The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-13 00:00:00

THAMES POLICE.OFFICE.

A very dreadful case of distress presented itself
yesterday afternoon, which came before the notice
of Mr. BRODEMP, the sitting Magistrate.
A poor man, accompanied by his wife and five
young children, attired in rags, applied for an order
to compel the overseers of St. George's in the East
to grant them some relief. The man, who was
labouring under severe illness, and appeared to be
in a dying state, stated that he belonged to Newport,
in Wales, and left that place five years since, for
Bordeaux, in France, to work at all iron foundry.
The works, however, had lately stopped, and he
was thrown out of employment, and being unable
to procure work at Bordeaux, his passage-money
had been paid by the British Consul, and he was
last week put ashore at the London Docks, situate
in the parish of St. George. Having slept within the
Docks two nights, he was entitled to relief from St.
George's. The overseers had given him a few shil-
lings, which was all exhausted, and they refused
either to take him into the workhouse or pass him
to his legal settlement, although a verbal order to
that effect had been given by Mr. BALLANTINE at
that office, which they had disregarded. He had
been obliged to sell his shoes to procure a lodging;
and himself, his wife, and family, were without food,
or the means to procure another meal. They had
not tasted any thing since the previous day, and he
WkIS labouring under such severe illness that be was
quite unable to walk about, and he had no money to
pay for a lodging. The unfortunate man, while
making this statement, was so weak he could scarcely
stand ; and his children, who stood around him,
complained they were hungry, and cried for some-
thing to eat.
Mr. Baonratto commiserated the situation of the
poor man and his family, but said the parish of St.
George WWI not within the jurisdiction of that office,
and they must apply to the Magistrates of Lambeth-
street.
The poor man had been to Lambeth-street office,
but the Magistrates had peremptorily refused to in-
teller° in his behalf, and, without something was
done for his wife and family, they tnust inevitably
perish in the streets. The poor man and his wife
implored of the Magistrate to provide their family
with some food, and the little children cried bitterly
for something to eat.
Mr. BuonEnw ordered some food to be immedi-
ately given to the family, and gave the man some
silver to procure a lodging. The worthy Magistrate
directed an officer to accompany them to Lambeth-
street office, in order that they might make another
application.

OLD BAILEY, JULY 12.

They Solomon, was indicted for stealing, on the
24th of April, in the Bth year of his late Majesty
George IV., a watch of the value of 81., the pro-
perty of Joseph Armstrong.
Lee, the officer, here presented himself in the
witness-box, and stated that the prosecutor was now
on his voyage to the East Indies; but he had a let-
ter which stated that he was obliged to go, and that
he left P. uglund upon the 17th June. The bill of
indictment was found in May Sessions, 1827.
Hugh M'Quire—l am well acquainted with Mr.
.loseph Armstrong, who lived with me. His house,
which was broken in, was at Liverpool,

Mr. Serjeant ARAIIIN—Why did yon not repro.
sent the ease to me before, Lee, for there is no evi-
dence ? Witness—l was subpwried here to state
that Mr. Armstrong is gone abroad.
Mr. Serjeant ARAUlN—Gentlemen, you will
acquit the prisoner.

The Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The third indictment was then called on, when
Mr. Pult.t.ws and Mr. CLARKSON objected to the
present jury trying the prisoner, for they had
already found him guilty; and therefore there must
be a prejudice existing in their minds against the
prisoner.
The Clerk of the Arraigns observed that it was
too late for the prisoner to uullie any challenge now,
for he had been arraigned, and pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Sedeatit ARAM was of opinion that the
trial could not be postponed, for the prisoner had let
pass the opportunity of challenging the Jury.
Mr. Aqi-tpPs—That was done in our absence;
for had we been in Coutt we certainly should have
objected to the same Jury trying him twice ; and if
we are not allowed to challenge_ the Jury now, I,
for my part, will, in eve)* case where there are two
indietmonts against a prisoner, challenge the Jury ;

and it will, therefore, protract the Sessions to an un•
necessary length.
A stormy discussion took place between the
Court and Counsel, in the course of which Mr.
CLARKSON and Mr. PHILLIPS cited the case of Gale;
and that they had taken the objection before he was
given in charge.
The COURT, however, decided that he should be
put on his trial. This led to further observations.
Mr. Serjeant ARRIUN proceeded to the Old Court
to consult the Judges on the subject.
Upon the Learned Serjeant's return into Court,
Mr. PHILLIPS observed that the prisoner had not
had his challenge, and, therefore, he could not be
tried.

Mr. Wontner—On the first day he was arraigned
on the three indictments, and he then had an oppor-
tunity of challenging the Jury; besides he bad been
arraigned before the present Jury.
Mr. Serjeant ARABIN observed that, under all the
circumstances, he would let the case stand over until
the evening; or, if a fresh Jury could be procured,
lie would take it us soon as they were sworn. If
the prisoner's Counsel did not agree to this arrange-
ment the trial must go on.
The Clerk of the Arraigns—The prisoner was
standing at the bar this morning when the prisoners
were arraigned.
Mr. PHILLIPS contended that the prisoner bad
only been arraigned on the first indictment.
Some of the Jury stated that they had not sees
the prisoner before he was put on his trial.
After considerable discussion Mr. Serjeant
ARABIN said, that the prisoner had either been ar-
raigned, or he had not. If lie had not, then let him
be arraigned, and at once challenge the Jury.
It was at length decided the trial should be post-
poned till nine o'clock to-morrow (this day.)
Eleanor Faulkner, a respectable-looking woman,
aged 60, was indicted for stealing six tables, value 61.;
four beds, value 201.; and four carpets, value 101.,
the property of Edward Parr, on the 23d of August,
in the 59th year of King George 111.
Mr. CURWOOD stated the case for the prosecution.
The larceny was committed so long back as 1819.
lie then gave a further outline of the case, and called
Mr. Edward Parr, who stated, that in 1819 he
bad a furnished house in St. Mary-axe. The " lady"
at the bar had the care of the house to receive money.
She had been in his employ three or four years. In
August of that year witness was out of town five
days. On his return he found the house shut up
and empty. He was thrown into the King's Bench
prison. While there he offered a reward of 20!. for
the apprehension of the prisoner. Witness, at length,
found the witness at a lodging-house in Soho-square.
Witness asked her what she had done with the fur-
niture ? She said, " That's an unfair question." As
she had been polite enough to take away his furni-
ture, he went to fetch an officer, but in the meantime
she escaped. He did not find her again until last
month, in Winslow-street, Oxf9rd-street. The fur-
niture taken away was worth 1451.
By Mr. CLARKSON—The house in St. Mary-axe
was a lodging-house--you may call it a bawdy-
house. Witness was imprisoned for 12 months for
keeping a bawdy-house : he paid also 500/. fine to
the King. Does not know whether he is separated
from his wife.—(A laugh.)—He remembered hav-
ing signed a deed. The prisoner arrested him for
money lie owed her, and sent him to the King's
Bench : obtained his discharge under the Insolvent
Act, but he disputed the debt in the schedule. Wit-
ness was in trouble about thirty years ago, and was
honourably acquitted in the other Court. It was a
charge of stealing some boots. He had also been
in trouble for robbing a washerwoman; has been an
inmate of Newgate, Giltspur-street Compter, Cold-
bath-fields, Clerkenwell Prison, Tothill-fields Bride-
well, and in fact in all the criminal prisons in Lon-
don. (This evidence produced loud bursts of
laughter from a crowded audience.)
Juryman—We find the prisoner " Not Guilty,"

The COURT refused the prosecutor his expences,
and ordered the female to be liberated immediately.
The verdict appeared to give great satisfaction.
Wm. Johnson, a young man, aged 22, was indicted
for marrying Martha Blaney, his wife Sarah being
then living.

WilHari; Doran gave the first bride away at St.
James's Church, in Clerkenwell. She did not give
witness a treat at night, whatever she might to her
husband. She gave both him and the prisoner a
glass of rum each, to qualify one to become a hus-
band, and witness to act as father. Does not know
that the first child came within a week after the
marriage. Looked at the rum more than at her
body. Verdict—Guilty.
Mr. Serjeant ARAMS then called the second wife
again, who stated that she had discovered that the
prisoner was an associate with common thieves. She
remonstrated with him, and he ran away from her.
The JUDGI: told him he must prepare to leave the
country.

SECOND EDITION.
SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

IM PERIAL PARLIAMENT

THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Sir ALEXANDER GRANT and others brought up
copies of the report of the Select Committee, ap-
pointed to inquire into the affairs of the East India
Company.

Mr. SPRING Rice brought up the Madras Re-
gistry Bill.

- Mr. Crafer presented the Twenty-second Re-
port of the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry.
Lord SKELMERSDALE presented several pe-
titions against parts of the Administration of Justice
Bill, chiefly from Chester and its neighbourhood.
Lord GODERICH presented a petition from the
Members of the Bar at Galway, against the amend-
ment in the Galway Franchise Bill.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented a
similar petition from certain inhabitants of Galway.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage.
The Duke of WELLINGTON laid on the table
papers from the Colonial Otlice, relative to Upper
and Lower Canada.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE gave notice that, after
the second reading of the East Retford Disfranchise-
ment Bill next Monday, he should move a resolu-
tion for the purpose of removing the franchise from
that place to Birmingham.
Lord HOLLAND presented several petitions
from places in Bucks against the punishment of
death in cases of forgery. The Noble Lord depre-
cated the alterations that had been made in the
Forgery Bill, and wished much for its re•oommittai.

COURTS OP LAW,
Lord WYNFORD rose pursuant to notice to
move for returns from the different Courts of Judi-
cature in Great Britain, as to the actual state of the
business of such Courts, The Noble Lord was ad,
dressing the House who!) wp left,