The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-11 00:00:00

absence of each other, trim tbsy were in custody, by an
Inspector of the E they gave contradictory ao-
&runts as to how they came in Tottenham-court-road on
the occasion in question. There was no evidence to connect
than directly with the robbery.
Mr. O'Brien, for the defence, contended that independent
of the evidence of the police inspector, there was nothing
to show beyond doubt that the prisoners were participators
in the robbery; and he hoped the jury would be cautious
in acting on that evidence, extorted, as it had been, impro-
perly and in violation of his duty by a police officer, in a
manner which magistrates and judges were not permitted
to adopt.
The Assistant-Judge, in summing up, called the attention
of the jury to the evidence of the inspector, and remarked
that it would be much better if officers did not put such
questions to persons in custody and under charge. It was
a very dangerous practice, but in this particular instance he
did not wish to convey any censure on the inspector.
The jury Acquitted the prisoners.
The Assistant-Judge said he was not dissatisfied with the
verdict, but he could tell them that the prisoners were well
' known, and if they had been found guilty he should have
transported them.
' The jury said that they had an opinion on the case, but
they nad *teen the prisoners tile beneiii .t
The Auntant•Judge said they were quite right.
Mr. Prendergast said in explanation with regard to the
, inspector, that he had acted quite right in what he had
' done, because as no property was found on the prisoners,
• it would have been right for him to have discharged them,
• if their answers had been satisfactory.
The Auistant-Judge thought no blame could be attached
to the inspector.
Mary Ann :quad*, 33, was indicted for stealing a two
foot rule, and 2.51. in bank notes, half a sovereign, &c., the
property and monies of John Knight, from his person.
This was a street robbery by a prostitute, aided by amen.
The prisoner was apprehended and also her accomplice, a
man named Francis Ames, aged 61, who after his com-
mittal committed suicide in the House of Detention.
The jury . found the prisoner Guilty, and she was re-
manded fur judgment. It was stated by the brother of the
deceased that she was an abandoned character, and had
been repeatedly convicted.

SURREY SESSIONS.—YEsnaDAy.
BIM& J. E. JORSION, Em., •ao s Brim OF MAOIST&
ANOTHER CANNON.
John Smith, aliu Roach, 3.5, a tall powerful fellow, was
indicted for committing a serious assault on James Cold-
men, a constable of the Id division of the Metropolitan
Police.
The prosecutor stated that he was on duty in New-
ington on the night of the 27th ult., when he saw the
prisoner making a disturbance in Kent-street. A mob
of persons was around him, and he was attacking
every one tear bim. Witness went to him, and told
him to go away; but he suddenly turned round and
knocked witness down with great force. While on the
ground, he kicked him, took his truncheon from ►im, and
broko it about his dead and body. He would certainly
have murdered him hai not several other constables heard
his cries and come to his assistance. Witness had been un-
able to perform his duty since the occurrence.
Sergeant Biker, 466 A, and two other constables, gave
evidence against the prisoner, showing that they were com-
pelled to tie the prisoner's arms and strap his legs to carry
him to the station. It was also proved that he had been
several times convicted for committing similar assaults on
the police.
In defence, the prisoner said he was drunk at the time,
and did not know what occurred.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The Chairman said it was fortunate for the prisoner that
he had not committed a more serious offence, as he might
have suffered the same fate as the sweep Cannon, who had
the sentence of death recorded against him for similar of-
fences. He should inflict the heaviest punishment he
could, by sentencing him to two years' hard labour at
Wandsoorth.