The Express.
London, England, 1868-07-04 00:00:00

BOW-sTREFr,

Willitme Peel, one of the men called "touts," who bang
about the entrance to theatres, obtaining alms on the pre-
tence of calling cabs and carriages, opening the doors of
those vehicles, &c., was placed at the bar before Mr.
Vaughan on a charge of cutting and wounding Police-
sergeant Mew, of the A division, with intent to do him
bodily harm.
Sergeant Mew said he was on duty at the entrance of
Drury-lane Theatre, where he had been stationed for the
purpose of warning off the touts, who were very numerous,
and had become a groat nuisance to the public. The pri-
soner and another greatly distinguished themselves by their
pertinacity. They were opening the doors of carriages,
and touching their cape, as if soliciting alms. Witness had
several times ordered them to go away. Seeing the pri-
soner again annoying a party he went towards him, but
was pushed aside by the other man, while at the same
moment the prisonermade a blow at him with some sharp
instrument—it might have been a knife or a sharp stone—
inflicting a wound under the angle of the left eyebrow.
He loot a groat deal of blood. A few minutes afterwards
the prisoner and his companion passed down Ilrydgist-
street together.
The prisoner said a gentleman asked him to fetch a cab,
and he was running to fetch ono when the sergeant called
" Stop thief." He was stopped, and the sergeant then
said he had cut him.
Police-constable Crows, 222 A corroborated.
Mr. Vaughan—l shall remand the case for a week, in
order to obtain surgical evidence as to the condition of
the wounded man, and then, considering the nature of the
outrage, I think it very probable that it will be my duty
to commit you for trial.
In consequence of the fatal accident to five boys
who were drowned while bathing a short time since at
Christchurch in Hants, the authorities of that town have
resolved upon forming a proper bathing place there.
WESTMINSTER.

Arne Porter, a servant, was charged with wilful and
corrupt perjury.
Mr. Serjeant Tindal Atkinson, instructed by Mr. W. D.
Smyth, proeccutol ; and Mr. Sleigh, instructed by Messrs.
Fearon, Clabon, and Co., defended.
From the opening of the case and the evidence after-
wards adduced, it appeared that in July, 1964, Mr. Wil-
liam Bewicke, of Fleetwood-hall, Northumberland, a
gentleman whose !aloe imprisonment some years ago
created much sensation, married a second wife,

with whom he lived imhappily until the end of
1866. The lady filed a petition against him in the
Divorce Court for cruelty ; subsequently that peti-
tion was amended and adultery impute in support
of which Ann Porter was called on the 12th ult., and upon
her evidence a judicial separation was granted. After the
separation between Mr. Bewicke and his second wife he sent
for Mary Latham, a very plain middle-aged woman, who
bad been an early companion of his first wife's, and in-
stalled her in the office of housekeeper, treating her, as
he bad been in the habit of doing during his first wife's
lifetime. on terms of equality. During part of Mary
Latham's stay in the house Ann Porter was there as a
servant, and what she alleged she then saw and heard was
the subject of the present prosecution. The assignments of
perjury were, that amongst other things Ann Porter had
sworn in the Divorce Court " That she had heard Mr.
Bewicke ge into Mary Latham's bedroom at night after
he had gone to his own room, and had heard them talk-
ing in her bedroom ; that Mr. Bewicke carried Mary
Latham down stairs in his arms from her bedroom into
the drawing-room ; that she (Ann Porter) saw Mr.
Bewicke and Mary Latham together in the drawing-room
in the act of adultery ; and that she saw Mr. Bewicke
come down from Mary Latham's bedroom, she being at
the time in the room in her night dress.
Mr. Bewicke and Mary Latham were called, and dis-
tinctly swore that all these assertions of Ann Porter's were
wholly false. They were both cross-examined at great
length, but nothing was elicited to shake their testimony.
This closing the case for the proeecution the further
hearing was adjourned for ten days, defendant entering
into recognizance. to appear.