The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-25 00:00:00

LAMBETH-STREET.

Larry Collins and John M' Grath were brought up
for re-examination, charged with being concerned in the
robbery at the Mint.

Mr. Powell, the solicitor to the Mint, attended ; and,
after some conversation between him end Mr. WALKER,
the prisoners were remanded for a week, to give the officers
time to procure additional evidence against them.
A curious practice of the Jews, with respect to a certain
form of marriage ceremony, was detailed in a charge of
assault preferred by Rachael Simmonds against Moses
Jac*. The case, as stated before the Rev. Mr. MATHIAS
by the complainant, was, that the defendant had come to
her house and struck her repeatedly.
Rev. Mr. MATHIAS—What was the cause of his as-
saultinz you ?

Complainant—Your Worship, I was his wife, but I
have-divorced myself from him.
Rev. Mr. Manirns—What ! divorce yourself ! Then
do you think you are at liberty to marry again ?
Complainant—Yes, Sir.
A person present, in explanation, said the parties, being
Jews, had married in the form called Meeadish—a cere-
mony which takes place in the presence of two witnesses,
and, though binding, yet, upon one of the parties disagree-
ing, the High Priest had power to divorce them ; and this
was one of those caes.
Rev. Mr. MATHIAS-Why, the Jews are in a better
situation than us Christians. If I want a divorce, I must
apply, like Lord Ellenborough, to the llouse of Lords;
hut the Jews have, it appears, a much shorter and less
expensive mode of settling matters. I don't think they will
gain much by emancipation, at least in this particular.
The two informers Joseph and George Wise yester-
day brought a carter before Mr. HARDWICK, for having
his name and number chalked upon his cart, and not
painted, as the Act directs.
The informers went upon the Act of the 18th Geo. 111.,
and upon which the lowest penalty is 40s.
Mr. HARDWICK, upon looking at the Act, said, he did
not see how he could convict upon it, for it only said that
"every person shall put or paint," and asked the informer
how he get over that.
Wise said, that it was not the intention of the Act that
a person should chalk the address on his cart, when it
might be so easily washed off.
Mr. HARDWICK would not go into the intention of this
person or of that in framing an Act ; he sat there to ad-

minister the law as it stood, and would certainly not
vict the defendant.

A gentleman made application to Mr. HARDWICK for
a' summons against a person who kept a ferocious dog,
which had bitten him on Tuesday morning.
Mr. HARD NICK regretted that the law did not give him
any power to interfere.

Mr. Osborn, the Chief Clerk, said that the keeping a
dog who could be proved to have bitten more than one
person, was an indictable offence.
Mr. HARDWICK would grant the applicant It summons,
and hear what the other party had to say.
A Russian, named Abraham Nestrow, was brought be-
fore Mr. HARDWICK, under the following circumstances :
It appeared that the prisoner had gone into a house in
Red Lion-street, Whitechapel, about eight o'clock on
Tuesday evening, and bolted himself into it, telling the
persons who lived in the house that it was all right. They,
however, did not appear to be of the same opinion, and
gave the prisoner in charge to a policeman. When taken
into custody, he behaved with great violence.
Mr. HARDWICK committed the prisoner for three months
to the House of Correction.