The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-15 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

Alfred Bate Richards, a member of the Inner Temple,
surrendered upon his bail, to take his trial on an in.
dictment charging him with having assaulted Charles
James Berridge Aldis, a surgeon, residing at No. 46,
Chester-square, Pimlico.
It appeared hat the defendant's mother, who lodged
with the complainant, told the defendant that she had
been intuited by Dr. Aldis; and as Dr. Aldis refused to
apologise, the defendant struck him.
Defendant pleaded Guilty, and was sentenced to pay a,
fine of 101. to the Queen.
Frederick Fenton, Mary Batteram, William Gallich,
and Mary Gallick, his wile, were indicted for assaulting
Mary Nutt'Aihford, on the 25th of lasi November, in
the parish of Hackney.

Mr. Ballantine appeared for the prosecution, and
Messrs. Bodkin and Clarkson were for the defence.

The Learned COUNSEL, in stating the case for the
prosecution' said that the complainant had been for some
years separated from her husband, who was a man of
eccentric character, and who lived with the defendant
Battlrani, by whom he had several children. He died
in November, and on complainant proceeding to his
residence to inquire into the circumstances of his death,
she was seized by defendants, detained all night, insulted,

ill-used, and beaten.
On her crose-examination by Mr. CLARKSON, she
stated that previous to the separation of herself and her
husband, the defendant, Mary Batteram, had resided
with them as cook, and during that time an improper in-
timacy arose between her and Mr. Ashford, the result
of which was the birth of a child, which she (witness)
caused Batteram to take to the Foundling Hospital,
where it was admitted in consequence of a letter pro-
cured by the witness. Mr. Ashford had made a will,
to which Mr. Couch, the solicitor for the defendant, had
been appointed executor, and she believed that a legacy
had been left to Mary Batteram.
The defence was, that Fenton had been only the agent
of Mr. Couch as the executor of Mr. Ashford, and had a
right to expel the complainant from the premises.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE, in summing up, said the de-
fendants, although justified in expelling an intruder,
were not justified in making him a prisoner. There was
one fact which came out during the trial of this case,
and that was the scandalous and gross perversion from
the original intentions of the donors of a most important
charity, he meant the Foundling Hospital. Here was the
child of a man of large fortune, living in most disgraceful
concubinage with the mother of that child, and eventually
at his death alienating his property by will—the mother
appearing at the bar of this 'court dressed in a style of
fashion, which showed her to be no object of charity
at all events—and it appearing, according to the evidence,
that the father of the child had left ample property
after him. Such a❑ application of charity like the
Foundling Hospital was most disgraceful, and he trusted
that the managing committee would shut their eyes no
longer to a system by which such a gross abuse was
permitted.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against all the
prisoners, and sentence was deferred to the next bail
day, their existing recognisances being enlarged to that
time.