The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-24 00:00:00

REGINA, ON THE PROSECUTION OF V. ---.

In this case (the names of the parties not transpiring) Mr.
BODKIN made an application that the time for admitting the
defendant to bail, which had been fixed for that day, should
be enlarged, that the prosecutor should be enabled to contra-
dict the statements of the defendant in the affidavit which de-
fendant had filed, to obtain bail, and which statements the pro-
secutor affirmed he could satisfactorily refute.
Mr. CLARKSON, for the defendant (who, with his bail, ap-
peared in Court), resisted the application, contending that it
would be most unjust to the defendant to put to the delay
and expense of again proceeding and bringing up bail, when
his affidavit might have been answered by the prosecutor be-
fore. Two bills had been found against the defendant for
felony (in embezzling his master's property ) ; but on the affi-
davit of one person only with prosecutor; and these bills had
not been filed, until the defendant had brought two actions
against the present prosecutor, one for arrears of wages, and
another for slander.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said the case should be adjourned
till Thursday.

• REGINA V. BRADLEY.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not be issued against Mr.
Bradley, an attorney of Richmond ( Yorkshire). The appli-
cation was made on the part of Mr. Crofts, the Mayor of
Richmond, under these circumstances. The Mayor presided
at a public meeting, in pursuance of a communication from
the Poor-Law ommissioners respecting the valuation
of the rateable prop( rty in the parish, at which meet-
ing a committee was appointed to arrange that valuation.
The Mayor was Chairman of that Committee; and Mr. Brad.
ley understanding that in this capacity the Mayor had ad-
dressed a letter to the Poor-law Guardians, stating that a
protest against the Committee had been carried aVout the
town for signatures by Mr. Bradley, as the son, and brother
of the Messrs. Bradley, surveyors, who expected, but for this
Committee, to have this valuation themselves. A correspon-,
dence ensued between the parties, in whiela Mr. Bradley wrote
some strong expressions, intended (as the Mayor in his affi
davit stated) to provoke him (the Mayor), to scn.4 him a
challenge.

Mr. justice WILLIAMS was of opinion that no danger to the
pnblic was to be apprehended, and that there was therefore no
necessity for this summary proceeding.—Rule refused.

COURT
-RT OF t.::NCIs'—(THIS DAY.)
The Court met Ma morninm after the Easter vacation; 4%
adjudicate upon several cases wherein very heavy frauds have
been committed upon the revenue.
Richard Matthews; of 7t YiVaia liowi 4bomlita, ap-

warcd to answer an informat'on, on behal tf the Crown, for
having upon his premises, which were an uucntercd glass ma-
nufactory, an immense quantity of glass, which had never
paid duty.
It appeared by the evidence of Garey and Stories, Ex-
eise-offieerr, supported by that of Mr. Golding Bird, the
Examiner-General Surveyor of Excise, that from private in-
formation received .it the chief office of Excise, and knowing
that upon a former occasion he had been convicted of frauds
upon the revenue, they went to the defendant's house for the
purpose of searching it, and brought away an immense (Pan'
tity of scent, bear's-gre2se, and other bottles. The defend.,
ant did not attempt to offer any defence, and the CommUsiala
ers ordered the Whole of the property seized to be confiseateas
and in addition a penalty of 101. to be levied upon the de-
fendant.
Another illicit glass.manufacturer, residing in Whiteehapol-
road, named Whitebread, who, it appeared, had imposed upon
the revenue to a vast extent, was also mulct in a penalty of
251., besides having the whole of his goods seized and forfeited.

ADULTERATION OF SPIRITS

Mr. John flendtr.soo, of "The Shades," Martin's-lane%
City, was proceeded against for an excess found on the balance
of his stock, by Pitcairne and IVlecharn, his surveying officers.
It appeared that the defendant's was a house doing an excessive
business, and upon the officers balancing his stock found alt
incroaso of eighteen gallons in ninety of rum, which after
strong opposition on the part of the defendant, the Commis-
sioners ordered to be condemned, and told the defendar.r that
upon this occasion, it being his first offence, they slnould not
visit him with a penalty.
A quantity of rum and brandy, which had been seized by
Mr. Bullen and Mr. Austin, very active officers, from a Mt'
Bushell, of the Carpenters' Arms, Howland-street, Fitzr°Y-
square ; Francis Wood, Harrison's Arms, St. Pancras ; John
Chipps, Queen's Head, Knightsbridge; George Greenlar".
King'e Head, Knightsbridge; and several "
also ordered to be confiscated to " -
as much as thirty peer --

Crown,
. cent. under proof. --so-meeuo onfcai t su,enr:

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)

F. 2lioss, a foreigner, was brought up by Kirkman,
constable of the F division, charged with stealing a pair
0'
trousers, and a quantity of tools, the property of George
Voight, a pianoforte maker, Clarence.place, Pentonville.
It appeared from the statement of the complainant, that the
prisoner was in great distress when he gave him employine°4
and having placed the greatest confidence in him, no suspicion
of dishonesty was attached to him, until a quantity of pawn*
brokers' duplicates for the tools belonging to the workshoP
were found in Lis possession. Having declined making all
defence he was ordered to be remanded for a week.
Amelia Brown, an incorrigible virago, was charged by Mr'
Robert Clark, straw-bonnet manufacturer, 6, Drury-lane,
and
stated that last evening the prisoner came into his shop, f
after selecting a valuable Leghorn bonnet, asked,ie price °
it. The complainant's daughter turned to her mother for th
required information, and the prisoner insta':itly disappeared'
taking the article with her. The cornreliainant went in et
suit, and as the policeman was conviziing her to the statl°rl'
she snatched the bonnet from 'nim, and tore it to pieces.
When placed at the bar she refused, in the most audacious
manner, to hear the charge, declaring she would repeat lie
offence when an opportunity would offer. The Magistra,,,
ordered her to prison for two months, and, laying hold of t"
bar, she stamped and swore that she would not submit to my_
such punishment. She was at length removed by three of te:
officers, and handcuffed in the cell, to prevent her doing her
self any injury.