The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-19 00:00:00

JUNE 19, 1847.

fendant's handwriting. Ido not believe this to be his
handwriting. I saw Mr. Esthall a fortnight ago, and in
court to-day, but not in the King's Arms.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—He
knocked me down ; I have an action against him.
Sir. F. TUEslGEn—Then he certainly knows his
hand.

Charles John Freeday examined—l am a surgeon. I
have attended Mr. Gadsby and his family for some
years. Ile has always been very fond of his children
and his wife.

111 r. Sergeant SHEE then addressed the jury for the
defendant, and said that the entire case IN as supported
by the nursemaid, for he was sure that the evidence of
the maid-of-all-work had bee❑ c3mpletely demolished by
the cross-examination of Mr. Sergeant Wilkins. The
Learned Counsel then commented upon the evidence of
Margaret Davison, the nursemaid, and urged upon the
jury not to pronounce a verdict against the defendant
upon such slight evidence as that.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence,
the jury gave a verdict for the defendant.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, June 18.
BRETIN V. BUNN.

This case, which ;Ipeared—iiiYlie Sun on Wednesday
last, was again brought before Mr. Justice Coleridge on
Tnursday, after the hearing of the summons in " Bunn
v. Lind." The application was on the part of the de-
fendant, for commissions to examine witnesses in Italy
and France, and further, for a postponement of the trial.
The matter was now discussed at some length.
Mr. Lewis appeared as solicitor for the defendant, in
support of the application; and Mr. Ogle attended as
counsel for the plaintiff.
The defendant had made an affidavit, setting forth that
he could not proceed to trial without the evidence of
Mademoiselle Taglioni, M. Adrian, and M. Petipa, and
that they were resident abroad. On the other hand, the
plaintiff made an affidavit, in which he stated that Made-
moiselle Taglioni, who had a residence at Corno, in
Italy, had been announced to appear at her Majesty's
Theatre, and was at the present period fulfilling an
tehtemh e a
presentny
time
application
bTa
che u
sittings.
ikt
,t cnawangads se
s.
hadmhTaa
made
bee e beenetonplaintiff
delay
madeen
-
n
efbaet
further
rregetlengagement
specialomsret
enteredan jttue
stated
trial
yi somecasethat
rGby the defendant, and had now
r
the cause by the defendant, from whom he claimed
nearly 5001. for salary; that he had, being a foreigner,
to pay 2001. into court as costs by way of security ; and
if the trial was postponed, it would entail great hard-
ship and expense on him; and that the witnesses whose
attendance he required were connected with her Ma-
jesty's Theatre and the Italian Opera, Covent-garden,
and as soon as the season was closed, they would Quit
England for some time.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE inquired, in the course of the
case, whether the action could be referred?
Mr. LEWIS thought not, remarking that there were
other engagements which would probably depend on
the present action.
His LORDSHIP made an order for the commissions to
issue, and for a postponement of the trial ; and, on
his suggestion, the 2001. paid into Court by way of se-
curity was directed to be paid to the plaintiff.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Chief Justice WILDE and Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
Ann Cleveland, aged 26. and John Hill, alias Dolly,
who stand charged jointly with the murder of the
illegitimate child of the female prisoner, were placed at
the bar.
Sergeant ALLEN, who was instructed to defend the fe-
male prisoner, applied to the Court to postpone her
trial. He said, she was only committed for trial on the
Bth inst., and he was informed by her attorney that he
had not had sufficient time to prepare her defence, and
if the trial was postponed, he expected to be able to ob-
tain the testimony of some witnesses which would be
very material for her defence.
Mr. BALLANTINE said he had been instructed by the
parish to prosecute the prisoners, and of course the only
object of those who instructed him was, that the truth
should be ascertained. He had listened with anxiety to
hear whether his Learned Friend stated any facts as
grounds for his application, as in that case he should
have immediately acceded to it. No such facts, how-
ever, appeared to be stated, and he would merely call
the attention of the Court to the very lengthened in-
quiry that took place both before the coroner and the
magistrate, at which the professional advisers of the pri-
soners were present. His Learned Friend Mr. Ser-
geant Allen had also been specially retained for the
defence of the female prisoner, and he understood that
all parties were in readiness to have the case disposed of
that day.
Mr. CLARIeSON said, that on the part of the male
prisoner he should certainly object to have the trial
postponed to the next session He was discharged by the
magistrate, and was only implicated in the transaction
by the verdict of the coroner's jury.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN said his application at present
was, not to postpone the trial to the next session, but
merely to a later jrriod of the present one.
Uhler' Justice WILDE, after conFerziog with Mr. Baron
Rolfe, said that the Court was always ready to listen to
the application of a prisoner to postpone his trial upon
the representation that he had not had sufficient time to
prepare his defence, and would be particularly anxious
to do so in a serious case like this ; but at the same
time they must take care not to establish the bad prece-
dent of postponing trials without any fair or reasonable
ground being urged for their doing so. All they had to
act upon at present was the statement of the attorney
that he might possibly, if delay were granted, obtain
some evidence which might be useful to his client, which
might be said in the case of every prisoner ; and under
these circumstances they felt that all they could do was
to let the trial stand over till Monday.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN said he believed this delay would
be all that was required, and the female prisoner would
be ready to take her trial on that day.
John Gorman, 26; Denis Gorman, 20; James Coffee,
27, John Gilbert, 23, and Catherine Gorman, 50, the
mother of the first-mentioned prisoners, were indicted
for feloniously cutting and wounding James Hubbard
and Thomas Carmody, police-constables, in the execu-
tion of their duty, with intent to do them grievous
bodily harm; and in other counts the intent of the pri-
soners was laid to be, to prevent their lawful appre-
hension.
Mr. Bodkin (with Mr. Clark) conducted the prosecu-
tion for the Treasury ; Mr. Clarkson defended Coffee
and Gilbert, and Mr. O'Brien defended the other pri-
soners.
From the testimony of numerous witnesses who were
called in support of the prosecution, it appeared that on
the evening of the 24th of May, the prisoners, all of
whom are Irish, were in a public-house at Pimlico, called
the Flask, and a man, named Minter, who had formerly
been pot-boy in the house, was also present. According
to his statement, when he was about to leave the room,
he was attacked, without any provocation, by two of the
male defendants, and severely beaten, and when he got
out of the house he obtained the assistance of the two
constables named in the indictment, who accompanied
him back to the Flask for the purpose of taking the per-
sons who had committed the assault into custody. The
moment, however, the constables went into the room,
they were attacked by the prisoners, who beat them
violently, and eventually turned them out, and then
barricaded the door. A reinforcement of police was sent
for, and the door was burst open, and a most desperate
affray then took place, during which the prisoners made
instru-
ments, and theapoker, quartt-apots,
raencdeivoetdhevredryangseevreorues
jury,
and were prevented from doing any duty for a consider-
able time. The conduct of the male prisoners appeared
to have been most ferocious, and there did not seem to
have been the slightestprovocation for what they did from
the beginning to the end of the transaction.
The Counsel for the prisoners made the only defence
For them that the facts of the case would allow, and urged
ltehna al
thoughunjustifiable,
he s
tt
ifiai e
br
ler
ydeut ctth he a
jdu
r 3, certainly
might
been
consemienostitouvsio-
ly
believe that they were not actuated by the felonious in-
tention ascribed to them by the indictment, and merely
convict them of an assault.
Lord Chief Justice WILDE having left the case to the
jury, they returned a verdict, finding the prisoners Guilty
upon the third count of assaulting the constables with the
intent to prevent their lawful apprehension.
HIS LORDSHIP, in passing sentence, told the prisoners
that he was of opinion the jury had come to a most hu-
mane decision with regard to their conduct. The male
prisoners appeared to have acted in the most savage and
ferocious manner, and the woman who stood in the posi-
tion of mother to two of them, instead of endeavouring
to appease them, appeared to have rather excited them
to persevere in their violence. It was almost a provi-
dential occurrence that death had not ensued, and it that
had been the case, he did not see how they could have
escaped a conviction for murder. Persons in their con-
dition must be taught that such violent resistance to the
officers of justice would always entail severe punishment,
and it was absolutely necessary for the protection of so-
ciety that this should be the case. He then sentenced
James Coffee, who appeared to have been the ringleader
in the affray, to be kept to hard labour for eighteen
months, John Gorman for fifteen, John Gilbert and
Denis Gorman, twelve months each, and the mother
Catherine Gorman, three monthalimprisonment and hard
labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
LAMBETH.
Mr. James Dell Ewen, who described himself as a
publican out of business, was charged before Mr. Norton
with riding in a second-class carriage with a third-class
ticket, and refusing to pay the extra charge of fourponce,
from Barnes to London, on the Richmond Railway.
A gentleman from the office of the solicitors to the
South-Western Railway Company, after briefly stating
the circumstances under which the prisoner had been
given into custody on the night before, read from the
company's Act a clause which empowered their officers
to give persons into custody for wilfully and knowingly
riding in carriages for which they had not paid the
proper fare, and also enabled a magistrate to convict
such persons in any sum not exceeding 40s. and ex-
penses. Practices such as those of which the prisoner
bad been guilty were of frequent occurrence ; but still
the object of the company was not so much to press for
a penalty as to vindicate the power which the law had
given thaw.

Mr. Ewen—And my object was to vindicate the public;
I disclaim selfish feeling altogether.
Andrew Smith, a checktaker on the South-Western
Railway, was then called, and deposed that on collecting
the tickets of the train that leaves Richmond at half-
past nine on the night before, he found the prisoner, a
lady, and a child in a second-class carriage, while the
two tickets, which had been issued at Barnes, were for
the third-class. He (witness) in consequence demanded
Bd.; namely, 4d. each for the two tickets, which was the
difference of fare; but the defendant refused to pay a
farthing, and witness ultimately gave him in charge to
the guard of the train.
Mr. NORTON—Did he state the reason why he ob-
jected to pay the difference of fare? Witness—Yes, Sir.
He said he had been put into the second-class carriage by
one of the company's officers at- the Barnes station,
though he (the officer) was perfectly well aware at the
time that his ticket was for the third-class; but I knew
this was impossible, and I told him I could not take his
assertion as an excuse.

Mr. Ewen—How can you say it is impossible, when I
asserted, and am prepared to verify the fact on oath,
that they have frequently—ay, times out of number, as
well as on the present occasion—done so to me? I now
wish you would explain to his Worship the difference be-
tween the second and third class carriages.
Witness—On the third-class carriages the words,
" Third-class carriages," are written in large yellow let-
ters, while there is no writing on the second-class.
Mr. Ewen—Has it ever, or rather has it not fre-
quently, occurred, that third-class passengers are put
into the second-class? Witness—Yes, it has, but that
is only when the third-class are full, and an intimation
is given to the guard of the fact when such a circum-
stance takes place.
Mr. Ewen—How was I to know whether the third-
class carriages were full or not? I only told you what
was the fact, that the company's officers had shown my-
self and Mrs. Ewen into the second-class, knowing at the
time that we had only third-class tickets.
James Lewis said he was guard to the train by which
the prisoner had been a passenger on the night before,
and heard the collector of the tickets tell bun that he
would be at liberty to go on the payment of Bd., the dif-
ference of fare, but he refused to pay anything, upon
which the collector gave him into his charge.
In reply to a question from Mr. NORTON, the witness
said there were two third-class carriages belonging to
the train, each capable of holding twenty-four passengers,
while the passengers in them amounted only to twelve
in number, so that there was plenty of room left for the
other passengers.

Richard lose deposed that he was on duty at the
Barnes station on the night before, and recollected
giving out one first and two third-class tickets. The latter
two were issued to the prisoner for himself, a lady, and
child. Witness recollected opening a second-class car-
riage to let some passengers out, but could not say that
he observed what class carriage the prisoner got into.
He would swear, however, that he did not show him into
the second-class, and the only person on duty there at
the time besides himself was Clerk, one of the railway
police.
George Clerk, the policeman alluded to, deposed to
having seen a gentleman get into a first-class carriage,
and a gentleman and lady, the latter with a child, get
into a second-class. He (witness) did not let the par-
ties in, nor was he aware at the time of the sort of tickets
they had.
Mr. Ewen—Now, if this case is not proved against
me, will you not lose your situation for carelessness or
neglect of duty?
Witness—No; I don't think I shall.
Mr. Ewen—Well, that is all I shall ask you.
Mr. Ewen, in reply to the charge, said that he had
been in the habit of frequently travelling by the Rich-
mond Railway as far as Barnes, since it had been opened,
and his invariable practice was to go in the third-class
carriages, as there was not in his opinion a shade of
difference between them and those of the 'second-
class; but, as he had before stated, he had frequently,
as on the night before, been shown into the second
instead of the third without his ever observing
it. Having heard many of his friends—indeed his
own mother had been played the same trick—complain
of being shown into the second-class carriages instead
of the third, and then compelled to pay the highest rate
for the journey, he had made up his mind that the very
first time such a trick was attempted to be practised on
him he should, upon public grounds, resist it. This
attempt was made on the night before, and he had, as it
was his determination, resisted it, and refused the addi-
tional charge. He had no desire to make use of fine
phrases, but he must say that the power possessed by
this and other companies of giving persons into custody,
locking them up, and depriving them of their liberty,
for the negligence, or it might be wilful misconduct of
their servants, or for a few paltry pence, was quite un-
constitutional, and such as should not be permitted.
His Worship heard the gentleman who attended against
him say that this sort, gt practice_ was of frequent oc-
currence on the company's linc7orOir -.This he (Mr-.
Ewen) thought an awkward admission, as it was calcu-
lated to lead to the inference that the company's servants
or officers acted wilfully in showing the passengers into
a second-Weer instead al a third *Joao aarriago,_ to that
they should have to pay the difference of fare, and a
great many fourpenceamight be- au, object to the com-
pany, which, like all others, -wai not very partial to
third-class passengers._ In copplusion, he had only to
express a hope that hiaCarship, taking the whole of
the circumstances into consideration, would not consider
this a case in which haled wilfully, knowingly and in-
tentionally travelled by a different class carriage than
that for which he had paid, for the purpose of cheating

the company.
Mr. NORTON observed, that front Mr. Ewen's own ad-
mission of his determination to try the question with the
company, he had intentionally gone into a second-class
train for that purpose. The defendant's own excuse
was, that he had been let into a second-class carriage by
a servant of the company, the latter being perfectly cog-
nizant of the fact that his ticket was for the third class.
Had he shown this, he (Mr. Norton) certainly should
have dismissed the case; but he was, he confessed, some-
what surprised at finding, that while the two witnesses,
who alone could be guilty of such an act, were under ex-
amination, he did not venture to put a single question to
them likely to bring out the fact.
Mr. Ewen—l could not expect that they would crimi-
nate themselves or risk their situations, and therefore I
did not see the use of questioning them on the subject.
The solicitor on the other side here said, that so averse
were the officers of the company to detaining the pri-
soner, that they offered, upon his paying the Bd., to let
him at large, and have the question settled by his
Worship.
Mr. NORTON ultimately convicted Mr. Ewen in the
penalty of 10s., but subsequently reduced that sum to
Is., which the defendant paid and was discharged.