The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-08 00:00:00

' Another officer of the society recognised the prisoners j
as old hands, who prospered exceedingly by pretending
to be the victims of every sort of awful calamity.
The LORD MAYOR said the list of preten .ed contri-
butions contained internal and unmistakeable evidence, in
more than one instance, of rank falsehood.—(A laugh.)
Sir J. Plum negatived the signature of his name, and
Mr. G. Magnay stated that the name of " W. Magnay "
was not in his brother's handwriting.
The female prisoner said she certainly had been guilty
of the deception, but disavowed any knowledge of the
man. She assured his Lordship that her exertions to
support herself deserved any name but that of idleness.
On the contrary, mendicancy, as she practised it, re-
quired great labour, ingenuity, and memory, and the
least slip exposed her to detection, of the consequences
of whieh she was perfectly aware.
The male prisoner said that the fact of his having
spoken to the woman in the street did not prove that he
knew anything of the papers with which she had pro-
videl herself.
The LORD MAYOR said it was quite obvious that the
prisoners turned their peculiar talents to profitable ac-
count, and sentenced each of them to imprisonment in
1
Bridewell for two months, with the addition, in case of
the man, to hard labour.

William" Johnson and John Hounslow were charged
with having robbed Messrs. Chambers, of Bishopsgate-
street, ironmongers, of 16,000 nails. The latter pri-
soner, who was coachman to Messrs. Chambers, had a
few days ago, in consequence of the suspicion enter-
tained that he had been concerned in the robbery, swal-
lowed so large a quantity of poison that his stomach
vomited it at once, and the sickness saved his life.
John Spittle, 671, observed Johnson with a heavy bag
on his shoulder, and judging from his manner that he
had become improperly possessed of it, took him into
custody, and soon ascertained that he and Hounslow had
contrived to pack tcgether a large quantity of nails i❑
parcels which bore the marks of the prosecutors. John-
son saidi Hounslow had suggested to him to take the
nails, and that they went toge►her to the warehouse in
which the property was deposited, and were to be part-
ners in the produce of the sale.
Hounslow, who had acknowledged to one of the police
that he knew something of the robbery, now positively
denied any knowledge at all of the matter.
The prisoners were committed for trial.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

John Lawrence and Ernest Sultz, two well-dressed
young men, were charged with having picked the pocket
of Miss Julia Hammond, in an omnibus.
Mit s Julia Hammond, of Elizabeth place, New• road,
said she got into an omnibus at Hungerford-market
with her sister on Thursday, about 6 o'clock in the even-
ing. The prisoner Lawrence shortly afterwards got in
and placed himself by her side. Sultz followed, and
placed himself by the side of her sister. When near
the Quadrant, in Regent-street, her sister asked her to
lend her some money. She immediately put her hand
in her pocket and drew out her purse, in which she had
seen a sovereign just before she entered the omnibus.
The sovereign was, however, missing, and she told her
sister of the loss.

Miss Martha Hammond said she was with her sister
on Thursday last. As they rode in the omnibus towards
Regent-street she felt that some one was trying to take
something out of her reticule. She watched, and she
observed that the prisoner Sultz, who sat by her side.
was acting in a suspicious way. The prisoner saw that
he was noticed, and he desisted from his attempt. Wit-
ness then looked at the other prisoner, who sat by the
side of her sister, and she saw him with his hand by her
sister's. pocket. Sultz, who appeared to notice that she
was ooserving his companion, touched Lawrence's toe
with his foot. Lawrence drew up his hand quietly, and
put something into his waistcoat pocket. Sutra touched
Lawrence's foot a second time, and then witness, who
suspected that an attempt had been made to rob her
sister, asked her sister to lend h. r some money. As soon
as her sister produced her purse and stated that she
missed a sovereign from it, witness turned to Lawrence
and said, " Sir, you have extracted a sovereign from my
sister's purse." The prisoner Lawrence replied that the
charge was nottrue, as he had two or three sovereigns
of his own in his pocket. Witness replied that she saw
him place something in his waistcoat pocket, which she
had no doubt was the sovereign stolen from her sister.
Witness then turned to Suitz, and told him that he had
made an attempt to steal something from her bag. The
prisoner denied the charge rudely; and, the attention of
the passengers having been by this time attracted to-
wards them, one of the gentlemen inside said the charge
had better be investigated at the station-house.
Police-constable Jones, D 37, said he was at the
Mary lebone station at the time when the charge was
brought. The prisoner Lawrence, when he got out of
the omnibus, walked into the station, but went back im-
mediati ly, saying he wanted to pay the omnibus. Hav-
ing paid the conductor, he was brought into the station-
house and searched. In his waistcoat pocket were found
a sovereign and a half in gold. On his person were
found some keys and two diamond rings, one of some
value. On Sultz were found several sovereigns.
Police-constable, D 37, stated that the prisoners were
both known to the police. Sultz had a certificate on him
from the surgeon of tha Penitentiary, to the effect that
the prisoner had a bad leg, and could not be put to hard

Mr. BINGItAx asked Miss Julia Hammond if she was
sure she had a sovereign in her purse when she got into
the omnibus? Miss Hammond said, she was positive
she placed a sovereign in her purse just before she left
,me.

The prisoners, who had a professional adviser, de-
clined to say anything in defence, and were fully com-
mitted.

WORSHIP-STREET.

Mr. John Johnson, a licensed victualler in the City-
road, appeared before Mr. ArnAd upon a warrant,
charged with having, in conjunction with another person
not in custody, committed the following violent. assault
upon Mr. Thomas Watson, a tradesman residing in the
same neighbourhood:—

The complainant, who, notwithstanding about a week
had elapsed since the occurrence, had one of histeyes
terribly cut and contused, stated, that having occasion to
enter the parlour of the defendant's house for the pur-
pose of procuring refreshment on the evening of the 3d
instant, an altercation arose between them regarding a
document he had taken off the table, and momentarily
held possession of in satisfaction of a sovereign due to
him, in the course of which the defendant attempted to
wrest the paper from him, and, having failed in so doing,
was immediately succeeded in the attempt by a friend
of his, who rushed at him, and seizing him by the
throat, thrust his fingers into his mouth with such
brutal roughness, that not only was the back of his
mouth seriously lacerated, but one of the strings of his
tongue was actually snapped in two. Not satisfied with
this degree of violence, he (the complainant) was then
seized round the body and forced back over a table,
with which his arm came into such violent contact that
it was bruised -most painfully from the elbow to the
wrist, and had been so seriously injured he had almost
lost the rise of it for several days; and he was finally
struck such a terrible blow upon one of his eyes that he
instantly dropped to the ground in a state of total insen
sibility, in which he remained for a considerable time,
and his tint no ion of recovery from which was finding
himself seated in a chair, and being roughly shaken by
some of the persons Ares. nt ; upon which the defendant,
on seeing he had reza.n, d his senses, renewed the attack
by striking him a violent blow on the side of his head,
and was proceeding to further ill-treatment, when he was
rescued from his violence by a gentleman in the room,
who interposed in his behalf; and facilitated his escape
' fvom the premises.
Mr. Heritage, who attended for the defence, addressed
the magistrate on behalf of his client, contending that the
plaintiff had brought the whole Of the injuries he had
received upon himself by his own misconduct, and called
a person named Crawford, from whom it appeared that
the defendant had some time singe advanced a consider-
able sup of money to en acquaintance of the com-
plainanr,tor, which the latter engaged to be answerable,
and gave the defendant an I 0 U for the amount. It was
this 10 U which was the cause of the contention
between them, and on the complainant entering the
parlour on the night in question, and the defendant
adverting to the value of his acceptance, the former
positively • denied that any such document was in exist-
ence, and dared him to produce it ; upon which the
defendant did so, and laid it upon the table, but it was
instantly snatched up by the complainant, who retreated
with it to the end of the room, and attempted to
swallow it ; that a friend of the defendant, upon wit-
nessing this action, immediately seized Mr. Watson
by the throat to prevent it, aid that a violent struggle
thereupon ensued between them for the possession of the
acceptance, in which the defendant took no part what-
ever, but which resulted in the complainant and his anta-
gonist being thrown several times to the ground together;
and, a table having been upset in the contest, the com-
plainant had fallen heavily upen and against it, and
received all the injuries he complained of ; no blow
whatever having been struck by either of them, and the
force used towards Mr. Watson being no more than was
absolutely necessary to prevent his swallowing the I 0 U,
which he was sworn positively to be apparently doing at
the time.

The complainant energetically declared that there was
not the slightest foundation for the insinuation conveyed
in the defence set up ; but
Mr. ARNOLD said, that it was impossible for him to
come to a satisfactoty adjudication on a case in which
such serious ill-usuge was sworn to on one side and so
totally denied on the other, and, as it was manifestly a
matter on which a jury alone could determine, he should
send the case to the sessions, and order the defendant to
put in bail to the extent of 50/. to answer the charge.
The bail was immediately found, and the defendan
thereupon liberated.

I' HA. Al ES.
George Allison Overton,
with inte-
r-35 years of age, a linendraper, was charged
e his first wife
a tall, well-dressed man, about
marrying with Anna Louisa Foster, while
was alive.
Pearse J. I).
bachelor, and ok of marriages,
from whiche7, Produced the resister-book
by banns on the
Betimai.gre ninon, clerk of St. John's district church,
Atppeared that George Allison Overton,
aarliet Ann Ives, spinster, were
firsltlawriyfe,lvaersidsttahtaetcl:tljealY' 1839,
married
at she is aunt to the prisoner's
her niece in 1839 she l'tiir 5116
heard of the marriage of
prisoner and her niece
John's Church to
satisfy herself of the fact. enrtge St.
, and he went
afterwards lived together as awn"
by the name of Overton, and carrpiaaendratitzwitfhee business of a
linendrapor. The prisoner se
Y last
three years and eight months ago. fr"' nhdift wife
witness went to the residence of heron !tie?: -1.4
then from home, but on the following day siew"neis:La
a letter from her stating that she intended if rep:s*l;le
to present herself at the police-court, but she had not
done so.
In cross-examination by Mr. Pelham, the witness said
the prisoner and her niece quarrelled in the street, and
he returned to his dwelling in Limehouse causeway, put
his goods in a cart, and left the neighbourhood. He re-
. fused to allow his wife to accompany him, and used