The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-26 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOAV-STREET.----George Coates and Mary, his wife,
were brought before Mr. Jardine for further examina-
tion, on suspicion of having caused the death of an in-
fant child..

The prisoners lodged at 4, Little White Lion-street,
and had the care of the deceased child, whose mother
paid them a weekly allowance for nursing it. One after-
noon last week both the prisoners returned home to
their lodgings in a state of drunkenness, and went to
bed. About seven o'clock in the evening a woman
named Hollis, living in the same house, was called into
the room by Coates to help him to look for a handker-
chief, and she then saw the child in bed, almost black
from suffocation, and quite dead. A policeman was sent
for, and when he arrived he found the male prisoner ac-
cusing his wife with the murder of the' child, which she
then had in her arms ; but afterwards they both declared
that it was accidentally suffocated.
The inquiry was remanded till after the coroner's in-
quest, and Mr. R. Stephenson, a surgeon, of Little St.
Andrew-street, now attended to state that he had made
a post mortem examination, and found that death was
caused by suffocation. He had discovered a quantity of
vomited food in the child's windpipe, and he was of
opinion that death resulted from it without external
violence.

This being also the opinion of the coroner's jury, the
prisoners were discharged.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—Randolph Routh., de-
scribed as a gentleman, and formerly in the army, was
brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged with having vio-
lently assaulted Lieut. Alfred Cooper, of the Indian
army, at the East India United Service Club in St.
James's-square.

Lieut. Cooper said he was at the East India Club,
No. 15, St. James's-square that day, when the defendant
sent to request an interview in the reception-room for
visitors, on a subject which formed a matter of dispute
between them. The defendant demanded the restora-
tion of a letter which was in his possession, and on re-
ceiving a positive refusal he, without warning, commenced
a violent assault on him. The defendant seized him by
the throat and struck him several severe blows on the
side of the head. So violent was the assault that he was
quite powerless to defend himself, and was nearly stran-
gled, and had he not succeeded in attracting the atten-
tion of the servants of the establishment, his life would
have been placed in great danger. Complainant added
that, had he been disposed to defend himself, he could
not have done so from having recently fractured his arm.
He neither did strike nor could have struck the de-
fendant.

The defendant, in reply to the charge, said he was
quite ignorant that the defendant had sustained any in-
jury to his arm. The assault was of the nature of a
scuffle between them, and to prove that it could not have
been so violent as described, Lieut. Cooper himself went
for the assistance of the servants. With regard to the
origin of the affray, that involved circumstances of a
painful nature and included persons of the highest re-
spectability. It was to avoid exposure that he begged
the complainant, as a father, as a man, and as a
friend, to give up a particular letter. It was the
refusal to comply with this request which led to the sub-
sequent struggle.
Lieut. Cooper said, if the magistrate required it, he
had a witness in court to rebut the defendant's state-
ment.

Mr. Hardwick considered the assault sufficiently
proved, and, as he should send the case to the sessions,
any further evidence could be brought forward at the
trial.

The defendant was ordered to find bail, two in 501.,
and himself in 1001., to answer the charge at the ses-
sions.

WESTIVIINSTER.—A foreign gentleman, who gave
his name Stephanos Xenos, was summoned by a cab-
driver for eightpence under the following peculiar cir-
cumstances.

John Blake stated that, on the night of the 17th in-
stant, be was called by a servant from the rank at the
top of the Vauxhall Bridge-road, to take up at 2, Bel-
grave-street, South, where defendant got into his cab
and desired to be driven through St. James's-park to
Palace-chambers, St. James's-street. Complainant told
the gentleman that no hackney cab was allowed to go
through the park, but that he would take him the other
way, which would not occupy him above three or four
minutes more. The gentleman said he was often driven
through the park at night, and upon complainant's re-
p:Ating that he could not drive him through that way,
defendant desired him to open the door, .and got out.
Complainant followed him and demanded eightpence,
which the gentleman refused to pay, and ultimately gave
the driver his card.

Mr. Arnold—What distance was it from the stand to
where you had to take the gentleman up ?
Complainant—About 150 or 200 yards.
The defendant said that about a fortnight ago he was
driven by the complainant across the park to Palace-
chambers, when, although he paid the driver more than
his fare, he demanded something in addition, and con-
ducted himself in so insulting and offensive a manner
that he (defendant) looked for a policeman to give him
in charge. When the cab was fetched upon the present
occasion he discovered, to his surprise, that the driver
was the same man who had so misconducted himself,
and when he desired him to drive through the park, lie
refused. He (defendant) had repeatedly been driven
through St. James's-park after ten o'clock at night, and
after he had got out of complainant's cab and was going
to hire another, complainant said something to the man
to prevent his taking him, as he believed, unless he paid
extra fare for the park.
Mr. Arnold said that that might have been ; drivers
might have eluded the vigilance of the person at the
gate at a late hour at night, but that did not constitute
a right, nor was it material whether the driver crossed
with defendant a fortnight ago ; because if he had done
wrong then, it was no reason he should repeat it. He
considered the driver was perfectly justified in refusing
to take the gentleman across the park, and there was
nothing in the case to relieve the defendant from his
liability to pay the driver for his being called off the
11
stand.

Defendant was ordered to pay the Bd., and ss. costs,

THAMES.—Captain Ridley Wilson, master of the
brig Fifteen, was finally examined, charged with scut-
tling and sinking the Essex Lass, of which he had been
master two years since last Christmas.

Mr. Child, of the firm of Wire and Child, appeared
for certain underwriters on the part of the prosecu•
tion, and Mr. Ballantine, instructed by Mr. Smith for
the defence.

The principal witness was a lad named Cadmore, who
stated that whilst at the helm he saw the prisoner bore
three holes with an augur through the bottom of the
Essex Lass, whereupon she began to fill, and, though
all hands were called to the pump, she filled so, rapidly
that they were compelled to take to the boats and row
ashore, the captain having previously cut away the lar-
board end starboard ports with an axe.
This evidence was to a certain extent confirmed by two
witnesses named Cook and Masson.
After hearing evidence as to the amount for which the
vessel was insured, which did not appear to be up
to the value of the ship and cargo, Mr. Ballantine
urged that there was no motive for the alleged
offence ; that according to the captain's statement
the whole was a gross and wicked fabrication ; and
that, as the evidence stood, the magistrate should dismiss
the charge.

Mr. Yardley said the case was one which prohibited
a magistrate from taking upon himself the functions of a
jury. No motive for the destruction of the vessel had
been as yet adduced, but two facts as regarded the port
holes had been sworn to by three witnesses; and it was
not attempted to be shown that such a course.would
lighten or alleviate her. Much depended on the credi-
bility of the witnesses, referring, as their testimony did,
to a fact said to have occurred more than two years ago.
The charge was a serious one, and he (Mr. Yardley)
had, in the first instance, refused to take bail ; but, from
the different aspect which the case had since taken, he
would now accept bail—the prisoner himself in 4001.,
and two sureties of 2001. each.
The owner of the Fifteen and the owner of the lost
brig Essex Lass, immediately presented themselves, and
were accepted.
In holding the prisoner to bail, Mr. Yardley said that,
as far as regarded the underwriters and their legal ad-
visers, he certainly must say they had pursued a proper
course on the occasion. The subject was one demand-
ing inquiry, and he would not prejudice the case by any
observations.
The depositions were then taken at length, and the
requisite bail having been accepted, the prisoner was
committed for trial.