The Sun.
London, England, 1849-10-20 00:00:00

WORSHIP-STREET.

Frederick Elliot, a machine printer, in the service
of Mr. George Stiff, a printer and publisher in the
Strand, was charged with robbing his employer to a
considerable extent.
He was fully committed to Newgate for trial.
IVESTMINSTEII.
Richard Fidler; a police-constable of the D division,
and William Wheeler, a man in the employment of
Mr:Francis, a timber-merchant at Paddington, were
placed at the bar before Mr. Broderip, the former
charged with stealing a chectue for 351., a Si. note,
four sovereigns, and some silver, and the latter with
feloniously receiving the cheque.
The circumstances of the case are briefly these :
On Thursday night last Mr. W. Watson, of Putney,
solicitor, was thrown from his horse in the West-
bourne Park-road, Bayswater, and having received
some severe injuries, was conveyed to St. George's
Hospital, his watch, money, and other valuables upon
his person having fur their safety been taken charge
of by Mr. Collard, inspector of the Great Western
Railway, who resides near the spot where the acci-
dent happened. On the following day the prisoner
Fidler, a police-constable on duty, who had been
directed to repair to the gentleman's residence and
communicate the circumstance of the accident, con-
trary to the directions of Mr. Wiggins, his inspector,
went with James Jebb, the gentleman's groom, to
Mr. Collard's, received the money and valuables, and
after having drunk at various places, repaired to
the White Horse Inn at Knightsbridge, where he
handed the property over, to the groom in the presence
of Mr. Fell, the landlord, having moreover previously
refused to give it to Mr, Watson .at the hospital, on
the alleged ground of his not being in a competent
condition to receive it. Shortly after the valuables
had been turned over as described, Mr. -Fell very
kindly drawing a receipt out for them, a gentleman
who was in the parlour went to Mr. Fell at the bar,
and informed him that he had observed something on
the part of Fidler towards the groom, that induced
him to suspect something dishonest was going on.
Mr. Fell went towards the parlour, but observed no-
thing to justify his interference, and the parties, who
appeared to be on very good terms, then went out,
mounted two horses which were standing at the door,
and rode away. From this time the groom, owing to
the effects of the liquor be had taken became insen-
sible, and remembered nothing that occurred until
be got hemp, when he discovered the cheque, bank-
note, gold, and silver had disappeared. On the
Monday following Mr. George Juhn Zellar, a gen-
tleman holding a situation in a solicitor's office, met
the prisoner Wheeler at Paddington, when the latter,
who knew him, showed him the cheque and asked him
what he had better do with it. Mr. Zellar remarked
that it might be a forgery, upon which Wheeler re-
plied, he did not think it was, adding that it was not
his, but belonged to a friend of his, a policeman, who
found it after he had been taking a gentleman to St.
George's Hospital, in consequence of his having been
thrown from his horse and much injured. Mr. Zellar
recommended him to endeavour to find out the gen-
tleman in whose name it was drawn, and Wheeler
then left. It appeared that Mr. Zellar very properly
instituted some inquiries, and having ascertained to
whom the cheque belonged, communicated the cir-
cumstance to the owner and to the police, and upon
Wheeler being told that he must accompany a police-
man to the station he said, without any mention of
the cheque having been previously made, that he
picked it up near the Clock-house, at Knightsbridge,
where he saw it blowing about.. At the station house
he admitted to Mr. Hannart, one of the inspectors of
the D division, that he was on terms of intimacy
with Fidler, who had, previously to joining the police,
worked in the same yard as he -did. Wheeler alleged
he picked up the cheque at twelve o'clock on the
Friday, when Fidler, who was present at the station,
said it was between twelve and three. Fidler also
declared that he parted with the groom near the
Clock-house at Knightsbridge, and never had any-
thing to drink with him afterwards; but it was
clearly shown by the evidence that he was seen, after
he had left Mr. Fell, outside a public -house door in
the Broinpton road, where he handed the groom, who
was observed to be extremely drunk at the time, a
glass of gin. The account of the time at which the
cheque was alleged to be picked up by Wheeler was
at variance with the evidence of Mr. Fell, who proved
that Fidler and the groom never left his house till
half-past three o'clock.
Fidler declined saying anything in defence, and it
was alleged by a solicitor's clerk, on the part of
Wheeler, that he had been 25 years in his present em-
ployment, had borne an excellent character, had no
guilty knowledge whatever of this transaction, and
had made no concealment of the cheque.
The prisoners were remanded for a week.
THAMES.
Joseph _Freeman, the landlord of the Watermen's
Arms beer-shop, in London-street, Ratcliff, was
brought before Mr. Ingham, charged with cutting
the throat of a little boy named Silvey.
Mary Silvey, a poor woman, who brought her boy
into court in her arms, said that hearing screams of
murder she ran into the street, and was met by a
young man crossing the street, who said the prisoner
had cut her child's throat with a razor. She went
into the prisoner's yard and found her boy with his
neck bleeding, and took him to a doctor's shop, where
the wound was sewn up.
The boy, who was in a weak state from loss of
blood, said he was eight years of age, and (having
been examined as to the nature of an oath) that he
was playing at marbles and went into the prisoner's
yard, on which Mr. Freeman seized him, threw his
head back, and drew a razor across his throat.

Mr. INGUAM, having held the razor shut and open,
asked the witness in which state it was at the time the
prisoner cut his throat ? Witness—lt was open.
Was sure the blade was out of the handle.
The boy was frequently dictated to by his mother
while under examination, and he was transferred from
her arms to a police-constable's, but he did not vary
in his statement. He said there was a little boy and
a girl in the yard when his throat was cut. The
boy's neck was then uncovered, and the strapping on
his neck displayed.
The prisoner, who appeared in a good deal of alarm
and anxiety about the affair, said, he was just on the
point of shaving himself, and went into his yard with
a soap-dish and a closed razor in his hand to obtain
some water, and saw the child playing in the yard.
He intended only to frighten him, and he said, " Go
and play elsewhere. I'll put you in the water•butt
and cut your head off;" and at the same time drew
the closed razor across his throat. He let the boy go
directly, and was driving him out of the yard, when,
to his great horror and astonishment he found his neck
bleeding, and said, " Good God, preserve me ! i have
cut the child's throat." He hastened with him as
quickly as possible to the doctor's, and did all in his
power to stop the bleeding. Ile was extremely sorry
for what had occurred, but he did not intend any
mischief. The prisoner further declared that on the
little boy reaching the station•house he said the razor
was closed when his throat was cut, and called the
policeman who took him into custody, and who con-
firmed his statement.

Mr. INGHAM directed that the surgeon who at-
tended the boy, and any other witnesses who saw
the occurrence, should be sent for; and adjourned
the case.

When the hearing was resumed,
Thomas Silvey, an elderly brother of the child,
said he heard the prisoner say " I'll cut your throat,"
but he did not see the wound inflicted.
Mr. Gill, a medical practitioner, said the wound
was superficial, and only the 16th of an inch deep.
In answer to questions by the magistrate, who held
the razor in different positions open and shut, Mr. Gill
said it was but reasonable to conclude the razor was
in the handle when the wound was inflicted, and that
the prisoner, who held it firmly grasped in his hand,
pressed the edge through the handle. He came to
that conclusion from the slight nature of the wound.
Had the raz z been open the wound would have
doubtlessly been a most serious one; certainly it
would have been deeper.
Mr. INGHAM said he should relieve the prisoner of
the more serious charge of cutting and wounding, for
he believed he did not intend to inflict any serious
injury, but he must say the prisoner had acted in a

most incautious and dangerous manner, and that death
might have been the result of his foolish and reprehen-
sible act Fortunately, the wound was not dangerous,