Concealing a birth

[David Marshall]

On 5th February 1905 the naked body of a baby girl was found in a
backyard in Cymmer, Glamorganshire. Presumably acting on a tip-off, the
doctor examined a young girl living nearby and declared that she "had
the appearance of having given birth to a child". She was arrested and
charged with concealing a birth.
At her trial the magistrate was at pains to get the doctor to testify
that the child had not "had an independent existence" and urged the jury
to acquit her "in accordance with the medical evidence" which they duly did.
The newspaper accounts are a bit sparse, but it seems clear that the
girl, who would have been aged about twelve and a half at the time of
conception, had successfully concealed her pregnancy and had given birth
(unaided and undetected) to a full term, possibly stillborn, child which
she had neither hidden nor reported.
What was the law in 1905? Might the magistrate have bent the rules out
of sympathy for a young girl?
David

[Charles Ellson]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:27:51 +0100, David Marshall

Post by David Marshall
On 5th February 1905 the naked body of a baby girl was found in a
backyard in Cymmer, Glamorganshire. Presumably acting on a tip-off, the
doctor examined a young girl living nearby and declared that she "had
the appearance of having given birth to a child". She was arrested and
charged with concealing a birth.
At her trial the magistrate was at pains to get the doctor to testify
that the child had not "had an independent existence" and urged the jury
to acquit her "in accordance with the medical evidence" which they duly did.
The newspaper accounts are a bit sparse, but it seems clear that the
girl, who would have been aged about twelve and a half at the time of
conception, had successfully concealed her pregnancy and had given birth
(unaided and undetected) to a full term, possibly stillborn, child which
she had neither hidden nor reported.
What was the law in 1905? Might the magistrate have bent the rules out
of sympathy for a young girl?

s.60 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 so (apart from the effects
of intervening case law) it is the same statutary offence then as now.
The offence applied "whether such Child died before, at, or after its
Birth". If anything the magistrate seemed to be putting beyond doubt
that the only offence (if any) was concealment not murder and avoid
any accusation of being too lenient.

[David Marshall]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:27:51 +0100, David Marshall

Post by David Marshall
On 5th February 1905 the naked body of a baby girl was found in a
backyard in Cymmer, Glamorganshire. Presumably acting on a tip-off, the
doctor examined a young girl living nearby and declared that she "had
the appearance of having given birth to a child". She was arrested and
charged with concealing a birth.
At her trial the magistrate was at pains to get the doctor to testify
that the child had not "had an independent existence" and urged the jury
to acquit her "in accordance with the medical evidence" which they duly did.
The newspaper accounts are a bit sparse, but it seems clear that the
girl, who would have been aged about twelve and a half at the time of
conception, had successfully concealed her pregnancy and had given birth
(unaided and undetected) to a full term, possibly stillborn, child which
she had neither hidden nor reported.
What was the law in 1905? Might the magistrate have bent the rules out
of sympathy for a young girl?

s.60 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 so (apart from the effects
of intervening case law) it is the same statutary offence then as now.
The offence applied "whether such Child died before, at, or after its
Birth". If anything the magistrate seemed to be putting beyond doubt
that the only offence (if any) was concealment not murder and avoid
any accusation of being too lenient.

Thank you for that. As far as I can tell from the newspaper reports she
was only charged with concealing the birth and she was acquitted of that.

[MB]

Post by David Marshall
On 5th February 1905 the naked body of a baby girl was found in a
backyard in Cymmer, Glamorganshire. Presumably acting on a tip-off, the
doctor examined a young girl living nearby and declared that she "had
the appearance of having given birth to a child". She was arrested and
charged with concealing a birth.
At her trial the magistrate was at pains to get the doctor to testify
that the child had not "had an independent existence" and urged the jury
to acquit her "in accordance with the medical evidence" which they duly did.
The newspaper accounts are a bit sparse, but it seems clear that the
girl, who would have been aged about twelve and a half at the time of
conception, had successfully concealed her pregnancy and had given birth
(unaided and undetected) to a full term, possibly stillborn, child which
she had neither hidden nor reported.
What was the law in 1905? Might the magistrate have bent the rules out
of sympathy for a young girl?
David

I was just looking through newspapers from 1905, there were a lot of
concealment cases.

In the case of Alice Watkins, the jury recommended mercy because she was
an orphan so never had a mother to advise here. The judge agreed that
with the call for compassion and because she was a woman he would not
sentence to hard labour but still sentenced tp six months in prison in
the second division.

21 year old Maida Warner strangled her baby, she got 12 months hard labour.

Florence Salmon - nine months imprisonment

Lena Smale - nine months hard labour

That is just the first few pages, many more in just the one year.

[Peter Goodey]

the magistrate was at pains to get the doctor to testify that the child
had not "had an independent existence" and urged the jury to acquit her
"in accordance with the medical evidence" which they duly did.

Surely there is no jury at a magistrates court?

[David Marshall]

Post by Peter Goodey

the magistrate was at pains to get the doctor to testify that the
child had not "had an independent existence" and urged the jury to
acquit her "in accordance with the medical evidence" which they duly did.

Surely there is no jury at a magistrates court?

The case was heard at the Glamorgan Assizes and the judge was referred
to as a Stipendiary which I, perhaps mistakenly, took to be a magistrate.