The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-29 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURT&

MANSION-HOUSE.

A well-dressed man, named IVillions Jam's Fownes
EdtrarlB, described u being a clerk, residing at No. 45,
Leicester-square, was brought up on remand by detective
officer Michael Idaydon, before the Lord Mayor, charged
with stealing, on the 17th January inst., a bank bill for
the payment of 1071., the property of her Majesty's Post-
master-General. _ _

The prisoner, when cautioned in the usual way, said he
should reserve his defence, and was remanded until Thurs-
day next.
William Norton, an elderly man, was brought up in
custody by detective officer Theodore Foulger, charged
with embezzling tho sum of 11. 195., the moneys of Messrs.
Jones, wholesale confectioners in Aldgate, his masters and
einployers.
The evidence disclosed that the prisoner had been eight
or nine years in their service as carman, and his duty was
to deliver goods and receive the money, and in this way he
had received on an average 3001. to 4001. • month.
In reply to the Lord Mayor, the representative of the
prosecutors stated that the prisoner's wages were 225. per
week, and though out from morning till night he had no
allowance for his daily expenses, while travelling to all
parts of the town.
Detective-officer Foulger informed the court that the
prisoner bad a wife (a very decent woman)and four children
to support.
The Lord Mayor regretted to learn that the masters in.
tended to prosecute, as he was unable to dispose of the
case summarily, as the law required that embezzlement
must go for trial by •
„jury. He could not, however, but
remark that a man with the paltry salary of 225. with all
the daily duties imposed upon him without any allowance
for expenses, could be expected to be strictly honest. He
(the Lord Mayor) had however no alternative, but must
commit the prisoner for trial.

WORSHIP-STREET.
The case of John 211«roetls, 51) years of age, described
as a timber dealer, of Nos. 15 and 16, Reeve's-place,
Horton, was re-heard, on a warrant obtained by Mr. S.
Andrews, relieving officer of Shoreditch parish, charging
him with the following neglect of his two children, named
William atargetts, aged 14 years, and Martha Margetta,
aged 11 years. A remand had been granted, after a brief
hearing of the alleged neglect, for the purpose of having
the younger child better instructed in the obligations of an
oath.
Mr. Vann now defended, and the evidence went to show
that from statements made to Mr. Andrews by a relative
of the defendant's, that gentleman made a visitation at
the houees mentioned, and removed both the girl and boy
to the workhouse, where they became chargeable to the
parish.
Warrant-officer Devitt, who served the process on which
the defendant was brought to this court, corroborated the
relieving officer's statement with regard to the sleeping
rooms of the children, that of the boy being apiece beneath
some stairs about four feet square, used at some time or
other as a coal cellar, and destitute of anything that
could be termed bedding or coming ; it was a spot where
be (Devitt) would not keep a goat in, for there was no
ventilation, and vermin swarmed. The girl slept in the
adjoining house, which was almost empty, on the ground
floor, and what had been stated of the wretchedness in the
brother's case would apply to the sister's—viz., not a
vestige of warmth, either coal or flannel, in either place.
The defendant's own apartments bespoke possession of
every needful comfort. His wife had been dead some
time, and he was cohabiting with a young woman who
carved an infant. The boy, on oath, stated that he slept
in the place mentioned, that he did not want food, but
had meat only once a week—Sunday. lie generally bad
bread and butter at his meals. He bad never seen his
sister beaten, or heard her complain.
The girl, who is of very engaging appearance, although
clad in workhouse garb, said the same, except that her
father had beaten her. The last time was a fortnight
since, and she could not recollect how long it was previous
to that. She had never complained of anything.
Mr. Vann contended that this admission met the prin-
cipal feature of the accusation, namely, neglecting to sup-
port, &c.
Mr. Andrews assured the court that he was not pressing
the case against the defendant. The warrant was not for
an assault on the children. The guardians were anxious
to know how far the bad conduct of defendant had gone,
and this inquiry was to ascertain it. It certainly heidlseen
averred that there was bad treatment by violence— itwas
not shown. He (Mr. Andrews) had found the boy and
girl almost eaten up with vermin, lying in the bitter cold
weather without covering or fuel to afford warmth, and he
felt justified in tatting them from such holes to a work-
house. . . . .

Mr. Vann very candidly admitted that nomore had been
done by Mr. Andrews on the part of the pariah than wu
proper, and he really felt anxious for the children himself.
The defendant would now undertake that they should
be better secomniodated and cared for.
_

The magistrate said he would advise the defendant to
make some arrangement with the pariah, if not he must
take the consequences.
Adjourned for a month.
SOUTHWARK.

Catherine Harris, a powerful-looking
female, the wardswoman of the female casual ward in
Bermondsey Workhouse, was placed at the bar before
Mr. Burcham, charged with committing • shameful and
violent assault upon Elizabeth Perkins, a poor creature
who entered that place for food and shelter.
The complainant, rather a decrepid looking woman,
somewhat decently clad, said that on Sunday night she
bad occasion to apply for admission into the casual ward
of Bermondsey workhouse. The superintendent admitted
her, and she was transferred, with several other female
cahuals, to the prisoner, who ushered them into • very
clean and wholesome ward. She had not been there many
minutes before the prisoner commenced tearing at her
clothes and knocking her about. Witness asked her what
she wanted, when she replied in very foul language that
she wanted her clothes. As soon as she was able to direst
herself of them she banded them to her, when the
prisoner set upon her like a tigress, polling her about and
striking her on several parts of the body. Being in a state
of nudity at the time she was unable to protect herself,
but jumped into one of the sleeping berths to get out of
her way, but the prisoner followed her tbere, fell upon
her, and not only beat her about the head, but bit her
neck. When the other unfortunate creatures came to her
assistance she attacked them, and had not their cries
brought in the assistance of the superintendent, witness
would no doubt have been seriously injured.
Mr. Burcham asked what state the prisoner was in.
Witness replied that she was decidedly under the influ-
ence of liquor.
The prisoner denied that, and said that ever since she
had charge of the female casual ward she had been the
kindest creature that ever could be. The facts were
these. The complainant refused to give up her blothing
according to the regulations, and all she dal was to take
them from her. She denied assaulting her as stated. She
was too kind-hearted for that.

William Brown, the superintendent of the casual wards
at Bermondsey workhouse, said that he recollected the wit-
ness and several other females being admitted on the pre-
vious night, and handing them over to the prisoner, who
was wardswoman in the female casual ward. Some time
afterwards he heard cries of " Murder " and " Help " in
the latter place, and on proceeding there he saw His pri-
soner on the top: of the complainant in her sleeping berth,
beating her in a savage manner. He pulled her off, and
finding that she was under the influence of liquor he gave
her into custody.
Mr. Burch= asked whether the prisoner was en inmate
of the house ?

Mr. Brown replied in the affirmative, and that she waa
selected by the guardians to be wardswoman of the casual
ward on account of her previous good conduct. Witness
added that when he entered the ward all the females com-
plained of the prisoner's brutality towards them. Those
women were all in court.

One of them here stepped forward, and s❑id she niver
saw anything so brutal before in her life. She knocked
the poor woman about as she was taking her clothes off,
and kicked her. When they interfered she turned round
upon them.
Mr. Buroham had no doubt from the evidence of the
complainant, supported by the other unfortunate female's
and substantiated by the superintendent of the casual
verde, that she had committed a most shameful and cruel
assault. He therefore sentenced her to fourteen days hard
labour in Wandsworth House of Correction.
WANDSWORTH.

A matronly looking woman Of trie name of Loveday
complained to the magistrate of being excluded from a
benefit society conducted by females, and of which ahe was
• member. She produced a copy of the rules, which com-
menced as follows:—" Orders and Regulations of the
Royal Turk's Head United Female Benefit Society," and
stated that the society was held at the Turk's Head,
Wandsworth.

In reply to the magistrate,
The applicant said she bad leen excluded on account of
having had a few words with a neighbour, and she
was sent to prison for a month. She thought they ought
not to have excluded her, as sbe bad not been guilty of
any act of thieving. The officers of the society said it was
such a " scandal" her being sent to prison, that they re-
fused to receive her money, though she had offered it
several times.

The Magistrate, on looking at the rules, found that they
did not bear the usual certificate by Mr. Tidd Pratt. He
asked her how long she had belonged to the society,
The applicant said she had paid to it for 10 years. The
members shared the stock once in three years. The next
share would take place in the ensuing summer.
The Magistrate observed that lie could not find any rule
applicable to her case, and he did net know what her
remedy was, unless she applied for a mandamus to compel
the officers of the society to receive her money. He saw
by the rules that a member committing " felonious
practices or treasonable conspiracies shall for ever be ex-
eluded from the society."
Another rule sets forth that an annual feast shall take
place among the members, and that if any member objects
or finds fault with what the stewardess has provided she
shall forfeit 2s. lid.; and farther, that if any member is
found receiving or carrying away any of the provisions, she
shall be fined 2s. 6d., or be exclude&
After some further explanation,
The Magistrate recommended the applicant to apply to
the county court, where she could summon the officers for
her share of the stock and her expenses.
The applicant thanked the magistrate for his advice.
and left the court with her rules