The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-17 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY

CLERKENWELL.

Yesterday Mr. William Astley, a retired trades-
man, said to be possessed of considerable property,
residing at No. 24, Edwin-street, Camberwell, was,
at the instance of the parish officers of Islington,
charged with having deserted his wife and leaving
her chargeable to the parish. The wife, a feeble
old woman attired in pauper's clothes, and who ap-
peared very ill, was allowed a seat during the in-
vestigation.
It appeared that the defendant formerly carried on
a respectable business in Islington, and lived with his
wife and family, but differences existed between him
and his wife, and they were uncomfortable together.
About nine years ago he left off business and deserted
her and his family, and ever since he had eluded the
vigilance of the parish officers, who had made every
effort to trace him. Two years ago his wife was
driven to distress, and compelled to apply to the
parish for relief, when she was admitted into the
workhouse, where she had ever since been supported
at the parish expense. Information was at length
received that he was living in comfortable circum-
stances in Edwin-street, Camberwell, with a young
woman who was received as his wife, when he was
taken into custody and brought to this court.
Mr. Hicks, a parish officer, said it was a very ag-
gravated case. The defendant had not allowed his
wife a farthing since he had deserted her. He was
a man of property, and very recently a considerable
legacy had been left him by his brother. He called
defendant's son, who deposed that a few weeks ago
his uncle died and left him (defendant) a legacy of
200 L, which he had received, and he had property in
the Bank.
Defendant denied this, and said he did not keep out
of the way; they knew where to find them.
Tubbs, the beadle, said he went to Edwin-street,
Camberwell, where he found defendant residing in a
respectable house, well furnished with goods, and a
young woman was dining with him as his wife, and
was known as Mrs. Astley.
Mr. Comns inquired the age of the defendant.
He was informed that he was sixty-four years of
age.

Mr. COMBS asked whether the parish pressed for
punishment.
Mr. Hicks—We have a claim of 171. against the
prisoner for the support of his wife whilst in the
workhouse, and unless he can come to some arrange-
ment and maintain his wife, we must press for his
committal to prison.
Mr. COMBS asked the defendant if he could pay
that sum, and come to terms with the parish officers i
Defendant—No; I can't afford it. I cannot.
Mr. COMBS—Why, you have recently received
2001., and you are keeping a woman, and neglecting
your wife. Defendant—And what would you have
me do ; would you like me to live like a sheep upon
a common ?—(A laugh.)
Mr. COMBE—WiII you pay 51. down off the 17/. ?
Defendant—No; I have paid debts with the 2001,
and I have only got 161. left out of it. I would
rather go to prison.
Mr. COMBS—You had better make some proposal
to the parish officers. You must pay the money and
support your wife, or you will go to the House of Cor-
rection for one month. Would you like to go to the
House of Correction ? Defendant—No. lam an old
man. lam 64.
Mr. COMBE—.I advise you to speak privately to the
parish officers, and come to some arrangement, or
you will go for a month ; and understand, that at the
expiration of that month you may be brought here
and committed for another month if you refuse to
support your wife, and so on ; and you may be in
prison for the remainder of your life, so do as you
please.
He retired with the parish officers into a private
room, and, after a consultation of about a quarter of
an hour, they returned to the Court, when
Mr. Hicks said the old man would come to no
terms, and said he would rather go to prison than
part with his money.
Mr. COMBS—WeII, it is a question between him
and the parish officers; if they press for it, I must
commit you to the House of Correction for one
month.
The defendant was again asked if he would pay Si.
off the 171., in preference to going to prison ?
Defendant (hesitatingly)—No, I would rather go
to prison.
Mr. COMBS then committed him to the House of
Correction for one month, and he was conveyed
thither in the course of day, whilst his wife was taken
back to the workhouse.
WESTMINSTER.
William Thomas, a footman, in the service of Mr.
William George Campbell, barrister, and one of the
Commissioners of Lunacy, residing at 37, Thurlow-
square, Brompton, was charged with the following
outrageous conduct at his master's house :
Mr. Campbell stated, that at about nine o'clock
that morning, on ringing as usual for prayers, he
found the defendant absent, and on inquiring the cause
was informed by one of the other servants that he was
ill. He immediately went to the defendant's room
and found him in bed. On speaking to defendant he
got up, when complainant observed that he was much
intoxicated. Complainant immediately gave him
notice to quit, and informed him that he would give him
him his month's wages, the agreement between them
being a month's warning, but he could not permit
him to remain any longer in his establishment. Coin-
?lainant then returned up stairs from the defendant's
room, hut shortly after, on hearing very loud talking,
went out again, when defendant, who had nothing on
but his shirt and trousers, endeavoured to force his
way in that condition into the breakfast parlour, where
Mrs. Campbell was seated, and complainant found it
necessary to use all the strength he possessed to pre•
vent him. He positively refused to leave the house,
and Mrs. Campbell was so alarmed that she went to
the residence of a neighbour and sent for a policeman.
On the latter coming, the complainant gave defendant
another opportunity of receiving his money and leaving
the house, but he positively refused ; and on com-
plainant going into the pantry to look at the plate,
defendant followed and locked himself and complainant
in, but did not assign any reason for this extraordi-
nary conduct. It was found necessary to give him
into the custody of the police, and as they were taking
him up the area steps he wilfully broke six panes o
glass with his feet.

It was proved that defendant was very riotous in
the street, and that a cabman who was called refused
to take him, intimating that he knew defendant, and
that if he conveyed him he would break his windows
—a consequence that he appeared to apprehend from
some previous experience of his propensities in that

way.
A neckerchief belonging to his master was found
in prisoner's possession, but Mr. Campbell did not
wish to press any charge against him with respect to
that, as he conceived that, although the defendant had
taken the liberty of wearing it, he perhaps did not
intend to steal it. Defendant had been previously
guilty of drunkenness while in Mr. Campbell's service.
Defendant, who blubbered like a child during the
whole of the examination, said he was very sorry,
and hoped his master would take him back into his
service.
Mr. BRODERIP observed, that defendant's conduct
had been most outrageous, and called for the heaviest
punishment. Defendant had to thank his master for
his kindness in considering that he had with respect
to the neckerchief been. guilty of the unwarrantable
liberty but too frequently taken by gentlemen's ser-
vants, of wearing their masters' clothes, and had not