The Sun.
London, England, 1849-09-19 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER.

A number of pig-jobbers, living in the neighbour-
hood of this court, appeared to summonses obtained
against them by direction of the parish authorities of
St. John's, under Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, for
keeping swine within 40 yards of a public thorough-
fare or place.
Mr. James Rogers, the vestry-clerk and solicitor of
St. Margaret's and St. John's, Westminster, attended
to conduct the prosecutions, and Mr. Gilham appeared
on behalf of the defendants.

inspector of nuisances for the Tothill-fields trustees,
Richard Gamble,
It having been clearly proved by
in the case of a man named Taylor, which was first
called on, that there were 35 pigs kept in his yard
within the prohibited distance,
Mr. Gilham complained, that a summons having
been taken out against one of his present clients,
under the Nuisances Removal Act, in which Mr.
Burrell, after a personal inspection of the premises,
dismissed the complaint, it being his opinion that no
nuisance existed, fresh proceedings should have been
taken under another Act of Parliament, against the
same person and others, with a view of removing
the pigs.

Mr. BRODERIP said, that that case was quite dis-
tinct from the present complaint, which was to en-
force the sanitary provisions of an Act of Parliament
prohibiting any person from keeping pigs within 40
yards of any thoroughfare or public place.
Mr. Gilham submitted that pigs had been kept in
the places now complained of for a great many years,
and assured the magistrate that they were in an ex-
tremely clean condition.
Mr. BRODEEIP observed, that they might have been
kept all the years mentioned too long, and said, that
if it could even be shown that pigs were the most
elegant and fascinating animals that ever graced a
neighbourhood, the law declared thit they should not
be kept within a certain distance of a public street or
place. In his opinion, pigs were a great nuisance,
and ought not to be kept in the heart of a crowded
neighbourhood in this great metropolis, and he really
wondered, that in the present state of fearful mor-
tality, any persons, from motives of private gain,
could be so lost to a sense of duty to their neighbours
as to continue to do that which was calculated to
affect the public health.

Mr. Gillian having failed in showing that the pig-
geries were not within the prohibited distance,
Mr. Rogers intimated that in the event of convic-
tion the pigs became forfeited, and added, that under
the local Act of the trust, the defendants incurred a
penalty of 31. per day for keeping pigs anywhere
within its limits.

This case, as well as the othere, was brought to a
close by the somewhat anomalous proceeding of the
defendants undertaking to get rid of the pigs to
" save their bacon."

The summonses were suspended till Saturday, in
order to give the parish an opportunity of pro•
ceeding further,
if the whole of the swine were not
removed.

CLERKENWELL.
George Porter, a mean looking fellow, who was
described in the police-sheet as a whitesmith, was
charged with having violently assaulted and stabbed
Mary Ann Porter, his wife, aged 34, with intent to
do her some grievous bodily harm. The case excited
greatinterest in consequence of a report which was
industriously circulated in the neighbourhood that
the prisoner had murdered his wife, and the court was
crowded to excess.
Prior to the case being entered into Sergeant
Wilks, 43 S, communicated that a coroner's inquest
had been
of cholera, been held
Th
held, and the jury returned a verdict,
"
which was accelerated by acts of
violence."

Mr. H. Popham, surgeon, of No. 9, Tonbridge•
place, New-road, St. Pancras, having been sworn,
deposed that on Wednesday night, the 12th inst., he
saw the deceased, Mrs. Porter, twice in company of
Mr. Escott, another surgeon. She was then labour-
ing under the effects of cholera, and had been recently
confined with a child. Witness saw several bruises
about various parts of her body ; the bruises were
about her head, breast, and shoulder, and a stab or
incised wound was on her arm. It was then healing.
She said it was inflicted by her husband. She was
in an extremely low state. The infant was then
alive; and he considered that the deceased's labour
had been prematurely brought on. The prisoner
was not present at this time. The next evening, at
seven o'clock, witness was sent for, and was informed
that Mrs. Porter was dying. He went to her resi-
dence, No. 3, llertford-place, Somers-town, where
he found her dying and insensible, unable to speak.
The prisoner and the deceased's sister were then pre-
sent. When witness entered the room the prisoner
and the deceased's sister pulled her up on the bed by
the arms, to endeavour to make her contradict reports
that had been circulated in the neighbourhood that
he had ill-treated her. She made no answer.
Prisoner—She did; she said " No." '
Mr. Popham—She decidedly did not make any an-