The Sun.
London, England, 1862-09-11 00:00:00

would receive her back, as she bore an extremely (
good character in every respect. It appeared that 1
for some time past she had been keeping company
with a young maa to whom she was very much at-
tached, and who had suddenly, without any cause,
written to her breaking off all further intercourse
between them. Nothing improper had occurred,
but she had taken this very much to heart, and it
had so affected her as to lead her to the commission
of this crime. He repeated that this poor young
creature was without a single friend in the world
to whom she could confide her troubles, and if she
were, on coming out of prison, to be thrown upon
her own resource, it was not difficult to understand
what the result must be. The mother of the young
man, however, had very kindly offered to take the
girl home until she could find another situation, in
the event of her master declining still to receive
her back.
Mr. Arnold requested the woman in question to
be in attendance next Tuesday, and hoped the pri-
soner's master would alter his determination by that

time.
S YsTEmATic PLUNDER OF SHOPKEEPERS.--TWO
well-dressed girls, named Phoebe Elizabeth Willis
and Elizabeth Lisburn, who have been previously
convicted,';were re-examined charged with the fol-

lowing robberies :
Mr. Warrand attended to prosecute on behalf of
the association for the Prosecution of Shoplifters,
&c., and Mr. Lewis, jun., defended the prisoners.
It appeared froth the evidence that on the
inst. the prisoners entered the shop of Harvey,
Nicholl, and Co., 10, Lowndes-terrace, Knights-
bridge, and asked to be shown some silk dresses.
The assistant, Eli Brown, had reason to suspect
that they were dishonest persons, and turning his
back to get them a particular dress they pointed
out, on returning he missed a roll of silk, and called
the attention of Mr. Carruthers, one of the firm, to
the circumstance, upon which that gentleman called
them into the counting-house,during their progress
' to which a roll containing 751- yards of lavender
silk, value £l7, was observed to fall on the floor
from under the dress of Willis, who, Brown ob-
served, had a, large slit measuring about 8 inches
long in the front of her dress. Prisoners were then
given into custody, and remanded, alleging that
there was a mistake somewhere.
On their being brought up again several assis-
tants from large houses were present who strongly
suspected them of having visited their employers'
establishments ; and a second case was preferred
against them, in which it appeared, from the testi-
mony of William Arnold, that on the 20th of De-
cember last the prisoners and another woman went
to Stagg and Mantle's, in Leicester-square, where
Willis wanted a plaid shawl, similar to one orn
by Lisburn. They had not one of that pattern,
upon which they selected a shawl valued at £7
155., and paying a deposit of 18s. upon it, left,
stating that they would call again next day and
take the shawl, if the assistant (Arnold) could not
get such a one as they wanted, Arnold, however,
also had his suspicions of them, and followed them
into a public-house, and thence to Broad-street,
Bloomsbury, where he lost sight of them. The as-
sistant's ingenuity was now somewhat remarkable,
for going next morning to the public-house, he exa-
mined the sweepings of the passage, just as the ser-
vant was about to throw them in the dust-hole, and
there he found the bill he had given them on part pur-
chasing the shawl torn to pieces, and with it two
tickets with his employer's marks on,and on examin-
ing the goods in the shop two shawls were miss-
ing, corresponding with the tickets, of the respec-
tive value of £3 9s. 6d. and 19s. 9d.
Mr. Lewis did not weaken the case by his cross-
. examination, and the prisoners were remanded,
previous to their being committed for trial.

THAMES.—DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO MURDER
A BROTHER-IN-LAW.—John Clay was charged with
committing a murderous assault upon his brother -
in-law. The inquiry excited considerable interest,
and Mr. Charles Young, solicitor, of Arbour-street,
conducted the prosecution.
The learned gentleman, in opening the case, said
that his client, as would be seen by the wound upon
his head and the bandages that had been used to stop
the blood, had been frightfully cut by the prisoner
at the bar, the husband of the prosecutor's sister.
From the instructions he had received there is not
the shadow of a doubt that had not his client been
a more powerful man than the prisoner he must
have been murdered. Notwithstanding the mur-
derous assault committed upon his client, out of
feeling for his sister, he did not wish to press the
case too severely. He should therefore call the
prosecutor to give his evidence, without taking up
any further time of the magistrate.
Mr. Henry Howard was then sworn, and stated
that he had been staying at the house of the pri-
soner's wife, witness's sister, for some time, as a
protection to the house, as her husband did not live
with her.
Mr. Young—What was the name of the house P
Witness—The house was termed Colchester House
and was situated at Poplar.
Mr. Young—How came you to be in the house ?
Witness—At my sister's particular request.
Mr. Young—Explain to the magistrate whether
you were sleeping in the house last night, and, if
so, what took place.
The prosecutor said that he was sleeping in the
second floor, over his sister's bedroom, and about 1
o'clock that morning he was alarmed by a loud
noise at his bedroom-door, when, in an instant, the
prisoner smashed in one of the panels of his bed-
room-door, and, having entered through the aper-
ture with a cutlass in hand, he inflicted the wound
which he bore upon his head, and which his wor-
ship could plainly see.
Mr. Young—Was the prisoner drunk or sober at
the time do you know ?
Witness—He was sober.
Mr. Young —Was it at your sister's particular
request that you slept iu the house ?
Witness—lt was for a protection to her.
Mr. Young—How did you first know that the
prisoner was in the house ? Let me first ask you if
he resided there ?
Prosecutor—He did not reside in Colchester
House, but somewhere at West Ham, and my first
knowledge of the prisoner having entered the
house was by hearing a scuffling and cries of
" Murder !" I think, and directly afterwards the
door of my bedroom was split asunder and the pri-
soner entered with the cutlass in hand and com-
menced cutting at me.
Mr. Young —What did you next do ?
Witness—l got out of bed and closed with the
prisoner, and both fell, and at last I found myself
bleeding on the landing.
Mr. Young—Did he attempt to make more than
one attack on you ?
Witness—l think he did, as I found the flooring
out on the landing, as if the weapon had been
directed with great force against my head, and
having missed my head, had entered in the flooring
of the landing.
The prisoner said that he would admit the
assault, and he would ask the prosecutor whether
he had forbidden him to enter the house ?
The prosecutor said that such was the case, but
at his sister's request he felt bound to go to the
place as a protection towards her. He (witness)
had never been separated trom his wife for getting
drunk. His wife never refused to live with him on
account of his getting repeatedly drunk.
John Sergeant, police-officer 56 K, said that
between twelve and one o'clock, whilst on duty, he
heard cries of murder proceeding from Colchester
House, Poplar. He went into the house and saw
the prisoner and the prosecutor struggling together.
He separated them, and took the accused into
custody.
Mr. Young—Did the prisoner say anything when
you took him into custody ?
The constable said yes ; he said he had only done
what a man had a perfect right to do in his own
house.
Mr. Young said ho should like it to be distinctly
known, alter what the prisoner had stated, that any
man had a right to do as he had done in his own
house, when it should he stated that he did not re-
side there.
Mr. Matthew Brownfield, divisional surgeon to
the Poplar subdivision of the K police, of 3, Escott-
place, East India-road, said that at a quarter past
one in the morning he was called upon to attend the
prosecutor, whom he found bleeding and suffering
from an incised wound on the temple, two inches
in length, and the bone was injured. The wound
had divided the temporal artery, which caused a
great loss of blood. Witness dressed the wound.
Mrs Selfe— Was the wound of a dangerous nature?
Witness—I should say it was.
The prisoner, although duly cautioned by the ma-
gistrate, in extenuation of his crime, persisted in
making a long rambling statement, in which he
stated that at the death of his wife's father a deal
of enmity had existed between the prosecutor- and
himself. At his death the sons celled in an auc-
tioneer and sold ever thin off without consulting
him or his wife. After that they had the North
Woolwich Plate Glass Works, which ended by their
being burned down. They got £6OO insurance
money, and he had never received anythingfrom
that day t the present. He had forbidden prose-
cutor to enter his house, for which he paid £45
pee year, but by living in his wife's house he had
no rent to pay, and upon his going to his house he
ordered him to leave, and he went into his room to
turn him out, and bringing him down stairs he went
to get his clothes, and as he insisted upon it, he
told him if he did not go down he would kill him,
I and he struck him with the sword.
Fully committed to Newgate for trial.

Mr. Bishop, the Englishman arrested for con-
veying Bourbonist communications between Naples and
Bone, has been. sentenced to 10 years' -LDPAi 24.
.9unieut,