The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-25 00:00:00

TRICE OF

REMOVAL OF CONVICTS.

The convicts who were sentenced to expatriation have
been removed from Newgate to the hulks at Woolwich
and Chatham, preparatory to their transportation to the
Colonies, pursuant to their respective sentences.
The following statement contains a comparative state-
ment of the respective ages of the prisoners committed for
trial at the present old Bailey Sessions
Above 10 years of age, and under 20 .. B7

- 20
- 30 4O 27
- 40 50 24
- 50 60 7
- 60 70

Total 224

KENSINGTON PETTYSESSIONS.

DECISION UNDER THE NEW POOR LAW.—Yesterday
Mr. Samuel Pierson, an oil and colourman, residing in the
Broad-street, Hammersmith, appeared before' Messrs. CORD
and BARLOW, and Sir JAMES M`GREGOR, Bart., the sitting
Magistrates, on a summons, under the 56th section of the
new Poor Law, obtained against him by the parish officers
of Hammersmith, for refusing to pay certain sums of money
advanced by them to Mrs. Maria Pierson, the defendant's
wife.

It appeared that Mrs. Pierson was married to the de-
fendant in the year 1811, at Letchingham, in Norfolk.
About two years afterwards he deserted her (leaving her
with one child a twelvemonth old), and she heard nothing of
him for fourteen or fifteen years. At the expiration of that
period Mrs. Pierson accidentally ascertained her husband
was living in good circumstances at Hammersmith, when she
applied to him for a maintenance, having been com-
pelled to give up a good straw-bonnet business, by
which she had supported herself and son, on account of
her eyes. He, however, denied that she was his wife,
declaring he had never been married. She then ap.
plied to the parish officers of Hammersmith, who brought
the case before the magistrates at Hammersmith, when,
after a lengthened argument, the defendant consented to
allow her three shillings per week, though still denying the
marriage. After payinc, it for five years he suddenly stop-
ped the allowance, when Mrs. Pierson was passed in the
regular manner from Letchingham to Hammersmith. The
case was then again brought before the Magistrates, when
a decision was given against Mr. Pierson. Three years
since the matter was again brought before the Magistrates.,
when an order was made by consent, for the allowance pre.
viously agreed to, three shillings per weak. On the case
being called on,

Mr. Salter, the assistant overseer of liammersmitb, in-
quired of Mr. Wooler, who attended for the defendant, if
he admitted the marriage.
Mr. Wooler—l have nothing to admit. I stand on the
orders for three shillings per week, madb by consent three
years since. The money has been paid regularly to Mi;s2
Pierson's son, although I believe the order was not a valid
one, it being signed by only one magistrate.
Mr. Salter then went through the whole circumstances
of the case as detailed above, and said he had at the time
of the last order being made, stated to Mrs. Pierson that
it must not be considered as a final order ; for should Mrs,
Pierson, from illness or any other untoward eircurmitanee,
require an increased allowance, he should apply for its being
increased. Since April last Mni, Pierson bad laboured
under great indisposition% tknd latterly been afflicted with
paralysis, on which account she bad applied to him as as-
sistant overseer fllr assistance, her allowance being insuffi-
cient for her support. On the ease being brought before
the Select Vestry they ordered her half-a-crown per week,
which had been paid, her for the last five weeks. He then
wishing to arrange the matter amicably, spoke to Mr. Pier-
son the subject, but lie refused to increase the allowance.
He shortly afterwards again applied to the defendant, say,
ing that, in the present helpless condition of his wife, ss. lid,
per week could not be too much for her support, but he re-
fused to agree to anything, sayings " the parish might as
well ask ten shillings per weel:, and so ge an esd infinitum."
During the last five weeks the' pariah had advanced Mrs.
Pierson 12s. 6d., and he therefore applied for an order
on the defendant, far the repayment of the money. He
did so under the Now Poor Law Act, the 56th section
of which authorises relief to be given to a wife, and enacts
that such relief so given shall be considered " as given to
the husband of such wife." The 58th section declares,
that " any relief so given, or • the cost price thereof,
shall be considered as given by way of loan to the husband,
whether he enter into an engagement to repay the same or
not," and the 99th section enacts that any person disobey_
ing an order made under the provisions of that sub-
jects themselves, upon conviction before two
the sale of their goods by distress for the. same with costs;
also to be detained in custody justices, to
niently be made to the' wt.....rant
it 1.1 a return
distress, canand ewhere-
no sufficient distress can be had; then to be committed
to the House of Correction for any term not exceeding
three moths,

The Bench ordered the defendant to pay the money, and
said they were prepared to sign an order for the increased
allowance to Mrs. Pierson, whenever the select vestry
called upon them to do so.
Mr. Wooler declared, that when the formal order was
served upon his client he would appeal to the Quarter
Sessions.

The above decision, which is the first of the kind, is of
great importance, as it establishes the right of parish offi-
cers to give relief to a wife or children in urgent cases, not-
withstanding they may be ikl the receipt of an allowance
under the old law, And proves the liability of the husband
or fAthor refUnd the same.

SURREY SESSIONS::NEWINGTON.

The calendar contains the names of 48 prisoners for trial
for felony, besides several for misdemeanors, the sessions
having been adjourned over from Kingston on Saturday to
this Court.
John Stead, late Surveyor of the Greenwich Railroad,
was indicted for committing an assault on George Beard,
book-keeper in the same Company.
Mr. George Beard examined—ls book-keeper to the
Greenwich Railroad, and the defendant was formerly sur-
veyor in a() Mille Company, but for some time past had
not AN that situation. On Friday, the Bth of July,
prosecutor was on duty in the hooking-office of the rail-
road issuing tickets, when the defendant walked up, and
in a cohtemptuoue monoer said, " there you are old
fellow, again," Prosecutor desired him to go away, say-
ing that he did not not want to have any conversation
with hint, upon which he exclaimed that he would not
go for such a puppy, 'and defied him to come out of
the toll office. Prosecutor did leave the office, and
went out on the footway of the railroad, when the defendant
began to abuse him and his employers (the Directors),
telling him that he would fight any two of them. Prosecutor
having expressed his intention of again going to Mr. Train,
ict
of Union-ball, and complaining of his conduct, the prhozoor
got into a violent rage, shook his fist iniirosecAktg;s, face,
and ultimately spat in hi§ ft O
you deserve it," T 4 mec..uto,i' added, that he gave th.:
defendnnts no Provocation for such conduct, although lin hie
diti(;a to having been assay4ed in the romper described, the
defendant applied the most offensive epithets to him.
to the defendant,
Mr. CRAsieltts--,--. Did you not say
if YOU are hiff a blackguard `L'.Where, take that,
e`o 11,
as Dan Connell r"---Pro-