The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-24 00:00:00

POLICE" IN2'ELLIGENCB,-111arch 22.

MANSION-HOUSt.---On Saturday the public
subscription at this court towards the relief of the
wide= and families of the men who perished in
the Hartley Colliery was brought to a close. It had
then amounted to £20,435 13s. 11d. in the whole,
including a small amount of interest on part of the
money vyhich had been placed at a banker's at call.
Of that sum £2,000 was some time ago sent to the
local committee at "Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and by the
pdst of Saturday evening the Lord Mayor forwarded
to the Mayor of that town £17,967 8s 9d, the re-
maining balance, after deducting £468 5s 2d paid
for advertisements, less a small sum for office work.
There is no example, in the recollection of any one
connected with the Mansion-house, of so large a
sum having been sent there for any purpose of
charity, or to mitigate the deplorable effects of a
calamity, except in the cases of the Indian mutiny
and the Indian famine, which were of Imperial
rather than of local concern. For duration also, and
for its spontaneous and universal character, the fund
is equally without a parallel, On the 25th January,
just after the fate of the 200 men and boys bad been
revealed to the public in all its horror, the subscrip-
tion began here by a working man sending a shil-
ling to the Lord Mayor. In less than three days
afterwards it amounted to nearly £2,000, and it
went on accumulating day after day, as much as
£1,600 and upwards having often been received in
a single day—until it rose in round numbers to
£20,400, in less than two months—a remarkable in-
stance of public sympathy and generosity spontane-
ously evinced on the occasion of a heartrending cala-
mity. In that feeling every class of the metropolitan
community, including in some eases the poorest per-
sons, appears to have participated. The great mass
of the donors and sympathisers, however, were of
the middle and labouring classes. Merchants' and
bankers' clerks, shopmen of all classes, people living
by all kinds of manual and skilled labour, private
families, public and private schools, and domestic
servants made up the great bulk of the subscribers,
and the result stands out as a memorable exemplifi-
cation of public benevolence. For full two months
the Mansion-house has resembled nothing so much
as a banking establishment ; a room had to be set
apart for this special business, and a vast amount of
labour and responsibility devolved upon two of the
officers of the court, Mr. Pickering, the cashier, in
particular, and Mr. Sewell, the swordbearer.

GUILDHALL.—Anthony Dutlein, who recently
absconded from the service of Alderman Wilson,
taking with him a valuable set of scientific instru-
ments, a new suit of clothes, and £l2 lOs in money
received on his master's account, was brought up for
final examination relative to two charges of em-
bezzling £l2 lOs and £5, and a third charge of
forging Alderman Wilson's name to a receipt for £5.
The prisoner pleaded guilty to all the charges,
and was then committed for trial.
Louisa Wood, aged 49, was charged with annoy.
ing and assaulting Mr. Robert Summers, a solicitor,
of 5, New Bridge-street.
Mr. Summers said, about 18 months ago the
prisoner met with an accident on the premises
of the Commercial Dock Company, and instructed
him to bring an action against them for negli-
gence. The jury ultimately awarded the pri-
soner £2BO damages, subject to the decision of the
full Court upon a point of law which was reserved.
The full Court gave their decision against the pri-
soner, but they thought, as she had been put to great
expense in the actions, and the company had not
given her earlier information of their non liability,
the directors ought to allow her something towards
her costs. The company accordingly granted her
£lOO, which was paid over to him (Mr. Summers) ;
after deducting a sum of £B2, that being much
below what the taxing-master would have allowed,
he offered the prisoner the balance of £lB, but she
said she would have all or none, and instructed a
solicitor to recover the whole of the £lOO for her.
He made out his bill of costs, and sent it to the
solicitor, and beard no more from him ; but in the
meantime the doctor who attended the prisoner for
the injuries she received through the accident, not
having been paid, sued out an attachment in the
Lord Mayor's Court, and the balance, £lB, was in
consequence paid over, so that he had nothing now
belonging to the prisoner. She however, persisted
in annoying him by frequent demands for the £lOO,
sometimes remaining in the office for four or five
hours at a time, and telling every client who came
in that he would be swindled, as she had been, and
at other times yelling and screaming at the clerk in
such a manner as to obstruct the whole business of
the office. On Saturday morning she came to the
office, and on being removed assaulted Mr. Sum-
mers and broke his spectacles.
The prisoner produced the newspaper report to
show that £lOO was to be paid to the plaintiffs by
the defendants, and that Mr. Suriimers had never
offered her a farthing.
Sir F. G. Moon required the prisoner to find two
sureties in £lO each to keep the peace for six
months, and in default committed her to prison.

BOW-STREET.—Mr. Benjamin Hotine, a fish-
monger in Lime-street, Leadenhall-market, was
brought up in custody of Sergeant Wallis, of the
detective force, upon a warrant charging him, under
the Act Gth and 7th William IV., for the registra-
tion of births, deaths, and marriages, with having
made false statements of the particulars required
by that statute to be stated to the registrar with
reference to the registration of the birth of a child.
The prosecution had been instituted by the soli-
citors to the Treasury, on the advice of the Attorney-
General. Mr. Clerk appeared as counsel for the
Crown, and the prisoner was defended by his soli-
citor, Mr. Skegg.
In July last the prisoner sued as a petitioner in
the Divorce Court for a dissolution of his marriage,
in November, 1838, with Mary Anne Sanders. In
that petition he alleged that his wife had left him
in 1839, and had since been living in adultery with
a person named Foxhall, the co-respondent. The
Queen's proctor intervened in that suit, alleging
that the petitioner had himself been living in adul-
tery for 20 years. Hotine then applied for and
obtained permission to withdraw his petition.
From the evidence in support of the intervention of
the Queen's proctor it appeared that the defendant
(then petitioner) had kept as his wife a woman
named Robins, by whom he had six children, born
respectively in the years 1844, 1848, 1851, 1853,
1855, and 1857, all of whom he had registered as
legitimate children. In each instance the entry in
the registration-book contained the following par-
ticulars, the information being given by the priso-
ner, and the entry signed by him—that the father's
name was Benjamin Hotine, and the mother's name
Sophia Hotine, formerly Robins. These were the
particulars required by the Act, and any misstate-
ment of those particulars was, under the same Act,
visited with the pains and penalties of perjury.
Mr. Clerk urged that at the time when the prisoner
made these statements to the registrars he must
have been well aware that the mother of the chil-
dren could not properly be described as Sophia

Hotine.
Formal eN-dence was given of the registry by the
prisoner of the births of the six children in the
abovementioned years in various parts of the metro-
polis, the registration-book being produced by the
superintendent registrars of the districts, and the
particular entries being proved by the registrars of
the sub-districts. The prisoner's affiJavit above
referred to, in which he deposed to his marriage
with Mary Anne Sanders in 1838, to her leaving
him in 1839, and to certain particulars relating to
her cohabitation with Mr. Foxhall, was also put in.
Richard Carter, a journeyman fishmonger, who
was in the prisoner's service from 1857 to 1859,
proved the handwriting of the prisoner's signatures
to the various registrations and to the affidavit
were
Mr. Skegg contended that the proceedings
too late. The prosecution ought to have been in-
stituted within three years of the commission of
the alleged offence. It was true that there was no
such restriction in the 6th and 7th of William IV.,
cap. 84, the Registration Act, under which these
proceedings were taken ; but in the Marriages Act,
6th and 7th William IV., cap. 85, the Act imme-
diately preceding, and passed on the same day,
there was a provision
in section 44 that this Act
was to be taken with the Registration Act, cap. 86,
and that the two were to be read as one Act,
as if
they had been incorporated; and in section 41 was
a provision that all proceedings must be taken
within three years. He held that this provision
must apply to the Registration Act, under which
This question
beforehad
Lord Camp-
bell in the
eh
these proceedings were taken.
been raised by Sir Fitzroy
Kelly
" The Queen against Lord Dun-
jpb uoo riy ynnt e,o n;
p'
rtbfeue case
afacts
saiLordnectg first
osf of Campbell at hmet po
case
aet
sal
elk
;ehatidienoot
opinion
ndeodf
thethe
acquitted Lord Dunbovnoon talincidm, ase thets
there jury hada
d
been no decision on the point of law.
Mr. Clerk thought the. magistrate would hardly
decide upon the doubtful point which had been so
ably and ingeniously argued by Mr. Skegg. The
incorporation clause was not in the second Act, but
only in the first, and though, from the portion of
the clause which Mr, Skegg had read, it might Le
supposed to apply to both, the latter part of the
clause_
say, bore a contrary interpretation, for it went on
to
" and the provisions of the said Act (the
Registration Act) shall be applied to this Act (the
I,,,llarriages Act)," but it did not say " the prod-