THE ALLEGED CHILD-MURDER CASE

THE ALLEGED CHILD-MURDER CASE. Fong Chong and Clara Fong Chong, his wife, were jointly charged with haying murdered the latter's female infant child on the 9th of January last. Mr. Gully prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr. Jellicoe appeared for the male prisoner, and Mr. Skerreit for his wifo. The defending counsel largely exercised their privilege of challenging jurors. Mr. J. K. Hamilton was chosen foreman of the jury. Hugh King, a Celestial, was present to interpret the evidence to his accused compatriot. It will be remembered that on the 15th January last the body of a female child, apparently 10 or 11 days old, was found by Mr. C. B. Taylor, of Newtown, on the beach at the head of Evans Bay, enclosed in an old petticoat and a piece of a linen shirt. There were marks, soemintfly of violence, on the rank, as though caused by the impression of a finger and thumb. It was subsequently ascertained that Mrs. Fong Chong had given birth to a child a few days previously, and from other circumstances which came to the knowledge of the police, Fong Chong and his wife were taken into custody. Charles Brook Taylor and Constable Stewart proved the discovery of tho body and its removal to the Morgue. Acting-Deteotive Walker proved the woman's denial that she had had child, and her acquiescence in his suggestion that she should be examined by a doctor also, the discovery of blood-stained linen at her house. Constable Gleeson gave formal evidence. Dr. Collins described the condition in which he found the female prisoner when aho was brought to him for examination, as being such as would be most naturally caused by having recently given birth to a child. None of the symptoms were inconsistent with that supposition, and in his opinion she had given birth to a child about three weeks previously. As the result of his examination of the body of the child found at Evans' Bay, ho concluded that death had been caused by suffocation, and had taken place within about 24 hours of his examination. The child was at least five days' old, and perhaps a little older. Cross-examined by Mr. Jelliooe— He could ¦not say absolutely that the marks on the throat ware ante m:rtem. It was just possible that such marks might have been made by seizing hold of the neck of a dead child to push it into bag. A child might have Jived after fiuoh marks had been inflicted, provided that the pressure was not sufficient to cause suffocation. It might have been suffocated by overlying, or other possible causes. To Mr. Gully— His opinion was that the real cause of suffocation in this case was external pressure. To his Honour -The passage of a large tumour might have caused tho internal symptoms which he found about the woman. Tw<» married women were next examined who all noticed that the female prisoner was pregnant, and to one of whom she afterwards stated that she had given birth to a child, but that it was dead. John Henley, who lived next door to the female accused at Newtown, swore that he heard an infant crying in her house on the B8th of January. Oreste Terreing storekeeper, of Newtown, Lusia Bianohini, and Bertha Yung Tin, also gave evidence. Chief Detective Browne proved the finding of a piece of sown calico (produced) and certain blood-stained calico in the female prisoner's house. (Left sitting.) Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 86, 13 April 1888, Page 3 Supreme Court. CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Yesterday. (Before His Honour Mr. Jutice Riohmond.) THE ALLEDGED CHILD-MURDER CASE. The ease in which Fong Chong and Clara Fong Chong (his wife, European) were charged with the murder of their infant ohild was proceeding when we went to press yesterday afternoon. Dr. Collins, re-called, said that though the age of the ohild was not less than four or five days it might bo at mnoh as 15 days. To the jury in witness' opinion the infant was a European Child as distinguished from a half -caste Chinese Emma Maher, matron of the Terraoe Gaol, produced some pillowcases sewn by the female prisoner while in custody. To Air. Jclliooe— She had giren the work to the aroused by instruction of the Governor of the Gaol. Luoia Canlton, dressmaker, who had compared the tewing of the garments in which the infant found on the beach was wrapped with the tewing done by the female prisoner in gaol, pointed out features of similarity. Som» of the. work done in gaol was better than the other, but it was all bad work and now Mid then the worker fell back into the same old style. This oonolndod the oase for. the Crown. Mr. Jelliooo submitted to His Hoaor that there was no evidence to go to the jury, inasmuch as it had not been proved that the ohild found dead was that of the prisoner*. His Honour said he had considered the matter, and, without expressing any 1 direct opinion, he thought the oase was one to go to the jury. If, however, Mr. JeUiooe wishod it, he would reserve the point. Mr. JeUiooe asked whether there was any evidenoe of intention to kill. Hit) Honour said it was satisfactorily proved that the female prisoner had a ohild about the Bth January, and that the prisoners, without any reason for doing to, denied the fast* Besides, there was sufficient evidenoe of correspondence in age with the child found at Evans Bay. Mr. JeUiooe asked his Honour to distinguish to .the jury between killing with intent and doing it accidentally. His Honour said that if the jury found that death hod been caused by suffocation respiting from ontsido pressure, it would be for the defence to provo accident. At Mr. JeUiooo's request, his Honour agreed to reserve the question as to whether there was any evidenoe to go to the jury of either intent to murder or ooncealmont of birth. Mr. GuUy Bummed up the ease for the Crown. Mr. Jellicoe addressing the injury on behalf of Fong Chong, pointed out tbat it had not been proved that tho dead child was that of the prisoners. The evidence of neighbours showed that the prisoners child must have been born about the 7th January, whereas he gathered from the doctor's Guidance that the child found on the beach died about the 10th. Assuming, for the moment', that the marks on the neck were made by tho prisoner, he suggested, at a reasonable theory, that they might have bean caused at birth, in the absence' of a skilled attendant. Mr. Jellicoe asked the jury not to tend two creatures to their execution on tho mere inference of Dr. Collins that the child hod not died a natural death. He commented warmly upon the "unworthy trap" which had been laid by the prosecution to catch the female prisoner, which he designated as nothing less than an outrage Chinaman bad little respect for dead bodies, and in their own country they were not accustomed to use public cemeteries for burial purposes, to that there was nothing surprising in the supposition tbat the pruoner should dispose of the body of his child by either burying it himself or putting it into the sea, in order to tare undertaker's expenses, with* out any desire to conceal the birtp from the world. In that case, at he 'would have little regard for the body, the marks on the neck might have been caused by him in shoving it into the bag. In conclusion, he atked the jury to accept nothing but sworn testimony, and to reject all inference and conjecture. At they hoped to stand before- the judgment seat of the Almighty, he asked them not to be prejudiced by the nationality of the male prisoner, and not to let the innocent suffer. Mr. Skerrott, in hit defence of the female prisoner, laid strew upon the absence of motive on tho part of the aconsed for the murder of their ohild, and the extreme probability that, if they had determined to do so, they would have carried out the design immediately upon its birth. He argued at length that supposing the child found to have been theirs, it would have been physically impossible for the woman while suffering from the effects of labour to have participated in the act of carrying it over tho hiU to Xilbirnie. Mr. Skerrett censured tho prosecution, not only for tho "trap" kid or his client, but also for having subjected her to medical examination. His Honour, in directing the jury, said that they must first find whether the ohild in question was the one of which the female prisoner had been delivered; secondly, whether it was intentionally killed by tho prisoners, and then whether it wot killed by either of them apart from the other. He did not understand it to be seriously contested that the female prisoner had given birth to a child. The jury mast be satisfied that the body found by Taylor on the 15th January was the one of which the was delivered. If they found that such was the case, they must decide whether its life had been taken willfully. The way in which the body was found must bo remembered, and in deciding whether the woman wat a party to its death her denial that she bad given birth to a child must be considered, and also the question whether she, being so recently married, could have bad any desire to suppress the fact of the birth. At to the count for concealment of birth, the jury must be satisfied that the prisoners, or either of them, had secretly disposed of the body for the definite purpose of concealing the birth. It.was evident that it was well-known to the female prisoner's neighbours that she was about to bear a child, and tostome of them that it had actually been born. The jury retired at 7.27, and returned precisely at 8 27 with a verdict of Guilty of concealment of birth and secret disposal of Mr. Jellico asked his Honour to respite sentence until the questions reserved had been decided by the Court of Appeal, and also, as tho offense of which the prisoners Had been convicted was only a misdemeanor, to admit them, or one of them, to tail in the. meantime. His Honour thought the proper course, would be to pass sentence, and afterwards, stay its execution if necessary. Mr. Jellico said that a matter had been communicated to him which would justify him in moving to quash the conviction, viz., the jfettaeriQeaoe W not been interpreted Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 87, 14 April 1888, Page 2 Very strong disapproval of the practice of endeavouring to obtain statements from prisoners, which is resorted to by the police on some occasions, was expressed by His Honor the Chief Justice during the hearing of the alleged child murder case in the Supreme Court, Wellington, a few days ago. During the course of his evidence Chief Detective Browne produced a piece of sewn linen which he had taken from the house whera Clara Fong Chong, tho female prisoner, had been living. It was shown that the sewing was extremely bad, and expert evidence was tendored by the prosecution to prove that some work which the accused had done while awaiting trial in the Terrace gaol bore a great similarity to the sewing on tho linen produced by Chief Detective Browne. The matron of the gaol was subjected to a very severe cross-examination by Mr. Jellicoe, who wished to know from her whether it; was usual to give prisoners awaiting trial work to do. She replied that she had told the accused to do the work under the direction of the governor of tho gaol. His Honor subsequently expressed the opinion that the work was given to the prisoner for the purpose of obtaining evidence, and he considered such a proceeding highly improper. There could be no doubt, His Honor proceeded, that it had been done so that it could be used against the prisoner for the purpose, in fact, of making evidence against herself. His Honor was not aware that the English Court had yet come to that. He went on to say that in some parts of New Zealand he had seen most startling attempts on the part of the police to extract statements from prisoners. He had not observed much of it here, although he believed that it was practised to a certain extent in this district. New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9036, 20 April 1888, Page 5