The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-25 00:00:00

Alderman Humphery—How can you do that ?
Mary Hume—l receive an allowance from a member
of Parliament.

Mr. Holland—Ye; sir. Sir John M‘Taggart allows
her 501. a year.

Alderman Humphery—Did you live with Sir John
M‘Taggart ?
Mary Hume—Yes, sir.
Alderman Humphery—l suppose not, or he might
perhaps stop the allowance. But it was not altogether
right after living with a man nine years to leave him to
go with another. Are you living now with Mr. Lam-
berger ?
Mary Hume—Yes, sir; but he did not take me away
from Mr. Holland. I left him voluntarily.
Alderman Humphery—Well, Mr. Holland, I cannot
do anything to punish Mr. Lamberger for robbing you
of your mistress. At present he is bound over to keep
the peace towards all parties. If you will keep a house-
keeper you must take better care of her, or put up with
the consequences attending such immoral connexions.

,Before Mr. Sergeant Adams, Assistant Judge, and a
Bench of Magistrates at Westminster.)
The court sat specially to-day to hear appeals.
Predoick George Gush appealed against t. conviction
of D. Jardine, Esq.
The conviction was for an indecent exposure to two
young girls in the Green-park on the 3d of Lugust. The
police constable stated that the girls laughet at the ap-
pellant's conduct.
The court held after this statement that th3appellant's
conduct could not legally be considered to hive insulted
the girls. The statute was to prevent the insulting of
modest women, and the question was whetler it could
be said that the girls were insulted when they merely
laughed at what the appellant did. The ccurt had no
course left but to quash the conviction. Tie appellant
at the same time had not increased that goal character
which he understood many of his friends hid come to
give him.
Mr. Clarkson, who with Mr. Ballantine, Ippeared for
the appellant, said he was sure the court wotld not con-
clude anything against Mr. Gush, without hiving heard
their side of the question, for they were in a condition to
have altered the case materially.
Mr. Ballantine said the case had been st)pped on a
point of law ; they did not think it right to occupy the
time of the court on a question of fact, but tley entirely
denied the imputation on Mr. Gush.
Mr. Payne appeared in support of the conviction.
Conviction quashed.
THE CONSERVATIVE CLUB V. THE POOR RATE OF ST.
JAMES'S.
Mr. Bodki❑ and Mr. Ballantine were for the appel-
lants. Mr. Pashley, Q.C., and Mr. Huddlestone for
the respondents.
Mr. Bodkin said, that appearing on the part of the
appellants, ho need hardly say that the high character
and position of the gentlemnn forming the committee of
management of the Conservative Club, was a sufficient
guarantee that they would not come to a court )f justice
to resist a reasonable tax upon them, but the rate had
been creeping up for a number of years, and had now
been raised upwards of 4001. over the previous valua-
ciaa beforeshea ov tothghe
tschokeui
kind
courts.
rateable
9.0 n, which, as well as many preceding it, had been too
f
high in respect of the real rateable value of the premises
ini
()ue, question.atthe Theeor
er propertyofJames's-street,
etah,ae. Conservativestreet,
and
h eClub
be-
lieved the case of club houses had never yet been brought
profits, and therefore
nol
ep
vertal otheryu e cases s
thees there
propertywas n o difficulty
ascertained,
but there was in
data upon which the propertyvalu.Tef
otrhtehree
purpose
sneoorfents and
assessment no
o
quite an
description. In the
property,ac
so
snelsdsm be ascertained.
assessment
satchse
erayt
wereined to be raly
abthseantceioofmthakeionrgdisnuacrhy
ropositionear
absurd
by the cost of the
Waterloo-bridge, liftsuNyoastthawtouitldcouldnot
t notthe be entertained for a moment.
adverted ed. to, the
r itdogl le col-
lectors forinstance, was assessed on what
rate
l
th e thediffi receiptsculty
h tahkaedn
committee had done this. They objected to the increased
rating► of upwards of 400/., on the valuation of Mr. Lee,
which was confined to the clubs in the parish. They had
therefore taken the opinion of those who dealt with pro-
wwiot
would
dt hheavei,ai valuationiit,
pro-
perty of an analogous description, as to what it would he
worth to let if it were in the market. If the value then
purposes
for it
ctohue rt .
iil))ll7Lttdaeupon
wt the part h''d
considerablyo nearly
l3acroilsiojhli tdrh,eedy they feel obliged to
their houses if they
of clubs, and of what worth were
in
ceased to be clubs They would have to be reconstructed THE LATE STABBING CASE BY THE RUSSIANG ,c;AIL0118
pa eprpteyaol fatghai description tchriep triaotne,waaisi d
builtco m
entirely ttiorely that
to be converted into ordinary dwelling houses ; in fact, AT DEPTFORD.—From inquiries made at
they were useless but for the purposes for which they were pital, it was ascertained from Mr. Hilton, uy's
Alreons,"
originally intended. He should call before the court that Thomas Breslam had expired. The o thseurr--
witnesses competent to judge of these matters, who J. Sullivan, is doing well, but he is not out or the reelanh
would tell them that the letable value of the club-house of danger. Their four assailants were brow ziat beforeae
was 2,0001. a-year, and the parish had rated them at Mr. Leckie at Greenwich yesterday, and li. tying been
2,9401. If they satisfied the court that 2,0001. was the identified as the persons who committed the murderous
correct value, they would at the same time show, of attack, were remanded.

WORSHIP-STREET.—Two persons, of very gentle-
manlike appearance, named Richard Ball, father and
son, who were described as mercantile clerks, were
charged with riotous conduct in the streets, and assault-
ing the police in the execution of their duty. It had
required five constables to convey them to the station.
The elder defendant said that in consequence of the
density of the fog, he bad been induced to indulge in
wine to rather an imprudent extent, but he trusted that
the magistrate would take a lenient view of the case., as
he had occupied a highly respectable position in the City
for nearly forty years, and had never before misconduoted
himself.

Mr. Hammill said, that so far from furnishing an ex-
cuse for such disgraceful conduct, he considered that the
respectable station which they held in society was rather
an aggravation of the offence, and he should therefore
sentence the older defendant to fourteen days' imprison-
ment, without the imposition of a fine ' • but with regard
to the other, as he had evidently acted under the perni-
cious influence of his father, he should order him to pay
two separate penalties of 40s. for assaulting the police,
or be committed, in default, for one month to the House
of Correction.

WESTMINSTER.—John Rogers was charged with
illusing his wife, who bore undeniable proofs of the
brutal illtreatment she had received.
Margaret Rogers, the wife, who evinced throughout a
remarkable desire to screen the defendant, stated that
between two and three that afternoon, he came home
drunk and asked for money. She replied that she had
none, upon which he knocked her down and kicked her,
and then threw the dinner which she had prepared into
the street.

Mr. Simons, Inspector of the 13 division—Did not he
thrust his hand down your throat, and hurt you vi:ry
much ?

Complainant—Yes ; but I only want him held to k eep
the peace.
_ _

Mr. Simons—She has got marks on her arm wheria be
has cut her with a knife.

The woman's arm being bared, presented the marks
alluded to, there being one more severe than the rest.
Complainant reluctantly admitted that he had been in
habit of beating her in the most cruel manner for a great
length of time.

kr. Simons said that from his knowledge of the de-
fendant and his habits, he should not be at all surpised
to find him placed at that bar for murder or man-
'laughter.

Defendant, who had conducted himself so badly by
repeated interruptions that it had been found necessary
to remove him from the court while part of the case was
going on, did not deny the charge, but he entered into
a rambling story about other matters concerning his
wife, which she denied.
Mr. Broderip observed that he should commit the de-
fendant for six months to hard labour in the House of
Correction, and further require him at the el; piration of
that time to find bail for his good behaviour, for if that
were not done the end would be, from the st 4 ,tement he
had heard from the inspector and the mark 53 upon the
peer woman, that the defendant would probli'lly end his
career upon a scaffold.