing the dead body of a newly-born mature male child. It was cold, and appeared as if it had been dead for four or five hours. She gave me to understand, in answer to enquiries, that the child had been born dead. On the face there was a wound from the left angle of the mouth extending to the back part of the lower jaw, and laying the mouth quite open. There was a compound comminuted fracture of the lower jaw, extending front left to right. There was much blood about those parts. It had proceeded from these injuries, not from the mother. The body had a somewhat bloodless appearance. There was a large blotch of blood on the wall, over the back of the bed, of an irregular oval shape and three or four inches in diameter, against which I conjectured the child had been hit or pressed. I searched casually for any weapon that might be in the room, but found none. I did so because I thought she might injure herself, and made as careful a search as I could without alarming her. The steel busk of a stay was afterwards, I was informed, found in the chamber. If there is any importance attached to this stay busk, she had made no efforts to put it out of the way. After giving instructions, I left her. I have this day made a post mortem examination of the body of the child. Its appearances were partly as I have described. I should consider the wound from the mouth to he an incised wound produced by a blunt instrument. I scarcely think that the scissors would cause such a wound; I am inclined to think that the steel busk would produce it. I do not think that it was caused by a sharp knife since thrown away. I think that the face was held tightly, as sundry marks upon it testify, and the busk would then have caused such a wound. I think that the fracture of the jaw was produced either by a blow or blows, or by forcibly pressing it against some hard surface. There were several bruises over and under the lower jaw, and across the nose. There was a bruise high up on the left side of the head, above the ear. Underneath the skin, corresponding to the bruise, was a fracture of the skull about three or four inches in length. Where the fracture was, there was an effusion of coagulated blood between the skull and cuticle. There was on the opposite side of the skull a slight corresponding contusion. I examined the lungs, and from them I should certainly say that the child had breathed fully and freely. They were expanded and full of air, of a pinkish grey colour, and floated high in water. If the child, too, had not breathed, so much blood, I think, would not have been forced from the body. The heart was contracted and empty, showing the want of blood in the system. I am quite convinced that the child was born alive. In my opinion the cause of the child's death was loss of blood from the injuries it received, and concussion of the brain. I do not think that, looking at the circumstances of the case, that it could have been caused accidentally. The injuries must have been caused wilfully.
The Coroner said that he thought it fair to the woman to adjourn the case, to give her an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses on the evidence taken.
The inquest was adjourned to the Hospital on Tuesday, the 6th June, at 3 o'clock. -Otago Daily Times, 27/5/1871.
Inquest, — The late hour at which the proceedings terminated last evening, prevented us from giving a report of the adjoined inquiry. touching the death of a male child born of one Bridget Gee, on the 29th ult. The evidence adduced was merely a repetition of that given at the past enquiry; it being necessary to repeat it, in order that the girl might have an opportunity of cross-examining if she so desired. She did not do so, however; her friends being of opinion that there was no necessity to do so, and it was intimated that she would only obtain legal assistance at the further inquiry. The Coroner on summoning up, pointed out that the great question for the jury, was to say from the evidence, and not from theory, whether the child’s death was caused accidentally from falling, as had been suggested on the door, or whether on the other hand, the girl had deliberately killed it. The great point that did enable them to decide that question was the nature of the injuries the child had received. As Dr Borrows had said, and as their own common sense ought to tell them, such injuries could not have been caused by falling. A child’s bones are elastic, and he could not see how a fall from the mother to the door, as had been suggested, could have produced such injuries. The child could not fall on its jaw and head at the same time, producing fractures in these two places. But, besides these, there was the severe cut. Now, this could not in any way have been caused by a fall. It seemed to him, from the evidence, that there had been, on the part of the woman, a deliberate intention to destroy the child, to kill it, to get rid of it; if that was their opinion, their verdict would be one of murder against her. The case against her was clear, abundantly clear. Had the injuries been merely a fractured skull, a point might be stretched in her favor, but in this case the injuries were extensive. After half-an-hour’s deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against Bridget Gee, with a rider, that in their opinion “there was a want of charity shown to Bridget Gee by her employers, and that had they sent for medical assistance at an earlier period, it is probable Bridget Gee would have been saved from her present position.” The Coroner committed her to take her trial at the ensuing criminal sessions of the Supreme Court. -Evening Star, 7/6/1871.
SUPREME COURT
WILFUL MURDER.
Bridget Gee was indicted for having at Dunedin, on May 20, wilfully murdered her male child. The facts of the case stated shortly are these:- The girl had been in the employ of Mr Aikman, of the Glasgow Arms Hotel, Princes street, as house maid, from Christmas last up to the time of the murder. In about the middle of May, Mrs Aikman, noticing that she was in the family way, gave her notice to leave; and her time would have been up on May 31. On the afternoon of the 25th she complained of being ill, whereupon Mrs Aikman told her to go to her bedroom, which she did. To Mrs Aikman it did not appear that much was wrong with her, and consequently she did not see her until eight o’clock at night, when she took her up some tea. The bedroom was then dark, and neither of them spoke. Half an hour afterwards she again went to the room, when she questioned her about her state; and the girl then admitted that she was in the family way by a single young man. Mrs Aikman did not see her again until 1 p. m. on the 26th; her reasons for not going to her being that she knew a Mrs Hindle was with her; and that she herself had no servant to attend to the household affairs. This Mrs Hindle, who was a next door neighbor, had been called in to see the girl at a little after eleven o’clock on the night of the 25th, and she remained for some time, never leaving her for more than ten minutes at a time. When she went into the bedroom, she was under the belief that the birth had not taken place; and, from the girl’s appearance and her statements, she thought a miscarriage had happened. She advised her to go to the hospital or send for a doctor; but she declined to do either. At about half-past eleven o'clock Mrs Hindle’s husband insisted on a doctor being sent for, and he himself went for Dr Borrowes. When the doctor came, the child was seen by Mrs Hindle for the first time. It was dead, and was wrapped up in a cloth; and was produced by the girl herself from under the bedclothes, when the Doctor told that her story of no birth having taken place was untrue. Subsequent investigations of the room led to the discovery of a pair of scissors, marked with blood, and other indications of a birth having taken place were observable in the bedroom and in an out house. The body of the child bore marks of violence, the principal of which were injuries to the skull and jaws; and these, according to the medical evidence, could not have been produced by accident.
At the conclusion of the evidence of Dr Borrowes, Mr Stout, who defended the prisoner, said that as he was of opinion that the medical testimony did not support the charge of wilful murder, he should advise his client to plead guilty to the minor count of concealment of birth.
The Crown Prosecutor, while not prepared to admit that the medical evidence did not support the charge, thought that the ends of justice would he met by accepting a plea of guilty of the minor charge; and His Honor expressed his concurrence in the suggestion.
The plea of guilty of concealment of birth having been recorded, the jury were discharged. Mr Stout pointed his Honor’s attention to the rider of the Coroner’s jury, imputing blame to Mrs Aikman; but his Honor appeared to think that the evidence did not justify it.
His Honor, in passing sentence, remarked that the prisoner ought to be thankful that the more serious charge had not been proceeded with, as, in the event of conviction, she might have been subjected to a very lengthened term of imprisonment. She was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. -Evening Star, 14/9/1871.
Bridget Gee's baby, presumably, was buried in a pauper's grave and Bridget, presumably, did her two years.
No comments:
Post a Comment