The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-13 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

Mr Knox said it certainly seemed as Mr Bliss had sug-
gested a partnership affair. .He would hear Mr Venning's
case.

Mr. Yenning, of Charlotte.street, Fitzroy-square, said
the defendant offered him the duplicate of a painting for
sale for a sovereign. He purchased the duplicate, and then
redeerued the painting. He afterwards met the defendant,
who asked him how he liked it. He told him very well,
but that it required a little more finish. The defendant
agreed to do " work" upon it for a few hours for 13s, and
called and took the painting avay, at the same time asking
for the advance of a shilling, as he was without food. The
defendant never returned the painting, and he (Mr. Yen-
ning) had ascertained that he had pledged it at Mr. Lee's,
Mary-street, Hampstead-road, and he believed the defen•
dant would not deny doing SO.
The defendant, after being cautioned by Mr. Knox, ad-
mitted he had pledged the painting for 10s.
Mr Knox said Mr Venning'4 case was different to that of
Mr Smith's. He thought these had better be an adjourn-
ment, to give the defendant time to come to an arrange-
ment, as he supposed Mr Yenning did not wish to send the
defendant to prison.
Mr Yenning said he had no wish to do so.
The defendant said he would restore the painting if he
were allowed time.

Mr Venning said the defendant had had plenty of time to
restore it to him.

Mr Knox said that, with respect to Mr Smith's case, it
was clearly one for the county court, and not one that could
be dealt with under the pawnbroker's act. He would there-
fore dismiss the summons. In the other case, that of Mr
Yenning, he would adjourn the matter for a fortnight, and
would advise the defendant to settle with Mr Yenning in
the meantime.

The summons was then adjourned.
Mr Smith said the frames of the pictures in his case cost
him 35s each, and he wished to know what he could do
with respect to them.

Mr Knox said he could make no order,

THAMES.
SHOCKING BRUTALITY TO WOMAN.--John Briant,
aged 23, of Harn's-court, Ratcliffe, and James Connor,
also 23, of No. 20, Schoolhouse-lane, Ratcliffe, both de-
scribed as labourers, were brought before Mr Partridge, the
first charged with violently assaulting Catherine Duggan,
a married woman, and the other with assaulting two police
constables, and attempting to rescue Briant from their
custody.

The complainant said she was the wife of a boiler-maker,
of No. 4, Glaeshouse-street, Rosemary-lane. On the pre-
ceding evening, between the hours of six and seveno'clock,
she was passing along Cable-street, Whitechapel, with a
female friend, and met the prisoners. Connor invited her
and her friend to drink with him at an adjoining public-
house.. The invitation was accepted. Briant, who was
the worse for liquor, followed them, and, without any
provocation, used very bad language, and said he
would kick her and mark her, He then hit her in the face
and marked her, scratched it, and used the most infamous
threats it was possible for a man to utter. She fell down,
and her clothes accidentally came up. He then kicked her
on the head, and she became insensible, In answer to the
magistrate, the witness said that Connor did not lift his
hand or foot against her, but pullel Briant away.
Elixabeth Bliss confirmed the statement of Duggan, and
said the kicking was most fearful. No provocation was
offered by her friend.

William Pye, police-constable, 87 H, said he was sent for
to a public house, and saw the woman Duggan on the floor
bleeding from the face. She was covered with blood. She
gave Briant in charget and he took him into custody.
Connor followed and said let him go, and struck witness
with a pair of boots be had in his hand. Both Irishmen
then!became very obstreperous and noisy, and in a struggle
which took place they all went down together. Briant
called out for a knife, and Connor said to him, "Be quiet,
you fool." He procured assistance, and took both prisoners ,
to the station-house.
last witness.
William Kenny, 390 11, confirmed the evidence of the

Mr. Partridge sail there were some redeeming qualities
in the conduct of Connor, Who had attempted to restrain the
resistance of Briant. lie should take into consideration
the favourable circumstances in Connor's case,
and fine him
lOs only. With regard to Briant, he was justified in say-
ing that the prisoner's conduct was unmanly and diagram-
Jul in the extreme. The prisoner had committed a most
savage assault. A more gross case he had never met with
The sentence on Briant was that he should be imprisoned
in
kept the
to hard labour House of Correction for six calendar months, and
MA.NSIaUGHTEI4. --This morning, Mr Partridge was
informed that John Coghlan,
a wire ropemaker, whose
dying words were taken down in writing, in presence of
the magistrate yesterday eh ernoon, in the London Hospital,
di
had left him.
worship
epoor fellow's mind was wandering,
and h
ptarefiatderree said
lite WlCo4Bcfous when he left him yester-
daey3lrsaeo prnrodaa n
no
other result was to be expected. It was a most
unfortunate transaction.

whops The
great deceased,
sympathy
9thea
hr
twi. ednhus oa .
thee is
W 8
---
only 22 years of age, and for
I was a native of Ireland, and
a very industrious, warra-hearted man. He entered a
coffee-shop, kept by a man named William Simmons, in
soon after 12 o'clock on the night of
AaFfesolfptoeo,lish discussion was going on
,customers
speakisdita---rye of
the man in that manner, he never did you any
The anddeoeoanses do of
said,he
yses
aoaaiutrdur, r-
harm." A disturbance ensued, and the deceased and his
about to leave the coffee shop, when Simmons,
brother were
the landlord, rashly threw a chopper at John Coghlan.
about Garibaldiil
The prisoner will be brought up on Tuesday ou a charge
of manslaughter.
'ett'hijethe Pope."

MARLBOROUGH STREET.
AN ARTIST'S DIFFICULTIES.—SINGULAR CASE.--Mr
• Henry Williams, artist, of 81, John-street, Tottenham. court-road, appeared before Mr Knox to answer three
summonses, taken out by Mr George Smith, of Leicester-
street, Leicester-square, and Mr Yenning, of Charlotte-
street, Fitzroy-square, for unlawfully pledging three
pictures, their property.
Mr Smith said he was the owner of two pictures painted
by the defendant, one of which was exhibited by the defen-
dant at the Academy, and the other ai Glasgow last year.
The defendant got the one exhibited at Glasgow, and
which he valued at £5 103, from the London agents. The
other he paid the defendant LI for. They had both been
pledged by the defendant, he Laying no right to do so, nor
having any claim upon them.
Mr William Thomas Bliss,
manager to Mr Dobree,
pawnbroker, of 69, Charlotte-street, Fitzroy-square, pro-
duced one of the paintings spokm of by Mr Smith, and said
it was pledged by the defendant in the name of Henry
Williams, for 30s. Ile understood the defendant had a
claim upon the picture—that Mr Smith had employed the
defendant to paint it, and gave-him £4; that it was to be
exhibited at the Academy and elsewhere, and that there
was an arrangement between tie defendant and Mr Smith,
that if any one purchased the picture, £l5 being set upon
it as the price, the difference between the £4 and the £l5
was to be divided between then.
The defendant said he resided with Mr Smith some time,
and painted at least 30 pictures for him. At the present
time same of his paintings was being exhibited at the
Academy. He did not sell the paintings to Mr Smith, and
he had a claim upon them, it being understood that if on
being exhibited they sold for a higher price, the difference
was to be divided between them.
Mr Smith said that was not the case, and that he bought
the paintings outright. In one case he sent four pictures
to the Academy, and the defendant on the way pledged one
of them in St. Martha's-lane.
Mr Knox asked how the ddendant got possession of it,
and Mr Smith said that it was a rule of the Academy only
to receive the works from the artists themselves, and this
afforded the defendant an oppwlunity of getting it into his
possession, and that the defendant altered the inventory
from four to three,