SUPREME COURT.
CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

This Day.

(Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) The Spring Session of the Supreme Court opened on the criminal side this morning, at 10 o'clock, Mr. Justice Richmond presiding.

CHARGE OF INFANTICIDE.

Mary Leonard Mudgway appeared in answer to her bail, on a charge of having on the 27th August last wilfully murdered her newly born male child. The mother of the prisoner, who had been likewise charged at the preliminary investigation before the Police Court, it was decided should be tried separately.

Mr. Travers appeared for the defence.

The first witness in this case was Elizabeth Ann Trueman, sister-in-law to the prisoner, who was present in the room at the time the child was born. Her evidence in the main similar to that given in the Police Court, which is, no doubt, fresh in the minds of our readers, showing that the child had been born alive and had been afterwards left in the room.

Before the cross-examination was commenced, the Court adjourned at half-past one until two o'clock.

Cross-examined by Mr. Travers — Was married to the prisoner's brother, but he and the family were not friendly since this case had occurred; she had made a statement to Mrs Clarke about the child, and when she was called upon to prove her words she accordingly informed the police.

Mr. Travers — Is the story you have told the Court now correct that Mrs. Trueman asked you if your husband would have any objection to destroy the child? Or was it that she asked if he would bury it?

Witness at first declined to answer the question, but, on being pressed, said that Mrs. Trueman asked her if she thought her husband would have any objections to "do away" with it.

Mr. Travers — What were the particular words used?

Witness — I have given my evidence pretty clearly already.

Mr. Travers here pointed out that the witness' husband was within hearing of the Court in the gallery, and his removal was accordingly ordered by his Honor.

On being further cross-examined, the witness stated she could not swear whether the words used by the mother were "destroy" or "make away with" the child; witness had not given the prisoner any gin; there was none in the room, but she believed her husband gave her some; the prisoner called for her mother before the child was born, and when she was in pain.

Mr. Travers here called the witness' attention to her deposition taken before the Police Court, wherein she stated it was after the child was born that the prisoner called for her mother.

Witness could not explain why she had said so, but the prisoner's husband went for the mother before the child was born; witness made no attempt to save the child, although she heard a cry once and then a gurgling sound; she never helped the prisoner in any way to get up; Mrs. Trueman heard the child cry after she entered the room; the child continued to make a noise for three quarters of an hour afterwards, although in prisoner's "sitting position" it was difficult to hear the sounds; meanwhile witness went down stairs twice for a pair of scissors and some hot water; the evidence at this point was similar to what was given before the Police Court, the witness stating that when she afterwards came up to the prisoner's room with a cup of tea, she found her sitting up in bed. She judged the time — three-quarters of an hour — by the fact that she had been awakened up at ten minutes before three o'clock in the morning, and it was twenty minutes before four o'clock before the sounds ceased.

The witness' cross-examination was still proceeding as we went to press.

Source: The Evening Post (Wellington), 1 October 1877, Page 2.