The Sun.
London, England, 1854-10-05 00:00:00

gards both defendants. Mr. Seymour leaves the court
without an imputation of being accessory to this poor
girl's death, or to her being on hoard the ship ; with
regard to Mr. Knight, we cannot but express our opi-
nion of the reprehensible conduct of which he was clearly
guilty. We now trust that having gone so fully into
the case that our decision will be regarded as settling
the question, and that the public mind will be appeased,
and be satisfied that justice has been done.
The decision was received with partial disapprobation.
The proceedings then closed, so far as the civil power
is concerned, but a court-martial is yet to follow, as
Lieut. Knight has called for one on himself, whilst one
has also, we believe, been recommended by a naval court
of inquiry deputed to consider the subject.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.


MANSION-HOUSE.—Messrs. henry Wright and
Robert Bateman, charged with having attempted to de-
fraud the Commercial Credit Mutual Assurance Society,
appeared before the Lord Mayor for further examination.
Mr. Lawrence, instructed by Messrs. Ashurst, Waller,
and Morris, appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Lewis
for the defence.
The court was densely crowded. The following is the
additional evidence :
Mr. James A. Blackwell, clerk to the Commercial
Credit Mutual Assurance Society, in Threadneedle-street,
said—l received the claim produced on the 13th July
last. Ido not know how the claim came to me. I re-
ceived it in the usual manner, with others, from one of
the clerks in the office, and as part of my duty.
Mr. R. J. Harvey, banker at Norwich, said—l have
two partners. I produce a policy of assurance effected
by the defendants, which was deposited with us. I re-
ceived it from Mr. Bateman. That is my impression.
He delivered it to me on account of the firm of Wright
and Bateman.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—After receiving the
policy, I wrote to the society and received from them
two letters, which I produce. I was largely discounting
for the two defendants. We should not have discounted
unless the policy had been lodged. We also discounted
for Fawcett and Parrett, the two witnesses who were
examined on the first day. We were holders of the bills
the subject of the claim subsequently made. The de-
fendents sent us bills from time to time to discount, and
we sent two lists of those bills to the society. One of
the bills of Fawcett and Parrett was dishonoured. After
that Wright came to me, and I made inquiries of him as
to the nature of the bills, and respecting the bill of
Fawcett and Parrett. I had a conversation with Wright.
It was immediately after the bill became due. I had a
notice of the dishonour of the bill sent to the society.
After that I cannot say whether I required Wright to
make a claim in respect of that amount upon the
society. We sent the bill to the society, and that
was all we had to do. I asked Wright whether it
was an accommodation or a trade transaction, and he
told me it was a bona fide bill, not an accommodation
but a trade bill. I did not, to my recollection, ask him
for the particulars of the transaction far my clerk to
make oat a claim. If I had known it was an accommo-
dation bill I should not have discounted any more. I
directed my clerk to ascertain the nature of the transac-
tion with regard to the bill, to see if it was a trade
transaction. . .

Ite-examined—Fawcett and Parrett at that time were
in difficulties, and I had some doubt as to the transac-
tion. I was quite aware of the nature of the policy,
and I was aware that advances upon accommodation
bills were not available under the policy.
Mr. A. Harrison—l was in the employment of the
defendants as clerk, and live at 35, Goldsmith-place,
Hackney-road. I wrote the letter produced, dated 12th
Sept., and also the other letter produced. I was their
clerk for three years, and they were absent when I
wrote the letters. The last time I saw them, before I
wrote the letters, I was aware the claim had been with-
drawn. I knew it from Mr. Wright, who I knew had
written to withdraw it. I had no authority from them
to write these letters. In their absence I did act for
them. I knew the claim had gone in to the society
from our books. I had no conversation► with them upon
the subject.
By the Lord Mayor—l have no doubt that I com-
municated to the defendants, that I wrote those letters.
I kept no copy of them. I told them the substance of
those letters, and I believe they approved of what I did.
The Lord Mayor said it appeared to him from the
evidence that the transaction in question had been con-
ducted by the defendant Wright alone, and that there
was no proof before him that Bateman was a party to
the attempt to obtain the money from the society, and
that, under those circumstances, he would discharge
the latter. His lordship then said that he would sent
the case against Wright to be decided upon at the Cen•
tral Criminal Court, and require that defendant to enter
into his own resognisances in 2001., and to procure two
sureties in 1001. each, for his appearance in answer to
the charge at the Central Criminal Court.

WORSHIP-STREET.—SamueI Saunders was brought
up on a warrant before Mr. Hammill, charged, in con-
junction with his wife, Mary Ann Saunders, with a
murderous assault upon Martha Vernon, a young wo-
man in an advanced state of pregnancy.
The complainant, who was compelled to be seated
while giving her evidence, and exhibited extreme suffer-
ing and exhaustion, stated that she superintended the
business of a general dealer named Ewin, in Wentworth-
street, Whitechapel, and while attending in the shop on
the evening of Saturday last, the male prisoner, who had
had some previous altercation with her employer, sud-
denly presented himself, and assailed her with the
coarsest vituperation. Witness requested him to desist,
and on intimating that she would give him into custody
if he persisted in his offensive conduct, prisoner made a
rush at her, and after striking her a violent blow in the
face, seized hold of her by the hair of the head and for-
cibly dragged her from behind the counter to the front
of the shop. While she was struggling to extricate her-
self from him, she was suddenly attacked by the female
prisoner, who knocked her down by a heavy blow in the
face, and continued beating her about the head and body
in such an unmerciful manner that she was rendered in-
sensible. She was subsequently rescued from further
ill-treatment by several persons who had witnessed the
outrage, but she had been ever since under medical
treatment, and still remained in a state of excruciating
pain from the injuries sho had received.
George Ewin, the owner of the shop, fully confirmed
the evidence of the last witness, and added that, upon
his interfering for her protection, the male prisoner
caught up a heavy chair, with which he felled him to the
ground, and cut open his head, as it now appeared.
A medical certificate was handed to the magistrate,
which stated that the complainant was suffering from
numerous severe contusions on different parts of her per-
son, accompanied with internal injuries, which would
probably be productive of very serious results, as she was
six months advanced in pregnancy.
The prisoners were remanded.

MARLBOROUGET.STREET.—Mrs. Hannah, lieb-
beck was brought before Mr. Bingham on a warrant,
having been locked up in the station-house all night,
charged with assaulting and beating her husband,
Arthur Rebbeck, landlord of the \Vheatsheaf, Oxford-
street. • _ _

The disparity in size of the parties was remarkable,
the wife being a little woman, the husband a big man of
great bodily strength.
The complainant said his wife had been out for a
drive in the chaise on Monday evening, and when she
came home he told her he would not let her drive out
much oftener, as he intended to sell the pony. His wife
called him a good-for-nothing wretch. He said he could
not afford to keep the pony, neither could he afford to
keep his wife and child. His wife then jumped and tore
his hair. He called the barmaid and asked her to witness
his wife's behaviour. His wife was of a violent temper.
This violence had gone on for two or three years, until
at last he was afraid to enter his house.

The wife, in defonce, said her husba.nd refused to drive
her out, and she thought she ought to take a drive with-
out him. When she came home her husband began
quarrelling with her, threatened to sell the chaise, and
applied a bad name to her mother. Her husband's pas-
sion increasing, he called her a vile name, and struck
her on the nose, causing the blood to flow.
The barmaid, Elizabeth Hicks, said—On Monday
night she was called into the bar parlour by Mr. Reb-
beck, who said to her, " You see, Miss Hicks, I'm
afraid ; let me get my hat." Mrs. Rebbeck was some-
time 4 very irritable. Mr. Rebbeck appeared to be very
forbearing.
Mrs. Rebbeck askEd this witness if her nose was not
bleeding ?
The barmaid said it was.

Mrs. Rebbeck asked her if she did not recollect that
about four months ago her husband blackened both her
eyes and broke her nose.
The barmaid recollected that those injuries were sus-
taioed by Mrs. Rebbeck.
Mr. Bingham thought this was a case in which a
magistrate could not interfere with advantge. He should
recommend an appeal to mutual friends.
The parties retired, but re-entered the court, and Mr.
Duncombe said an arrangement could not be effected.
Mr. Bingham thought that a separation would be ad-
visable ; if so, the defendant ought to have a liberal
allowance. The best way to deal with the case was
to require each party to find one surety to keep the
peace.

SOUTHWARK.—John Hyland, a cooper, residing
at 25, Parish-street, Horselydown, was brought before
Mr. Seeker, charged with violently assaulting his wife,
by stabbing her in the abdomen with a knife.
Police-constable Tighe, 220 M, deposed that about
three o'clock yesterday morning he was on duty at the
police-station, Bermondsey, when a person crane and
informed him that a man was murdering his wife at 25,
Parish-street. Witness at once proceeded to the house,
and on entering the passage saw marks of blood on the
stairs. He went up-stairs, and in the back attic saw a
woman covered with blood, in bed with a little boy.
Witness asked her what was the matter, when she re-
' plied that her husband, who was in bed on the second
floor, had stabbed her with a knife. The bed-clothes
were saturated with blood, and on the second floor land-
ing were evidences of a murderous assault having taken
place there. A surgeon was sent for, who dressed her
wounds. The following is the surgeon's certificate :
" This is to certify that Mrs. Hyland, of 25, Parish-
street, is suffering from the effects of a punctured wound
on the right side of the abdomen, inflicted by a penknife.
(Signed) "C. WRITE, Surgeon. Snows-fields."
Witness then went into the second floor back room,
where he found the prisoner, and after a deal of resist-
ance t 'ok him into custody. On the way to the station
the prisoner threw away a penknife, which was picked
up by tiie surgeon.
Mr. Edwin (the chief clerk) inquired if the prisoner
was known ?
The officer said thy prisoner had only recently come)