after seven on Saturday evening, she saw Bridget Calkin, with a
child about six years old, who was barefooted, and heard her say
to the child, 'What ails you?' Witness knew her about three months
ago, when she lived in the house immediately opposite the privy, and
lodged with Mrs. Burns; she was in the same dress which she had on at
Worship-street, on Monday, and witness had no doubt of her identity.
CORONER.--Have you seen the body of the deceased?
WITNESS.--Yes, Sir; but from the state in which I saw it, I cannot say
it is the same, but it is very much like it.
JUROR.--Do you know the prisoner Calkin?
WITNESS.--Yes: about three months ago she lived next door to where I
do, which is exactly opposite the privy where the deceased was found
dead.
JUROR.--Do you know how she gets her living?
WITNESS.--No, Sir.
JUROR.--What dress had she on at the time?
WITNESS.--A light gown with flowers on it. The child had no bonnet on
at the time.
ELIZA RENNY said, that on Saturday evening, about five o'clock, she
saw the prisoner Calkin dragging the deceased by her door towards the
privy. The child was crying at the time, and had neither shoes nor
stockings on.
MARTIN CAILEY saw the prisoner Calkin, at about eight o'clock on
Saturday evening, near the privy where the body of the deceased was
found. She appeared to have come out of it, and walked out of the court
in a hurried manner. She (Calkin) was in the habit of keeping bad
company. Some of the persons she associated with he (witness) believed
to be body-snatchers.
CATHERINE LAMPEER saw Calkin with a child, in Payne's-buildings, at
about seven o'clock on Saturday evening. The child had neither shoes
nor stockings on. She heard the prisoner say to the child, 'What ails
you?'
ELIZA BRYAN, an assistant at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, was called, to
contradict a statement which had been made by the prisoner, that she
was in her company from five to seven o'clock on Saturday evening. The
witness denied having seen her at all on that day.
Another witness deposed to the prisoner having lived for some time
opposite to the privy in which the child was found. In reply to a
question from a Juror, she said, that the prisoner Calkin was about
nineteen years of age, and that her father kept a school in the
neighbourhood of Islington.
NATHANIEL BIRNIE, a policeman, deposed, that about ten minutes before
nine on Saturday night, the mother of the deceased came to him, and
stated that Bridget Calkin had given a penny to her child at the door,
and taken her away, and that as the child had not been brought back,
she feared it had been made away with. Witness told Inspector Perry,
and he went to Broad Arrow-court, and took the prisoner into custody;
she denied having taken away the child, and appeared surprised at
the charge; she admitted having given the child a penny at the door,
but said she had not seen her afterwards. She said that she had been
to Rotten-row in the evening, and the witness went there with her;
the woman she had mentioned was out, and the prisoner then asked the
husband, 'What time was I here this evening?'--The man replied, 'Not at
all.' On the return of witness to the station-house, the body had been
discovered and taken there.
JUROR.--Did she appear affected at the sight of the murdered child?
WITNESS.--Not at all; she appeared quite unconcerned.
Mrs. DUFFY,--the deceased's mother, was then brought before the Jury
and examined. The poor woman appeared exceedingly distressed; she said
that she had for some time known Bridget Calkin, who once before took
the child away and kept her out some hours, and witness then desired
her never to do so again.
ELLEN JENNINGS, a girl, stated, that about half-past five on Saturday
evening, deceased was upstairs, playing with her, when Biddy Calkin
came to the door and called for her; witness asked her what she wanted,
but Biddy would not say, but took the deceased down stairs, and witness
never saw her again. Bridget Calkin returned home about nine o'clock
without the child.
The whole of the testimony of the witnesses having been gone through,
it was thought advisable to have the prisoner Calkin present, to ask
her if she had any witnesses which she might wish to have examined, or
any explanation to offer.
The CORONER accordingly despatched an officer to Clerkenwell Prison for
her, and the Jury adjourned for an hour, to await her arrival.
The officer, in about an hour, returned, and stated, that the prisoner
declined appearing, saying, that she had no witnesses; nor did she
wish to add anything to the statement which she made at Worship-street
Police-office.
The CORONER summed up the evidence; and the jury, after deliberating
for nearly an hour, returned a verdict of 'Wilful Murder' against
Bridget Calkin; and the Coroner at once made out his warrant for her
commitment to Newgate on the charge.
Since the examination of Bridget Calkin, on a suspicion of having
been concerned in the murder of the little girl, Margaret Duffy,
several other persons were taken up on suspicion, as it was sworn,
that immediately upon the discovery of the corpse in Cowheel-alley, a
man and woman rushed out of the privy, and ran off; and the witness
to that important fact, a boy, twelve years of age, named William
Newton, who was close to the spot with a lighted candle, gave a
particular description of the man, who, he said, blew out his light,
struck him upon his breast, and then ran off as hard as he could
towards Golden-lane. Upon Calkin, when she was apprehended on the night
of the supposed murder, a handsome Russia-leather memorandum-book
was found, which, she said, had been given to her by Robert Tye, an
ornamental glass-worker. The latter was brought before Mr. TWYFORD, at
Worship-street, by Hanley, the Worship-street officer, who had taken
him into custody upon hearing of his connexion with Calkin.
TYE admitted that she had the book from him, and he said that he found
it in Old-street, a fortnight since.
William Shearing, William Dunkley, _alias_ Boney, and ---- Long, three
resurrectionists, were afterwards brought into the office to be viewed
by the witnesses, William Newton and Mary Kean, who, however, could not
identify either of them or Tye, and they were all discharged.
DUNKLEY.--Before I go, I just wish to say, that Mr. Hanley ought not to
mention my profession in this open manner. Why the people would tear us
to pieces just now, if they're put up to it in this way.
HANLEY.--You know it is no secret. Why, I've heard you myself making a
boast in public of your body-snatching.
Mr. TWYFORD told them to go about their business, as there was
no further charge against them, and he desired Mr. Dixon, the
Superintendent of Police, to take particular care of the boy Newton.
Shortly after these persons had been discharged, Police Inspector
Perry came before the magistrate, accompanied by a gentlemanly-looking
person, who identified the memorandum-book which Robert Tye, who had
just been discharged, admitted that the prisoner, Bridget Calkin, had
from him. It appeared, from this gentleman's statement, that he lost
the book in question from a house at Cow-cross, on the night of the 5th
of November, when the fire occurred in which several persons perished;
but how the book was taken he could not tell.
At the same office Bridget Calkin was brought up, on the 13th, for
final examination before Mr. Twyford, charged with the wilful murder of
the child, Margaret Duffy, for which she already stood committed for
trial upon the Coroners inquisition. The evidence before the Coroner's
Jury, upon view of the body of the deceased, was taken in the absence
of the prisoner, who was then confined in Clerkenwell Prison; and a
messenger being despatched thither to ascertain if it was her desire
to be taken before the Jury or offer any defence,--she returned for
answer that she had no such wish, nor anything to add to the statement
which she had already made before the magistrates at this office. Of
her statement or the statements of the witnesses on that day, there
was, however, no written evidence. It was now considered necessary to
have the whole of the evidence taken at the Worship-street office, in
order to her commitment by the magistrate, without reference to the
proceedings before the Coroner; and one of the clerks was occupied the
whole of one day in taking the necessary depositions.
On the 7th of January, Bridget Calkin was placed at the bar of the
Old Bailey, upon an indictment, charging her with having by means of
pressure on the throat, chest, &c., murdered Margaret Duffy. She was
also charged upon the Coroner's Inquisition.
The prisoner, who during the whole of the trial appeared to view the
proceedings as an indifferent spectator, pleaded 'Not Guilty.'
Mr. ADOLPHUS having briefly stated the case, as subsequently developed
by the evidence, called the following witnesses:--
MARY CANE deposed, that on Saturday night, the 3d of December, she
found the body of a child in a certain privy in Hartshorn-court, Little
Cheapside, having accidentally struck her foot against it in the dark.
On her giving the alarm, several persons arrived on the spot, with a
light; she then saw the body of the deceased lying on its back in a
corner of the privy; one of its legs was doubled up, and its clothes
were above the knees. No one could get to the place, but those who
were acquainted with the premises, and knew how to open the door. The
inhabitants of seven houses had a right of admission to the privy.
Prisoner lived next door to witness.
WILLIAM NEWTON, a boy, twelve years old, stated that he resided at
No. 7, Payne's-buildings, near Hartshorn-court; that on the night in
question, the preceding witness told him what she had seen, on which
he went to the privy with a light, and pushed the door, but did not
succeed in pushing it quite back; that a man rushed out past him,
jostling him against an opposite door, and extinguishing his candle.
The man was lusty, wore a black coat and had crape round his hat; a
'littleish' woman also came out, who had on a light shawl, and a high
cap or bonnet. Two men named Shookers and Nolan came up and took the
body of the child out of the privy.
PATRICK NOLAN, who first took up the body, described the state in which
he found it.
JOHN SHOOKERS, a costermonger, of No. 1, Hartshorn-court, proved that
on the night alluded to, about ten o'clock, he heard Mary Cane scream,
and hastened towards her in consequence; when he got to the privy he
saw Nolan with a candle, and likewise perceived the body of the child;
took the child to Mr. Smith, a surgeon, but life was quite extinct.
Cross-examined by Mr. CLARKSON.--It was witness, and not Nolan, who
first lifted the child from the ground where it was lying.
JAMES DUFFY, father of the deceased, who lived in Broad-Arrow-court,
deposed that his child was between five and six years of age, was
very healthy, and had never been subject to fits since she had had
the hooping-cough, two years before. Saw her last alive at half-past
five o'clock on the 3d of December, when she was going out with
the prisoner, who often nursed the child, and appeared to treat it
with kindness. Witness next saw his daughter at the station-house,
Bunhill-row, about a quarter before ten, but she was quite dead.
On being cross-examined, he added, that Calkin had always appeared
uncommonly fond of children, and acted tenderly towards them.
ELEANOR JENNINGS, twelve years old, said she was playing with the
deceased between five and six o'clock in the evening in question, in
her (witness's) parents' room. The prisoner then came to the room and
asked if Margaret Duffy was there; being told she was, the prisoner
took her down stairs, and witness never saw her companion alive
afterwards.
ELIZABETH KENNY, of No. 12, Prospect-place, Pump-alley, about five
minutes walk from Hartshorn-court, stated, that on the night referred
to, about half-past five, or a quarter before six, she saw the prisoner
for the first time; she had on a light dress, a black bonnet, and a
light shawl; the child had hold of her hand, walking by her side; the
child was without shoes or stockings, and was crying: prisoner told her
not to cry, for she would soon be at home; they were then going towards
Hartshorn-court.
MARTIN BAILEY, a labourer, deposed that he saw the prisoner come away
from the privy door in Hartshorn-court, shortly before eight o'clock
the same evening; he was only a few yards from the privy, and Calkin
was walking quickly towards Little Cheapside.
NATHANIEL BIRNIE, a police constable, stated, that on the night of the
3d of December, the child's mother applied to him, and in consequence
of the representations she made to him, he apprehended the prisoner at
about ten minutes before nine, in Broad Arrow-court, near her lodgings.
On his asking her where she had left the child, she said she had not
seen the little girl since she gave her a penny as she stood at her
father's door. On their way to the station-house he asked her where
she had been since she gave the child the penny; to which she replied
that she had been at the house of Mrs. Lea, in Rotten-row, for whom she
usually washed. He accompanied her to Mrs. Lea's, where they found a
man; in answer to her question upon the subject, the man declared that
he had not seen her there that day before. Witness then took her to the
station-house, and she afterwards mentioned that she had been in the
room of a Mrs. Warren in the same house.
ELEANOR DUNFEY, with whom the prisoner stated she had lived, lent her
on the evening before the 3d of December the same shawl which she had
on when taken into custody. Being cross-examined, she said that Calkin
had been absent from five o'clock till eight, from which hour she did
not leave the house till her apprehension by the officer.
ANNE LEA, and MARTHA WARREN proved that the prisoner had not visited
their lodgings on the 3d of December.
JAMES DIXON, superintendent of police, deposed to another story as
to the manner in which the prisoner told him she was employed on the
evening of the murder, and this account was also disproved by reference
to the party with whom she pretended to have been in company.
MARY DUFFY, sister to the deceased, gave evidence of a conversation
between her and the prisoner on the evening in question, relative
to the absence of her sister, whom Calkin alleged she had taken to
Old-street, after having left the court in which the privy was situate.
Witness then said she must have made away with her, and threatened to
give her in charge; and the prisoner told her in reply, that she was
a 'b----y liar,' and that she did not care about being sent to the
station-house, as she had a sovereign in her pocket to keep her until
she could get out.
On cross-examination, the witness further stated, that there were many
lanes and turnings about Hartshorn-court, in which a child of her
sister's age might be lost.
BRIDGET MURRAY, confirmed the statement of Mary Duffy, relative to the
angry conversation which had taken place between her and the prisoner
when the child was first missed.
Mr. SMITH, the apothecary, who examined the child between nine and ten
o'clock, deposed that the child, to the best of his judgment, must have
been dead at least an hour and a half when he saw it; the body at that
time was not quite cold, with the exception of the arm, which had been
exposed without covering.
On being further questioned by the COURT, he stated, that he could
not give a positive opinion as to the length of time which might have
elapsed; it might have been only half an hour, the retention of warmth
depending, in a great degree, on the temperature of the atmosphere;
nor could he say that a child put to a violent death would become cold
sooner than one that died by the ordinary course of disease.
Mr. LEESON, a surgeon, living in Chiswell-street, stated, that he
also saw the body about ten o'clock; the extremities were cold, but
the body itself was warm; the warmth was as high as 83 degrees. He
should have supposed that the child was dead about an hour, but it was
possible he might be mistaken a full hour in his calculation. He found
discolouration on the neck, which seemed to indicate violence, and the
jaws were very firmly clinched. The father of the deceased was present
at the time. On the same night, at nearly one o'clock, he saw the body
again, and there was no perceptible alteration in the appearances. On
neither occasion did he strip the child.
Mr. Justice J. PARKE observed, that he ought to have done so, and
thoroughly examined the whole person.
On Tuesday morning the body was stripped, and underwent further
examination, internally as well as superficially; other surgeons were
present: the vessels of the brain were turgid from excess of blood; but
the action of the stomach appeared to have been healthy up to the time
of death. There were certain marks apparently caused by the pressure
of fingers upon the neck, and he came to the conclusion that the child
died by violence,--in his opinion by means of suffocation.
Mr. RANCE, a surgeon, residing in the City-road, stated, that he had
made a _post mortem_ examination of the body of the deceased on the
6th of December, in the presence of Mr. Brooks. Decomposition was then
rapidly taking place, owing to the warm state of the weather: nearly
the whole surface of the body was discoloured. There was a slight mark
of pressure on the left arm, but on account of the discolouration,
witness could not undertake to say whether there were any other marks
of violence on the body. The tongue protruded about three-eighths of an
inch between the teeth, which were firmly closed upon and had indented
the tongue. The muscles were rigid and firm, with the exception of
those of the neck, which were in a flaccid state. The stomach was in
a perfectly healthy condition. Digestion was going on at the time
of death. On examining the thorax, he found the lungs collapsed to
a degree that proved that the last act of respiration was that of
expiration. The heart was healthy, but nearly void of blood. On opening
the right auricle of the heart, a small quantity of blood issued from
it. A portion of blood also flowed from the pulmonary veins leading
to the left auricle of the heart. The vessels of the neck contained a
little serous fluid, and a quantity of fluid blood escaped on dividing
the jugular veins. The head exhibited no external marks of violence,
but on removing the scalp and bone, the blood-vessels of the brain
were found to be distended. These appearances must have been caused
by pressure on the neck, preventing the blood from flowing back to
the heart. On removing the bandage with which the jaws had been tied
up after death, a quantity of serous fluid escaped from the nostrils.
There was no appearance of fracture or dislocation of the neck, or
laceration of the tendons. The death of the deceased was, in all
probability, caused by external pressure, which produced suffocation.
Mr. BROOKS gave a similar account of the appearance of the body;
adding, that, in his opinion, considerable violence had been used
towards the child; and that no reasonable person could entertain a
doubt that the cause of death was suffocation.
The last witness examined for the prosecution was Martin Lee, who swore
that the prisoner was not at his house on the 3d of December, as she
alleged to the officer she had been.
This closed the case on the part of the prosecution.
Mr. CLARKSON, who stated that he had been directed by the Sheriffs
to conduct the prisoner's case, here made an objection to the manner
in which the indictment was drawn up. He said that the prisoner was
charged with causing the deceased's death, by squeezing and pressing
about the neck. This description of the manner in which the murder had
been perpetrated, he contended to be of too vague a nature, and in
support of his argument referred to the 2d volume of Lord Hale's Pleas
of the Crown, where it was laid down, that if a wound was inflicted
on the breast, arm, or head, it was bad to say that it was inflicted
'about the breast, &c,' (_circiter pectus_, _super brachium_, or,
_super manum_) for the particular part of the breast, arm, or hand,
must be specified. He conceived that no distinction could be drawn
with respect to this point, between a death caused by a wound and one
by suffocation; and he was therefore of opinion, that the words in the
indictment, 'about the neck,' did not fix with sufficient distinctness
the part of the neck to which violence had been applied.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, in answer to the objection, said, that _circiter_ had a
particular meaning in Latin; but every person knew that '_about_' was
capable of two significations. The learned Counsel was prevented from
proceeding further by
Mr. Justice J. PARKE, who said, that the Court was of opinion that the
objection was not valid. The word 'about' in the indictment was to be
taken in the sense of 'around,' death having been caused by pressing
the hand around the neck. The learned Judge then informed the prisoner,
that it was now the time for her to say whatever she wished in her
defence.
The PRISONER, who, during the whole of the proceedings, had exhibited
no signs of feeling much interest in a matter which affected her life,
rose and answered with great indifference, 'I have nothing to say,
except that I am innocent of the crime with which I am charged.'
Witnesses were then examined for the prisoner, of whom the first was--
JANE DUGGAN.--I am married, and the mother of twelve children. I live
at No. 6, George-yard. My husband is a stone-mason. The prisoner lived
with me as a nurse to one of my children. She is kind and affectionate
to children, and has always borne that character.
Another witness, living in the same place.--I have known the prisoner
for twelve months. She has always borne the character of being kind,
humane, and fond of children.
ELIZABETH MARTIN.--I live in Golden-lane. I have known the prisoner for
seven years. I should readily intrust her with the care of my children.
I am a married woman.
JULIA COCHRANE, another married woman, deposed to the kindness and
humanity of the prisoner.
MARY FLANAGAN, a person of the same description, gave similar evidence.
ELLEN MACDONNELL was examined to the same effect; as were MARY BRUCE,
TERENCE DOUGHTY, PETER MACDERMOT, DANIEL MANNING, JOHN M'HUGH,
CHRISTOPHER SUGGON, HENRY PRITCHARD, BRIDGET GROGAN, and several other
witnesses.
No evidence as to facts were offered.