The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-01 00:00:00

wild and irrational, Her illness of Oct. 6th was said
to have been caused by the fact of the matron incit-
ing some of the women to turn her out of the yard.
Owing to her weak state he ordered that she should
do no work in the house. Was of opinion that she
was labouring under an incipient brain disease.
Mrs. Saunders,the matron of the City of London
Union, was next called. She knew the complain-
ant. She remembered the girl's admission into the
union in 1862. She, had suggested the propriety
of plaeing her in the imbecile ward. Had never
heard the cause of her illness.
By Mr. Angell—The girl had been very trouble-
some, very violent in her conduct at times, and
would not work. Never heard of the girl being
disgusting in her conversation.
By Mr. Lewis—Witness would be afraid to place
any reliance upon any report the girl might make
considering her state of mind. Could not remember
if the girl had ever been punished for telling wilful
and deliberate falsehoods. Had never heard the
girl swear, but had heard that she had.
Mr. Meyrick said he was master of the work-
house, and had been so for several years. He was
then interrogated upon the several points alleged
against him, on each of which he denied his guilt.
After the commissioners of lunacy had visited the
house the girl was removed to the City of London
Union.

the evidence, and, in reference to that which had
been given by Sergeant Mobbs as to the pri-
soner having pointed out to him certain marks of
blood upon the wall, the shutters and the window-
blind, which marks he was certain were not there
two or three days before, and his having stated that
the girl Humbler had opened the shutters where the
bloody mark was, on the Monday morning, he asked
them whether the inference that must naturally be
drawn from this conduct was not that the prisoner
was endeavouring to fix the crime of murder upon
the girl. His lordship concluded by stating that if
positive evidence were required in cases of this de.
scription a conviction would rarely or never take place,
but the duty of the jury was to look calmly and dis-
passionately at the evidence, and if that evidence left
no fair and reasonable doubt upon their minds, and
that the whole of it tended to but one result, this
was all that was necessary, and no more could be
expected. They were of course aware that they
owed a duty to the accused, but they should not at
the same time forget their duty to the public.
The jury retired at half-past four o'clock to deli-
berate upon their verdict. At six o'clock they
returned into court, and the foreman of the jury
gave the verdict of guilty, but he said, at the same
time, that they were desirous of recommending the
prisoner to mercy, on the ground that they believed
that after the prisoner and his wife went up to bed
on the Sunday night they had a quarrel about the
girl Humbler, and that the act was committed in a
fit of anger.
__ _ _

By Mr. Lewis—He never wrote any letter to
Mrs. Moss on any day. The daughter charged her
mother with turning her into the streets, at night,
and telling her to get her living the best way she
could. He said he could not admit her into the
house except so ordered by the surgeon, or as a
lunatic. He had had to punish her from time to
time, and he considered her more wicked than in-
sane. Never told the mother she could not see the
daughter. Never placed any restraint upon the
mother seeing her daughter. Had never sent any
letter out of the house at all in connection with the
girl.

7 By the Chairman—There never was any inquiry
by Mr. Bristow concerning the girl. It is the prac-
tice of the district committee to go round the house
every week. _ _

No more evidence was adduced, and Mr. Angell
and Mr. Lewis were heard for their respective
clients.

The Chairman said that he regretted much that
Mr. Meyrick should be kept in suspense in regard
to the result of the investigation, but the evidence
taken was so voluminous that he was afraid it
would be still some days before the report to the
Poor-law Board would be ready.
The proceedings then terminated.

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 1, 1862,

Alderman Hale said the case was already com•
plete, but he saw no objection to the application
The prisoner would, however, be remanded to New•
gate in the ordinary course. He could not depart
from the rule of the Court.

CLERK EN WELL.—SHOCKING INHUMANITY
TO A HORSE.—IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT A FINE.
—John Denny, aged 19, who described himself as
a carman, of 29, Tower-street, St. Martin's-lane,
was charged before Mr. D'Eyncourt, at the in-
stance of Mr. W. Love, the chief officer of the
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, with the following scandalous treatment
to a horse, in St. Pancras :

solicitor of Bucklersbury, said he was in attendance
for:the purpose of applying for a summons against
the prisoner for per)ury, but that hearing the doubt
raised as to which Commercial-road was meant in
the address on the bill, he had volunteered his evi-
dence to the effect that there was no George-street
in th 3 Commercial-road, Lambeth.
Mr. Benham having previously produced the
bills for the purpose of comparison, and for the in-
formation of the court, said that was the whole of
the case for this prosecution.
Mr. Holt, for the defence, submitted that this
was a charge trumped up for other purposes than
that of furthering the ends of justice, and that the
Court would never have heard of it if the prisoner
had not become a bankrupt. The whole case rested
upon the belief wily of two witnesses with regard
to handwriting, which he contended was insufficient
to support such a serious charge as forgery: He
maintained that there was not a tittle of evidence
to show that any forgery had been committed, and
he therefore asked the Court to discharge his client.
Alderman Hale said it should be remembered that
the evidence of the belief in the handwriting did not.
come from the party to whom the bill was given.
In his opinion it was a clear case, and he was pre-
pared to deal with it in the usual way.
Mr. Holt thereupon asked for a remand, and ap-
plied to the alderman to order that the prisoner
should be sent back to Whitecross-street Prison in
the interim.

THE LONDON RIFLES.—Mr. Humphreys, of the
firm of Humphreys and Morgan, of Giltspur-cham-
bers, Newgate-street, attended before Mr. Alderman
Hole, accompanied by the Secretary to the London
Rifle Brigade, and applied, by direction of the com-
manding officer, for summonses against certain
members of the corps who were in arrears with their
subscriptions.
A number of defaulters were named, but sum-
monses were issued against only 13 of them, in the
hope that those not proceeded against immediately
would appreciate such forbearance and liquidate all
arrears without having to pass through the ordeal,
and consequent degradation of appearing publiely
in a police-court.

BOW-STREET.--A man of gentlemanly appear-
ance, who said his name was Henry Bellair, was
charged with uttering several cheques, alleged to be
forged.
Mr. Phipps, of High Holborn, saddler, stated that
on Thursday afternoon the prisoner called at his shop
and ordered certain goods, stating that he was an
officer in the Royal Artillery. Amongst the articles
which he selected were a saddle, two bridles,
stirrup-leathers, &c. The bill amounted to £lO
18s. 6d. The prisoner then drew a cheque for £ll.
and requested witness to give him the difference
(Is. 6d.), which he did. Witness produced the
cheque, which was drawn on Cox and Co., army
agents, Craig's-court, Charing-cross, and signed
" Henry Bellair." The articles were to be sent to
the prisoner at the address, " Henry Bellair, Lieu-
tenant Royal Artillery, Plines, South Camp, Alder-
shot." Witness handed the prisoner the Is. 6d.
" change," being the difference between the amount
of the cheque and the price of the goods. The pri-
soner went away. Witness thought it advisable,
before sending the goods, to ascertain if the cheque
were genuine. A messenger was therefore de-
spatched to Cox's, and returned with information
that the so-called " Lieutenant Bellair" was not
known there. Witness mentioned the occurrence
to a neighbour, also a tradesman in Holborn. In
the course of the evening the prisoner attempted to
pass off a similar cheque upon the tradesmen
re-
ferred to, who at once sent for witness, and the pri-
soner was given into custody.
At the' station the prisoner said he lived at Heavi-
tree, near Exeter, and was a lieutenant in the
Queen's County Constabulary, having been trans-
ferred to that force from the Royal Artillery.
The prisoner was remanded for further examina-
tion, on this charge, and several others of a simi-
lar character.