The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-25 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON SESSIONS.

Richard Archer and John Sutherland were indicted for,
assaulting William Miller.
It appeared by the evidence that the parties met in
Cursitor-street, and an altercation having arisen a box-
ing match ensued, when the prosecutor received a severe
blow, in consequence of which he was confined for several
weeks in the hospital.
Mr. Payne defended the prisoners, and cross• ex-
amined the prosecutor, who said his mother was matron
in the hospital, but he was admitted there as a patient,
and did not go as a visitor to her. More then a week
elapsed from the time of the assault until he was ad-
mitted to the hospital, labourinr, under a concussion of
the brain. He had been previously affected with a brain
fever, but did not attribute his recent illness to it.

Several witnesses having been called for the defence,
who stated that Archer had never struck the prosecutor,
The RECORDER summed up, and said the question
for the Jury to decide upon was, whether the parties mu-
tually agreed to fight, or whether Miller was struck by
the prisoners without any such agreement, as in the latter
case alone could an indictment for assault be laid.

The Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Robert Shaw, alias Darrow, and George Watson were
indicted for assaulting Mrs. Sarah Abrahams.
The brief facts of this case, which have been recently
before the public, were, that the two prisoners passed a
bad half-crown in the shop of the prosecutrix, and, a po-
liceman, seeing them leave the shop, suspected what
had been their object, when he brought them back in
custody; and Mrs. Abrahams, having produced the half-
crown the prisoner Shaw seized her by the arm, and
snatched it from her hand, swallowed it. The other
prisoner, Watson, called out the cant phrase among
smashers—" Gnash it." From the fact of the prisoners'
having destroyed the half-crown no evidence could be ad-
duce(/ against them of passing base coin, and in order that
they might nut entirely evade justice_ the present in-
dictmelit was laid. _ _

The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the pri-
s*ners were sentenced to three months' imprisonment,
with hard labour. _ _ _

Several person 3 were indicted by the Police for keeping
houses of ill-fame, and sentenced to terms of ituprisanent,
varying from six weeks to three months, and er.icied to
enter into their own recogniz:mces in the -sum of 300/:,
to be of good behaviour for two years. The ratisunct's
complained of were mostly situated in the Co:trts lead-
ing from Fleet-street.

SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS.
GEORGE PO3R V. A CONVICTI ,N OF J. COTTINGRAM, ESQ.

This was an appeal against a decision of Mr. Cotting-
h am, the Union-hall Magistrate, sentencing the appellant
to two months' hard labour as a rogue and vagabond.

The circumstances were ofratheran extraorilinarycha-
racter. The appellant was charged by two policemen
with having attempted to pick pockets at Camberwell
fair, and it was sevoni that he had been seen attempting
to pick several gentlemen's pockets, and, also, that he was
a notorious bad character ; and, upon this evidence. Mr.
Cottingham convicted the appellant, and ordered him to
be kept to hard labour for two months. It turned out
that the lad bore a very good character, that his friends
were respectable mechanics, airi that so far from his
having been in the fair for the purpose of committing
felony, that he had gone there with three ether lad 3 to
amuse themselves, and that he had himself been robbed
of his handkerchief. An app-al was immediately entered
against the conviction; under the provisions ( the Act of
the sth Gee. IV., and it came on this day to he beard.
Mr. Wallinger, who appeared for the appellant, stated
the circumstances under which the appeal arose, and he
said that he believed the worthy Magistrate, from his
knowledge of the real circumstances of the case, had no
intention to support his conviction ; and he, therefore,
moved that the conviction be quashed.
The COURT was about to allow the appeal accordingly,
when the policeman got into the box, and expressed a
wish to precee•d with the case.

The CHAIRMAN, after consulting with his colleagues,,
said, that as Mr. Cottingham had not thought proper
to instruct Counsel to support his conviction, they had no
doubt he had good grounds for not doing so, and he
did not see how the Court could go on in his absence.

Mr. %Vallinger observed that it Mr. Cottingham had
thought it was a proper case he would have instructed
Counsel to support the conviction.
The COURT concurred, and ordered the conviction
to be quashed, and the appellant to be set at liberty.
PERRIN.% ESQ., V. AN *ORDER OF TWO JUSTICES TO STOP

UP A HIGHWAY CALLED CLAY-LANE, IN NUTFIELD.

This was an appeal of a somewhat novel and important
character. It occupied the Court for seven hours on
Friday, and was not concluded until nearly 11 at night.
The question came before the Court in This shape :
The Magistrates had signed an order to stop up the lane
in question, and at the same time declared that it was
unnnecessary for the public. The appellant, on the
other hand, appealed, on the ground that he was ag-
grieved by the road being closed, and also on the ground
that the road-was necessary for the convenience of the
public, and a Jury was empanelled to try those issues.
Mr. Wallinger and Mr. Locke conducted the case for
the appellant, and Mr. Montagu Chambers conducted
the respondent's case.
When the Jury had been sworn, a long discussion
arose as to which party ought to begin ; and it being al-
together a novel case, some considerable difficulty ap-
peared to felt upon the subject. The Court ultimately
decided that as the appellant had set up certain facts
in support of the appeal, it was incumbent upon him to
make out his case in the first instance.
A number of witnesses were then called from whose
evidence it appeared that Mr. Perkins, who is a gentle-
man of fortune residing at Nuffield, was in the possession
of property abutting upon this Clay-lane, and across
which-the South-Eastern Railway is carried, and as there
was another road near the spot it was arranged that no
arch should be made by that Company, but that their
embankment should be carried across it, and the Magis-
trates after going through the necessary forms, signed an
order declaring that the road was unnecessary. On the
part of the appellant, it was proved that the lane in
question was a convenience to him to go from one part
of his property to another, but it appeared that there
were other equally convenient modes of access to it,
and it was also admitted that thelane in question was
only a summer road, and. that in winter it was com-
pletely impassable, and could only be used for a few
months in the year, and that in parts it was very narrow,
only affording room for one vehicle to pass, and it ap-
peared that taking it, altogether, it was of very little
real utility or convenience to the public, and it was proved
that a better road had been made at a short
distance. A number of persons living in the
neighbourhood were examined, and they expressed
their opinion that the road was necessary, and that they
were in the habit of using it to go to one place from an-
other in the neighbourhood. There was very little evi-
dence, however, to show that the plaintiff individually
was aggrieved by the road being stopped up.
Mr. Chambers, at the close of the evidence, proceeded
to reply upon the whole case, and ho contended that the
appellant had failed in making out his grounds of appeal.
The CHAIRMAN summed up, and the Jury, after about
ten minutes' deliberation, returned the following ver-
dict :—" We find that the appellant, Mr. Perkins, was
not aggrieved by the road being closed, but we are of
opinion that the road is necessary for the convenience of
the public."

The effect of this verdict will he that the Magistrates'
order will be quashed, and the road be again thrown open
to the public.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A young man, who said that his name was George
Jones, was brought before Mr. Alderman Pine (the Lord
Mayer elect) charged with having committed an assault
upon Mrs. Hannah Townley, on Friday night.
Bromley, the policeman, who apprehended the defen-
dant, stated that he had another man in company with
Jones, for having also offended the lady, but the Inspec-
tor not having allowed him to put handcuffs on the two
men, one of them escaped as he was conducting them
from the Compton
Mrs. Townley stated that she had been at the house
of a friend near Houndsditch until eleven o'clock, and.
while she was waiting at the corner of the street for an
omnibus, the defendant and two other-persons came up
and used very offensive language to her. She threatened
to give them in charge to a policeman, upon which they
declared that they would give her in charge, and laid
hold of her. A young man came up, when she called
for protection, to her assistance, when he was immedi-
ately knocked down by the deft-ndant, whose language
was most grossly insulting. One of the three men escaped.
The defendant and the other were taken into custody by
the policemen.
Alfred Allendale, a mere lad, stated that upon hear-
ing the cry for protection he ran up and saw the defen-
dant and two other men with their hands upon Mrs.
into him at once.
Townley. Th defendant, who was the worst of the
three, offered °
fight t o
witness for a sovereign, and pitched
Defendant stated that he was a shopman at a draper's
inan d."inhistetiletehdaPellr'
AldermanPsi,avet
s.a,rown
ucl that he was tipsy on the occasion,
tht)retoerYel truht
air vt
he
er ladiedfeanhdaanndt (s)hn
ohueird.
find bail to rin
in 5C1., and two sureties inm2)lalinetsenhext Sessions,
himself

of the street to that of the complainant, and hearing him
in altercation with some persons, he walked over to see
what it was about. The defendant and several other
gentlemen were good-humouredly requesting constable
Owen to hand over the handkerchief to a lady; and they
complaining that he had kept them quibbling about it for
more than a quarter of an hour, witness remarkeg" Why
don't you give it up? If you have any doubt about it,
take it to the station-house." Owen thereupon gave up
the handkerchief, and most of the bystanders instantly
dispersed, the defendant intimating to Owen that if he
proceeded forward all would be instantly quiet. Owen,
however, insisted on Jr. Handscomb going away first I
and he objecting, the officer took him to the station-house.
Mr. JARDINE—Did the gentleman who is now at the
bar assault your brother officer? Hutchings—Not at all.
Mr. Jauuntr—Did he lay bands upon him ? Hutch-
ings—No, Sir ; he merely motioned his hand when he
told to Owen that he had better proceed on his duty.
Mr..7Anuniz—Did his hand touch him then ? Hutch-
ings—lt might have slightly brushed his sleeve ; but I
did not see it. They were very close together. The
defendant was leaning his back against some shutters,
and Owen was in front of him.

Mr. Ilead—lf my client had assaulted the officer by
pushing him violently must you have seen him ? Hutch-
ings—G!rtainly. •
• Mr. Head (tcr Mr. Jardine)=—After what you have
heard, probably you will think it unnecessary for me to
comment on the case, or call any witnesses. .The evi-
dence of Hutchings speaks volumes for my injured client.
Mr. JARD!NE—I should certainly decide at once that
it is unnecessary for me to hear further testimony to in-
duce me to say that Mr. Handscomb has been wrong-
fully charged; but as I have another object in view I
will hear one of them.

llr. Head then called a gentleman named Williams,
who resides in York-street, Queen-square. He stated
that hearing an altercation in Exmouth-street, on Friday
night, he stopped and found that it arose about a pocket-,
handkerchief, and his first impression was that the police-
man.(Owen) was drunk, and that impression was con-
firmed in consequence of there being several other officers
in the crowd, not one of whom interfered until Hatchings
recommended him to hand over the handkerchief to the
rightful owner ; on which Mr. Handscomb, in a gentle-
manly manner, observed, " Ah, take the advice of your
brother officer, and let the woman go." Owen, after
telling the defendant that he was drunk, did as Hutchings
bad recommended ; and all might then have quietly ended
haul the complainant chosen; It was plain, however,
that there was a bad feeling on the part of Owen, and
witness stopped to hear the result, which was that Mr.
Handscomb was dragged to the station-house without the
slightest cause. The defendant, when seized by Owen,
did not resist, but the latter used him violently, and many
times pushed him as he took him along.
Mr. JARDIXE—Are you a friend of Mr. Handscomb?
Mr. Williams—Until last night I had never, to my
knowledge, seen him.
Mr. JARDINE, addressing Mr. Handscomb. said he
considered he had been greatly ill-used, and that he had
done no act whatever which in the slightest degree called
for the interference of a constable. Such treatment he
deeply rCaTetted, and without saying -anything further,
'he should dismi3s the complaint.
Mr. Handscomb having thanked the Diagistrate for the
attention he bad bestowed upon the matter, bowed and
retired with his friends.

Jane Coope, a handsome young female, was put to the
bar, charged with felony, under very aggravated circum-
stances.

Mr. James Creedy, a baker in Eawstorne-street,
Clerkenwell, stated that the prisoner was a neighbour
and housekeeper of her brother, who is a most respect-
able tradesman.- Not long ago, the latter called upon
Mrs. Creedy and said that his sister had been taken sud-
denly ill, and she being, comparatively speaking, a
stranger in that district, she did not know any female
that she could take the liberty of consulting with, and
he asked her advice under the circumstances. Mrs.
Creedy immediately volunteered her assistance, and ac-
companied the brother to the prisoner, who was certainly
very ill. She attended the prisoner for several days and
nights, invited her after recovery to her house, and
treated .her in every respect with the greatest kindness.
She frequently visited at witness's house, and no suspicion
of the prisoner's disposition appeared until the present
week, when, in consequence of witness missing a sum
of 91. from a drawer in a sleeping-room, and none
but his own family having access to that, excepting the
prisoner, the painful fact struck forcibly on his mind that
she was the thief. For three days afterwards the accused
was in and out of the house, and money'being again
missed, he took means to make a detection, by marking
a number of pieces of coin in the presence of several per-
sons. On that morniag the prisoner paid her accustomed
visit, and was seen to enter the bed-room, and directly
she came out, the sum of 11. 19s. being missed, she was
accused of the robbery, which she denied in the most
positive terms The police were sent for, and she was
handed over to a woman to be searched, when the whole
of the marked money was found on her, and she was at
once removed to this office.

The prisoner was fully committed to Newgate.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

On Friday Miss Sandford, who represented herself as
a teacher of the guitar, living in Little Pulteney-street,
appeared before Mr Hardwick to sustain a charge of
assault which she had previously preferred against Mr.
and Mrs. Hunt, of Allington-street, Pimlico.
The circumstances out of which the present charge
arose are rather singular. In the police reports a few
weeks back appeared a case under the head " Marl-
borough-street Police-office," in which Mr. Hardwick
inflicted a fine of 51. upon a Mr. Laverty for an
alleged indecent assault at night, in Regent-street,
upon Mrs. Hunt, who then represented' herself as
a married woman, and that she was, at the time when
Laverty came up to her, waiting for her husband in
the street, and that they lived in private life, upon an in
come of 2001. per annum, arising out of property in the
West Indies. Believing her statement, which, however,
was contradicted most, vehemently by Mr. Laverty, ,Mr.
Hardwick, as already stated, inflicted the full penalty. A
few days after this, Miss Sandford came to this office,
and stated that she had been most grossly insulted in the
street by Mr. and Mrs. Hunt, in consequence, as she pre-
sumed, of her being an intimate acquaintance of Mr.
Laverty. The offensive conduct having been repeated by
Mr. Hunt, who shook his fist in her face, asking her at
the same time how " her fellow" liked his berth, and
telling her that a trap was laid for her, he applied a most
offensive epithet to her. Mr. Hardwick,--who had pre-
viously mentioned that .from facts which had recently
come to his knowledge his opinion of the truth of the
charge against Mr. Laverty had been materially shaken,
immediately granted a summons against Mr. and Mrs.
Hunt for the assault.

In the course of the examination on Friday Mr.
Laverty repeated that the charge made against him by
Mr'. hunt was entirely without foundation ; he had
never either spoken to Mrs. Hunt or touched her. When
he was suddenly charged by Hunt with having insulted
his wife he was for the moment quite staggered at the
extraordinary nature of the accusation. He did not,
however, care so much about the pecuniary loss he had
sustained as that he was anxious to clear his character
in the eyes of his friends. He added, that as he was
walking a few nights afterwards in Piccadilly with a
young friend he saw Mrs. Hunt, whom he immediately
pointed out to his friend as the person who had traduced
his character. That friend was now in Court.
A young man, named Askeil, said that on Mrs. Hunt
being pointed out to him he left his friend, and Mrs.
Hunt cameup to him and solicited him to accompany
her to a house in Shepherd-street.
The charges of assault against Mr. and Mrs. Hunt
were then gone into.
Mr. Flower attended for the complainant, and Mr.
Wontner fur the defendants.

The complainant repeated the nature of the assault,
which was trifling in itself, but, as already stated, ac-
companied by threatening and offensive language.
Mr. Wontner cross-examined the different witnesses
at some lengtb, but did not shake their testimony.
In defence, it was contended that Mr. and Mrs. Hunt
knew nothing of the complainant • that it was, there-
fore, very unlikely that they should her out as the
acquaintance of Mr.' Laverty ; and, further, that they
were both at Hampstead at the. time the assault was
alleged to have been committed. gr. Wontner did not
call any witnesses to prove these assertions.
Mr. iIARDWiCK said, that when the charge was pre-
ferred against Mr. Laverty by the defendant it had been
met by him with a most strenuous denial of its truth,
and the present charge was met in a similar manner. It
was quite clear that there was gross perjury on one side
or the other, but there was so much mystifization in the
affair that it was utterly impossible to say on which.
He was, however, bound to say, that had he been aware
at the time the cnarge was brought against Mr. Laverty
by the present defendant of certain circumstances which
had subsequently come to his knowledge they would have
materially operated on the opinion which he had then
formed.

In the present case, as the assault was trivial,he should
fine the male prisoner 40s. and costs, and discharge th©
female.

Hunt paid the fine, at the same time expressing his
determination to indict all the parties for a conspiracy.
Mr. Flower observed that his wisest course would be
to make no further stir in the matter.

w3/2irAthlir.Head, HA TTOY
Jardine,gentleman,
assaultingeh ha
charged
emdi
ne d ds brought before
GARDEN,
Owen, 109 G,
_io. is duty.
Ha n . A 17,1:, i ,Db:owfiVai
his
btKePeel
from the office of Steele, defended the
been sworn,, stated that be-
tweennight, while
prisoner.
The complainant, having
, Spatirelltsl,ayhe picked up
eleven and twelve oclock on
and, three females
them
separately if there
(amfluty i;oct,e,roi,atticlief,
epidapt
claiming it, he asked them
was any particular mark by which - either
doff
could distinguish it. At this time the
had cotne up, and, pointing to ode Of theladies,rc he
said, " Why don't you give it to her, and
your business ?" To which witness replied, ~ iima:oduot
you know ?" When he answered, " Any one can see
by her manner that it is ter property. You don't know
your business." The same female then mentioned that
a bit-of edging had been torn off the handkerchief, and
witness finding that to be so, immediately restored it to
her, and the persons who had assembled, with the ex-
ception of the prisoner, began to disperse. The latter,
however, refused to go on, and declared his intention of
staying there as long as he liked, at the same instart de-
siring witness to proceed on his beat, and pushing him
forward. Upon this witness observed, " Such conduct
as this does not become you, and if you persist in stop-
ping here, I shall remove 3 ou to the station-house." The
prisoner did persist in remaining there, and witness in
consequence locked him up.
thought Mr.
In answer to Mr. Head, the complainant said he
not charn.e Tl'
Ilandscom. b had been drinking ; but-he drd
hi ca . _
.iin with intoxication, but with assaulting
Hutchings, No, 2i G, a very
ra by pushing him
cer, was next exam'. '
1 to _the case. steady and excellent offs- I
lifi examined' and gave a very different feature 1
.

THE STIN, LONDON, MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 184

present to receive the money, and Levine made the in-
voices out in his name. In addition to this evidence
Mrs. Slade, of No. 116, Lucas-street, Commercial-road,
stated that the prisoner Levine lodged at her house since
the 9th of August last, and represented himself as a com-
mission agent. On Wednesday week the prisondr Bea-
mond called at the house with a horse and cart, and left
a bale and a bag for Levine, and in the course of the day
both prisoners came to her house together and opened
the packages, which contained pieces of cotton, such as
that produced by the officer, and they took ailray some
of the property with them, and ultimately took away all,
except one piece which Levine induced her, witness, to
purchase. She had seen the prisoner Beamond at her
house with Levine, and on one occasion he brought a
bag of tallow on a truck and left it for Levine, and this
they afterwards carried away.
After a very lengthened examination, Mr. Humphries
applied to have the prisoners remanded to a future day.
In doing so he remarked that the robbery was one of an
extensive description, and one which had been accom-
plished with such cunning and tact that it was perfectly
clear there were more than the prisoners engaged in it,
and the object of the remand was, therefore, to get at
those parties not yet in custody.
Mr. Child applied to admit his client to bail, observing
he had nothing whatever to do with obtaining the goods,
and all he had done was merely to sell them openly as
the agent of Beamond.
Mr. NORTON refused the application, and the prisoners
were remanded to a future day.