Studying various inquest reports from the 19th century, it soon becomes apparent that there were a huge number of cases that came before coroners across the country, whereby new born babies had died under suspicious circumstances, and the jury were then required to decide whether a murder had taken place.
The Rhyl Record and Advertiser, on Saturday the 8th of January, 1881, reported on one such case:-
THE BODY OF ANOTHER CHILD FOUND AT RHYL
THE MOTHER CHARGED WITH MURDER.
The early part of the week, the town was thrown into a state of excitement on account of a rumour that the police had a clue to a child murder in Rhyl.
Within the last two years, the bodies of at least half a dozen children have been found in the town and neighbourhood, and in each case the guilty parties have managed to elude the police.
In this instance the police appear to have been more fortunate, and Inspector McLaren lost no time in following up the information he received and was successful in tracing the paternity of the child found on Saturday last to a servant girl who until last week was engaged at the Mona hotel.
The body of the child was found by the Inspector in a bonnet box in a house at St. Helen’s Place.
The mother of the child was also there, and she was duly charged with the murder.
THE INQUEST HELD
On Monday evening last an inquest was held on the body before W. Davies, Esq., coroner, in Reynold’s Assembly room, Brighton road, and the members of the jury were sworn in.
After the jury had viewed the body, which was brought to the room for the convenience of the jurymen, the following evidence was taken.
INSPECTOR MCLAREN’S TESTIMONY
Inspector McLaren said that from information he received on Saturday night last, at ten o’clock, he went to No. 2, Vaughan Terrace, St Helen’s Place, High Street.
A woman named Mrs Thomas lived there.
He went upstairs and found Mrs Thomas, with a young woman, in bed. The young woman gave the name of Ann Hughes.
He then asked the young woman how many boxes she had brought to the house with her.
She replied three, and that they were down stairs.
He went down stairs and found the tin box (produced). This box he took up to the bedroom, and asked her if that was her box, and she said “Yes,” and gave the key to the Inspector, and he opened it in her presence.
In the box was a large parcel wrapped in paper and calico, and tied with cord.
THE BODY OF A CHILD
On being examined, it was found to contain the body of a child.
He then cautioned her in the usual manner, and charged her with the murder of the child which was then in the box.
She replied:- “Well, I will tell you the truth. I had the child on Wednesday morning. There was no one with me. The child was alive, but died in a few minutes. I put it in the box, and was going to take it home to be buried at Holyhead.”
The Inspector then examined her other boxes, and found several clothes stained with blood, and wet.
By the Coroner – “I have seen Ann Hughes before, she was living at the Mona Hotel, and left there last Wednesday. Had seen her there the most of the summer, but had never spoken to her.
LOUISA JONES’S EVIDENCE
Mrs. Louisa Jones, proprietress of the Mona Hotel, was next sworn.
She said that she knew nothing of the birth or death of the child in question until Inspector McLaren came to her house on Saturday night.
Ann Hughes came to her service on the 27th of May, and left on the 29th of December last, between seven and eight at night.
She wanted to leave in November, but was induced to stay, until after Christmas, her notice expiring on the 27th December but was allowed to stay until Mrs Jones had suited herself with another servant.
SHE HAD SUSPICIONS
The witness said that she had examined all the rooms in her house, and found no signs that would lead her to suppose that a confinement had taken place.
Witness did suspect a little that Ann Hughes was in an interesting state, but in reply to a question, she said that she had been suffering from rheumatic fever, and that she was obliged to wear a little extra clothing.
Witness saw her go out of the house on Wednesday evening, taking with her the tin box produced and her satchel.
WHY SHE LEFT
By the Foreman – The reason Ann Hughes left on the 29th was because she had been up since two o’clock in the morning, and was suffering from rheumatic, and had her head tied up.
Witness asked her if she had a cold, and she answered that she thought she had.
She went about her work as usual, and during the day she said that she would leave on the Thursday, but witness told her that she had better leave that night.
By Mr R. Lloyd – Could not say how many weeks before the confinement she had suspected that the servant was in the family way.
MISS MASSEY CALLED
Miss Massey, the barmaid, was called, but as she could not say any more than was given in evidence by the last witness, the jury did not think it necessary to take her evidence.
MRS. ANN THOMAS’S TESTIMONY
Mrs Ann Thomas, widow, living at 2, Vaughan Terrace, said that she knew Ann Hughes as a servant at the New Inn prior to her being engaged at the Mona.
Ann Hughes did not call after she left the New Inn, but called once to ask for lodgings for a night or two, and at ten o’clock on Wednesday night last she came, suffering, she said, very badly from the rheumatics.
She is still in my house.
She got up about nine on Thursday morning. She got up punctually every morning.
The Coroner:- “She got up every morning.”
Witness:- “Yes sir; no sir, I am telling lies.” (Laughter).
The Coroner:- “Then don’t tell lies.” (Laughter).
Witness:- “She did not get up on Sunday or today. Ann Hughes did not give birth to a child in my house.”
By the Foreman:- “I was in the house all the time. It was many weeks after she said she was coming to lodge before she came to my house.”
THE DOCTOR’S EVIDENCE
Mr W. T. Girdlestone, M.R.C.S., surgeon, said that he conducted a post mortem examination on the body of the female child, in the presence of and assisted by Mr A. Eyton Lloyd, surgeon.
He opened the chest and lungs, and found them perfectly healthy, and, having detached the lungs from the body, he placed them in a basin of water, and they floated to the top of the water.
He examined the stomach and found it contained two table spoonfuls of mucus.
There was evidence from the examination of the heart that the child had been born alive.
Not being satisfied with the cause of death, he made a careful examination of the body but no signs of bruises on any part of the body could be seen.
It was a healthy full-grown matured child. The child, the witness thought, had died from suffocation. The child had been dead at least five days.
The umbilical cord had been separated and tied.
Mr. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY
Mr A. Eyton Lloyd, M.R.C.S., surgeon, was next sworn, and confirmed the evidence given by Mr Girdlestone.
Witness was of the opinion that the child had died from suffocation.
He attended the woman on Saturday night, and he was satisfied that she had been recently delivered of a child.
She said the child was born alive on Wednesday, at the Mona Hotel, and died a few minutes after, she being too helpless to render assistance.
The confinement took place in the kitchen.
Witness, in reply to a juror, said that it was possible that the child had died before it was separated from the mother.
ARGUING THE TECHNICAL POINTS
There was some time spent in arguing the technical points involved as to what verdict it was competent for the jury to return.
The medical gentlemen too could not agree as to certain matters touching the birth and the death of the child, one gentleman believing it quite possible for the child to have breathed and died before there was a birth in the legal sense of the word, while the other medical gentleman thought that the child had been born, as the lung’s floated to the top of the water.
WHAT THE LAW STATES
In case the former event to have happened the Coroner said that the jury could not return a verdict of murder or manslaughter, as the law distinctly stated that there must be clear proof that the child was wholly born into the world and that there was an independent circulation of the blood before anybody could be held accountable for its death.
SUMMING UP AND VERDICT
The Coroner then briefly addressed the jury, summing up the evidence in a clear and concise manner, and directing the jury on the legal aspect of the case.
The Court was then cleared and in a few minutes the jury returned a verdict that the child was born alive and that death was caused by suffocation, but by what means there was no evidence to shew.
The jury were then dismissed, the Coroner thanking them in the name of the Queen for their attendance.