The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-30 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Aug, 29.

(Before Mr. Sergeant Gaselee.)
James Leander surrendered to take his trial for
hbving assaulted and wounded George W. Sharp.
Mr. Rowden was counsel for the prosecution ;
Mr. Sleigh for the defence.
From the opening statement of the learned
counsel, and the evidence of the prosecutor, it
ppeared that the latter, a commercial traveller,
residing at No. 2, Aminta-villas, Dalston, was at
the Harp Tavern, Russell-street, Covent-garden,
kept by his brother-in-law. He was in front of
the bar, waiting for a friend, and had remained
there twenty minutes or thereabouts, when he
heard an altercation in the parlour between his
friend and the defendant. He went in for two
purposes—to see what it was about, and to see that
his friend did not get into trouble. His friend asked
' defendant if he had stated that he was a slink,
and that he (defendant) had pulled his nose in pub-
lic. The defendant, according to the prosecutor,
said he had. The prosecutor's friend, a gentleman
named Templeton, then said he was a liar, and the
defendant challenged to fight him for £5 or £2O.
The defendant then left the room and went to the
bar, and repeated the language he had used in the
parlour, and again offered to fight him for £2O. The
prosecutor then turned and said to the defendant
that his language was disgusting, and that had he
used the same to him, h© should certainly have
pulled his nose. The defendant said, "How would
you do it P and he replied that had the same lan-
guage been used to him, he would soon show him,
and, suiting the action to the word, he took hold of
the defendant's nose with his thumb and finger, not
to twist, it, he said, but merely to show him tow he
could do it if he pleased, and called him a great
blackguard. He then turned round, and was asking
his friend to go home with him, when all a sudden
he received a heavy blow on the cheek with a
drinking-glass, but from whom he did not know at
the moment ; but it was done by the defendant, who
was then charged. The prosecutor was attended
by a surgeon, and his cheek, which was cut through,
or nearly so, was bathed and dressed, and one of his
teeth was knocked out. The medical gentleman, be-
coming alarmed, sent for a physician, and the pro-
secutor was taken to Charing-cross Hospital, where
the cut was strapped up, and an artery, which had
been severed, sewed up. He was taken home, where
his own medical man attended him, and ordered
him not to speak in consequence of the injury to his
cheek.

In cross-examination by Mr. Sleigh, the prosecu-
tor said he had been drinking ale and gin and
water, and might have shaken the defendant's nose;
but was not sure. If he did, he did not mean it.
(A laugh.)
Had any one served him as he served
the defendant, he should have up with his fist and
knocked him down if he could, but he should not
have used a glass. Had he been servedin a simi-
lar manner he should have considered it a gross
insult.

Mr. Sleigh—And I think any Englishman Would
—don't you ?
Prosecutor—Yes, I think so, too, (A laugh.)

After the cross-examination had proceeded to
some length,
Mr. Sleigh said it was quite clear that the de-
fendant had been subjected to a very gross and
scandalous indignity by having his nose pulled by
a person who was no party to the original dispute,
and that the jury would by their verdict say in
effect—" Serve him right."
Ultimately the jury:stopped the case and acquit-
ted the defendant, who left the court with a host of
friends.

George Payne, 20, a butcher, surrendered to take
his trial for stealing a bearing rein and other
articles, the property of George Henshall, his mas-
ter.

Mr. Poland prosecuted ; Mr. Ribton was for the
defence.

The prosecutor was a butcher in Cross-street,
Islington, and the prisoner had been in his service.
The charge was that he had taken a pair of hames
from his master's stable, and had been dealing with
them and a rein, of which he wanted a harness
maker to make him a dog-collar.
The jury, after hearing Mr. Ribton, who con-
tended that there was no proof to sustain the charge
acquitted the prisoner.
Edward Gardener, a middle-aged man, a trades-
man at Paddington, was indicted for receiving a
cheque for £B2 195., the property of J. Goldsmith.
Mr. Kemp prosecuted ; Mr. Besley was counsel
for the defence.

This was a very curious case. and the facts were
shortly these, although they involved a point of
law which will have to be decided by the Court of
Criminal Appeal.—A letter enclosing a cheque for
£B2 19s. was sent to the prosecutor, a carman and
coal dealer, in Thayer-street, Marylebone, from the
City, which was opened b his daughter. It was
drawn on Messrs. Jones Loyd and Co., and crossed.
His daughter lost the cheque in Welbeck-street,
and it was found by a newsboy, who gave it to the
prisoner, who told him it was of no use, as it was
on the Royal British Bank, and in consequence of
a reward being offered, inquiries were made about
it, and the boy went to the prisoner to get it back.
At first he said he would give it him presently,
then that he had lost it, and in the end gave up a
cheque (produced) dated 1806. The boy's master,
Mr. Burrell, a tobacconist and newsman, Maryle-
bone-lane, hearing that he had found the cheque,
went to the prisoner and asked why he had not re-
turned the cheque to the bdy. He said it bad been
sold for waste paper, and that the cheque of 1806
was equally as good; but Mr. Burrell said that
good or bad, he must produce it to the boy. The
prosecutor went to Gardener and asked him about
it, and on being told that a reward of ss. would be
given for it, he said he would rather light his pipe
with it than give it up for that. The prisoner men-
tioned the amount the cheque represented, and said
it was worth a sovereign. Mr. Goldsmith told
him that had he sent it to the bank or taken it to
the police-station, he should not have minded two
or three sovereigns; but he had given a great deal
of trouble, and it was useless to him (prisoner), and
almost so to him (Mr. Goldsmith). When he said
he would rather light his pipe with it, the prosecu-
tor said he had better not let him see him do it.
He said he had it from a customer whose residence
he did not know, but the boy had been in his ser-
vice. A brother of the prisoner stated on oath that
he received the cheque from him, put it in an en-
velope and pushed it under Mr. Goldsmith's door,
as the shop was not open, but it had never been
found or traced.

The case for the prosecution having been closed,
Mr. Besley contended that upon the facts as
proved, and in point of law, no case of felony had
been made out, and quoted authorities from Cox's
Crinunal Cases. He submitted that the prisoner
could not have had any felonious intention, but
might have received the cheque with the view
simply of getting the reward for its restoration.
After some discussion, the learned judge said he
should take the opinion of the jury upon the facts,
and reserve, if need be, the points of law raised by
Mr. Besley for the superior Court, that of Criminal
Appeal. It was a nice question. Did the prisoner
receive the cheque with the view of feloniously
appropriating it to his own use, or with the idea
only of getting the reward for restoring it?
The prisoner was found guilty, the jury also find-
ing that it was for the reward took the cheque,
subject to the opinion of the Court of Criminal
Appeal, and the prisoner was admitted to bail to
appear for judgment when called upon,
William Bowen, 20, barman, was convicted of
stealing half a gallon of gin, the property of Henry
Hailey, his master.

Mr: Sleigh was for the prosecution, instructed by
Mr. Edward Lewis. Mr. Kemp defended the pri-
soner.

The prosecutor was the landlord of the Thirteen
Cantons, Litchfield-street, and the prisoner was de-
tected secreting bottles of gin and cigars to carry
away. A good deal had been missed.
The prisoner was found guilty, and the learned
judge said it was a very bad case, and, as an
example to others, sentenced him to twelve calen-
dar months.

SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Payne.)
Elizabeth Berry, 29, was indicted for stealing a
purse and 19s. 6d., the money and property of
Francis Bardies.

Mr. Besley prosecuted ; Mr. Taylor defended.
The prosecutor stated that he was a labourer and
lived in George-street, St. Giles's, and on the morn-
ing of the 6th inst., he met the prisoner, and at her
request treated her to something to drink and
changed a sovereign, and had 19s. 6d. change. He
went with her to a house, where he undressed him-
self and went to bed. The prisoner then took his
trousers and ran out of the room ; the purse con-
taining the change was in the pocket. He remained
about half an hour when she returned with four
men, by whom he was attacked ; they rifled his
pockets of a passport, and a certificate from his last
employer. He had to leave the house without his
trousers, and meeting a constable told him what
had happened. The four men had left, but the
prisoner remained behind, and was taken into
custody.

Police-constable Edward M'Gloin stated that he
was on duty at three o'clock on the morning in
question, when the prosecutor came up to him and
said he had been robbed of his trousers and about
£1 in money. He pointed out the house, 5, Ken-
nedy-court, and the witness proceeded to the
second floor, where ho found the prisoner, another
female, and two men. The prosecutor pointed out
the prisoner as the one who had robbed him, and
instantly the candle was extinguished, and he had
great difficulty in securing the prisoner and taking
her to the station. On the way she dropped 4s. 6d.
in silver, and 6d. in copper, and when asked if she
had any more she said 12s. 6d., but that was not
true. The prosecutor was quite sober at the time.
He had no trousers on.

The learned Judge having summed up, and the
jury having found the prisoner guilty, she was
sentenced to three years' penal servitude, being
known as an old offender.

Sarah Barrett, 43, was indicted for unlawfully
1 assaulting and maliciously wounding John Satchel!.
Mr. Horry was for the prosecutor ; Mr. Warton
appeared for the prisoner.
It appeared that the prosecutor, a lath render,
lived at No. 5, Pond-court, Westminster, and on
the evening of the 28th of July the prisoner and
her husband were quarrelling in the court, and the
prisoner had a knife and was attempting to cut her
husband's throat. The prosecutor called his brother,
who took the knife away from her. She made use
of a fearful threat and went up to the prosecutor
and made a stab at him with another knife, which
she took from her bosom. She succeeded in in-
flicting a cut on his arm but it was not of a serious
nature. The prosecutor's brother, hearing a noise
in the court ran out of his father's house, when he
found the prisoner and her husband struggling.
The latter, who was blee ling profusely from the
neck, called for help. The brother took the knife
from her, and she then said she would do for some
one that night, and as the prosecutor was holding
up his arm to protect himself; he received a stab,
which fortunately, however, was not of such a
nature as it was evident the prisoner intended, as
s'ie aimed at his eyes.
She was found Guilty, and sentenced to 12
months' hard labour.

Emma Coombs, 20, was indicted for stealing 2s.
from the person of Arthur John Anderson.
Mr. Pater prosecuted ; the prisoner was defended
by Mr. Dickie.
This was an ordinary case of street robbery. The
prosecutor was on Pentonville-hill, on his way
home, one night, when he was accosted by the pri-
soner. He told her he wanted nothing to do with
her, and went on. She followed, and he then saw
a bunch of keys in her hand which had been taken
from his trousers pocket, and he then missed 2s. as
well. He asked her for the keys and money,
whereupon she ran away, but was caught and
given in charge. She then gave the prosecutor 25.,
and told the constable he had given it to her.
The prisoner was found Guilty, and being a
known offender was sentenced to 18 months' hard
labour.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.—
oaf thousands,
For bad legs, bad breasts, and scorbutic or scrofulous sores,
this is
genuine specific.—The grateful and earnest testi-
mony who have experienced its unrivalled
power over these complaints, and who have been raised
from prostrate helplessness and a condition loathsome to
themselves and others, renders it quite unnecessary to en-
large in this
Place upon its extraordinary virtues. The parts
affected should be bathed with lukewarm water, and when
the pores are thereby opened the ointment should be rubbed
in at least twice a day. It then penetrates to the seat of the
disorder, and affects a thorough and permanent cure. These
preparations are Composed of rare balsams as mild as they
aro officaoioug.