The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-14 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)
Alfred Bute 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
*Ltracs Berridge Aldis, a surgeon, residing at No. 46,
Chester-square, Pimlico.
It appeared that the defendant's mother, who lodged
With the complainant, told the defendant that she had
teen insulted 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 Batterarn, William Gallick,
Bald Mary Gallick, his wife, were indicted for assaulting
Mary Nutt Ashford, on the 25th of last 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
}ears separated from her husband, who was a man of
eccentric character, and who lived with the defendant
Batteram, 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,
the was seized by defendants, detained all night, insulted,
Zit-used, and beaten.
On her cruse-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-
titnaey 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-
(vied by the witness. Mr. Ashford had made a will,
to which. Mr. Couch, the solicitor for the defendant, had
been aointed executor, and she believed that a legacy
t*,
d been left to Mary Batteram.
The defence was, that Fenton had been only the agent
of Mr. Couch Its 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 perversien from
Ile original intentions of the donors of a most important
child of
he meant the Foundling Hospital. Here was the
of a man of large fortune, living in most disgraceful
eireubinage with the mother of that child, and eventually
_ t his death alienating his prokrty by will—the mother
iflPPearing at the bar of this 'curt dressed in a style of
alittilaa, which showed her to be no object of charity
that events—and it appearing, according to the evidence,
. father of the child had left ample property
ter him.
Such an application of charity like the
Foundling Hospital was most disgraceful, and he trusted
that the managing committee would shut their eyes no
It'eger 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
tine.