The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-02 00:00:00

CITY SETVEBS COMMISSION.

Yesterday at noon a meeting of the Commis-
sioners of Sewers of the City was held at Guild-
hall, under the presidency of Mr. Henry De Jersey,
the chairman. There was a large attendance of

members of the Commission.
The minutes of last Court were read by the As-
sistant-Clerk (Mr. Blake), and passed as having

been correctly entered,
THE GAS SUPPLY TO THE CITY.
The CHAIRMAN brought up a report from the
General Purposes Committee, stating that, having
had before them the references from the Court
upon the various subjects in connection with the
proceedings of the gas companies who were under
contracts with the commission, they had found con-
siderable inconvenience to arise from the circum-
stance that the Court had, in September last, ap.
pointed a special committee, to whom all matters
having reference to the Gas Measures Act, 1860,
were referred. He (the chairman) thought the
Court would agree with him that it was not desir-
able this subject should not be under consideration
by two committees of the Court, and he should
therefore beg to move—" That the resolution of the
Court of the 17th September last, appointing a
special committee to consider certain questions in
relation to gas be rescinded ; and that the several
matters which have been from time to time re-
ferred to the said committee, and are not yet dis-
posed of, be transferred to the General Purposes
Committee for consideration." (Hear,)
Mr. U. YOUNG seconded the motion, which was
put and agreed to ; and Deputy Harrison, Mr. J.
Waterlow, Mr. H. L. Taylor, Mr. L. Houghton,
and Deputy Lott were added to the General Pur-
poses Committee in the consideration of this ques-
tion relative to the gas supply.
Dr. ABRAHAM said he wished to make a refer-
ence to the General Purposes Committee in connec-
tion with this subject, which he considered was of
the greatest importance to the public. (Hear.)
Complaints were constantly being made of the gas
supply, and everybody knew the difficulties which
they had to contend with. It was admitted on all
hands that something ought to be done ; and it
seemed to him that they ought to see whether they
could not relieve themselves, by becoming more in-
dependent of the gas companies. It became, he
thought, a very serious question for the considera-
tion of the Court, whether they would not exercise
the powers given them by the Act of Parliament,
and burn the gas by meter. He was fully im-
pressed with the conviction that it would not only
be a matter of economy, but make the Commission
independent of the gas companies. They would
then be able to make any experiments that science
might suggest, and likewise be relieved from the
annoyance caused by companies, who, purely from
jealousy, were working against each other. He
therefore moved—" That it be referred to the Gene-
ral Purposes Committee to consider the propriety
of burning gas by meter in the public lamps, and
the estimated cost of the same; and that the com-
mittee be authorised to procure and affix to public
lamps two or three dozen meters, and report the
result of the experiments to the Court."
Mr. S. GREEN seconded the motion, which was
put and agreed to.
THE STREET RAILWAY PROJECT IN THE CITY.
Mr. C. YOUNG, in accordance with the previous
motion, moved as follows That the resolution
of the Court of the 18th December, 1861, agreeing
with the report of the Improvement Committee of
the same date, so far as it refers to the laying down
of Mr. Train's street railway, from Ropemaker-
street to the south end of Moorgate-street, be
rescinded." In doing so, he alluded to the various
proceedings which have been taken from time to
time in reference to Mr. Train's railway, and to the
judgment given upon the subject by Lord Chief
Justice Erle. He (Mr. Young) said that the law
as laid down was that the public had a right to pass
and repass at all times at their free will and plea-
sure, and with horses, carts, and carriages every-
where on the highway and on every part of it.
Anything which, to a substantial degree, caused in-
convenience or danger to the exercise of that right
was a nuisance and a violation of the public right.
The tramway laid down by Mr. Train in the Bays-
water-road interfered with this right, and it
was in consequence that judgment had been given
Btoraty:hee
Mr. Train.
authorising
rYisoiunngg
tthhee nuasleluodfe d
aSt iehnce:snenct case he
traction engines, but there was a clause giving the
Secretary of State a veto. This he exercised, and
aagctaipnasstseMdr
expenses is constructing these engines,
üblic
notwithstanding that Mr. Bray was pthuctctaorrgiargeaest
being required for the convenience of
--ft) declared the use to be a dangerous
for the Exhibition of that year, the
'.4ed the use. In Mr. Tr lisdr nuisance
down
l/E:yubifilige must
--uat expei:etihne

►7 bu.-

and interaw._
had been put also to g.
his tramway, but the interests
be considered before that of a private 3
continue that
and he could not be permitted to
R
which the jury and alb() the Court had decided to I)
U0813";is,
be a dangerous nuisance. (Hear.) the envelopes had
Mr. WIZEN seconded the motion, which, after a lair. Lush, in answer tohis

did not contend that the defendant had written the '1
libels themselves.
Mr. Thabot and Mr. Netherclift, the son of the
witness examined on the other side, two experts,
thought that none of the writing was by defendant ;
and the latter witness believed that the libels and
the addresses on the envelopes were written by the
same person.
Mr. Pemberton, theydefendant, said he resided
at Hare Hall, near Ronlford. He had never had
any animosity towards the plaintiff. The addresses
on the envelopes were not -written by him. He did
not know who wrote them, aodhe never authorised
their being written. His son had been talking of
going to Australia some time before he went. No
living had been purchased for him, but Mr. Barnes,
the father of witness's brother, had bought the next
presentation in 1840 ; and if witness's son had liked
the Church he would probably have been presented.
Cross-examined—To the best of his belief he
never saw one of the bills posted about Romford in
reference to the anonymous letters, and offering a
reward of £5O. His son never told him that he
had seen it. (The witness was asked a number of
questions in reference to collateral matters, but his
memory was very defective.)
This closed the defendant's case.
The learned counsel having addressed the jury on
behalf of their respective clients,
The learned judge summed up, and
The jury retired at a quarter to six o'clock, and
had not agreed at a late hour, having sent down
several intimations that they were ten to two, and
there was no chance of their coming to a verdict.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
GRANT V. GRANT, BOWLES, AND PATTISON.
On the 31st of January last the Court pronounced
a decree nisi in this case, and the petitioner had
since died, having left a will, of which probate was
taken out on Feb. 28, 1862, and by which a Mr.
Young was appointed executor and guardian of his
children.

Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., now moved that the children
of the petitioner might be allowed to intervene by
their guardian, and have the decree nisi obtained
by their father pronounced absolute. The learned
counsel contended that on the decree nisi the child-
ren came into the suit, and that they were entitled
to have the inchoate sentence completed.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., on the other side, contended
that on the death of the petitioner the suit had
abated. If the wife had moved for a new trial she
could not have obtained it, and if the suit was gone
for one purpose it was for all.
Sir C. Cresswell could not say that he had any
doubt upon the point ; but as it was one of great
importance, he would reserve his decision.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF AT-
:1E1111'11W TO COMFIT A RATE.

This case, which was of a most extraordinary character,
involved no fewer than four summonses. In the first place,

Mr. John Chapman, the owner of a number of houses in
Dunkeld-street, West Derby-road, summoned Mrs. Maria
Harding, a young and rather good-looking widow, for com-
mitting upon him a most desperate assault with a poker.
On the other hand, Mrs. Harding charged Mr. Chapman
with attempting to commit a rape upon her, alleging that
she used the poker to protect herself from his violence.
Then there were two other summonses against Mr. Chap-
man for assaulting Mrs. Harding's little boy and her ser-
want girl. Mr. Inman, solicitor, from the West Riding of
Yorkshire, appeared for Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Cobb re-
presented Mrs. Harding. It was agreed to hear Mr. Chap-
man's complaint first.
After the case had been opened by Mr. Inman, _

John Chapman said he resided in Dunkeld-street,wherehe
owned 10 houses. The defendant (Mrs. Harding) had been
a tenant of his nine months, He had served her on the 16th
May with notice to quit. He gave her notice because
she called his wife and family a number of bad names
The last quarter's rent became due on the Ist of June. He
called upon her for the rent a few days after the Ist, when
she told him to call on the 20th. He accordingly called
about half-past two o'clock in the afternoon of the 20th
inst., and Mrs. Harding asked him to take a seat. Having
sat down in the back parlour, he told her he had called for
the rent. She said she would only pay from the time she
entered the house. He replied that she must pay accord-
ing to the agreement with Mr. Davies, her guardian, which
was from the Ist of the month. She rose from his side,
said she did not care a fig for Mr. Davies or any person else,
and made use of an improper expression. He told her she
was an ill-spoken woman, and threatened if she did not pay
the rent that he would put the bailiffs into the house. She
then seized a poker and struck him on the head, inflicting
a rather severe wound. He got hold of her arms, wrested
the poker from her, and held her until her passion subsided.
Her little boy and the servant then came into the room.
When her passion had subsided, Mrs. Harding went
on her knees, begged him to forgive her, saying, " You
know what a creature I am when I am in a passion."
She also offered to wash the wound. Seeing a knife on
the table, he was afraid to let her go. Afterwards she
ordered the servant to fetch a sponge to wash the blood off
the wound. He the (defendant) she should suffer for the
assault. She then produced the half of a £5 note, which
she gave him, and said that if he called on the following
day she would give him the other half.—ln cross-exami-
nation the complainant positively denied that he had ever
attempted to take improper liberties with the defendant, or
that he wanted her to elope with him to Birmingham.
Mr. Inman proposed next to call Mr. Walters, plumber,
of Birkenhead, who was formerly Mrs. Harding's landlord,
to show that she was a violent woman, but Mr. Cobb
objected.
Mr. Inman urged that he was entitled to call witnesses
to show.that previous collectors of rent and taxes dare not
enter her house to collect ; but the magistrates decided
that such evidence had nothing to do with the present case.
Mr. Cobb, for the defence, said the magistrates would

have a painful duty to perform. They would have to say
that the lady (his client) was guilty of wilful and corrupt
perjury, or that the complainant had committed such an
assault upon Mrs. Harding as to leave them no alternative
but to send him to gaol for at least twelve months. He
admitted that Mrs. Harding had struck the complainant
with a poker ; but, before the magistrates decided upon the
case, he (Mr. Cobb) asked them to hear her tale. He had
frequently importuned her to become his mistress, to elope
with him to Birmingham, to leave her guardian and her
child, and to place herself entirely under his protection.
On the day in question he called under the pretext of get-
ting the rent, when he pulled her and attempted to commit
a rape, and he would have accomplished his object were it
not that she kicked him in a tender part of the body, and
at last she struck him with the poker. If, under the cir-
cumstances, she had broken his skull and killed him on the
spot, Mr. Cobb argued, she would have been perfectly jus-
tified. The complainant—a designing, cunning, wicked
man—then took out a summons, thinking that her mouth
would be closed.
Before deciding upon the complaint made by Mr. Chap-
man, the bench agreed to hear the case of Mrs. Harding.
Maria Harding said she was a widow, residing in Dun-
keld-street. On the 20th inst., at a quarter past one o'clock,
the defendant called at her house and said he wished to
see her. She told the servant to tell him that she was in
her dishabille, and could not then see him. He, however,
bounced into the back parlour and sat down in the rock-
ing chair, and when she tried to pass him he threw her
down and attempted to commit a rape upon her. She
called out, " murder" and "help," and resisted him with
all her might. She struck and kicked him. It was, she
said, her feet that saved her. She then managed to get
hold of the poker, and she struck him a blow on the side of
the head. Her screams brought in the servant. When down,
he thumped her, tore her clothes, and made her side sore.
He also called her shocking names, and said he would mur-
der her. Mrs. Harding added that the defendant had often at-
tempted to take improper liberties with her before. On
one occasion he offered her £l5O if she would elope with
him, and on another occasion he wanted her to take £lO
to' go to Birmingham, and he would follow her. After
committing the assault upon her, he snatched the half of
the £5 note from her. On the same afternoon she called in
a surgeon, telegraphed to Mr. Davies, her guardian, in
Manchester, made a complaint to Inspector Horne, and on
the following day applied for a warrant against the defen-
dant to Mr. Raffles. In cross-examination by Mr. Inman,
the complainant said it was a quarter-past one o'clock when
the defendant entered the house, and it was five minutes to
two when he left. In going ont he said, "If you say
nothing about it, I will say nothing about it." He sneaked
out by the back door. On a previous day he kissed her
while she was washing. He was in the habit of coming in
by the back door and climbing over the wall, and she used
to frighten him out of the house with a poker or anything
else she could get hold of. He always watched his chance
to come when the servant was out. She and another lady
once went with him to the Royal Theatre, and he after-
wardseve charged them Bs. 6d. each as their share. She
raised a crowd and threatened to stab Mr. Welters, llO her
former landlord. At the time of the flood she
went
Walters, but she never abused him, "011:y -11 s °have a defencefew.
Persons having business might sometimes
words; she had to protect herself.
aid she was servant
Jane Jenkins, a girl 15 years of ag
el:tress scream she ran
to Mrs. Harding. On hearing berarg
•Ti was lying on the
into the back parlour. Mrs..
lia:n improper attitude over
floor, and the defendant was in
with a poker. He then
her. The complainant srVtry.ng
i to take it from him the
seized the poker, and 'Ts bead against the wall. He also
defendant struck
wi'tnaent's little boy down. The defendant
knocked the complainant
door.
the
Mrs. MarY
she said, left by
milliner, stated that Mrs. Harding
with her on the day in question. On
about two o'clock, she complained to
going t t age committed upon her by Mr. Chapman.
invited
f the ou rat,
her 0 - wrapper was torn, and there were
herbeto2iusenee
Stone said ho was called to visit Mrs. Harding be-
IT2le'sees°23ll::ms and back.
pr.
be-
tween four and five o'clock on the afternoon in question.
lio found her labouring under mental and bodily excite-
ment. '3he told him of the attempt that had been made
upo4 Ler. Slio said she had Poeu spitting blood, 44(1 0110