The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY • E VEN ING, DECE VIBE R 1862.

LAW-THIS DAY.

POLICE-THIS DAY.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before the Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
HUDSON V. SIR P. SLADE AND OTHERS.

MANSION HOUSE.
FORGERY.--Two lads were placed before the Lord Mayor
charged with forgery.

His lordship this morning commenced summing up the
evidence in this extraordinary case, which has now been
before the court for so many days. His lordship devoted a
considerable portion of his observations to the contents of
the book, which Mr. Hudson had claimed as his private
property, and said, one of the questions the jury would have
to decide was whether the book was of that private nature
in consequence of the correspondence it contained that all
examination of the contents was precluded. Mr. Hudson
stated that it was of that nature, and that it had always been
kept by him in his private drawer. The learned judge then
read extracts from several of the letters relating to the Waller
Mines Co., and then asked the jury to form their own opinion
whether the volume was what it was represented to be.
They must also consider how the book came into the pos-
sion of the parties from whom it had been taken. If they
should be of opinion that the book had by unlawful means
got into the possession of the benchers, and also that it was
what it was represented to be, then the owner of it was per-
fectly justified in securing it the first time it came into his
possession. His lordship then, at some length, proceeded
to comment upon various other points of the case.
At the conclusion of his lordship's summing up the jury
retired to consider their verdict. _ _

Mr. Urierson, cashier at Hankey 's bank, said—The three
cheques produced, respectively for £lO, £2O, and £25, were
paid at their counter. He paid the cheque for £25 to the
prisoner Lloyd. He gave him a £lO note, numbered 70,319,
and two £5 notes, numbered respectively 69,785-6 and five
sovereigns.

The detective officer who toek Lloyd into custody, said,
when he did so, he told him he had given the money he had
got for the cheques to a companion named Nash.
One of the assistants of Messrs. Moses said the prisoner
Nash, a short time ago purchased a suit of clothes at their
huuse and paid for them with a £5 note, numbered 69,785.
Mr. Robert Frank said he was a partner in the firm of
Frank and Smith, 147, Fenchurch-street. The prisoner
Lloyd was formerly in their service as clerk, and he used a
key, or bunch of keys to open some small boxes in the offiee.
He (witness) afterwards discovered that one of the keys
opened the d, awer in which the cheque book was kept. The
signature to the three cheques, to the best of his belief, was
in the handwriting of Lloyd. When was taken into cus-
tody he denied all knowledge of the robbery.
A lad in the employ of an optician, said, about a fort-
night ago Lloyd purchased a magic lantern at his master's
house, and as he had not sufficient money to pay for it,
he (witness) accompanied him to a house in Bush-lane,
where he received the 10s. that were required to pay fur the
goods from a person very like Nash.

At four o'clock the jury informed his lordship that there
was no reasonable prospect of their agreeing to a verdict.
The learned Judge, with the consent of counsel on both
sides, discharged them without giving a verdict.

Mr. Lewis, on the pelt of Nash, said, at the time his
client paid away the note to Messrs. Moses he did not know
the money had been improperly obtained.

(BeforeTl oT MHrE.R swß
Joyce.)
SERVANTOALTSX
SHERIFFS' COURT.
OF THE QUESTION.

Both prisoners were fully committed for trial.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

NORVAL V, DAWSON.
This was an action to recover wages and compensation,
plaintiff being a domestic servant, and defendant a mer-
chant, of Brabant-court, Philpot-lane.
Plaintiff said she was so very roughly used by Mrs.
Dawson that she had to call a policeman in to assist her,
and as a protection against Mrs. Dawson's violence.
Mrs. Dawson—She behaved very badly during Mr.
Dawson's absence, and she wanted to go away, and I was
determined she should not, and I locked her up.
His Honour (indignantly)—But pray what right had you
to do that. This is a free country.

ISIGAMY.

William Owen Taylor was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt
with intermarrying with Sarah Ellen Holton, his first wife
being at the time and now alive.

Charles Butcher, 137 C, produced an extract from the
registrar's book of marriages of St. George's, Hanover-
square. The extract was a true copy of the entry of the
marriage between Mr. Taylor and Hannah Green in Sept.
1852.

Mrs. Christiana Green, of Charlotte-street, Old Kent-
road, said she was present at the marriage of tho prisoner
and her niece, Hannah Green, and signed the register. Her
niece was in court that day.
Sarah Ellen Holton, a respectable looking young woman,
living at 4, Stanhope-street, Mayfair, said that she was
married to the prisoner on August 18, 1862, at High Wy-
combe Church, Buckinghamshire. The prisoner always
represented himself to her as a single man.

Mrs. Dawson—l did not want her to go away before Mr.
Dawson came home.

His Honour—You had no right to lock her up in this
free country. It is scandalous that people should behave
so to servants. If she had misconducted herself you might
have turned her out ; but you must not lock up
people without the intervention of the law. It was a fake
imprisonment.

Mrs. Dawson-1 am very sorry, and I will not do so any
more. I wish to say that I missed a handkerchief.
His Honour—Now, this is too bad. You first imprison
the girl, and then you libel her. You must pay this claim
forthwith, with costs.

Emma Holton, sister of the last witness, deposed to being
present at the marriage of the prisoner and her sister, and
signing the registry.
The prisoner was committed for trial.

It appears that he was taken into custody this morning on
leaving the House of Correction, where he had been con-
fined for one month for assaulting his second wife, he being
at the time in the service of Lady Carteret, as coachman.
His conduct to both females has been of the most brutal
nature. A week after he was married to his first wife he
assaulted her, and his conduct became so intolerable that
she was obliged, with her child, to leave him. He followed
her to her friends and prevailed on her to live with him
again, and she consented to do so, only to be worse treated
than before, and at last he left her with the child dependent
upon her. His conduct to his second wife was of such a
nature that at last she was compelled to give him into ens
tody, and he wag, as above stated, committed for a month
with hard labour.