The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-02 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT--(THIS DAY).

OLD CO UR 71
POST-OFFICE ROBBERY.—William Henry Mcncc,
messenger in the employ of the Post-office, was charged
with stealing a letter containing one penny piece, the
property of the Postmaster-General.
The prisoner expressed a desire to plead guilty to the
minor charge of stealing a penny, but Mr. Adolphus
who (with Mr. Bodkin) appeared for the prosecution,
said that it was so necessary that every irregularity on
the part of those employed in the Post-office, should be
thoroughly investigated, that he could not consent to the
adoption of such a course, but should proceed with the case.
It appeared that a letter, with a penny pinned in it to
pay the postage, was put into one of the receiving houses
in Drury-lane, and was in that state forwarded, in the
regular manner, to the General Post-office, St. Martin's-
le-Grand, where the prisoner was employed as a letter-
stamper. Another letter-stamper, who was employed at
the same table, observed something odd in the conduct
of the prisoner with regard to some of the letters. Tyr-
rell, the officer, was sent for, and the letter was found in
the prisoner's hand firmly clenched. He resisted very
much, and it was with great difficulty that the letter was
taken from him. _ .

Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury for the prisoner,
who received an excellent character from several wit-
nesses, one of whom bad come up from Tamworth for
the purpose.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury found the
prisoner guilty of the major offence.
Sentence was deferred.
CUTTING AND MAIMING. Michael Conlon was
charged with cutting and wounding Mary Mahony, with
intent to murder her. There was a second count in the
indictment, charging him with the commission of an
assault.
Mr. CLARKSON having stated the case fur the prose-
cution, called the following witnesses :
Mary Bridget Mahoney—l am living in service in
Upper Stamford-street. On the 30th September I had
permission to go to my father's, in John-street, Com-
mercial-road. I met my sister and a young man named
Larkin, and just before we came to John-street we met
the prisoner, who lives next door to my father. He was
walking with his wife and a man on the other side of
the way. He called after us, making use of abusive
language. I said he had better go about his busi-
ness, and that there was another way to make
him pay for what he had said. Larking went
up to him and said, " Are you aware that you
are taking those young women's characters away." I
told Larkin to come away, aEd went to fetch him away,
when the prisoner struck me on the head with his fist,
tore my hair, and tore my dress completely off. My
mother came up, and he commenced beating her. I
went home to put on another dress, and after doing so,
came out at the street door. I saw a crowd outside, and
as I was going out of the gate of the court he threw a
stone at me, and said, " Take that." I fell senseless,
and know nothing more. Before that I saw some gar-
den-pots thrown down from prisoner's house. I never
offered him the least provocation. I was in the hospital
a month.
Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPs—I did nothing -to
the prisoner or his wife. Larkin, I believe, has been livil ig
with his mother. He has not lived at my mother's sin ce
this transaction. I did not see prisoner's windows smashed.
George Larkin—l am a barge-builder, living at 28,
John-street, Commercial-road. I remember being in
company with last witness and her sister Margaret on
the occasion referred to. I saw the prisoner standing
at the head of Bond-street with two females. He called
after the last witness. He called her a b—y w—e. I re-
monstrated with him. Prisoner said he did not want to
have any quarrel with me. This witness then corroborated
the evidence of the last witness as to the first assault.
After the last witness had changed her dress, and had
come to the front door, I saw the prisoner throwing down
flower-pots out of his up-stairs window into the front
yard of the house where the prosecutrix's father resided.
When prosecutrix came outside the door prisoner came
out of his own house with a brick in his hand. Ile flung
it at the prosecutrix, making use of the same words he did
before. It struck her forehead. She fell senseless, and was
taken to Mr. Menzies. He afterwards threw a pint pot
at the prosecutrix's father. He flung nothing else.
Cross-examined—l have never said that he flung a
flint stone at her. I have mentioned the pint pot before
this morning. I went before the Magistrates. Prisoner
was suffered to go at large on his own recognizances. I
have not been very intimate at the Mahoneys' since this
business. I did not see prisoner's windows broken. No
violence was offered to prisoner's wife in my presence.
Margaret Mahoney, sister to the prosecutrix, corrobo-
rated her testimony. She also saw the prisoner fling a
flint-stone.
John Thoms—l live near the parties. On the evening
in question I heard the cry of murder, and went out. The
witness then detailed the assault as described by the
former witnesses;
Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—Did you ever say
you saw him throw a large flint-stone. Witness—Never.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS—I must put in the depositions.
On inquiry it appeared that no depositions had beer
taken.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS—We are not, then, in the situation in
which we ought to be. The attorney for the prosecu-
tion kindly gave us a copy of his depositions, and from
them it appears that the witness said distinctly he saw
the prisoner fling a flint stone.
The attorney for the prosecution said that witness had
stated so. On inquiry it appeared that the prisoner had
been committed on a Judge's warrant.
The policeman who took the prisoner into custody,
produced a flint stone and a brick, which he had received
from Margaret Mahoney, who swore that they were
thrown by the prisoner.
The medical man who attended the prosecutrix, stated
the nature of the wound.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS, for the defence, complained bitterly
that no depositions had been returned. lie should prove
by his witnesses, that so far from this being the unpro-
voked assault it had been represented to be, the prisoner
had received the greatest provocatioh. He then called
Anthony Bennett—l was in company with the pri-
soner, his wife, and a young woman, on the night in
question. George Larkin came over and said to pri-
soner, " What have you said to these two women, my
friends." Prisoner had- said nothing then. According
to this witness's version of the story„ the Mahoney party
had begun the abuse and the assault, and had beat the
prisoner and his wife before any thing was done by

prisoner.
George Jones, a master baker, had seen the transac-
tion ; and, according to his account, Larkin had begun the
row by addressing the prisoner, and the two Mahoneys
had beat the prisoner's wife, while Larkin beat and kicked
the prisoner.
William Choine passed the house of the Mahoneys at
the time, and saw the girls stripped to fight, and waiting
for Conlan ; when he passed, the Mahoneys and Larkin
seized him and beat him. The prisoner then went into
his house, and the Mahoneys came out hooting at him.
One of them had a brick-bat in her hand, and threatened
to throw it at the prisoner's house. Prisoner's windows
were smashed.

Cross-examined by Mr. DonNE.—Never saw any
flower-pots thrown ; never saw any flint-stone thrown,
nor any brick-bat thrown.
Several other witnesses were examined ; all of whom
testified the Mahoneys had begun the row, and had
smashed the prisoner's windows; and one of them, named,
Parker, stated that the prosecutrix had received the
wound from falling on the step of her own door.
Mr. Cutchlore, the attorney for the prosecution, took
notes of what the witnesses had said when before the
Magistrate, and furnished a copy of those notes to the
attorney for the defence. The witness then distinctly
stated, when before the Magistrate, that he had seen a
flint-stone thrown before the brick was thrown.

Lord DENMAN re-called the surgeon, who stated that
a very heavy tall might of possibility produce a wound
such as that the prosecutrix had on her forehead, but
that if the prosecutrix had fallen, her face would in all
probability have been injured, which was not the case.
Mr. DOANE replied.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury found the
prisoner Not Guilty.