SUPREME COURT.
CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Monday, 1st October.
(Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.)

CHARGE OF INFANTICIDE.

After we went to press yesterday afternoon, the case against Mary L. Mudgway for the wilful murder of her newly-born child was continued.

After the evidence taken at the preliminary investigation had been completed, and a brother and sister of the prisoner examined, Mr. Travers opened the case for the defence, and stated that he proposed to call the mother of the prisoner as a witness, as she could, he had no doubt, disprove in the main the evidence given by her daughter-in-law — the principal witness for the Crown.

His Honor stated he was inclined to the opinion that such evidence was not admissible, but the question having been argued at some length, his Honor at length decided to admit the evidence, and the mother was accordingly placed in the witness-box.

Mrs. Trueman's evidence, in effect, went to show that after having visited Dr. Harding with her daughter in June last, she had no reason to think that her confinement was to take place so soon as it did, and that on the morning of the alleged murder when she was called upon to attend her she fully believed she had merely had a miscarriage. She accordingly attended her daughter first, paying no attention to "anything" else. Mrs. Trueman further stated that when she entered the room she thought her daughter looked quite stupid, and smelt strongly of gin. The daughter-in-law was then in the room, and had been there for some time.

The (prisoner) witness was subjected to a close cross-examination by Mr. Izard, but she adhered to her original statement. She also denied hearing the statement deposed to having been made to Mr. Evens, the chemist, about the condition of her daughter.

Mr. Travers then addressed the jury for the defence, and in a very forcible and effective speech pointed out that the alleged charge could not by any means be borne out; the evidence being altogether, defective; the prisoner, so far as had been shown, having had no actual part in the commission of the alleged offence.

His Honor having summed up, the jury retired, and, after a brief interval, found the prisoner guilty of concealment of birth only, and she was accordingly remanded for sentence.

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