The Sun.
London, England, 1849-09-18 00:00:00

THE CHILDERS AND HER LATE

COMMANDER.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE VIE:

read the recent article in The Sun on the
then pending court-martial with all but unalloyed
feelings of delight. My only apprehension was, that
the results, owing to the absurd constitution of the
court, might have proved you prophetically false,
Although the prosecutors' punishment has not been
added to his own, I am still disposed to think that
if the prisoner has had enough, they have, after what
wa have seen, something too much. In addition to
their sentence they have yet another yoke to bear,
though not the " Pitman necklace," still heavy
enough to men in their unfortunate circumstances.
Shall a country, whose purse is ever open to cries
of distress from abroad, refuse to lend a helping hand
to officers, cruelly driven from her service, who, in
spite of all that may be said against them, have at
least (and this is no mean achievement) ridded the navy
of a tyrant, and the country of a monster in British
uniform.

The expenses of the court-martial are doubtless
heavy. We cannot better follow up your late article
than by inviting subscriptions to defray them. I
understand they have already commenced in the
country.—Yours,

HOMO.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

Thomas Reynolds, Elizabeth Storey, and Mary
Glennill, were charged with conspiring together to
prefer a charge of assault against Mr. William
Storey, a tailor, residing in Fleet-street, without
foundation.
Mr. Parry, with Mr. Parnell, appeared for the
prosecution; Mr. Clarkson defended Reynolds, and
Storey and Glennill were defended by Mr. Huddle-
stone and Mr. Ballantine.
Mr. PARRY, in opening the case for the prosecution,
stated that Mr. Reynolds, having been formerly in the
employ of Mr. Storey, had every opportunity of know.
ing the temper of Mrs. Storey, with whom he had con-
spired not only to bring forward a false charge but
also to entirely ruin him. The 25th of March was
the day on which the assault was alleged to have been
committed, and Mr. Storey would, on his oath, tell the
jury that he had committed no, such an offence. lie
would call in every person who was in the house at the
time of the assault. It was said to have been committed
in the dining-room, and he would produce a person who
was underneath the room at the time, and would posi-
tively state that no such assault could have been
committed. As regarded the defendant Reynolds,
he would prove that Mrs. Storey was in the constant
habit of attending the shop of Mr. Reynolds, who
carried on business as a tailor, and also lived in
Fleet street; when there she was always closeted
with Reynolds, and was also frequently seen to carry
large bundles with her from her husband's to the
shop of defendant. He would also prove that Rey-
nolds had frequently expressed a malicious feeling
against Mr. Storey, and his determination to harm
him.

The REcoßDErt,after the case had proceeded to some

length, expressed an opinion that the indictment was
not supported by the evidence, and
Mr. PARRY said that he should at once bow to

the opinion thus expressed by the Court, but his in-
structions were peremptory to call all the witnesses.
Some further evidence was then gone into, but the
case for the prosecution was not in any material re-
spect strengthened by it, and the Learned Counsel at
length mid he did not feel that, under the circum-
stances, he should be justified in occupying any more
of the public time.
The jury accordingly, under his Lordship's direc-
tion, returned a verdict of Not guilty.
There were two other indictments against the de-
fendants, arising out of the same transaction, but
Mr. PARRY said that after what had taken place
he should not proceed with them.
Mr. CLARKSON said there was not the slightest
foundation for the charges that had been preferred.
The defendants were then discharged.
Stephen Cummins alias Charles Deer, aged 31,
painter, was indicted for bigamy.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty.
Louisa Webber, the female with whom the cere-
mony of marriage was gone through on the second
occasion, stated, in answer to questions put by the
Court, that she was thirty-three years old, and had
been a widow three years and a half when she became
acquainted with the prisoner. He described himself
to her as a single man with no incumbrance, and they
were married at Hampton on the 30th of July last.
She soon afterwards discovered that the prisoner was
a married man, and that his wife was living. The
prisoner, it appeared, did not derive any property from
the marriage.

The prisoner said that he and his first wife parted
by mutual consent, and he had not seen her for fifteen
months. Before they parted his wife wrote to him
to ask him to give her her liberty.
The REcoarEa—What do you mean by giving
her her liberty ?
Defendant—Why, that we might not live together.
I gave her her liberty as she wished, and she gave
me mine : she told me she was going to be married,
and I gave her leave to do so, and she said I might
do the same. I then married this woman, as I con-
sidered myself a single man.
The RECORDER here handed to the second wife the
following document, which was taken from the pri-
soner, and asked her if she had ever seen it before :