The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-26 00:00:00

RAILWAY TRAFFIC RETURN.

SCOTTISH CENTRAL RAILWAY.—Traffio return for the
week ending Aug. 21, 1853 £3,707 15 2i
Corresponding week last year 3,674 9 9i

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BO W-STREET. —EMBEZZLEMENT. - William Stree-
ton Sturges, aged 28, confidential clerk and cashier to
Mr. C. J. Stewart, theological bookseller, of King Wil-
liam-street, Strand, was charged with embezzling monies
to the amount of 6001. received on account of his em-
ployer.
The prosecutor stated that the prisoner had been in
his service upwards of seven years, and about three
weeks ago made a confession that he had appropriated
monies to a large extent during the last three or four
years. He told witness that he had been robbing him
by intercepting and appropriating the accounts, and
consented to go through the ledger, and make out a list
of the various sums which he had embezzled. This was
done in the presence of witness, and the prisoner signed
the list.
Remanded for a week.

SOUTHWARK.—ATTEMPT TO STRANGLE A WIFE.
—Just as Mr. Combe was about to quit the bench, Mr.
Charles Stephen Moore, the keeper of the City of London
beer-shop, in the Borough-road, was brought before him
by Guest, 62 L, one of the warrant officers, charged
with attempting to strangle his wife, Mary Moore.
The complainant, a well-dressed and rather good-look-
ing, middle-aged female, stated that she had been married
to her husband 20 years, but latterly he had become an
habitual drunkard, and was frequently in the habit of
ill-using her. On the previous night, while she was in
bed, he came into the room and seized her by the throat,
with the apparent intention of strangling her, but fortu-
nately her two sons and a lodger rushed to her assist-
ance and prevented him. He had by his dissolute
habits nearly ruined them, and she was positive that
unless he was restrained by the law he would murder
her.

The prisoner, whose features were very much de-
formed, said that it was all false what his wife had
stated. He never raised a hand to her in his life.
He had been twenty years married, had four sons, and
had always been kind to all.
Mr. Hill, who attended for the wife, said the prisoner
had more than once attempted to commit suicide. One
time he shot himself and the ball carried away a por-
tion of his face and jaw, which was the cause of the de-
formity, and the other time he hung himself, but was
cut down just in time to save his life. He had also
been confined for two years in a lunatic asylum.
Mr. Combe—Do you mean to say he is insane now ?
Mr. Hill said he was perfectly sane when he ill used
his wife, and that was so frequent that she was compelled
to come for protection. _ _

The prisoner declared that this was a trick to get
him out of the way, concocted by his wife and a very
bad man. lie never ill-used his wife at all.

Mr. Combe said she had sworn to it, and he was
bound to protect her. He should therefore call upon
him to find two sureties to keep the peace in 201. each,
and in default he must be committed to prison.
The sureties not being forthcoming, he was removed
in the van to Horsemonger-lane Gaol.
CASE OF MR. AND MRS. HABESWELL—Yesterday,
Mrs. Fances Eellen Torckler, a middle-aged woman, of
respectable appearance, who was described as the widow
of an officer in the army, but who refused to give her
address, and who had been recognised by Horsford, the
Mendicity officer, as a practised begging-letter writer,
and Jane, her daughter, were brought up before the
Hon. G. C. Norton, at Lambeth Police-court, on a
charge of unlawfully obtaining possession of and detain-
ing two children belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Hakeswell.
Mr. Carrow, a solicitor, appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr. Pierce, the barrister, for the accused party.
From the evidence taken on the present and former
examinations, it appeared that Mrs. Hakeswell, whose
extraordinary domestic differences with her husband
have brought her through almost every court in Lon-
don, from the Court of Chancery down to the police
courts, is at present an inmate of the Queen's Bench
Prison, for contempt in not producing two of her
children, the one eight and the other four years of age,
before one of the Masters in Chancery, preparatory to
an order being made for their proper custody and main-
tenance. Some time ago the children in question had
been placed in the care of a Mrs. Otley, by the consent,
it was said, of Mrs. Hakeswell and Mrs. Rowe, the wife
of the chaplain of Horsemonger-lane Gaol, who is sister
to Mr. Hakeswell, and also with the approbation of Mr.
Hakeswell himself ; and with this lady they remained
until Monday, the 15th inst., when, from what she
heard, she removed them to the house of a Mrs. Shep-
heard, in Brook-street, Lambeth. After so removing
them, Mrs. Otley, proceeded to the Queen's Bench Prison,
and on informing Mrs. Hakeswell of what she had done,
the latter flew into a desperate passion, abused her, and
locked her up in her room, while she sent a policeman
belonging to the M division of police and the elder pri-
soner to take away the children. Finding that his wife
had thus got possession of the children, Mr. Hakeswell
challenged Mrs. Torckler with unlawful' detaining them,
upon which she at first promised to disclose where they
were and deliver them up, provided no proceedings
were taken against her, but she ultimately refused to
say where. In consequence she was given into custody
and remanded until yesterday, when her daughter was
also given into custody. When the case was about to
be called on, yesterday, Mr. Carrow begged his
worship would postpone its hearing for an hour,
stating that from information that had reached
him, he had some reason to hope that the children
would be found. The case was put off, and when
called on, Mr. Carrow informed Mr. Norton, that the
missing children had just been discovered at a wretched
apartment near the Waterloo-road, where they had been
placed by the younger prisoner, in the most distressed
and forlorn condition. Yet it was the intention of his
client to press the charge against the prisoners. The
learned gentleman then called Mrs. Otley, who deposed
to the particulars as before stated as related to the elder
prisoner. Mr. Carrow said he was also prepared with
evidence to prove that the younger prisoner had, not-
withstanding her mother was at the time under remand
for the offence of illegally detaining the children, re-
moved them from place to place, and ultimately to the
wretched plane they were found in. Mr. Pierce
argued, that as no order had been made for
the legal possessior of the children, and as Mrs.
Hakeswell was in the Queen's Prison merely for
contempt in not producing the two children before the
Master in Chancery, and not for keeping them away
from their father, and finally, as no malice—which was
dnieentpruenadeeeurtitehne
eaecutldofhPe Parliament—
had Imal anadiencbteeasinnaerdyp.r—loingredient
re
dee'. Carrow said that, by the common law
vested
intention
ntheef
fatherofthe l. and
and, twheithporseseepsesicotntoef cthheildmreanliousy stei
was
the pri'soners, he considered that abundantly shown by
the evidence. Besides, his client had no security that
the moment Mrs. Hakeswell got discharged from prison
she would not again possess herself of the children,
—Mr. Norton had very considerable doubts whether
anything could be made of the case, particularly, as had
been well put in by the learned gentleman Mr. Pierce,
there was no proof of malice, or, at least, not sufficient
shown ; and under all the circumstances he did not
think that any conviction would follow a commitment.
Mr. Hakeswell had obtained the most desirable object,
and that was the possession of the poor children ; and
when Mrs. Hakeswell went before the court to obtain
her discharge her husband would have an opportunity of
appearing and having a proper order made, and one
which, in all probability, would prevent her from inter-
fering with them.
The prisoners were then discharged.