Here is a full transcription of the Birmingham Post's report of her trial, which included John Dunshee as a witness:
WORCESTERSHIRE WINTER ASSIZES.
-------------
YESTERDAY.
Mr Justice Byles took his seat at half-past nine o’clock.
THE CHILD MURDER AT KING’S NORTON
Rebecca Hunt (18), servant, was indicted for the wilful murder of Julia Penny, at King’s Norton, on the 29th September. Mr. Warren conducted the prosecution; Mr. Motteram the defence.
The prisoner, an interesting looking girl, was charged under an indictment and the Coroner’s warrant. Her demeanour throughout the trial bespoke extreme prostration, and she was constantly attended by two female warders.
Mr. Warren opened the facts of the case briefly, and called the following witnesses:-
Maria Saunders, wife of John Saunders, of Smethwick, said she knew prisoner and her deceased child, which was about six months old. Knew George Penny. Saw the child alive on the 29th September, between ten and eleven o’clock, at her mother’s house. Did not see prisoner leave. The two children were with her then. Saw prisoner next morning; she had only her elder child with her then. Heard her mother ask where the younger child was, and prisoner said she had left it with a lady, between King’s Norton and Selly Oak.
Cross-examined: Prisoner was seduced when she was sixteen. Was fond of her children. Penny ill-used her and the children. Prisoner is between eighteen and nineteen years old.
John Joseph Owens said he lived in the parish of King’s Norton. On the evening of the 29th September was on the towpath of the canal between Bredon Cross Bridge and King’s Norton. Met prisoner going in the direction of King’s Norton. She had two children with her; one was walking and she was carrying the other. Saw the body of a child found on the following morning, about sixty yards nearer King’s Norton than where he met the prisoner.
Cross-examined: When he met the prisoner it was getting dark. The little child was covered with a shawl; the other was crying. They appeared tired and distressed.
Thomas Oliver, an inmate of King’s Norton workhouse, said he remembered prisoner coming to the workhouse on the evening of 29th September. She had one child with her, about two years of age.
Cross-examined: When I admitted her I was struck by her appearance, and said, “You don’t seem like a person who is used to come to a place like this.” And she burst out a crying, and appeared very much distressed.
John Dunshee, another inmate of the Workhouse, said he let the prisoner out of the house on the following morning. She had one child with her.
James Knight said he lived at Northfield. On the morning of the 30th September he was walking along the canal side, near Bredon Cross Bridge, and saw the body of a child floating in the middle of the canal. Took it out, and afterwards gave it to Police-constable James.
Police constable James said he was stationed at King’s Norton. On the morning of the 30th of September, the last witness gave him the body of a child, which he showed to Mr. Brown, surgeon, and on which an inquest was held.
Police-constable Caleb Hackney, of the Staffordshire force, said that on the 1st of October he went to look after the prisoner, and found her at Smethwick. He said, “Rebecca, do you wish to say anything to me about your child? I’m come about it.” She said, “Yes; she is at King’s Norton.” Witness said, “Do you mean in the workhouse?” She said “No, I’ve poisoned it, and I can take you to where it is. I gave it some berries, took some myself, and gave some to the eldest child, but the eldest child threw them up again.” I took her to the station-house, and thence to West Bromwich station. She was given an emetic, and the vomit was given to the doctor.
Police-constable Passey said prisoner was brought to the Smethwick station-house by Hackney. She was very poorly and sick. Preserved some of the vomit. Asked her what she had done. She said she had eaten some poisoned berries, and that she got them at King’s Norton. Then asked her what she had done with her child. She made no reply.
Mr. Warren suggested that he ought not perhaps to go farther with the evidence of this witness.
Mr. Motteram asked that the evidence might be completed.
His Lordship said: Certainly it ought to be.
The examination was then continued: Witness then said, “Why there’s a child found at King’s Norton, in the canal, yesterday morning.” She screamed out, and said, “That is not my child; I never put it there.”
George Perry: I live at Smethwick. Prisoner has had two children by me. She left my house on the 26th September. Saw her again on the 30th. She came to me at a place in Holly Lane, Smethwick. I asked her where the children were. She said she had left one with a friend at King’s Norton, and had got a place of service. I said I was very glad to hear it and I hoped she would do better. I then asked about the children, and she said the lady was willing to take to the youngest, and her mother would take the eldest. I asked her why she didn’t leave the children with me, and she said she would leave them with her. She said she was going over that night, and left. She returned between twelve and one o’clock at night, and told me she wanted to speak to me about what her mother had said. She said her mother had turned her out, and that she did not think she should go to service again. Prisoner stopped with me. When I accused her of the youngest child being missing, she said, “Yes, I’ve poisoned them all, and myself, too.” I said, “Are they dead?” She said, “Julia is; I don’t know whether the other is or not.” I asked her what she did it for and she said “My mother knows.” I asked her about the child that was found in the canal, and asked her if she put it there, and she said, “No”.
Cross-examined: Witness was the seducer of the prisoner, and the father of her children. Broke up her home on the 26th September. That was the only act of cruelty he had been guilty of. Didn’t draw a knife to her a fortnight before.
His Lordship: You are not bound to answer those questions.
Mr. Motteram: Then I won’t ask them, my Lord.
Mr. Brown, surgeon, was then examined, and said he had made a post mortem examination of the body of deceased, and found it died from drowning. All the organs of the body were healthy. Tested a vomit given him by the Police-sergeant for a narcotic poison, and found none.
Cross-examined: Cannot find any known test for the poison of a nightshade; therefore used no test for nightshade. The child had been well fed and nourished by its mother’s milk. Cannot say whether the poison of the berry would mix with the mother’s milk, and quickly affect the milk of the mother. Probably the juice of that berry might. The juice would produce stupefaction. There was a little water, which might have been taken in before or after death. Saw no appearance of irritant poison in the body.
Re-examined: Nightshade was a narcotic and irritant poison.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Motteram then addressed the Court for the defence. He referred to the position of the poor unforunate girl at the bar. Yesterday it had been his duty to do all he could to defend an old man whose years had almost run to their close. Now he had to plead for a poor young girl whose course in life had hitherto been so unhappy – so wretchedly miserable. At the early age of sixteen seduced, a mother before she was eighteen, cast from her home, and thrown on the face of the wide world, homeless and friendless, by the man who had been her seducer – she had ever been kind to the children, and at the time which she is charged with having committed the crime of murdering her child she was tending it, and carrying it warmly wrapped up in a shawl. He said he had not examined the witness as he had the day before, because he did not intend to dispute that the child died from drowning. He should not dispute the fact that the child was drowned, but he asked them what probability there was that it had been drowned by its mother. Human nature was bad enough, but it couldn’t at the same time be cruel and kind; the prisoner had been proved to be kind at the very moment, and was it difficult to believe that she could not have been cruel? Might it not have been that walking along tired and distressed, a single berry was put into the baby’s mouth to stop its crying and send it to sleep. Or might it not have been – and the medical witness admitted that it might be – that the berries taken by the mother had mingled with her milk, and so in taking in that which was to sustain life, the infant took that which would cause death. Thus, the infant becoming stupefied, the poor girl finding that she was carrying as she thought, the corpse instead of the living body of her child, laid it down on the side of the canal. The freshness of the air restores the babe, and it crawls or rolls itself into the canal.
The learned counsel called witnesses to character. Mr. Gosling, timber merchant of Birmingham, said he had known prisoner for years; she had been in the Sunday school at Smethwick, and was remarkable for her kind disposition.
A man named Turner, who had lived next door to the prisoner, said she was very kind to her children.
The learned Judge then recalled the witness Knight, who said, in reply to a question, that the twoing path, where he found the body of the child, was a public place, very much frequented.
His Lordship then summed up. After reciting the evidence, he said that the theory of the defense was that the prisoner had left the child on the bank of the canal, and that it afterwards got in. The state of the law was this, that if the mother deserted her child, and it came to its death it might be murder or manslaughter. If she deserted her child in a place where nobody was likely to go, and it was sure to die, that would be murder; but if she deserted it in the streets of Worcester, it would be manslaughter, because the probability would be that some one would find and care for it. In this case, according to the defence, the child was deserted in a public place which was much frequented; but if it was left there with intent that it might come to its death, it was murder.
After a short absence the Jury returned into Court with a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
Birmingham Post
17 December 1864