The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-08 00:00:00

the young men were committed to take their trial at
the Westminsier Sessions fur the mlsdernennour, but
the grand jury ignored the bill against them, and a
charge of perjury was then preferred against both the
censtables.
Ernest Francatelli and Thomas Welby Adam, the
two young men who had been taken into custody
upon the charge referred to, were then examined as
witnesses, and they swore most positively that there
was no foundation for the statement that they had
either of them touched any lady's pocket with a felo-
nious intention. They also denied that anything was
passed from one to the other at the spot referred to by
the officers.

Upon being cross-examined, it appeared that they
had partaken of gin-and-water at a public-house out-
side the theatre, and also smoked a cigar each, and
that they likewise had some cold brandy-and-water
inside. They also said that the promenade was very

crowded, and that they might possibly have touched
the persons of some of the females they passed
by ; but they declared that it was done acci-
dentally and without any improper intention. They
likewi-e admitted that it was true, as stated by the
officers, that Francatelli told Adam to push him as
they were leaving the thiiatre, and that he replied,
" All right," or "Go along, Robert." This was ac-
counted for by stating that some young men vino
were before them were pushing back as it to stop the
people from getting out; and Adam said that the
reason he called Francatelli "Robert" was merely for
a lark, and he could give no other reason Franca-
telli accounted for the possession of a very formidable
instrument in the shape of a flexible stick, heavily
laden with lead at one end, by stating that he merely
brought it from the Coventry Club, where his father
was cook, on the night in question, by accident, and

that it did not belong to him.
Mr. BALLANTINE, for the defence, expressed his
opinion that the prosecution ought never to have been
instituted, and that the parties ought to have been
satisfied with the decision of the grand jury. He
was not instructed to impute to these young men
that they were really guilty of the offence with
which they were charged ; but, on the part
of an officer of good character, against whom no
complaint had ever before been made, he felt him-
self called upon to state that the manner in which they
had conducted themselves on the night in question
was such as entirely justified the officers in the course
they had pursued in taking them into custody, and
making the charge they did against them. The very
circumstance of a person being seen with a formidable
weapon like the one that had been produced, and
which evidently could not be required for the ordi-
nary purposes of a stick or cane, but which was just
such a weapon as was frequently made use of by the
most desperate characters, was in itself sufficient to
create suspicions in the minds of the officers, and he
said that the subsequent proceedings of the parties
very naturally increased that suspicion, and led to
the charge being preferred. The Learned Counsel
concluded by stating that while he admitted that there
was no real foundation for the charge that had been
made against these young men, he thought they
ought to have been satisfied when the bill against
them was ignored by the grand jury, no doubt from
a belief that persons in their respectable position
could not have been guilty of such an offence, and
that a sound discretion had not been exercised in
bringing the matter here, as there did not appear to
be the slightest pretence for imputing wilful and cor-
rupt perjury to the officers who had made the charge
against them.
Mr. Lund, the superintendent of the P division of
police to which the defendant belonged, Sergeant
Quinnear, of the same division, Inspector Wilkinson,
Inspector Coward, and several other witnesses, gave
the defendant an excellent character. He had been
twelve years in the police, and was considered an in-
telligent, able officer, and had been on that account
selected to do duty in plain clothes.
Mr. Baron PLATT, in summing up, told the jury
that it was not sufficient to support a charge of per-
jury that the person accused should be proved merely
to have sworn to that which was not true, but it must
be shown also that at the time he made the false
statement upon his oath be well knew that statement
to be false. The Learned Judge then called the at-
tention of the jury to all the facts of the case, and
said that if they were of opinion that the defendant
had made a mistake as to the identity of the parties,
or that he had reason to suppose that he was speak-
ing the truth when he gave the evidence in support
of the charge, he was entitled to be acquitted.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
Henry Atwood, the other constable was then ar-
raigned upon the same charge.
Mr. PARRY said that after the decision the jury had
come to in the case of the last defendant he should
not have gone on with this indictment, but as it ap-
peared to him that there were some points in the evi-
dence given by Atwood which alter€ 3 the aspect of
his case, he felt that he was justified in doing so.
He then called a witness who, according to counsel's
instructions, could have proved some expressions that
were made use of by the defendant after the parties
were in custody, but upon his being examined be
failed entirely in proving the facts that were sug-
gested.
Mr. PARRY upon this said he felt the only course
he could take was to withdraw from the prosecution.
He added, that the only object of the parents of the
parties was to have the matter fully investigated, and
that their sons might have an opportunity of stating
upon their oath that there was no foundation for the
charge that was made against them, the effect of such
an accusation being made against a young man fre-
quently being to cast a stigma upon him for the re-
mainder of his life.
Baron PLATT said there did not appear to be any
foundation for the supposition that the young men
were actuated by any guilty intention while they
were in the theatre, and they had a right to the ex-
pression of this opinion both from the Court and the
jury.
The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty,
adding that they believed the witnesses Francatelli
and Adam were perfectly innocent of the charge that
was made against them.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Jan. 7.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge
DAYIS V. AN ORDER OF D. JARDINE, ESQ.

This was an appeal by Samuel Davis, a salesman
in Covent-garden Market, against an order made at
the Bow-street Police-court, adjuding him to be the
putative father of an illegitimate child of Jessie Ann
Addison.
Mr. Parry appeared for the appellant, Mr. Payne
for the respondent.
It appeared that on the 30th of March, 1847, the
respondent was delivered of a child, of which she
stated the appellant was the father. They lived to-
gether afterwards, and he continued to allow her a
sum weekly for the support of the child down to
September, 1851. There was abundant corroborative
evidence as to the paternity, but a question of consi-
derable importance arose as to whether, under the 24
section of the 7th and Bth Viet., c. 101, it was not
absolutely requisite that there should be evidence to
corroborate the assertion of the mother, that the ap-
pellant had paid money for the child within twelve
months after its birth, the summons not being taken
out within that period.
The Learned JUDGE, after hearing Mr. Parry and
without calling on Mr. Payne on the other side, held
that the intention of the Act was not that there should
be corroborative evidence of the payment of the mo-
ney within the twelve months in cases where the
order was not applied for until after the expiration of
that period, and where, as in the present case, there
was ample evidence corroborative of the assertion that
the appellant was the father of the child ; and he
should therefore confirm the order.
Order confirmed, with 51. costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE
BO W-STREET.
John White, a genteelly dressed young man, was
charged with attempting housebreaking.
Between two and three o'clock that morning the
servants of James W. Mylne, Esq., of 4, Blooms-
bury-place, were disturbed by a noise as if come
person was cutting the lead on the roof with a knife,
and having called up Mr. Mylne, as the thief was
making his way down stairs and had gained the street,
Mr. Mylne put his head out of window and cried
" Stop thief 1" when the prisoner was stopped and
taken back to the house by a police-constable on duty,
but nothing was found on the prisoner except a knife.
It seemed he got into the house through a back
window which was not made fast.—Remanded.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Robert Faulkner, described as an artist, was charged
with having committed an assault on Henry Bryan,
boxkeepper at the Princess's Theatre.
The complainant said the defendant, on Monday
evening, placed himself in a seat in a box which had
just been vacated by a gentleman who had occupied
it all the evening, and who had left his place for a few
minutes. Complainant told the defendant the seat
was engaged. The defendant replied he was very
comfortable, and should not remove. When the
gentleman and his friend returned, and claimed the
seat, the defendant refused to quit it, and struck one
of the gentlemen. When complainant remonstrated
with him, the defendant called him a d—d liar by
profession, and struck him on the face. In conse-
quence of the assault and the disturbance complainant
called a constable, and gave the defendant into
custody.
Mr. Frederick Wiggins proved that the seat taken
by the defendant was his seat, that the defendant
struck at him, and also struck the boxkeeper.
The defendant denied the assault on the boxkeeper.
He said he did not see the complainant until the affair
was over.
Mr. HARDWICK was satisfied with the evidence in
support of the assault. He was astonished to find a
person of the appearance and station of the defendant