The Sun.
London, England, 1852-10-19 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Oct. 18.

The sittings of the court for the October General
Quarter Session were resumed this morning, at the
Linildhall, Westminster, by adjournment from Clerken-
well, before Mr. Serjeant Adgms, assistant judge, Mr.
Halswell, Mr. Stock, and Mr. Gould.
The number of prisoners for trial is $1; 71 for
felony, and 10 for misdemeanour.

BETTI:CO.OFFICES.
Samuel Nesfield pleaded guilty to an indictment in
which ho was charged with having stolen 26 tooth
brushes and other articles, value 21. 10s., the property
of John Barrett, his master.
The prosecutor, who carries on business at 89,
Piccadilly, stated that the prisoner had been for many
years in his service, and had maintained the character
of a good, trusty, and honest servant until the last few
months, when he became acquainted with " betting.
offices," the result of which connexion was his present
position.
The Assistant-Judge said it was certainly very much
to be hoped that in the coming session, Parliament would
deal with these infamous betting-houses with a very
strong hand. It was an aggravation of a crime to say
that it was committed before the offender had been led
away by betting places; and in the present case he
should not attach that weight to the prisoner's former
good character that he should have done under other
circumstances.

He then sentenced th© prisoner to six months' hard
labour.

INFAMOUS EtTOBTION.

Richard Hornell, 65, was—indicted for having unlaw-
fully obtained from Ann Edwards, a sovereign and a
half sovereign, with intent to cheat her thereof.
Mr. Metcalfe appeared for the prosecution.
The prisoner had represented himself to be an officer
of the Society for the Protection of Women, and from
time to time had obtained sums of money from the
prosecatrix by threatening to indict her for keeping a
brothel, unless she supplied him with more money.
Mr. Henry Joseph Newman, secretary to the Society
for the Protection of Women, proved that the prisoner
never was in any way connected with the society, and
had never acted under its authority.
The prisoner, making great flourish of his dirty
papers, then entered on his defence, addressing the jury
in a deeply indignant tone of voice. He said that for
eight or ten years he had been engaged by different
parishes in the metropolis to assist in procuring proofs
required in brothel prosecutions—a calling perhaps not
of the most respectable kind, but which he hoped would
not now prejudice him. He had been engaged in patting
down two brothels in the neighbourhood of the prosecu-
trix's house, at the instigation of the Rev. Mr. Harness
and others, and he thought ho had a right to prosecute
her house, as it became the head quarters of the gay
women who were expelled from the other houses. He
had complained to Mr. Robinson, a lawyer, who was the
landlord, that the house was being carried on as a
brothel, and he had desired her quit, through his clerk.
He made the most solemn asservations that the charge
against him was concocted by a conspiring band of
brothel keepers, who sought his ruin because he had
prosecuted them and compelled them to move from place
to place. Ho should call the prosecutrix'a husband to
prove that she was so intolerable that he allowed her
201. a year to live away from her.
James Edwards was then called into the box,

The prisoner first began to question him as to his
wife's character, and then es to her brother's, but he was
at once stopped, as, in the first respect, evidence could
not be given by a husband against his wife; and, in the
second, that it had nothing to do with the case.
The prisoner then packed up his documents and said
that was all the evidence he had to call.

The Assistant Judge, in summing up, said if the pri-
soner's story were true, he could have produced Mr.
Harness to give evidence of his having been employed
by him in brothel cases, and if he had, Mr. Harness, a
respectable gentleman, would not have abandoned him
in his hour of need. The prisoner had made assertiops
about the prosecutrix's house which were utterly con-
tradicted, instead of being, as it true they might have
been, corroborated, and therefore they ought to be
looked upon as entirely groundless.

The jury, after a short deliberation, found the pri
soner—Guilty.

The Assistant Judge—The prisoner was about the most
notorious rogue in London. He lived by this infamous
system of fraud and extortion. He had been convicted
twice ; on one occasion ho was transported, and on
another he was sentenced to a year's hard labour. It
had been repeatedly necessary that he should caution
grand juries of the character of this person in brothel
indictments, but latterly this system had not been car•
ried on to its former extent, because in every indict-
ment it was now required that the person
prosecuting should enter into a recognisance to prosecute
with effect, and to swear an affidavit that there was no
difficulty in the way of apprehending the defendants.
But, though that had been to some extent put an end to,
the prisoner had gone about frightening people out of
their wits, and pursuing a complete system of extortion.
Even were the prosecutrix a brothel keeper, of which
there was nct the slightest evidence, these extortionate
practices must not be resorted to. It was not to be
endured, and must be put down with a severe hand. It
was impossible that a gentleman like Mr Harness could
have been mixed up with such a person.
Prisoner—Yes, and 140 housekeepers besides.
The Assistant Judge said he certainly recollected a
case in which the prisoner was employed by a parish,
but a pretty mess the parochial officers got into in con-
sequence. He then sentenced the prisoner to one year's
hard labour.