Chapter X: Part 10

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.

Mr. Justice JAMES PARKE said, it was then his duty to state to the jury the evidence that had been laid before them on the present trial, and to accompany it with such remarks as the circumstances of the extraordinary case suggested to his mind. The offence with which the prisoner stood charged was that of wilful murder, the indictment stating, that, with her hands about the neck of the deceased, she so grasped or squeezed the throat of the said Margaret Duffy, as by choking, suffocation, or strangulation, to occasion her death. If they were satisfied that the deceased came to her death in consequence of suffocation or strangulation, the particular mode in which that crime happened to be perpetrated was immaterial. It was immaterial, for example, whether the prisoner did it with her own hands, or was present when the crime was committed by some other person. He meant by being present, was in such a situation that she could see the act done, and was near enough to interfere for its prevention. If they believed that she committed the crime with her own hands, they would, of course, find her guilty; or if they thought that she was present, aiding and abetting at the time it was committed, they were by their oaths bound to find a verdict of guilty. If, upon a candid and dispassionate consideration of the evidence, they arrived at the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain either of those charges, the prisoner was entitled to a verdict of acquittal. Before he proceeded to recapitulate to them the substance of the evidence which had been offered for their consideration, he could not refrain from earnestly requesting them to dismiss from their minds anything they might have heard or read on the subject. He begged that they would use their best endeavours to free their minds from all prejudice, and approach the solemn duty which they had to perform with minds as much as possible freed from any prepossession whatsoever, and decide solely upon the evidence that day offered in Court. The evidence given on the trial was of the description called circumstantial, or indirect testimony; but it often happened, that some of the very greatest crimes were detected, exposed, and the offenders convicted upon indirect evidence. No doubt direct testimony was the most satisfactory, for that gave the Jury the advantage of hearing the facts sworn to in the plainest manner by eye-witnesses; and when their veracity could be relied upon, nothing, of course, could be better than testimony of this nature. It happened, however, that in some cases circumstantial evidence led the mind as directly to a conclusion as direct evidence; for facts were in such cases positively sworn to by such a number of witnesses as could seldom be obtained to testify directly, and were free from the suspicion of being actuated by a bad motive to give evidence against the party accused. The first point to which they would direct their attention was, did they believe the witnesses examined had spoken the truth? Secondly, could they reconcile the facts sworn to, with no other supposition, than that the prisoner at the bar was guilty of the crime of which she stood accused? If it was impossible for them to reconcile it with any other supposition in the ordinary course of human affairs, then were they bound to pronounce a verdict of guilty. There was another point of view in which they might consider the evidence--namely, that though the prisoner neither committed the murder, nor was present at its commission, yet that she might have spirited away the child with a view to its being deprived of life, and have delivered her over to others for that purpose. Should they take such a view as that of the evidence, the prisoner would be undoubtedly entitled to their acquittal; for then she would be in the eye of the law an accessory before the fact, and, as such, she could not be found guilty under the present indictment. He had further to call their attention to that which was the duty of jurors, in all cases, which was, to give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt which, upon a careful review of the evidence, presented itself to their minds; she was entitled to the full benefit of that doubt, and, if it existed, to be discharged from their bar; that there was, as they must fully remember, no direct evidence against the prisoner, proving that she actually committed the murder with her own hands--nay, it had been shown that she was of a humane disposition, and affectionate in her conduct towards children. Neither did it appear that she was under the influence of any feelings leading to the commission of a crime of that nature; but, unfortunately, the experience they had had in that court enabled them to assign a motive of no very ordinary character--that of selling the human body to those who wanted it for dissection; or, as might possibly be the case with the prisoner, of delivering over the unfortunate child to those who would put an end to her existence for purposes of that nature. When he should have restated to them the evidence, they would say whether or not the prisoner had been actuated by such a motive. His lordship then recapitulated, most minutely, the whole of the evidence. When he got to the end of the first part, he observed, that he presumed they would not have much difficulty in saying whether or not the child died a natural death, or lost her life through violent means. If they were of opinion that she had been murdered, then they would consider whether or not the circumstantial evidence brought home the guilt of the offence to the prisoner then at the bar. There certainly was no direct positive proof, yet the prisoner was seen with the child at a time near to that at which she was murdered. Again, some child was seen with her still nearer to the important moment; and in the absence of all proof that she had in the interval taken up another child, the jury would say how far there was proof upon which to convict her. The learned Judge then proceeded to enumerate the leading facts of this point of the evidence, and to detail the conduct of the prisoner upon being taxed with the crime, observing, that doubtless the natural and proper course for all persons accused of such a crime was, if innocent, at once to explain the whole matter, by a full and candid statement of the truth; at the same time, it was by no means uncommon for ill-educated persons, when wrongfully charged with an offence, to endeavour to get rid of it by some false statement. He then proceeded to the evidence of the surgeons, and having thus gone through the whole case for the prosecution, he repeated, that if the jury could not reconcile that body of evidence with any other supposition than that she was not entirely innocent, they were bound to find the prisoner guilty. It was, he then said, the opinion of some of the surgeons, that considerable violence had been used, such a degree of violence as a female would not be likely to inflict. It was, therefore, probable that some other person was engaged in the atrocious transaction, and it was for them to say whether they considered the man and woman, whom the boy Newton swore to have rushed from the privy, to be the murderers. Finally, he had to tell them, that if they could reconcile the facts to any possible supposition but that the prisoner was a principal--that is, was either the actual murderer, or present, aiding and abetting--then they must acquit her. Again, even though they might suppose her an accessory before the fact, she was still entitled to an acquittal, in a word, if they entertained any reasonable doubt whatever that she was according to the legal definition a principal, they could not find her guilty.

The Jury retired a few minutes to six o'clock, and did not return till half-past seven. In the mean time the prisoner was removed from the bar, maintaining her self-possession to the last. When the jury returned into Court, at the end of nearly two hours, the accused woman was again placed at the bar; in the interval she had become much paler than during the trial, and she was then attended by two men, one at each side, as well as by the female attendant of the prison.

Mr. Justice JAMES PARK and Mr. Baron BOLAND, who with the other Judge had retired, then appeared on the bench, and a verdict of _not guilty_ was returned.

The prisoner was removed in custody.

On considering the actions which were committed by such men as Bishop and his colleagues, we cannot regard them in any other light than as human monsters, divested of every gentle feeling, and so immersed in brutality, as to hold no fellowship with their kindred. Revolting, however, as the spectacle must be which has been exhibited in this country by the atrocious acts of the London Burkers, doubly must our feelings be harrowed when the same spectacle is held before us, in which females are the principal actors, and who appear in many instances to have exceeded the other sex in the atrocity and cruelty of their acts. In the case of Calkin, although a jury has acquitted her of the crime with which she was charged, yet of the question of her actual guilt very little doubt remains in the mind of the public in general; and the universal regret is, that a delinquent of her stamp should have escaped the fate, so justly her due, through any of the technicalities or constructions of the law. It may be that the perpetration of the crime could not be brought so home to her as to warrant the jury in bringing in their verdict of guilty; and therefore Mercy and Humanity stepped in to give her the full benefit of the doubts. But to the cool and impartial observer, the evidence against her must have appeared as conclusive and confirmatory of her guilt, as the intricate and, in many instances, inconsistent evidence which was adduced against Bishop and Williams. Her life has, however, been spared for the present; but from the criminal practices to which she has been long addicted, and her well-known connexion with the resurrectionists, it may be safely prognosticated, that the laws of the country will, ere long, claim her as one of their victims.

In point of atrocity, however, there is scarcely any act connected with the horrid practices of the resurrectionists which exceeds, in its cold-blooded ferocity, the murder committed by Mrs. Ross, alias Cook, alias Reardon, on the body of Mrs. Walsh, a woman of nearly eighty-five years of age. For some time she had been missing from her accustomed haunts; and some suspicion having been excited that she had come to an untimely end, a warrant for the apprehension of Mrs. Cook was issued; and on the 29th of October, she, with her husband, and their son (a lad about twelve years of age) were brought before Mr. Norton, by Lea, the officer of Lambeth-street Office, charged on suspicion of the Wilful Murder of Caroline Walsh.

The prisoners, who had been kept apart during the day, were then examined separately, and their accounts were of so conflicting a nature, as to add considerably to the suspicion of their having improperly disposed of the old woman. The boy said, that on the Friday night on which the missing female slept at his father's and mother's room, in Goodman's-yard, Goodman's-fields, they had had bread and cheese for supper; and they all, including the old woman, after partaking of it, went to bed at eight o'clock. The mother said, that their supper consisted of tea, bread and butter, and cold meat, and they went to bed at nine o'clock; while the father said they did not go to bed until eleven o'clock, and had had some hot meat for supper. There was also a great discrepancy in their account of the departure of the old woman from the house on the Saturday morning.

The female prisoner said, that she got up about half-past six o'clock, and prepared breakfast, and gave Walsh some tea and bread and butter. While they were taking breakfast, her husband, who had been out since five o'clock, came in, and had his breakfast. She then left her husband and Walsh together, smoking their pipes, and went out; and on her return, in about half an hour afterwards, the latter was gone. The husband, on the contrary, said, that he came home to breakfast on the morning in question about eight o'clock, and found no person in the house but the old woman; and he was not certain whether he had left her there when he came away, or she had left before him; but he was satisfied that he had not seen his wife from the time he came home to his breakfast until he went away again.

A lad, who lodged in the same house with the prisoner, said, that on the morning of Saturday, the 20th of August, at five o'clock, he saw Mrs. Cook come up the stairs leading to a cellar, and closing a trap-door. This she positively denied, and said that she was not up before half-past six o'clock.

It was also stated that coffins had been frequently seen in Cook's room; and one witness swore positively, that in the month of July last, at two o'clock in the morning, he saw the three prisoners come down the Minories, the boy with a sack on his shoulders, with what appeared to him to be the body of a child of eight or ten years of age in it, and the mother assisting him to carry it, by holding it by the bottom; and they all turned into the court where they lived.

After an examination, which lasted for upwards of four hours, Mr. Norton remanded the prisoners until the following Wednesday, and at the same time gave strict injunctions that they should be kept apart in prison, and not allowed to have any communication with each other.

Accordingly, on Wednesday, the 2nd of November, they were brought up for further examination. The boy, since the previous examination, had made such disclosures to his fellow-prisoners at the House of Correction, as left no doubt of the guilt of his parents of the horrible offence alleged against them; but his statement, which was committed to writing, and which was handed to the magistrates, was unconnected and unsatisfactory. While in one of the strong rooms belonging to the office, Lea, the officer who had apprehended the prisoners, sent for the master and mistress of Aldgate Parochial School, at which the boy was in the habit of attending for two or three years past, and left them with him for some time, when he disclosed to them the outline of the appalling statement of the occurrence which he subsequently made on oath before the magistrates in the presence of his parents.

At three o'clock, Cook, and the female Ross, who had always passed as his wife, were placed at the bar, before the Hon. G. C. Norton, and J. Hardwicke, Esq.; and their astonishment on perceiving that their own child was about to be admitted as a witness against them, was quite apparent.

The magistrates asked the boy if he was quite willing to make a full disclosure of what he knew as to the disappearance of the old lady, Elizabeth Walsh, and he having answered in the affirmative, he was sworn, and made the following statement, which was taken down by Mr. Osman, the chief clerk:--'He recollected the old woman, Elizabeth Walsh, coming to his father and mother, at No. 7, Goodman's-yard, Minories. About ten o'clock on Friday morning (Friday the 19th of August last), and bringing some bread in a basket, a part of which she gave to him for his breakfast. She went away shortly afterwards and returned about tea-time in the evening, when she as well as himself and his mother had some coffee. His father was not present at the time, though he was when she came in the morning. They had coffee about half-past nine o'clock on the same night for supper. He, witness, took part of it, and it made him sleepy, but not sick. The old woman also took some of it, and it seemed to make her drowsy, as she shortly afterwards stretched herself on his father and mother's bed, and placed her hand under her head. She did not at the time complain of illness, on the contrary, she appeared in good health. Some time after he saw his mother go towards the bed, and place her right hand over the mouth of the old woman, and her left on her body. (The boy here burst into tears, and said he was sorry to be obliged to state such things against his own mother.) When his mother placed her hand on the old lady's mouth, her arm fell down, and she laid flat on her back on the bed. And his mother continued to keep one hand on her mouth, and the other on her person for at least half an hour. The old woman did not struggle much, but her eyes stared, and rolled very much. He (witness) stood by the fire at this time, and his father, who was in the room at the time, stood looking out at the window. His father stood so all the time, and he was sure he never once turned round to see what was going forward, and that he had nothing to do with it. In about an hour afterwards, his mother raised the body of the old woman from the bed, and carried it down stairs, but to where he did not know. The body was not undressed at the time. He and his father went to bed some time afterwards, and he could not say what time his mother returned, as he had not seen her again on that night after she left the room with the body in her arms, nor did he see where she had taken it to. On the following morning he got up about seven o'clock. His father and mother were then up, and in the room. He had occasion, previous to his going to school at eight o'clock, to go into the cellar to the privy, and while searching through the cellar he saw the body of the old woman in a sack which was placed underneath the stair, a portion of the head was out of the sack, and the body appeared to be partly bent, and reclining against the stairs. There was sufficient light in the cellar for him to discern the colour of the hair, on the head. It was partly gray and black; but he could not say whether or not the body was dressed or otherwise. The sack which it was in was one belonging to a person named Jones, with whom his father worked. He had frequently seen it in their room, and he thought it was there on the night before. He went to school shortly afterwards, and never mentioned a word then or since about what had occurred, or his seeing the body in the cellar. On returning home at twelve o'clock in the day, he found his father beating his mother. He thought the cause to be that the latter had been out drinking with a young woman, the granddaughter of the old lady who had called to inquire after her. His mother, he believed, while his father was beating her, called him a villainous murderer, but he had no recollection of her threatening to give any information of him. He (witness), after getting his dinner, went out to play, and did not come home until late. Himself, his father, and mother, supped together on the Saturday night, and at about ten o'clock his mother left the room, and in about half an hour afterwards he was standing at the window, and saw her go past with the body in the sack on her shoulder. It was in the same state in which he saw it on that morning, except that the mouth of the sack was tied; the body appeared to be partly bent. (The female prisoner, in an audible voice, here exclaimed--'Good God! how could I have borne a son to hang me?') The lad again burst into tears, and said he could not help it; that he was telling the truth. He then proceeded with his statement. He did not know at what time his mother had returned on Saturday night, as he and his father, who remained in the room, went to bed, and he was asleep when she came in. On the Sunday morning his mother told him that she had taken the body to the London Hospital. The boy here, as in many parts of his statement, said his father had nothing whatever to do in the business. The magistrates examined him very minutely as to what had taken place on the Friday night, and what conversation, if any, had taken place between his father, mother, or himself, previous to and after the horrid deed had been perpetrated. He said that no words or quarrel had taken place; the old woman and his father and mother were on good terms, and nothing particular had occurred during the evening, until his mother placed her hand, as he had before described, on the mouth of the old lady; nor did she say a word to him or his father, while she so held her hand on her mouth. He recollected she had been saying something to herself about taking the body to an hospital. He did not see his father lay a single hand on the old woman.

The magistrates expressed some surprise that the prisoner should for a whole day leave the body in the cellar of the house, which was accessible to all the inmates; but this was satisfactorily explained by the landlady, who said, that in consequence of it being so dark, and so infested with rats, the lodgers very seldom indeed entered it. This witness also deposed to having seen the old woman Walsh enter the house on the Friday, and go up to the apartment occupied by the prisoners. This was the last time she was seen alive.

Other witnesses deposed to the old woman taking her bed and bedding to the prisoners' room, and to the prisoners having solicited her to go and lodge with them for a length of time before she went.

It being now very late, and there being several witnesses to be examined, some of whom were not present, the magistrates remanded the prisoners to the following day. Previous to their being taken from the bar, they were asked if they had anything to state. The male prisoner declined saying anything at present; but the female with the most solemn imprecations declared her innocence, and said that the whole of the statement of her son was from beginning of to end a lie. She added that on the morning of Saturday, she had left the old lady and her husband (the other prisoner) after breakfast smoking their pipes at the fire when she went out, and from that time to the present she had not heard of her. They were then taken from the bar, and the magistrates gave directions that they should be kept separate as before.

On the following evening, Edward Cook, and the female Eliza Cook, alias Ross, were again brought up to Lambeth-street police-office, and placed within the bar, before the Hon. G. C. Norton, and J. Hardwick, Esq., for final examination. When brought into the office, the female, who appeared as ferocious as a tigress, on perceiving her son, exclaimed, 'Oh Ned, I hope you are not going to hang your mother,' and seemed at the moment almost ready to dart at the boy, and tear him to pieces. He, however, was removed to a distance from her by the officers.

Previous to the examination being entered on, Mr. Norton said he understood that there were two gentlemen belonging to the London Hospital present, who wished to say something; and if so, the magistrates were ready to hear them.

Dr. LUKE, who as well as Dr. Hamilton, was in attendance, said, that in the report of the proceedings at this office on the day before, in the morning journals, it was stated that the body of the missing woman had been taken to the London Hospital. He (Dr. Luke) wished to deny the truth of such statement, and to say that no such body had been received at that institution. At the time at which it was stated that it had been brought there, on the 20th of August, the lecturing and dissecting rooms were under repair, and none but the tradesmen employed in doing such repairs entered them. He had besides made inquiries, and found that during the whole month of August not a single body had been received at the London Hospital.

Mr. NORTON observed, that so far as the Hospital was concerned, the statement of Dr. Luke was perfectly satisfactory; at the same time the representations in the newspapers as to the statement of the boy respecting his mother saying that she had taken the body to the London Hospital, were perfectly correct.

LYDIA BASEY, the wife of Thomas Basey, a boot-closer, residing in Long-lane, Smithfield, stated that she was granddaughter to the missing woman, whose name was Caroline, and not Elizabeth Walsh. On Friday, the 19th of August last, she went with her to the residence of the prisoners, in Goodman's-yard, Minories. She did not go into the room of the prisoners at the time; but she heard the voice of the female prisoner as the old lady went up stairs. It was between five and six o'clock in the afternoon. She understood her grandmother was going to stop there. She had nothing with her at the time but a small basket; and she had never seen her since.

ANNE BUTON, sister to the last witness, stated that her grandmother, Mrs. Walsh, had lived with her for six years, previous to August last. The last place at which she resided with her was in Red Lion-court, in the Minories. The prisoners at the time lived next door to her in the same court. Having given up her room in the beginning of July, the old woman stopped for some time with the prisoners, who took it; and she (witness) subsequently took lodgings for her at a Mrs. Shaw's, in Playhouse-yard, Houndsditch. Her invariable practice was never to go out before ten or eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and return at three or four o'clock in the afternoon, and sometimes much earlier. She was in the habit of selling tapes, threads, and other articles. The last time she saw her was about four o'clock in the afternoon of Friday, the 19th of August, at the house of Mrs. Shaw. She (witness) then told her that she understood she was going to Cook's to lodge, as she had seen her bed there in the course of the morning. The old woman said she was; upon which she remarked, that if she went to Cook's, they would cook her; that they were body-snatchers, and would put a pitch-plaster on her, and sell her body at some of the hospitals. The old woman seemed displeased and angry at her remarks, said that the Cooks were not so bad, and requested that she, witness, would accompany her to their house. This witness refused, but went part of the way; and on their parting at the end of Cutler-street, she told her that she was sure she should never see her more. She, however, told her not to stir out the next morning until she called on her, and that she would bring her some stockings, and other articles which she required. The old lady said she would not, and they parted. During the whole Friday night the witness could scarcely get any rest, such were her apprehensions about her grandmother; and on the following morning she went to the house of the prisoners, at about a quarter before nine o'clock. On reaching it, she found no one at home but the female. She asked her for the old lady, and she said she was just gone out. She appeared a good deal confused at the time. Witness expressed some surprise that she should go out so early, contrary to her usual habit, and more particularly as she must have expected her, and promised to wait at home until she called; on which the female prisoner said, that she was gone out early, in order that she might return early; and added, that whatever things she (witness) might have for her, she might leave them. The female prisoner was washing something at the time, which she said was a butcher's jacket. She said that her husband, Cook, was very partial to the old lady; that they had a jolly good supper on the night before; and that Cook had treated the old lady to 'something short.' She next pointed to a sack which lay on the bed, and said that Cook had doubled it up on the night before, to put the old woman in it. Witness asked her what she meant by putting the old woman in a sack; and she replied, that he had doubled it up to place it under her on the bed. She also said that the old woman had no linen on. This witness thought somewhat extraordinary that she should have examined her so closely, and asked her how she came to do so; but she made no reply. Witness again expressed much uneasiness about her grandmother, on which the female prisoner told her that she had left her and her husband sitting by the fire when she went out to collect some cinders, and on her return she was gone. She (witness) asked the female prisoner to go out with her to have something to drink. She did so, and they went to two public-houses. While in one of them she earnestly inquired about the old woman, when the female prisoner observed, 'You speak as if you thought we had murdered or made away with her.' Witness observed that she had her suspicions that such was the case, but she did not wish then to express what her feelings were. Mrs. Cook pressed her (witness) afterwards to go home with her to have something to eat, but she refused to do so, and gave her some halfpence to get some bread and cheese with, but she did not return. Witness, after searching about for the old lady, went again to the residence of the prisoners. They were both at home, and Cook appeared in a most savage temper, and the female appeared to be dreadfully beaten. Her face was one mass of contusions. Cook shortly afterwards left the room, and the female told her, that he had given her a desperate beating because she had been out with her, and lest she should let anything drop about the old woman. Witness expressed some surprise that so quiet-looking a man as Cook appeared to be, should act so; on which the female observed, that he 'was the greatest murderer in Europe if the truth was known.' She (witness) had subsequently made inquiries at all the gaols, poor-houses, and hospitals in the metropolis, about her grandmother, but was not able to obtain the slightest intelligence about her. She had never recollected her stopping a night from home. Mrs. Cook had frequently solicited the old woman to go to lodge with her, and appeared most anxious to know if she (witness) was her daughter or any relation of hers. She, however, never told her that she was more than a friend, who had known her from her childhood, and as such she respected her. She had repeatedly warned her grandmother against going to the house of the prisoners, by telling her what they were, and that they would be sure to put a black plaster on her, and dispose of her body, but she still had a good opinion of them. On the Monday night after the old woman was first missed, she went to the house of the prisoners: it was late in the evening, and Cook was in bed. Mrs. Cook pressed her very much to stop there all night, as she appeared tired, saying, that her husband would have no objection to her doing so. She refused to do so; and Cook desired her not to be so uneasy about the old woman, as in all probability she would hear from her at the end of the month. 'At this instant,' said the witness, 'I thought I heard the voice of my grandmother, as plain as ever I heard her in the course of my life, say, "Nancy, where is the use of your looking for me, when I have been suffocated in that bed of Cook's, by him and his wife?" The circumstance, as well as her own fears to get out of the place, had such an effect upon her, that she was scarcely able to walk down stairs.

JOHN SHIELDS, a lad of about fourteen years of age, who lodged in August last in the same house with the prisoners, recollected one Friday night, about nine weeks since, having some words with his father, and being turned out of the room; he in consequence sat on the stairs. It was between ten and eleven o'clock at the time. Mrs. Cook came down stairs, and asked him if he had been again turned out through that wretch (meaning a woman who used to wash and clean for himself and his father). She said, that if she served her boy so, she would rip her from top to toe. She then requested him to go in; but his father not being in bed he could not, and he went into a dark corner of the stairs. Mrs. Cook passed, without seeing him, and remained for about half an hour at the street door, and then went up to her room. While he was in the corner, Cook was coming down stairs; but before he reached him, somebody called him back, and witness being called into his father's room, went to bed. As he was coming down stairs at five o'clock the next morning, he saw Mrs. Cook come from the cellar, and heard the cellar flap fall, and she asked him where he was going so early. He returned about six o'clock, and went into the cellar to get some eggs, as he kept some ducks and hens there. He felt about for some time for the eggs, and after getting them, brought them up stairs. The cellar was very dark, and he could not see the body if it was in a sack under the stairs. It might be there, without his observing it.

A witness named BARRY deposed to having seen the prisoners and their son one morning at two o'clock, in the Minories, in the month of June last. Their son had a sack on his back, in which she (witness) was satisfied was the body of a child. His mother helped him to carry it, and they turned into the court into which they resided.

Young COOK was here called and questioned, but he denied all knowledge of the transaction, and said, he never was out so late as two o'clock in the morning. He said that the statement of the day before was quite correct. In reply to a question from Mr. HARDWICK, he said that after the death of the old lady, his mother took her up like a baby in her arms, and carried her down stairs. This induced the magistrate to make some inquiries as to the person of the missing female, and it appeared, though she was very tall and a good figure, she was not very heavy.

LEA deposed to having apprehended the prisoners, and detailed at some length their contradictory statements. After their examination on the preceding evening, the prisoners were locked up in their different cells, the man in the centre, and the woman and boy on both sides; he heard the female call out to Cook to ask the boy who had told him to say all that he had against her, and why he did so? and on Cook asking the question, the boy replied, that no one told him, and that he said so because his mother did it.

The examination, after lasting nearly six hours, terminated here; and the prisoners, who contented themselves with a mere declaration of innocence, were committed for trial.

* * * * *

On Friday, the 6th of January, Edward Cook, aged fifty, and Eliza Ross, aged thirty-eight, were placed at the bar, indicted for the wilful murder of Caroline Walsh, on the 19th of August last. The female prisoner was charged with causing the death of the deceased, by violently squeezing her neck, breast, stomach, and nostrils, until suffocation ensued; and the male prisoner was charged with aiding and abetting in the said murder. They were also indicted for the murder of a person unknown.

The prisoner pleaded 'Not guilty,'

Mr. ADOLPHUS and Mr. BODKIN appeared for the prosecution; Mr. BARRY for the prisoner Cook; and Mr. CHURCHILL for the prisoner Cook.