On the night of Tuesday 24 September 1901 the body of a newly born child was found in an ashpit of a house at Pitsmoor, Sheffield. The body was wrapped in a brown paper parcel and was lying in a pool of water. It was removed to the Mortuary and the Sheffield City Coroner, Mr Kenyon Parker was informed. He arranged for an inquest to be held on the child at the Mortuary on Friday 27 September to which there was only one witness, a woman called Mary Coulton. She told the coroner that she lived with her husband William in a court off Pitsmoor Road, Sheffield where the child’s body had been found.

The witness said that she believed that the child had belonged to her sister-in-law, a woman called Mary Elizabeth Mallinson who had been pregnant. Although she was, at that time, an inmate at Firvale workhouse infirmary. When the coroner asked her if her sister-in-law was married, the witness said that she was, however she explained that her husband had gone to America the previous year in July 1900, and nothing had been heard from him since. Mrs Coulton stated that thirty year old Mary Elizabeth had been staying with her for the last three weeks and although she seemed poorly, the woman refused to see a doctor.

The witness told the coroner that she suspected that Mary Elizabeth was pregnant, but when she asked her if she was, her sister-in-law denied it. Coulton said that in the end, she had consulted her parents who had made arrangements for their daughter to be admitted to the Firvale workhouse on the previous Saturday 21 September. It was the following Tuesday that the body of the child had been found in Mrs Coulton own ashpit, situated in the yard off Pitsmoor Road. The coroner said that it was impossible to continue the inquest until he could arrange for the attendance of the supposed mother and so he adjourned the inquest until Monday 28 October 1901.

When the inquest was re-opened Mary Elizabeth Mallinson was in attendance along with her defence solicitor, Mr L E Emmett. Inspector Healey of the Sheffield Police Force was also present. He described the condition of the body when it was brought to the Sheffield Mortuary where surgeon, Dr Walter Hallam had been asked to undertake a post mortem. He was the next witness and told the inquest that the body had proved to be that of a fully developed male child. He did certain tests which proved that the baby had led a separate existence from his mother after birth. Dr Emmett said the nose was in a flattened position and he found extravasation of blood coming from the nostrils.

Internally the surgeon found some of the organs to be much congested and there was fluid in the left side of the heart. When the coroner asked him for his opinion on how the child had died, Dr Hallam told him that the cause of death was suffocation. The coroner summed up for the jury and he told the jury that if they thought that the case was satisfactorily proved, then the verdict must be wilful murder or manslaughter against Mrs Mallinson. The jury took only a short while to return a verdict that:

‘The deceased had been found dead on 24 September, having died from suffocation. But as to how it was caused there was not sufficient evidence to show.’

Mrs Mallinson was then taken into custody by the inspector charged with concealment of birth and ordered to take her trial at the next Assizes. On Wednesday 4 December the prisoner was brought before judge, Mr Justice Ridley at the West Riding Assizes held at Leeds Town Hall. She pleaded guilty before the prosecution, Mr H Wilson outlined the details of the case for the jury. He stated that the prisoner had stayed for a while with her brother and his wife at the house on Pitsmoor Road but had always denied that she was pregnant. On September 18 she had been seen by a doctor and on 22 of that month, she was removed to the Firvale Workhouse, where she was examined by the medical officer.

He concluded that during his examination he had found that she had recently been delivered of a child within the last twenty four hours. Inspector Healey searched the premises of the prisoners brother on 24 September and that was when the body of the child had been found in the ashpit. Mary Elizabeth’s defence counsel Mr J Andrews described how his client had been deserted by her husband the previous year, shortly after they had been married. Since that time Mary Elizabeth had become pregnant although no one knew who the father was. In order to hide her shame the prisoner had told no one that she was pregnant, but it had left her with the dilemma of having to rid herself of the child after it had been born.

Mr Andrews told the court that the prisoner had expressed great remorse for what she had done.
Her father was the next witness and he stated an intention to have his daughter live with him if she was liberated. He told the court that his daughter had always been an honest and upright woman, but had been devastated when her husband deserted her. Mr Justice Ridley told the court that he had great sympathy for the prisoner and therefore he would sentence her to just two days imprisonment. As Mary Elizabeth had already been in custody awaiting her trial for the last few weeks, she was immediately released into her fathers care.