The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1836.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.

suffer.

Court, said the notices of objections were not posted on the
church doors within the time prescribed by the Act.
Mr. MYLNE—How was that ? How de you account for
the omission ? You are probably aware that overseers sub-
ject themselves to heavy penalties in not strictly adhering to
the terms of the Reform Act.

The Overseer said he was aware of that ; at the same
time he was bound to admit that the notices were regularly
served upon bim in proper time.
Mr. MYLNE—Then how do you account for the irregu-
larity ?
Overseer—l gave the notices to Mr. Williams, the other
overseer, and as he is present probably he can account for it.
Mr. Williams—The fact is, Sir, that when I received
the notices, I put them into a drawer, and being suddenly
called out of town, I forgot them.
Mr. MYLNE—Under these circumstances I cannot go
into the objections : they must be overruled.
Mr. Rowcroft—Our notices were regularly served, and
therefore if the Court refuses to entertain them from any
neglect of the overseer, it places that officer in an awkward
situation : he is liable to be sued for heavy penalties.
Mr. Williams submitted whether or not notices of objec-

tions ought not to be served on all the overseers of a pa-
rish. In some of the city parishes there were four over-
seers, and if one omitted the duty, the othQrs ought not to

Mr. Rowcroft—You had better, Sir, at once pay a penalty
of 1001., for I cannot tell which we shall proceed against—
most assuredly it will be the best man.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Williams—lf I am in office another year, I will un-
derstand the Act better. I decline your offer of paying

100/.—(Laughter.)
After some further observations, Mr. MYLNE said he
was clearly of opinion he had no authority to go into the
objections, as it was admitted the provisions of the Act had
not been complied with. Tho objected votes were there-
fore ordered to remain on the registry.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

JURISDICTION OF THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL ACT.

On their Lordships taking their seats,
Mr. ADOLPHUS applied to the Court to issue a habeas
to the Sheriff of Middlesex, directing him to bring up the
body of a person of th• name of Morgan, against whom
the Grand Jury had found a true bill for perjury, on pur-
pose that the defendant might be put upon his trial.
Mr. Justice GASELEE expressed his doubts as to whether
the Judges of a Civil Court could issue a habeas out of their
own Courts to bring up a person at present in custody, for
the purpose of being tried on a criminal charge.
Mr. CLARKSON thought that, under the 16th section of
the Act appointing the Central Criminal Court, the Judges
who attended the Court possessed the power.
Mr. BODKIN, for the prosecution, opposed the application.
Mr. Justice GASELEE was of opinion that neither the
Judges of the Common Pleas or the Exchequer had the
jurisdiction, as stated by Mr. Clarkson.
Messrs. ADOLPHUS and CLARKSON observed that Mor-
gan was most anxious to get out of the charge of perjury.
Mr. Justice GASELEE found the accused was arrested
for the sum of 7001., and for the safe custody of the pri-
soner he was liable. This fact alone would induce him to
suggest the postponement of the application.
After some further conversation, it was agreed by the
Counsel that the case should be moved, by a writ of cer-
tiorari, into the Court of King's Bench.
The Court then proceeded to try prisoners, but none of
the cases possessed features of novelty or interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Mr. Lavine, the solicitor to Messrs. Foster and Co., the
great shipowners, yesterday appeared upon the part of the
firm to answer the complaint of Pedro Deloseggelas, a
native of Manilla.

Pedro Deloseggelas (as interpreted by R. Willis) was
asked at Manilla to go on board the Jane Eliza, a South
Sea whaler, bound for England. He consented, and em-
barked, but did not know the day, and he arrived in Lon-
don. There was an agreement between the captain of the
vessel and the captain of the port that the complainant
should be sent back to Manilla, there being no British
Consul at that place, but the paper on which the agree-
ment was written was left there, and the contract was not
performed. The complainant also said that the money to
which he was entitled was paid by the agents of Messrs.
Foster to a beer-shopman who occasionally gave him a few
shillings, and at last in a few days brought him in debt to
the amount of 121. 9s. 7d. for seven days' eating and drink-
ing, the latter having consisted principally of ginger beer.
—( Laughter.) The complainant was wholly ignorant of
the English language, and had the appearance of a person
who was just dragged out of barbarism.
Mr. Lavine stated that Messrs. Foster and Co. had, ac-
cording to the approved custom, always employed their
agents to pay off the seamen who worked in their ships, and
that the complainant had been dealt with in the usual way.
Mr. Levy, of the house of Levy and Co., of Aldgate,
had paid the complainant his wages on the Ist of June by a
check, which was produced.
The owner of the eating-house, No. 29, Ratcliffe-highway,
who acted with the greatest humanity in not only feeding
the poor foreigner for four months, but in prosecuting the
charge of complaint in the most resolute way, stated that
the poor ignorant creature had become the victim of a vaga-
bond who, in seven days, charged him 121.95. 7d., and that
if the shipowners did not consent to assist him the unfor-
tunate man must perish.
The LORD MAYOR said that the poor foreigner should
not perish, at any rate. He did not mean, by any means,
to cast any imputation upon Messrs. Foster and Co., but lie
was obliged to say that poor foreigners were brought to this
country, and frequently thrown upon the public, by those
whom their labours helped greatly to enrich. He (the
Lord Mayor) should certainly make application to the
Government to alter the present regulations.
Here the case ended. The poor foreigner went away
with the benevolent person, who has, by supporting him,
very much inconvenienced himself, according to the state-
ment made to the Lord Mayor.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
A fashionably-dressed person, who gave the assumed
name of John Smith, was yesterday charged before Mr.
DYER and Mr. CONANT, with having committed the fol-
lowing gross outrage :
Mrs. Prescott, a married woman, living at No. 9, Char-
lotte-street, who said that she held a situation in the House
of Lords, had called at the Duke of Sutherland's man-
sion in King-street to see some of the servants, in company
with a young girl named Hannah Parkinson. About eleven
o'clock she was taking leave of the porter at the door when
the defendant and four other gentlemen came by, and, in
passing, addressed some observation to her, which she did
not notice. Having quitted the house she went towards
the place where Hannah Parkinson was waiting for her,
and, on reaching the spot, she saw that the girl
i was sur-
rounded by the gentlemen, and exposed to gross indecency.
She went to her assistance, upon which the defendant
seized her, forced her against the railings, and conducted
himself with scandalous indecency. She got away, but the
defendant again seized her, and repeated the shameful at-
tack. She called out, if he was a gentleman he ought not
to use a decent female in such a manner, and that if she
could find a policeman she would give him in charge. The
defendant replied by calling her a -- —, and threatened
to knock her down. A policeman, however, who witnessed
the transaction, came up, and complainant gave the person
who had insulted her in charge. The complainant added,
that she could refer to many persons who would speak to her
respectability, and that she was the mother of four children.
Policeman Plume, C 12, was standing opposite at the
time the assault took place, and saw and heard the proceed-
ings of the gentlemen, and on being applied to he took the
defendant into custody.
Hannah Parkinson was waiting for Mrs. Prescott, when
she was suddenly surrounded by four gentlemen, who seized
her, threw her on the pavement, and behaved in a more in-
famous way to her than even to Mrs. Prescott. One of
the persons who had taken the most active share in this
outrage was then sitting in the office.
Mr. DYER directed the person alluded to to take his
station by the other defendant, for the purpose of answering
the complaint.
Charles Holies, 12, Dover-street, was a stranger to all
parties. About eleven o'clock the overnight he was pass-
ing through St. James's-square, when he saw the youngest
complainant, Hannah Parkinson, lying on the pavement,
and four gentlemen about her, assaulting her very inde-
cently. Witness likewise saw Mrs. Prescott in the hands
of another gentleman, who was acting indecently towards
her. The females were crying out. Witness saw Mrs.
Prescott get away, but was attacked a second time, and
again indecently treated.
Mr. DYER asked the first defendant what he had to
say ; but on perceiving that he was laughing at some-
thing which had passed between the other defendant and
himself, said that he was bound to tell him that he did not
know who he was nor care, but the present was certainly
not a laughing matter.
Inspector Deering said the name of Smith he had good
reason to believe was not that defendant's real name.

No inquiry, however, was made as to the truth of the
statement, and Smith proceeded to say in defence, that he
was going along King-street with some friends, and, mistak-
ing the females for women who wished to entice him to en-
ter their company, he certainly put his arm round the waist
of one of them. Ho denied, however, having acted as de-
scribed ; but he certainly did apply some epithets to her,
believing her to be a different sort of character.
The second defendant, who gave his name William Carr
(also believed to be fictitious), denied that he bad done as
described by Hannah Parkinson.
The girl in the most positive manner asserti:d that he

(Carr) was the first who had laid holrof her, and who had
acted with the utmost indecency.
To disprove this Carr called a gentleman sitting in the
office, who, on coming forward, was immediately recognised
both by the girl and by Mrs. Prescott, as one of the indivi-
duals concerned in the outrage.
Carr declared that he was not the man who touched the
young woman. The gentleman who had laid hold of her
was not in attendance.

Mr. DYER said it was out of no delicacy to the defendants
that the bench had come to the determination of treating
the case in a summary way ; it was out of regard to the
feelings of decent females, who would have to give similar
evidence in a public Court, that such a course had been
adopted. Nothing was so clear as that modest females were
to be protected in the public streets from insult and vio-
lence ; and with respect to the insinuation that allurement
had been used in the first instance, the whole tenour of the
evidence went to disprove such a supposition.
The defendants were then fined .5/. each. One of them
pulled out a purse containing several banknotes, and paid
the money.
From the dress and appearance of the defendants it was
clear they moved in a superior station. They have, how-
ever, escaped public notice for the present.