The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-30 00:00:00

pot full of beer off the table in the parlour, and dash
its contents in the prisoner's face. They were standing
close together at the time, and the complainant was
about to strike the prisoner with the empty pot, when
she was forcibly put out of the room, and she imme-
diately afterwards exclaimed that she was wounded ;
that she (witness) heard the prisoner exclaim, after the
beer was thrown over him, that he had a knife and he
would use it.
The prisoner here asked the witness if she did not
previously see him paring his finger nails with a pen-
knife ? and her reply was, that ►he saw nothing of the
kind. She, however, admitted that she did not notice
the accused take the knife out of his pocket ; he might
have had it in his hand for all she knew before the beer
was thrown over him.
John Humphreys stated, that he was the proprietor of
the house, 9, William-street, Walwortb, and let it nut
in lodgings to single ladies ; that on the preceding night
he was occupied in reading a newspaper in the room
where the parties were, and heard some strong language
uttered, and then saw the beer thrown over the accused.
He (witness) also heard the words relative to using the
knife mentioned by the prisoner, but did not see him
stab the complainant. He (witness) on seeing the
woman bleeding called the accused an unmanly fellow,
and he was afterwards given into custody.
The prisoner declared that it all arose from accident ;
that when he went into the house he pulled out his pen-
knife and began to pare down his finger nails ; that
while he was so engaged the complainant, on some fan-
cied insult, threw a pot of porter in his face, and she
was about to strike him also when he put up his arms to
save himself, and that in aiming a blow at his head her
hand came in contact with the knife, and that was the
only way he could account for what had happened. He
added that he had no malicious intention, that the knife
was previously in his hand, and he submitted that it was
a very different case to that of having taken the weapon
from his pocket for the purpose of using it.
The prisoner then called forward a gentleman named
Bridgman, who, on being sworn, said, that he accom-
panied him to the house in question, and was present in
the parlour when the occurrence took place on the pre-
ceding night ; that he saw the knife in his friend's hand
before the beer was flung in his face, and that he was
using it for the purpose of cutting his finger nails at the
moment ho was struck at by the complainant, who was
most insolent in her conduct.
The complainant again interceded in the accused's
behalf, saying that she freely forgave him, and that she
knew that he did not wound her intentionally.
. The policeman, who was called into the house on the
occasion, said that he did not find the knife with which
the alleged wound was inflicted, and did not examine
the prisoner's pockets at the time.
Mr. COTTINGHAM said, in a cane of such a descrip-
tion it was the policeman's duty to hare searched the
prisoner before he did anything else, and that all persons
in the police should know, on taking a prisoner into cus-
tody under such circumstances, it was most important
to make a strict search on the spot where such offence
was perpetrated, in order to find the weapon with which
the injury was inflicted. The magistrate then proceded
to say that it was absurd for the accused to assert that
he was in the act of paring his finger nails with his
knife in the parlour of a brothel at the time the wound
was inflicted on the complainant, and that it was quite
evident that be had given a sum of money to his victim
in order to prevent her from appearing against him. He
(the magistrate) perceived by the police-sheet that the
prisoner was by profession a surgeon; he certainly had
acted with great folly in entering a house of such a de-
scription, and then quarrelling with one of its abandoned
inmates, which led to the result that had taken place ;
he regretted seeing a man of the accused's profession
place himself in such a position, but he was bound to
do his duty to the public ; and though it was not pro-
bable that a jury would convict the accused upon the
evidence of the complainant, yet he should give her the
opportunity of preferring her indictment against him at
the sessions, and for that purpose should adjudge him to
enter into his own recognisance in 501. and find two
sureties of 501. each, to appear at the next Central
Criminal Court sessions.

THAMES.
A young woman, named Mary Fitzgerald, was
brought before Mr. Yardle.y charged wits► stealing a
bundle of linen from the house of a poor old creature
named Sarah Grey, of 8, Raymond-place, St. George's-in-
the-East.

It appeared from the evidence that the prosecutrix
works a mangle, by which she obtains a scanty living.
On Saturday evening the prisoner called upon her for a
bundle of linen which had been left by her mother to be
mangled in the early part of the day. It was delivered
to her, and she managed at the same tine to take away
another bundle of linen which was also left with the old
woman to be mangled. The prisoner delivered the
bundle to another mangling woman named Hare, in the
same neighbourhood, in whose possession it was found,
and who was the means of causing the prisoner to be
apprehended. She was committed for trial.
WESTMIIVS7ER.
Shortly after the disposal of night charges, an elderly
gentleman waited upon Mr. Broderip, and entreated
him to render him some assistance in recovering his
nephew, who had been inveigled away from his home on
Saturday.

Mr. BRODERIP inquired by whom?—Applicant replied,
by a woman.