The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-06 00:00:00

OFFICERS IN THE INDIAN ARMY.
Colonel SYKES, on the motion for going into commi tte
of supply, moved :—" That the recent appointment o
employment (except in emergent cases) of officer
of the Indian armies with regiments to which they
do not belong, in suppresssion of the regimental
rights of the efficers or usages of these regiments,
is contrary to the spirit of the Act 21 and 22 Vic. c. 106,, which guaranteed " that the military and naval forces of the
East India Company should be deemed to be the military
and naval forces of her Majesty, and should be under
the same obligations to serve her Majesty as they
would have been under to serve the said company,
and should be liable to serve under the same territorial
limits only, for the same terms only, and be entitled to the
like pay. pensions, allowances, and privileges, and the like
advantages as regards promotion and otherwise, as if they
had continued in the service of the said company;" and asked
the Secretary of State for India whether such appointments
had been approved by him.
oi t
of the
grievancewt ha
Afteres hhoisguo hmws
ehe timeinocobservations
.wastt
rhevn
iear
ptnei
000rsnwahst oebfurr
aolodnmu
Mr VANSITTART supported the motion, and sal d that
on
dgb3helitorgua rdaoele mr e
thedy c aopnps ide
edr
attoi
RfßorEmx; and Captain
JERVIS,
Sir C. WOOD said that the whole question raised, the
importance of which he admitted was under the considera-
tion:of Government,and he trusted in a few days he would be
able make a satisfactory explanation to the house on that
subject. (Hear, hear.) He denied that the appoint-
ment of officers in the Indian army was regulated by any
principle except the efficiency of the officers who were
selected to occupy important positions. He contended that
in order to secure the preservation of our dominion
in India it was necessary to increase the number of Englials soldiers in the garrisons, so as to render us independent
of the native soldiering. In support of this argument he
he cited the authority
Indian affairs. of eminent persons connected with

LEFT SPEAKING.]

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A RUFFIAN PROPERLY PUNISRED.—Fred. Comptorr
a powerfully-built young man, described as a bill-poster,
living at No. 1, Queen-street, St. James's, was charged
before Mr Knox, with savagely assaulting a young woman
named Elizabeth Thompson.
The complainant, a young woman, said that on Sunday
morning about fouro'clock she was standing at her mother's
door in Stacey-street, when the defendant came up to her irs
a menacing manner. Thinking he was going to strike her
she said " Don't hit me." The defendant replied, "No I
will not hit you, I will kick you," and then gave her a
violent kick on the hand. She fell to the ground, and the
prisoner then kicked her on the nose and also on her body.
The complainant showed her hand to the magistrate,
and there was a bad wound on it.
Mr Knox asked the complainant whether she knew the
defendant, and she said she had " kept company" with
him. She had not seen him since the previous night, and
she had given him no provocation whatever. The defendant
had frequently beat her before, and once she charged hint
with using a poker to her,

Defendant asked the complainant whether a man was
not talking to her at the time, and she denied it, and said
the defendant often followed her in the streets and threat—
ened to have her life.

Nr. Knex inquired of die complainant whether she lived
with the defendant, and she said she did not.
Walter Sheppard, 55 F, deposed that on going to the
place he found the complainant on the ground and the de-
fendant kicking her. The defesfdant stated that the com-
plainant had been with another man.
The defendant said that what the complainant had re-
ceived she wholesomely deserved. It was her own fault—
she was in the habit of following him.
Mr Knox said he did not care what the complainant had
done. The defendant had no right to take the law into his
own hands under any circumstances. If the complainant
had annoyed him he could have had protection from the
Court, and certainly was not justified in kicking the com-
plainant in the abominable way h 3 had done. He should
commit the defendant for three months with hard labour.

WESTMINSTER.
VIOLENT ASSAULT BY A PRIVATE OF THE COLDSTREAM
GUARPS.—James Pastel!, a private in the above regiment,
was charged before Mr Selfe with the following assault :
Henry Peckard, a waiter at Cremorne Gardens, stated
that at about half-past 12 o'clock this morning he W 29
going along Millbank, nearly opposite the barracks of the
regiment, when he came up to the prisoner who was in the
company of another private of the same regiment. Com-
plainant was in conversation with a friend, when as they
were passing the prisoner he held up a cane he had in his
hand. Neither he nor his friend said a word to the soldiers
who followed complainant and his friend for about 50
yards, When the soldiers got up to them they were talk-
ing about the prisoner holding up his cane. They
never said a word to the prisoner who gave him (corn-.
pla.nant) a severe Vow with his fist on his cheek.
The blow was so violent that it caused the
blood to flow, and complainant was knocked down. Com-
plainant got up and asked him what that was for. He then
received another severe blow on his cheek.
Selfe—Had you given him any provocation ?
Complainant--None at all, air. My friend was also struck
by the prisoner, who was drunk.
Prisoner said that he was struck by the complainant.
Complainant denied that he assaulted the prisoner, and
said that he felt great pain from the blow, and had his
clothes saturated with blood.
James Buxton, also a waiter at Cremorne, corroborated
the evidence.

Mr Selfe asked a corporal of the regiment, who came with
,he prisoner, what sort of character he bore.
The corporal said he was an indifferent character,
Prisoner was sent to prison for 14 days.

0 o
that Lady Elgin should be granted a pension of
year, in consideration of the services of Lord 1).
India.