From the Kentish Chronicle and General Advertiser, 11 January, 1862. Price 1 1/2d.

DISCOVERY OF THE DEAD BODY OF A CHILD.

Superintendent Davis, at the Canterbury Police-court, on Tuesday, told the Magistrates that the mystery was now entirely cleared up. It appeared that the child belonged to a man who was the father of eleven children, that it was still-born, and that its father had it placed in a coffin, and himself took it to the sexton of St. Gregory’s, and gave him a shilling to inter it in a decent manner, which was done. Yet that very sexton had made a report of finding the child! The father had since been there, and recognised his own child in the coffin. Consequently he (Mr. Davis) had been to the coroner and stopped the inquest which was about to be held on the body. Mr. Rigden attended the man's wife in her confinement.

An inquest on the body was, however, after all, held on Wednesday evening, at six o’clock, by Mr. Delasaux, coroner, at the “Two Bells,” Military-road. Mr. G. Ladd was foreman of the jury.

Before the body was viewed, the Coroner gave a brief explanation of the reason why the inquiry had been delayed. On Sunday he was informed of the discovery of the coffin in the church-yard of the Ville of St. Gregory, and that the body of a child was found in it; and when this information reached him he gave instructions for a post mortem examination to be held. But the day after it was stated that the child was the child of a person named Francis, and that it was stillborn; that Mr. Rigden had attended the mother of it; and that Mr. Cole had made the coffin for it. Under these circumstances no inquiry was thought necessary; but afterwards it transpired that Mr. Francis had made a mistake; that his child was a male, whereas this was a female; and that the coffin was a different one from that which had been made for him. In consequence the enquiry was rendered necessary. He thought this explanation was due to the public, as they might else be surprised that the inquest had not taken place earlier.

William Keel:— I am sexton of St, Gregory's Cemetery. In that capacity I inter, without burial service, the bodies of still-born children in the churchyard. I have recently interred some such bodies—as many as five bodies of still-born children in the church-yard.

I have recently interred some such bodies—as many as four within the last fortnight. I receive no certificate to state that they are still-born. It was not necessary. On Saturday last, at three o’clock in the afternoon, I was in the church-yard looking for a place for a grave, when I observed that a recently made grave had been disturbed. I had my shovel in my hand, and was about to remake the grave, but the shovel struck against something, which proved to be a coffin. It had not been placed there by me, and I knew nothing about it. I gave information on Sunday morning to the police. On that morning the coffin was opened in my presence, and the body of a female child was discovered—the same as the jury have now viewed. I have not, and cannot from, the Slightest idea as to who put the coffin there, or made it. All I know is, that I did not.

Mr. Cooper asked whether the sexton was justified in burying a still-born baby without a certificate. He believed that he was not.

The witness said he sometimes had a certificate, sometimes not. He formed his own opinion us to whether the child was still-born or not.

The Jury, the Coroner, and Mr. Cooper concurred in condemning this practice, as both improper and illegal.

Mr. T. S. Cooper, surgeon, said:— I was called upon to see the body of the infant on Sunday morning last. I found that it was a female child. My impression at the time was, that it was not still-born; but the post mortem examination has not confirmed that opinion. It was a full-grown child. I made the post mortem examination this day. I opened the body. I examined the chest, and took out the lungs. They did not appear as if they had ever been inflated. They immediately sank upon being put into water. There was no trace of any nourishment having passed into the stomach. My opinion is that the child was still-born.

After this evidence, the jury, of course, returned a verdict of “Still-born.”

The Superintendent said:— I found a napkin round the body of the child, which perhaps may lead to the discovery of the person who placed the infant there without properly burying it. The napkin now produced was round the body of the child. It has the initials M. J. H., and the No 9. The letters are worked in cotton, and by the needle.

The coffin was apparently, made by a competent, man, and is lined. There was no appearance of haste about it. It seems strange that the maker of it cannot be found but every inquiry has been made of the coffin makers in Canterbury.

From the Kentish Chronicle, 7 May, 1864.

SELLING BEER IN THE BARRACKS WITHOUT A LICENSE.

Thomas Bradford, landlord of the “Two Bells” public house, was charged, under the Act 23 and 24 Vic., cap. 113, sec. 37, for selling beer at the new quarters for married soldiers, in connection with the Barracks, whereby he had rendered himself liable to a penalty of £29.

The information was laid by Mr, Hamilton, an officer of Inland Revenue, and Mr. Delasaux appeared for the defendant.

The particular offence charged was committed on the 23rd of February, when the defendant was seen with a can at the entrance to the married men’s quarters. A girl in the service of Mr. Beck, landlord of the “Canteen,” was sent by her master to ask him for “a pint.” The defendant supplied her with a pint of some kind of liquor, which she took to her master, who, on tasting, found it to be porter. Mr. Beck proved sending his servant to the defendant, and said he heard her ask him for a pint of porter, and saw him serve her.

The defence was that the defendant only supplied liquor which had been previously ordered, and that, in serving Mr. Beck’s servant, he did so under the impression that she was the daughter of a soldier who had previously given him an order.

A soldier who was on guard on the day in question deposed that he saw Mr. Beck and his servant go to the married men’s quarters. They went into the quarters, and the first witness afterwards went out and bought some beer of the defendant.

Samuel Boon, a farrier in the 8th Hussars, said he was in the habit of having his supper beer from the defendant. On the Saturday preceding the 23rd February he went to the defendant’s house and ordered him to bring him a pint of beer every night. His daughter generally fetched the beer from the gate, defendant not being allowed to go into the quarters. On the 23rd his daughter was ill and unable to fetch the porter. On his going, however, for his usual supply, defendant told him he had sent it. He replied that he had not, and defendant then said, “Then some one else has got it.” Defendant had not any more beer with him.

Mr. Hamilton said the Bench had not to look to the intent with which the defendant committed the crime; all they had to decide was whether he did or did not effect a side.

The Mayor said there was no doubt at all that the defendant had sold the beer, and that it was done under a mistake; but as they were precluded from taking this into consideration, they had no alternative but to fine him in the mitigated penalty of £5.

Alderman Philpott advised defendant to petition the officers of Excise for a further mitigation.