The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-22 00:00:00

ST. CLEMENTS DANES.

A most unruly and turbulent meeting took
place last night of the parishioners of St. Clements
Danes, in the Vestry-room of that parish, the Rev. Mr.
Gurney, the Rector of the parish, presiding. The object
of the meeting, which was most numerously attended,
the Vestry-room being actually crammed, was to elect a
Vestry-Keeper. Two persons only were candidates for
the office, but. the election seemed to be considered
a matter of no small importance in the parish,
cad the feelings of the parishioners seemed to run
high on the subject. Shortly after the commence-
ment of the meeting, it was quite apparent that the pre-
ponderance of those present was in favour of the candi-
date of the name of Norman, whose claims to the office
were stated to be, " that he kept the George's' Tavern
and Hotel, Strand; had been housekeeper and rate-payer
nineteen years, at rentals of upwards of 300/. per annum,
and contributed about 7001. towards the parochial rates ;
that he is sixty years of age, a widower, with five
daughters, three of whom are entirely dependent on
him ; that he has lost in business considerable sums of
money, the earnings of his younger days ; that he is
now bodily afflicted and totally reduced in circumstances,
and therefore seeks, through your kindness, to be placed
in that situation which will relieve his state of mind, and
save him and his family from destitution." The other
candidate was Miss Marshall, who was the daughter of
the late vestry-keeper.
Mr. GODFREY, in opening the business of the meeting,
adverted in rather severe terms to some statements that
had appeared in the Observer Newspaper, and deprecated
the course that had been pursued by Mr. Dowling, the
Editor of Bed's Life in London.
The two candidates were proposed amidst the greatest
uproar and confusion, and several gentlemen who at-
tempted to address the meeting on behalf of the candi-
dates, met with a similar reception. After considerable
tumult, a show of hands was taken, and declared to be
greatly in favour of Mr. Norman. A poll was then
demanded on behalf of Miss Marshall, which being agreed
to, was ordered to take place on Monday and Tuesday next.
Mr. DOWLING, in rising to propose a vote of thanks to
the Rev. and Worthy Chairman, trusted that as he had
been personally alluded to, he should be allowed to say a
few words. He had, in the course of the evening, been
called the Editor of Beli's Life in London, and also a
scribbler. He acknowledged both the soft impeachments.
In the former character he trusted he could not be
accused of having done anything injurious to the
morals of the people—(Cheers)—and by that of a
scribbler, which he had been for forty years, he had been
enabled to bring up and educate a numerous family,
with benefit to them, and, he hoped, with honour to
himself.—(Great cheering.) As one of the Guardians
of the parish, he had been always against the renewal of
the office of vestry-keeper, considering it an unneces-
sary burthen on the parish. The meeting, however. had
determined that the office should be continued ; and, as
they were to pay the piper, of course they had the right
to say who should play the pipes.—(Great laughter.)
The vote of thanks having been seconded, and the
Rev. and worthy Chairman having returned thanks, the
meeting separated shortly before ten o'clock.
The poll will be proceeded with on Monday and Tues-
day next.

SURREY QUARTERSESSIONS,
KINGSTON, OCT. 21.
A man named Thomai Lee surrendered to take his
trial upon a charge of stealing property to a consider-
able amoent, belonging to a person named William
Monday.
Mr. Chambers defended the prisoner.
It appeared, from the evidence of the prosecutor,
that two years ago he kept the Nag's Head public-
house at Cheltenham, and the prisoner lodged with him.
In the month of November, 1839, his wife left hhn in
company with the prisoner, and took away with her, as
he represented, a 1001. note, a number of books, a set
of chins, and other articles. About a fortnight ago he
went to Blechingley, where he found his wife living with
the prisoner, and on a search being made in the house
he discovered some of the articles that had been stolen.
Upon his being cross-examined he said that after
his wife went away from him he heard that she was
Lying about three miles off, but he did not go to make
any inquiry either after her or his property. He also
admitted that he might have said that his wife might
go to the devil and he did not care for her. It further
appeared that he had met the prisoner several times
after his wife left him, and that he never made any
charge against him.
The Corner, after hearing some further evidence, inti-
mates its opinion that the charge could not be sup-
ported, and the Jury accordingly returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
A young man of genteel appearance, named Fre-
derick Williams, was indicted for feloniously uttering,
at Guildford, a certain forged check, purpuiting to be
the draft or order of one F. Howard, upon Messrs.
Smith, Payne, and Smith, with intent to defraud
Messrs. Hayden and Co., the bankers of Guildford.
Mr. Chambers appeared in support of the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. Jemmett defended the prisoner.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty.
lie was again indicted for uttering a similar forged
instrument, at the Godalming Bank, with intent to de-
fraud that establishment.
To this indictment the prisoner also pleaded Guilty.
Mr. Chambers said he was instructed by the prose-
cutors to state that they felt themselves compelled
to institute the present prosecution by a sense of their
duty to the public ; they, of course, lied not the slightest
vindictive feeling against the unfortunate young man at
the bar, but, on the contrary, they would be glad if the
Court, upon inquiry, should find that there acre such
circumstances of mitigation in the case as would enable
it to pass a lenient sentence.
Mr. Jemmett, on behalf of the prisoner, said that
he was a member of a respectable and numerous family.
He was now only eighteen years old, and having formed
an unfortunate female connection, the consequence
was, that he had been reduced to a state of distress,
and in a moment of desperation he committed the
offence imputed to him. He intreated the Court to
consider the youth of the prisoner, and not to blast his
prospects for ever by a sentence that would remove him
from this country.
The prisoner, who had been crying bitterly, here ad-
dressed the Court, and said he trusted they would allow
him to express his deep contrition for what he had
done, and be implored the Magistrates to give him a
chance of redeeming his character.
The CHAIRMAN, after consulting the Bench, told the
prisoner that he had been convicted of one of the most
serious offences that could be committed in a commer-
cial country, as it was one that struck at the root of all
confidence, and tended to cause most serious mischief.
He was liable to be transported for life, but the Court
taking his youth into consideration, and also the re-
commendations of the prosecutors, would not proceed
to that extremity. Under all the circumstances, the
sentence of the Court was, that he be imprisoned in the
County Gaol for two years, and that three months of
that time, at different periods, should be passed in soli-
tary confinement.
In addition to the other licenses that were applied
for on Wednesday, Mr. Jemmett made an application
for a renewal of the license to Mr. Hodgson, of the
Duke's Head, or Bower-gardens, Stangate.
Mr. Chambers opposed the application, on behalf of
the Dramatic Authors'Society, and said that that place
was originally only licensed for music to aid the exhi-
bition of dioramic views, but it had changed hands, and
bad latterly, under the Magistrates' license, been con-
verted into nothing but a low theatre, in which dra-
matic entertainments were performed, and to which the
prices of admission were so low as twopence and three-
pence. Every successful piece was immediately per
formed at this piece, but the authors of them were un-
able to get that.payment to which, by a recent Act of
Parliarneat, they were entitled, becam) it was said that
this was not a legal place of dramatic entertainment.
He submitted that this was a great injustice, and that
as the conditions of the license were not adhered to,
the Court ought to withhold it.
• Mr. Jemmett contended that no ground had been
i shown for refusing the license, and he said that if Mr.