The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-19 00:00:00

SURREY SESSIONS---Feb. 18.

NEW COURT.
(Before J. E. Johnson, Esq., Chairman.)
Mary Cormick, 61, Daniel Cormick, her son,
Henry Pritchard, Samuel Pritchard, and Matthew
Haywood surrendered to take their trial on indict-
ment charging them with unlawfully, with strong
force of arms, and strong hand, entering certain
messuages situate Nos. 1,2, 3,5, 19, 20, and 23,
Stamford-street, in the parish of Christchurch,
Southwark, and keeping out Miss Cordelia Ange-
lica Read, the owner thereof.

Mr. Robinson, instructed by Mr. J. C. Meymott,
appeared for the prosecution ; and Mr. Oppenheim,
instructed by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, for the male
defendants. The female was undefended. The court
was densely crowded by persons anxious to hear
the proceedings.
The prisoners on being arraigned pleaded guilty,
when
Mr: Oppenheim, who appeared for the two Prit-
chards and Haywood, said that by his advice they
had pleaded guilty, and on their behalf he wished to
address the court in a few words. Those defendants for
whom he appeared had,unfortunately for themselves,
hired themselves to another party, but he was in-
structed that they did not enter any of the houses
until after Mrs. Cormick and her son. He (the
learned counsel) was well aware that although they
were acting in ignorance of the law there was no
excuse, and that they were equally liable with the
' other pariies. They were hired by them, and only
acted under instructions given them, thinking that
they were doing no harm by getting into those
houses. They now admitted having committed a
breach of the law, and trusted that the court would
consider the ends of justice satisfied by their enter-
ing into their own recognisances to appear and
receive sentence when called upon.
Mr. Robinson, on behalf of the prosecution, ob-
served that no doubt it was, as his learned friend
had stated, that the defendants had been hired by
one who was their head in committing this serious
breaeh of the law. Who that party was they best
knew. There was no difference between the defen-
dants, which was shown by the evidence of wit-
nesses, but which was not disclosed in the deposi-
tions, as the magistrate (Mr. Combo) did not con-
sider it necessary to go into all the facts when
committing them for trial. Nothing was mentioned
of the riot and breaking into the other houses on
the second day. On the first day all the defendants
went to 19, Stamford-street with a hatchet, crow-
bar, and other implements, and with force of arms
broke into that house. That same evening Miss
Read regained possession, but at a later hour the
house was again broken into by the defendants and
entered by them in an unruly manner, and Miss
Read, the prosecutrix, was compelled to seek safety
by flight from the roof. The following day the de-
fendants, with a like mob, broke into six other
houses mentioned in the indictment (which does not
appear on the depositions), and held possession for
some time. The whole neighbourhood was by their
acts kept in a state of terror and excitement
for some days, and application was made
to Mr. Combe, under an old Act of Parlia-
ment, to assist her by his attendance to turn out
the defendants and other rioters. The magistrate
did not like to act under the provisions of such an
old act, but Sir Richard Mayne, chief commissioner
of police, sent a sufficient force to prevent resist-
ance, and the prosecutrix gained possession of her
houses again. With respect to the claim of Miss
Read to these houses, all he had to say was that
she had held possession of them for 18 years since
her father's death, and that he purchased the free-
holds 40 years previously, and had always held in-
disputable possession. It was a strange notion of
Mrs. Cormick, such an old lady, to suddenly come
forward to claim property in the manner she had.
Whatever was the nature of her claim Miss Read
could not imagine. He (Mr. Robinson) had placed
all the facts before the Court, and all. Miss Read
asked was for protection for herself and property
against such lawless persons, who had struck terror
into the neighbourhood, and put the owner in jeo-
pardy of her life. Not only that, but property of
hers had been (lost and destroyed of the value of
about £7O, but he did not mean to charge the de-
fendants with larceny. Miss Read would be per-
fectly satisfied with the decision of the Court, and
leave the matter in their hands.
The Chairman observed that the only object the
Court could have in the present instance was to
tahndthirsiotporuos.
pert), and to show that persons could not be allowed
unseemly
conduct, prevent
and recurrence
especially o f suchw iwith
regard
to act in such an illegal manner. Some of the de-
fendants might suppose that they had a sort of
claim to the property, but this was not the way to
show it by collecting a riotous mob and committing
serious havoc in the neighbourhood. The law pro-
vided a means, if they had any title to it, and that
they ought to have appealed to. With respect to
the defendants, he stiould order each of them to
enter into recognisances to come up for judgment
when called upon, and he hoped he should never
hear of such unseemly conduct again.
The recognisances being entered into, the defen-
dants left the court with their friends

afternoon George.
NEGRETTI, AT THE
C RTYHS TEA I[, ROBBERYPALAC f
PALACE.—Late MESSRS.
UEi
the
Resta'', late manJger at the Crystal Palace for
M
Messrs. Negretti and Co., wbo wat, found guilty on
Monday of stealing 13 valuable lenses, their pro-
perty, was called up for judgment.
Mr. Sleigh, on behalf of the prisoner, said he had
intended to have asked the Court for a case for the
Court of Criminal Appeal, but understanding that
Mr. Negretti had strongly recommended his client
to mercy, he had withdrawn that question. He now
trusted that, for the sake of the prisoner's young
wife and family and his previous good character,
and consistent with the ends of justice, that the
court would temper the sentence with mercy.
Mr. Robinson, who appeared for Mr. Negretti,
said that the most valuable lenses were still missing,
and the prosecutors, in recommending the prisoner
for mercy, believed that he would have given them
such information as to show what he had done with
them.

The Chairman observed that early in the morning
Mr. Negretti had been before the court and strongly
recommended the prisoner to mercy; but he had a
strong feeling on tile subject, believing that the
prisoner would confess as to what had become of the
more valuable lenses. Were the prisoner to do that
most likely great leniency would be shown to him.
Mr. Robinson here urged for a postponement of
the sentence until next session, and in the meantime
the prisoner might think it advisable to give the
required information.
The Chairman thought that would be the best
course to adopt, therefore he postponed passing sen-
tence until the next session, on the 24th of March.
The prisoner, who persisted that he knew nothing
whatever of the other lenses, was then removed.
A very respectable-looking young man named
George Mold was indicted for stealing a large
quantity of brass fittings, the property of an en-
gineering firm at West Croydon.
Mr. Robinson prosecuted, and Mr. Lilley de-
fended the prisoner.
The prisoner had been for a short time engaged
by the prosecutors, and a large quantity of brass
fittings were missed. The evidence went to show
that the prisoner offered large quantities for sale at
a marine-store dealer's at Croydon, and some of it
was traced to him. After a very lengthy trial, the
Jury found him Guilty and recommended him to
mercy.
The Chairman sentenced him to six months' hard
labour.
William Harris, a very respectable-looking young
man, was indicted for embezzling various sums of
money the property of his master, Mr. Judah Davis,
at 202, High.btreet,
Southwark.
Mr. Green prosecuted, and Mr. Lilley defended
the accused.
The prosecutor in this case is an extensive clothier,
carrying on business At 178 and 202, High-street,

Southwark. About four months the prisoner had
been the manager at the latter place, and had charge
of the whole of his stock. His duty was to effect
sales, enter the same in a book, and account to the
prosecutor. In the course of the business the pro-
secutor suspected his honesty, and sent persons to
purchase goods. The prisoner sold them, received
the cash, and, instead of accounting for the whole
entered in the books a considerably less sum.
Evidence to that effect was given, and the Jary
found him Guilty,
Sentence, nine months hard labour.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. 'Filson.)
James Yardley, 21, Edward Dark, 22, and John
Brown, 18, were indicted for stealing a bag contain-
ing three shirts and other articles of wearing ap-
parel, the property of Ann White.
The prisoners Yardley and Brown pleaded guilty,
but Dark was put upon his trial.
The evidence was very conclusive against all the
prisoners, who were seen loitering together in the
Blackfriars-road, on the evening of the 2d inst., by
Sergeant Barrett and Young, detective officers.
They were observed first to follow a gentleman's
carriage, from which they returned, Dark saying
to his companions that there was nothing there.
The officers continued to watch them, and at last
they (the prisoners) went after the cart of a laun-
dress, from which Dark secured the bag in question,
which he handed to Brown, and then they were
making off together. The officers, however, pur-
sued them and secured them, and conveyed them
to the station-house.
Dark made an appeal to the jury, contending that
he had no connection with the other prisoners, and
that the officers were mistaken as to his identity.
The jury, without hesitation, found the prisoner
guilty, and the other prisoners were brought for.
ward for sentence.
A former conviction for felony, after a previous
conviction, was proved against Yardley, when
Mr. Keene, the governor of the gaol, informed
the Court that Brown had been summarily con-
victed as a rogue and vagabond.
Detective-sergeant Palmer, of the A division,
stated that Yardley had also been in custody for
having skeleton keys in his possession.
Yardley— Yes, and I was discharged, you mon-
key-faced chap. (Laughter.)
The Deputy-Chairman sentenced Yardley to four
years' penal servitude, and Dark and Brown to
twelve months' imprisonment each with hard
labour.
James Beale, 23, was indicted for stealing 561bs.
of pieces of undressed hides, the property of John
Isaacson.
Mr. Sleigh, specially retained, with !Mr. Collier,
prosecuted, and Mr. Thompson defended.
It appeared that the prosecutor carried on an ex-
tensive bnsiness as a hide merchant, in Leadenhall
and Bermondsey-markets, and the prisoner had
been his foreman for some time. It was his duty to
collect the hides from the butchers, and bring them

to the premises in a perfect state. He was riot en-
titled to any perquisites, unless it was the teats or
udders which were cut from cow hides. He had,
however, cut off tail pieces and pieces from the
bellies and shoulders, which he converted to his
own use.

A great deal of evidence was gone into, and the
ury found him guilty.
He was sentenced to three months' hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE--Feb. 18.

MANSION-HOUSE.—James Howes, a returned con-
vict, was placed at the bar before the Lord Mayor, on re-
mand, charged with attempting to steal a parcel containing
articles of the value of £l4 from a van in Old 'Change on
the evening of Monday week.
The evidence clearly established the charge, and the
Lord Mayor sentenced the prisoner to three months' con-
finement, with har labour.

GUILDHALL —John Alldritt, a draper, lately carry-
ing on business at Capel St. Mary, near Ipswich, was
placed at the bar, before Mr. Alderman Hale, charged,
under the 221st section of the new Bankruptcy Act of 1861,
with having concealed and embezzled his estate, with hav-
ing attempted to account for his poverty by fictitious losses,
and witn having committed wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Alfred Jones, who conducted the prosecution, stated
that the prisoner was adjudicated a bankrupt upon his own
petition. Having filed certain accounts and surrendered,
he was examined relative to his property. He stated that
on the 21st of June last he sold his stook-in-trade and
furniture for about £l3O to a Mr. Brown, of Fore-street.
He cashed the cheque given him by Mr. Brown for £l3l
75., andthe notes he received in exchange he took down to
Mr. Pittock, a relative at Capel, and repaid him the sum of
£lOO which he borrowed of him about two years ago. Two
documents were produced, purporting to be receipts for the
money in both transactions. The one referring to the loan
was dated September, 1860, while that referring to the re-
payment was dated September, 1862. The prisoner and
Pittock swore that the signatures on the receipt stamps
were written at the dates the receipts bore, although the
paper of both was precisely the same, and the stamps were
not issued by the Government until about two months after
the date of the first receipt, so that the signature on that
stamp could not have been written by the prisoner at the
time he had sworn. The prisoner swore most distinctly
that he paid the notes he received fer the cheque to Pit-
tock.

Mr. Henry Dowsett, a clerk in the Inland Revenue-
office, deposed that tae stamps in question :were not issued
by the Government before Oct. the 23d, 1862, the stamps
issued previously being altogether different.
Mr. William Abbott, a clerk to the London and West-
minster Bank, Lothbury, said he paid the cheque produced
for £l3l 7s. on the 24th of June, and gave out one £lOO
note, No. 89178, one £2O-note, No. 15751; one £lO-note
No. 50327, and £l7s. in cash.
Mr. R. A. Baily, the trial clerk of the Bank of England,
produced the £lOO-note and the £lO-note referred to by the
last witness. The first was paid into the Bank on the Ist
of January last, and the latter on the Bth of the October
previous. The names of T. Elliot and Joseph Pittock, both
of 34, Penton-street, Islington, were on the notes.

A member of the firm of Pawson and Co., St. Paul's-
churchyard, identified the handwriting on the notes as that
of the prisoner, after which the case was adjourned until
Tuesday next.
The case against Mr. John Bruce, stockbroker, 4, Bank-
chambers, Lothbury, was proceeded with yesterday, but the
cross-examination of the prosecutor, who was the first wit-
ness, had not been completed when the Court rose, The
report is reserved.

BOW-STREET,--A Post office letter-carrier named
Thomas Hugh, who has been several years in the service,
and has hitherto borne an excellent character, appeared to
answer a summons charging him with delaying the delivery
of letters.
He pleaded guilty.

Mr. Peacock, the solicitor for the Post-office, informed
the magistrate that the defendant, having about 30 letters
to deliver, got drunk, and was unable to perform his duty.
He went home in a cab, in which he left his letters, and
they were afterwards found there by the cabman, who took
them to the Post-office and stated the facts.

Mr. Henry said if it was known to latter-carrier, gene-
rally that by delaying letters they wore liable to a fine of
£2O, which could be enforced by distraint upon their goads,
these cases would probably be of less frequent occurrence.
Considering the defendant's previous good character, he
would mitigate the penalty to £lO.

MARYLEBONE.—Edward H. Merritt, aged 17, clerk
to Messrs. Gray and Davidson, organ builders, 370, Euston-
road, was charged with having robbed his employers.
The prisoner had been about five months in the service of
the firm. On the nth ult, the sum of £36 4s. was given to
him in checques and notes to pay into the Union Bank of
London, Regent-street, on his employers' account. On Mon-
day last he had £25 12s. given to him for the same purpose,
and on the following day Mr. Davidson ascertained that the
sums alluded to had not been paid in at the bank. He
therefore questioned the prisoner, when he became much
agitated, and fainted. He was given into the custody of
Last, 181 S, and when searched at the station-house he had
in his possession a £lO note, a £5 note, two cheques for
eight guineas each, and about 165, in silver and copper.
Sergeant Mulvey, 8 S, subsequently went to the lodging of
the prisoner, and in his bed-room he found a pocket-book,
in which were six sovereigns. He also found in the apart-
ment an opera-glass, a telescope, a pistol loaded and capped,
a silver vinaigrette, and a pair of dumb-bells.
The prisoner, who seemed much dejected, had no answer
to make to the charge.
Ho was committed (having pleaded guilty) to hard labour
in the House of Correction for six months.

WESTMINSTER.—Thomas Underwood was charged
with housebreaking.
I, Asm's-terrace,
t about half-past Bon Tuesday evening Mrs. Pearce, of
King's-road, Chelsea, on going into her
Smith's-terrace,
back parlour, found the prisoner and another man there.
She screamed as loud as she could, and the prisoner seized
her with both hands by the throat and threw her on the
ground. He and his companion then rushed out of the
house, but her husband promptly followed the prisoner,
who was calling out " Stop thief I" He was seized by a
constable in plain clothes, who met him, The other fellow
escaped. The prisoner and his companion had emptied
some drawers and boxes of their contents, and packed them
in a couple of bags ready to carry them off when they were
interrupted.

The prisoner very coolly interrupted the proceedings
and said he would plead guilty.
Mr. Arnold refused to dispose of the case, and the pri-
soner was remanded until Wednesday next.

LAMBETH.—Charles Lawrence, alias Roberts, alias
Leafer, who stands charged with being concerned in several
burglaries, and who has also suffered penal servitude, was
brought up on remand for final examination, on a charge of
being concerned with Matilda Quentrill in robbing the

house of Mr. Rudd, of Brixton, of plate, cash, and other
property, to the amount of £lOO.

Great efforts have been made to apprehend the prisoner
while the young woman Quentrill was in custody, but he
managed to keep out of the way, and it was not until he
was apprehended at Portsmouth for another robbery that
the officers obtained any tidings of him. The prisoner had
been permitted to visit the young woman Quentrill as her
lover. It was also a fact at the very hour when the robbery
had been committed the prisoner was said to have been seen
at the house of Mr. Rudd, but the person who saw him did
not like to swear positively to his identity.
In reply to the Magistrate's questions, Sergeant Dun-
nington said the prisoner stood committed for trial, but
some way or other had been admitted to bail on a charge of
burglary and robbery, when a policeman was very nearly
killed in attempting to capture him and his companions,
and was also liable to be tried for robbery at Portsmouth,
so that he was not likely to escape justice.
In the case of Mr. Rudd, Mr. Norton did not think the
evidence sufficient to sustain the charge, and discharged the
prisoner.

CLERK EN WELL.—John Harrold, a young twin about
20 years of age, a cash clerk in the employ of Messrs. Meek..
ing and Co., drapers, Holborn-hill, was charged with steal-
ing several sums of money belonging to his employers.
Mr. Warrand appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Thomas
Wakeling for the defence.
The prisoner has been in the employ of the prosecutors
for about two years and a half, and his duty was to receive
the money from the salesmen, and each day at 4 o'clock he
handed it over to the chief cashier. The salesman hands in
a check and keeps a counterpart. While one of the salesmen
was absent the prisoner took the counterpart and destroyed
it, and in that case appropriated a sum of £1 Is. lld. He
never accounted for that money, and as other cases were
found out against the prisoner he was given into the custody
of Police-constable Richard Fawcett, 425 A. The constable
told him the charge, on which the prisoner said that he was
very sorry, that he was guilty, and that he had destroyed
the check papers and put the money in his pocket.
Mr. Wakeling asked that the case might be dealt with at
once, but the magistrate declining to accede to the applica-
tion he said the prisoner would reserve his defence.
Mr. Barker fully committed the prisoner to the Middle-
sex Sessions for trial and refused bail.

SOUTHWARK.—Mr. Louis Dumont, a watchmaker, of
Baden-place, Crosby-row, White-street, Southwark, was
charged with unlawfully pledging a watch, the property of
Cecilia Eliza Wilson, of Bethlehem Hospital.
The prosecutrix, assistant matron of King Edward's
School, attached to Bethlehem Hospital, deposed that on
the 18th of December last she handed the prisoner her
watch to repair. She several times went for it, and on every
occasion the prisoner put her off by saying he would bring
it home. At last, finding she could not get her watch, she
obtained a warrant for his apprehension.
William Fensum, 227 M, one of the warrant officers of
the Court, said he apprehended the prisoner after consider-
able trouble, and ascertained that he had pledged the watch
for a 10s. two days after he had received it.
A pawnbroker produced the watch.
The prisoner admitted the pledging, but said he intended
to have redeemed it had not unfortunate circumstances in-
terfered to prevent him.
Mr. Combe sentenced him to pay a fine of £5, and a fur-
ther sum of £2 10s. the price for which the watch was
pledged, or go to prison for two months,
Just as the prisoner was removed another person said that
he intrusted the prisoner with a gold watch in December,
which was not forthcoming. He understoo'l that he had
pledged it.
Mr. Combo told him to lodge a warrant for the prisoner
to answer that charge on his release from prison.

The Late Fatal Accident at the Coal Depot
at Paddington.

Yesterday Dr. Lankester resumed and concluded
the inquiry at the Bank of England Tavern, Cam-
bridge-place, Paddington, on the bodies of Thomas
Downes, John Stafford, and Stephen Langston,
who lost their lives at the station of the Ruabon
Coat Company on the morning of the 4th ult.
Mr. Metcalfe attended on the part of Messrs.
Smith and Knight, the contractors.
Some evidence having been given as to the
sufficiency of the strutts,
Mr. John Edwards, by advice of his counsel, was
next sworn. He said he was manager to Messrs.
Smith and Knight, who were the contractors.
Lester acted under his instructions. Lester under-
took some part of the contract, the removal of the
soil and sinking a well. Witness was on the plat-
form about 10 days or a fortnight before the acci-
dent, and saw the bunkers were clear of coal. It
the coals had been there and his orders had been car-
, tied out there would have been no danger He
ordered the girder which broke to be shored. On the
Tuesday before the accident he saw they had soil
enough removed in the arch which fell up to an
upright, and he told Downes he would go to Barnes
and get him to put one up before he removed the
first column. He told him to get the round out be-
tween the columns and 3ft. from the first column, to
be ready for the bricklayers. He made a mark on
the ground, and further said it was not to be re-
moved until that had been done. He (Edwards)
went to the works about twenty minutes past nine,
and found that the strutt was in. They had no
directions to remove the second column, and had no
right to be working within sft. of that column.
They ought not to have been working in the arch
at all until the new column was in, but they worked
contrary to the directions that were left. He meant
Stafford and Dowdes, they being the only two men
at work there. There were no definite instructions
given them. He believed that the bunker would
not have given way if his directions had been fol-
lowed out ; and he did not believe there were coals
in the bunker, as on looking up he could see the
daylight.
By Mr. Metcalfe—Witness had no control over
the company in putting coals into the bunkers.
There were sixty tons of coals in the bunker ; that
would be 22 cwt. to the superficial foot. If he had
thought there had been any danger he should have
used the lateral strutts ; but the accident was of a
vertical character. If he had known the clay was
faking away from the stanchion he would not have
allowed a dog to remain there. He took the same
precaution in the other arches. The men objected
to have strutts put up, as they considered it hindered
them in their work.

By the Coroner—The men had everything neces-
sary—timber, nails, &c. ; and when the stanchion
fell, and :they saw the clay slipping, they should,
the first thing have had strutts put up. The men
were employed by the day.
William Lester, on being sworn, said he was an
excavator, and had taken work under Mr. Edwards
at the Great Western Station. He undertook the
removal of the soil under the arch which fell. He
employed Downes and Stafford. On the morning of
the accident the first pier was down but the strutt
was up. The second pier was up. The men were
digging when the first one fell. He did not tell
them to work round the second pier, but they
were working towards it. He went again a little
after nine, and he did not observe the second pillar
was down. He was not told that it was, and it he
nad known so he would not have worked there. He
then went to the well, where he had nine men a,
work—a dangerous place, 20ft deep and 161 t wide
He was not told there were coals in the bunkers : if
there had been, it would have been dangerous. He
did not think anything about it. He worked wit h
the men. Ford never told him there were cols in
the bunkers. He made no inquiries. The bunkers
might be empty at night, but when the men went
to work they might be full, and no one know any-
thing about it.
By the Jury—Witness never thought of any dan-
ger, nor did he think it necessary to go and took.
Mr. Robert J. Hood, civil engineer, said he hid
visited the scene of the accident, and he felt that Mr.
Edwards had exercised a sound discretion in the
orders he had given, and he believed that if his orders
had been carried out there was plenty of support to
prevent accident to the men, even if the bunkers had
been full. The cause of the accident was the falling
ot the second stanchion. If the earth had not been
dug away beyond the three feet ordered by Mr. Ed-
wards that stanchion would not have fallen. He saw
no connexion between the coals and the accident.
The accident might have occurred without the weight
of coal, and the clay, though too near the excavation,
would have squeezed out by the weight of the iron
column. When the pier fell, without the weight ot
coal the accident would have happened, as there
was a joint over the second column which Mr. Kerr
when be visited it was unaware of.

The Coroner summed up.
The court was then cleared, and on the re assem-
blage of the public the following verdict was deli-
vered :—" We find John Edwards and William
Lester guilty of the manslaughter of Thos. Downes,
John Stafford, and Stephen Langston."
Application was then made by Mr. Hargrove for
bail on the part of Edwards and Lester; and as both
men had left the house, _ _

The Coroner said they had better be sent for, and
he would receive Mr. Knight's bail for their ap-
pearance at the Old Bailey to meet the charge.

ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway 'sP i Ils.—Furred Tongue.
Tainted Breath.—No personal disadvantages can be more
annoying than these disagreeable afflictions, which are
quickly removed by Holloway's Pills. Their powerful
cleansing properties will soon rectify impaired digesti
and take away all its vexatious symptoms. When the
constitution from climate excess, or other causes, is en-
feebled, a regulated course of this medicine will effect a
complete change throughout the system, and restore to the
worn-out invalid that ease and strength which he thought
had flown for ever, so long had he been a stranger to both.
An occasional course of these justly celebrated Pills is re-
commended to all feeling" ill at ease," who indeed can
rarely point out the origin or seat of their morbid sen-
sations,