The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-19 00:00:00

-
. .
• • .
:

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT —This Day.

Re-examined—During the whole time he was in Ame-
rica he had the character of a well-conducted, moral man.

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
ROBBERY.

Dr. Hunter—l am a registered licentiate of medicine and
surgery, and a doctor of medicine. On the 30th October
Merrick came to me about the fees owing. I explained that
we could not continue the visits unless the fees were paid.
Eventually I was to consult with Dr. Melville on the sub-
ject, as we had been to great expense with the case, provid
ing an inhaling machine, &c. On the 2d November, about
2 o'clock, I heard loud talking in an adjoining room, where
my wife and daughter with Dr. Moans were at luncheon.
I opened my room door, but had scarcely done so when I
received blows on the head from a thick stick from Jones.
Merrick was with him, and Jones struck over his head.
I knocked Merrick down, but before I could get to Jones
he was up again and struck me twice in turn. He then
seized me by the throat, and Jobe's, who had been hitherto
hitting all the time, at length got hold of my ear be
tween his teeth and bit it through. The blood flowed
freely over my coat and waistcoat. Assistance came -the
police took them into custody—and they were committed
that day for trial. On the Saturday night before the trial
I was taken iti,tc custody on a charge cf assault upon Mrs.
Merrick.

Richard Waller, aged 27, an agent for a jeweller, was
indicted for stealing, on the 15th of September, a bracelet
and one pair of earrings, value £7O, the property of Samuel
Lewis Nathan, his master. A. second count charged him
with robbing his master, on the 16th of September, of a
bracelet, brooch, and earrings, and on the 4th November
of a bracelet and two shirt pins.
Mr. Lewis prosecuted.
Mr. Nathan said he carried on business in John-street,
Bedford-row. The prisoner sold goods for him from
April, 1864, to August, 1865. Another arrangement was
then made that the prisoner should return the goods
which were unsold, but he did not do so, but gave
him up some deposit notes, stating that the goods
were in pledge to Mr. Harrison. The goods unaccounted
for amounted to £136, independently of property to the
amount of £1,128, for which witness held the prisoner's
bills. Another arrangement was then made, namely,
that the prisoner was to have goods to sell for witness in
his invoices and entries in books kept on the witness's
premises. It was arranged that the prisoner was to con-
sider himself witness's servant, that he should enter all
sales, and that he should take stock in the morning, and
return what was unsold at once, but prisoner'told witness
that he had pledged a bracelet at Crauford's, and that if he
redeemed it he thought he could yet sell it, and witness did
redeem it. Prisoner said he had taken the bracelet with
two pins to Mr. Johnson, of Threadneedle-street, and sold
them for £7O. That was on the 4th of November.
Mr. Johnson was entered in the ledger as a debtor for £7O.
Mr. Johnson had not previously been a customer. Wit-
ness saw Mr. Johnson about the 16th of the same
month, and, in consequence of what he heard, he saw the
prisoner in the presence of his solicitor and witness's soli-
citor. Witness admitted that he had not sold the articles
to Mr. Johnson, but that he had sold them to some one
else, and had appropriated the money to his own use. He
added, "Now you may do what you please." He used
those words despairingly, rather than defiantly. On the
15th of September there was an entry of £2O for articles
sold to Mr. Morris Moses, of Oxford-street, and on the 16th
of September £l2 12s. for articles supplied to Mr. Bennett,
of Blackheath. He had ascertained that those articles had
not been so supplied.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sleigh for the defence—Witness
had known the prisoner for souse years, and believed he
had borne an irreproachable character. Tho prisoner
might have told him that he had a bill from Mr. Benson, of
Ludgate-hill, but he never offered it to witness. The pri-
soner did ask him once whether he would take an accept-
ance of Mr. Benson, but witness said he Would rather not,
as he wished to have the money. The prisoner bad made
himself a bankrupt before witness gave him into custody.
Witness happened to be at Mr. Lewis's office when the pri-
soner came there to mention his bankruptcy. It was then
that he was given in charge.
Mr. G. H. Lewis, solicitor, spoke of the arrangement
made between the prisoner and Mr. Nathan, which were
made in his presence. Witness asked Mr. Nathan not to
take any proceedings against him in reference to previous
transactions, and it was then understood that he was to act
as Mr. Nathan's servant. Witness explained to him that
if, in that capacity, he misappropriated Mr. Nathan'
goods it would be stealing, and he would be prosecuted.
The prisoner said Mr. Nathan might rely upon him, and
he would do all in his power to reduce the large debt he
had in currred.

Cross-examined—l practise as a physician. I hold a
British colonial diploma, but not an English one. I have
never had any charge brought against me of indecency in
America or anywhere else in all my life. No such charge
or imputation was ever made against me.
This was the case, and Mr. Rigby, in defence, urged that
the extreme provocation the prisoners were under the im-
pression they had received (and they could not even now
accept the verdict of the jury in the assault case to be satis-
factory) was some excuse for their conduct. Merrick com-
mitted no violence till he himself was struck, and Jones
denied biting the ear of prosecutor, which might have been
hurt by the scapula —a large knife for mixing ointment.
Verdict, Guilty of common assault only, and of the more
modified assault by Jones. Sentence deferred.

Lecture by Mr. Thomas Hughes, M. P. for

Lambeth.

-P .--

The usual weekly lecture at the Surrey Chapel
was delivered on Monday (yesterday) evening, by
Mr. Hughes, M.P. for Lambeth, the subject being
" Captain John Brown, the Abolitionist Martyr."
The lecturer said that when the civil war broke out
in the United Staten, the first object of the people
of the Northern States had been to get a national
anthem which should be appropriate to the contest
upon which they were entering. They tried the
Star-spangled Banner," " Hail Columbia,"
" Yankee Doodle," &c., but none of these would do,
so as the Northern troops marched southward they
sang " Old John Brown, his body's mouldering in
the ground, but his soul is marching on, Halle-
lujah." It was this recollection which was at the
bottom of their hearts and which induced them to
leave fathers, mothers, wives, and their pleasant
homesteads, and to march cheerfully and instinc-
tively forward to eradicate an evil which they knew
existed, and which they were determined should
exist no longer ; and in reviewing the history of
John Brown, the great abolitionist, he hoped that
his hearers would be convinced that no selfish mo-
tive induced the Northern men to this fervour, but
a true patriotism, to abolish that pernicious system
of slavery which John Brown had striven to annihi-
late so nobly. Mr. Hughes, after narrating the
.birth of Brown in Torrington, Connecticut, his
hardy life in Ohio, his early experience of the hard-
ships endured by the unfortunate slaves, proceeded
to detail the long train of consequences which
ultimately led to the abolitionists' unfortunate pro-
ceedings at Harper's Ferry. During many years, it
appeared, Kansas had been free soil in the United
States ; but the Missourians who dwelt on the
borders, and who were proprietors of slaves, had
organised bands, who had been designated as border
ruffians, and who had caused great devastation and
misery in Kansas. Brown and his family settled in
the south of that district, and from the first he be-
came the determined opponent of these border
ruffians, and his name began to spread great
terror amongst them. At length he became so bold
as actually to release four families of slaves in Mis-
souri. With them he travelled 2,000 mile 6, and
finally secured them a safe retreat in Canada, but
at the same time a reward of 650 dollars was offered
for his capture. He returned, however, to Ken-
nedy's Farm, and in the Alleghany Mountains con-
ceived the design of liberating all the slaves, of
whom there were 20,000, in Virginia. He then
made his famous raid to Harper's Ferry, and after
having been at first partially successful, was sur-
rounded by irresistible numbers of the enemy, saw
his best and nearest friends fall around him, was
himself captured, and underwent the ignominious
death to which he was condemned with firmness
and resignation. Such was the history of John
Brown. " But," said the lecturer, " his attempt,
capture, his death on the scaffold, did more, per-
haps, than anything else to arouse the anti-slavery
party, and to place Abraham Lincoln in the Presi-
dential chair ; and they may be looked upon as the
first two martyrs who inaugurated the abolition of
slavery."

Mr. Johnson, a jeweller, carrying on business in Thread-
needle-street, said he had had no dealings with the pri-
soner, although he did call upon him with some articles.
Mr. W. H. Hughes said he was in the service of Mr.
Benson, Ludgate-hill, and on the 4th of November pur-
chased the two pins (produced) from the prisoner for £4O.
The invoice was made out in the name of R. Waller and
Co., manufacturing jewellers, 9, Hatton-garden.
By Mr. Sleigh—He gave prisoner a bill of exchange for
the amount. Mr. Benson had been a customer of Waller's,
but not of Nathan's.

Mr. Morris Moses, jeweller, Oxford-street, said he never
purchased articles from the prisoner, and never gave him
orders. An assistant from Mr. Bennett's establishment at
Blackheath also proved that the firm had had no dealings
with the prisoner.
This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Sleigh made an earnest appeal to the jury on behalf
of the prisoner, and a former employer gave him a good
character.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended
him to mercy. _ .

Judgment was respited until next session.

POST-OFFICE ROBBERY.

Thomas Hopping, clerk, aged 17, pleaded guilty to
feloniously forging and uttering two receipts to Post-office
orders for the payment of £3 18s. and 14s. with intent to
defraud. He was sentenced to imprisonment with hard
labour for 12 months.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)

John Duncan, a youth aged 15, was charged with forgery,
and Henry Garrett and John Buckley, the former a born-
badier and the other a driver in the Royal Artillery, were
indicted with concealing, harbouring, and comforting the
said Duncan with a view to defeat the ends of justice.

The lad was in the employ of a gentleman named Conte,
and it appeared from Mr. Sleigh, the learned counsel, who
prosecuted, that the younger prisoner had been tempted
by a person not in custody, to abstract some blank cheques
from the book of his employer, which were filled up, pre-
sented, and paid at the London and Westminster
Bank. The prisoner suddenly left his employment
when the forgery was discovered, and eventually
was taken into custody, in company with the two
soldiers at an East-end theatre. It also appeared that he
had bought watches and articles of jewellery and gave
them to the soldiers, to one of whom he had given £3O to
purchase his discharge, and had promised a like amount to
the other.

The Rev. Newman Hall occupied the chair, and
at the conclusion of the lecture a vote of thanks was
given to Mr. Hughes amidst the greatest en-
thusiasm.

The Common Sergeant thought the two soldiers could
not be included in the present charge, as it could not be
proved they had harboured the younger prisoner with In-
tent to defeat the ends of justice.
Mr. Daly made a strong appeal to the jury on behalf of
the lad Duncan, and said it was to be regretted that the
law, after a prisoner had made a full confession of an
offence, still held the crime in the same estimation as if it
had been fully proved by evidence. The lad, by his ad-
vice, was quite ready to plead guilty to the uttering.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty against the boy
and acquitted the soldiers.
His lordship said he should defer passing sentence until
an indictment against the soldiers for conspiracy had
been disposed of.

The late Fire in Savoy-street, Strand.

THIRD COURT.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)

Margaret Brown was indicted for stealing a watch the
property of Peter Sungreen, from his person. The jury
returned a verdict of not guilty.
George Betts, Henry Butler, and Henry Paterson, were
indicted for stealing 24 woollen shirts, and other goods,
the property of George Hooper. They were also indicted
for feloniously receiving the property knowing it to have
been stolen.

Betts pleaded guilty, and was admitted as evidence
against the other two.
Tho jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Sentence deferred.

Dec. 18.
THE ASSAULT UPON DR. HUNTER.

T. B. Jones and Samuel Merrick were charged with an
assault upon Dr. Hunter, who, it will be remembered, was
charged with a criminal assault.
Mr. Sleigh and Mr. M. Williams appeared for the prose-
cution, ana Mr. Rigby for the defence.
Mr. Sleigh opened the case. He said the prosecutor was
a, physcian qualified by an American diploma to practise.
His custom was to charge patients who came to his house
a fee of ss. ; if they were attended out of doors they were
charged more. A Mrs. Merrick, the wife of one and the
sister of the other defendant, was one of his patients, who
was visited at her home by Dr. Melville, one of prosecu-
tor's assistants or associates. A dispute arose about the
fees, which led to a most violent assault by Jones and Mer-
rick upon Dr. Hunter, which would be detailed by the
witnesses. They were given in charge and committed for
trial. On the Saturday before the trial was to come on a
charge of criminal assault was made against Dr. limiter by
Merrick'swife, and he was locked up so that he could not go
before the grand jury; and the trial, therefore, had to be
postponed until to-day. Dr. Hunter was tried and acquitted;
and now he would be placed in the witness-box, and men-
tion the real facts of the ease.

William Davis, Dr. Hunter's door porter, stated that the
prisoners came to the house, and after waiting some time
rushed upstairs and assaulted Dr. Hunter. Witness went
for the police, and the defendants were taken into custody.
Dr. H. Melville—l am a graduate of the University of
Edinburgh, and an associated with Dr. Hunter. I know
a patient named Mrs. Merrick, and visited her at her house.
I told Merrick to see Dr. Hunter about the fees then in
arrears. On the 2d of November he called at the house,
and after waiting some time became very much excited,
upon which I went and told him Dr. Hunter was engaged
upstairs. lie then rushed upstairs, followed by Jones. Wit-
ness al.!'io followed, and on reaching the landing found Dr.
Hunter with his head thrust back against the wall with
Merrick's hand on his throat, and Jones holding Dr. Hun-
ter's ear between his teeth. Witness pulled off Merrick and
othersget Jones away. Witness remonstrated with Merrick,
upon which Jones said, " You don't suppose we came here
'without knowing the consequences. I came to give him a
licking."
Cross-examined—l have known Dr. Hunter 11 years. I
knew him in Now York, and was then intimate with him.
He left in 1858. I never heard there of his not being pro-
perly qualified, or of any charge against him. When Jones
said he came to give him a licking he said it was b3cause
Dr. Hunter had grossly insulted his sister. I knew a Mr.
Rawlins in New York. Did not know a person in court
(who stood up for identification, and wilo was said to be
Mr. Rawlins).

TUE SUN, LONDOIN, ITESIJAY EVENING, DECEMBER 19 1865.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Pepys.)
IN RE E. H. LEVEACX AND CO.

INTELLIGENCE.--This Day.

MARLBOROUG STRE E T .

These bankrupts were described as wine merchants, of
the Cedars, at Putney, and to-day was appointed for proof
of debts. The liabilities are about £26,000, and the assets
depend upon a large numbei of shares inthe Cadiz, Oporto,
and Light Wine Association (Limited). The bankrupt, E.
H. Leveaux, was the promoter of this conipany, and after-
wards became managing director. Some disputes aroso
and he left the company, subsequently stopping payment.
A meeting of creditors was held recently, and a deed pre-
pared, but the Cadiz, Oporto, and Light Wine Association,
who claim to be creditors in respect of calls on the shares,
refused to sign it, and a petition was 'piesented to this
court early in the month. Debts were proved, and a day
named for the next meeting.

SHOCKING CASE OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN.—Mr. Tubbs,
the assistant overseer of St. Marylebone, waited upon Mr.
Tyrwhitt this morning in reference to two children of the
name of Richardson, whose mother had attended this court
a few weeks since and made a complaint against a woman
named Jones of ill-using and neglecting them.
Mr. Tubbs said that about three weeks ago the mother
of the children attended at the court with them, and ap-
plied for a summons against a woman named Jones, in
whose charge she had left the children, for ill-using and
neglecting them, one of them having a cut lip and a bruiso
.on the cheek, while the other, about five months old, was
in such a shockingly emaciated condition that, according
to the witness's statement, it only weighed seven pounds.
The children were admitted into the St. Maryle-
bone Workhouse, and when the summons came on
for hearing, he (Mr. Tubbs) attended on the part of the
parish to prosecute, but the woman Jones was not in at-
tendance, and a warrant was in consequence granted
against her; ho (Mr. Tubbs) at that time having eight
witnesses in attendance, and being prepared to go into the
case. His object in now attending was to inquire whether
there were any good reasons why the warrant had not been
executed, and to mention that the younger child, although
it had much improved in its condition, after being admitted
to the workhouse, had since sunk and died, its death
being no doubt accelerated by the treatment it had pie-
viously received at the hands of the woman Jones.

Mr. Tyrwhitt said he was not aware of the facts of
the case before, but he would have the matter looked into,
and inquiries made why the warrant had not been exe-
cuted, and Mr. Tubbs could be prepared with medical evi-
dence to support his case, and to show whether the child's
death had not been accelerated by the treatment it had
undergone.
Mr. Tubbs said that according to the evidence he should
be prepared to produce the children had not only been
most grossly neglected but ill-used. The deceased child
was stated by the mother to have been a plump, healthy
child when she placed it in prisoner's hands.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he would ascertain why the warrant
had not been executed, and Mr. Tubbs should be made
acquainted with the reason.
A more shocking sight than the younger child presented
on its being brought to the court by its mother has seldom
been seen. It appeared to have been completely starved;
its legs not being thicker than a man's thumb, and seemed
in a state of torpor.

THIRD EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, 7 o'CLocK.

The Charge Against Madame Rachel.

MARLBOROUGH POLICE COURT.-THIS AFTERNOON.

Rachel Leverson, the celebrated "enameller" of Bond-
street, appeared by her solicitor to answer a summons
taken out against. her by Aurora Knight for unlawfully
obtaining from her £33 and a diamond ring, value £2O,
the property of George Knight, with intent to 'defraud.
It will be recollected that the summons was originally
taken out by a per Son calling herself the wife of an Ame-
rican consul, who had come to England expressly to em-
ploy the skill of Madame Michel to make her "beautiful
for ever." She further alleged that Madame Rachel had
extorted from her the money and ring mentioned in the
summons without doing that which she had engaged to do,
viz., the removal of marks left on her face by smallpox.
On the summons being called on the plaintiff, Aurora
Knight, did not appear.

Mr. Sayers said he quite anticipated such a result, and
he would now say that a more fraudulent and scandalous
charge had never been made against any person. He
begged it would be clearly understood that Madame Rachel
had made no attempt to prevent the plaintiff from appear-
ing, or had she taken any steps to get her out of the way.
It was a false and malicious charge, made, hel believed,
for the purpose of extortion ; and he could not
but regret that the suggestion that bad been
made for the postponement of the publication in the
daily papers until the summons was heard was not adopted•
With respect to the woman making the charge, he called
her an impostress—one put forward by other parties to in-
jure Madame Rachel, and one who, finding her scandalous
charge had had effect, now studiously kept out of the way.
He had seen this person, who said she had been made the
I dupe of Madame Rachel, and so far from being a
lady, he was in a position to prove she was one of
the lowest class. The great wonder to him was that
Madame Rachel had been so imposed upon as to have be-
lieved that she was the wife of an American consul. Tho
woman was well known at the Cafd do Leon, and she had
at one time called herself Lady Jones, Aurora Knight,
and the sister to Dr. Hunter, whose name had been so
much before the public of late. Instead of a lady, this
woman occupied, he believed, a second floor
back room in ono of the streets in the Strand,
and when Madame Rachel went to her she found her
taking her tea in her poor apartment in the dark. She
said she would give Madame Rachel £lOO to make her
beautiful, but how such a person was to pay such a suns
was a circumstance ho would not stop to inquire. Madame
Rachel, however, attended her ten days, and she
then ordered her baths ; but as the woman said she
had been suffering from small-pox, she of course would
not allow her to use the baths at her establishment, but
advised her to go to those in Argyll-street. Instead
of doing so, he was in a position to prove that this Ame-
rican lady, as she called herself, went to the baths in
Endell-street, and there complied with the directions of
Madame Rachel by the outlay of twopence. (Laughter.)
This woman said she had given Madame Rachel £3O, and
a diamond ring of the value of £2O, but that was the
greatest untruth that was ever uttered, and could only
have been said to serve some malicious purpose.
All the money Madame Rachel had ever received from the
woman Knight was four napoleons and a 10-franc piece,
and instead of getting from her any more the person mak-
ing the charge actually 'borrowed is. from his client.
Madame Rachel on becoming aware of the charge made
against her went to the residence of the woman, and there
Knight told her she was under a mistake, as she had not
taken out a summons against her, or had she ever been to
Marlborough-street Police-court at all. On being told
that such, however, was the case, she said she would go
with Madame Rachel to Marlborough-street, but without
waiting for the defendant she put on her bonnet and left
her residence for this court.

Mr. Tyrwhitt—T hat must have been when she came
hero and said Madame Rachel had restored her ring.

Mr. Sayers said there was no more truth in that than
in her first statement, and he could only say, in addition
to the observations he had addressed to the bench, that
he challenged the plaintiff to come forward, and, if pos-
sible, make out her case against Madame Rachel. That
she knew was impossible, and therefore she wisely ab-
stained from making her appearance in court.

Mr. Tyrwhitt said, with respect to the proceedings of
that court appearing in the newspapers, he had nothing
to do. The persons who had to collect the news of the
day had a duty to perform, and the wonder was how it
was so well executed. With respect to the summons,
that, of course, would be dismissed, which circumstance,
he felt certain, would be made as public as the application.
to him in the first instance.