The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-10 00:00:00

BOW.STREET.

Charles Canfield Harman, a respectable-looking
young man, by trade a coach-trimmer, was yester-
day charged before Mr. MINsuuLL, with having de-
serted his wife, who represented to the parish-offi-
cers of St. Martin'i-in-the-fields, that her husband
was about to leave this country for America in a
clandestine manner. _ _

The defendant tlenied that he had entertained
any intention of deserting the complainant, although
he had reason to believe that she was not his legal
wife, notwithstanding that they had been regularly
married.

Upon being desired to explain what he meant,
the defendant said that the complainant was the
lawful wife of a man named Denby, who, in the
year 1822, was tried for bigamy, found guilty, and
sentenced to be transported for seven years. The
complainant was the first wife of Denby, who after-
wards intermarried with a young woman named
Brown, upon proof of which his conviction took

place.
The complainant- admitted her marriage with
Denby, but said that in consequence of his having
been transported she had regained her freedom, and
had a right to form a new connection.
Mr. HALLS observed, that she was still as much
the wife of Denby as she had ever been, and no
sentence which he might have received, short of
death, could have released her from her first mar-
riage. The Magistrate (Mr. Halls) added, that it
was somewhat singular that the husband (Denby)
should have been transported for bigamy, and that
the wife should afterwards have committed the very
same offence.

The defendant said, he had no intention whatever
to injure the complainant, and he would have sup-
ported her under every circumstance, but that she
had robbed him of property to a considerable amount.
Mr. MINSHULL and Mr. HALLS agreed that they
could not interfere, as the complainant was not, in
point of law, the wife of the defendant.
The charge of desertion was consequently dis-
missed, and the parties left the office, the com-
plainant declaring that, notwithstanding the decision
of the Magistrates, she would stick to the defendant
to the last, and compel him to support her as his wife.
Messrs. Mears and Tumour, of the vocal depart-
ment of Covent-garden theatre, came before the Ma-
gistrates to complain of a fraud which had been
practised upon them on the occasion of their joint
benefit, which took place some nights ago.
Mr. Mears said that a lady, residing in Broad-
court, Bow-street, applied to him on the day of his
benefit for six box tickets, which she wanted, she
said, for some company in her house. The tickets
were given to her, and she promised payment the
next morning ;,but upon application to her for it, she
only laughed at him, A few days before this oc-
curred he received an order for five tickets, purport-
ing to be signed by Mr. Wm. Vining, the comedian.
Upon application, however, to that gentleman, he
declared that the signature was a forgery, and he
(Mr. Mears) had good reason to suspect that the
lady who had favoured him with the order for the
six tickets, had made free with Mr. Vining's name to
obtain the other five.

Mr. Turnour complained also of having been simi-
larly tricked out of a number of tickets by the same
lady. The tickets, he had reason to know, were
distributed to women about the doors of the theatre,
who disposed of them:for half price.
Mr. HALLS regretted that he could not interfere
in the matter, unless the forgery of Mr. Vining's
name could be traced to the lady alluded to. The
applicants soon after withdrew.