The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-29 00:00:00

KENDALL I. WATKINS.

In this case Mr. L ish appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Humfrey for the defendant.
It was brought to recover the sum of 301. upon an
I 0 U, given by the defendant to the plaintiff, and it
arose out of the disposal of a fishmonger's business,
which was carried on in White Rose court, Coleman-
street.

The particulars of the case were entirely devoid of any
general interest.
A verdict was found for the plaintiff.

CRIMINAL COURT7-(THIS DAY.,

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Mr. Stinton, the other partner, was then examined a,
some length by the Attorney-General in corroboration.
lie was cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, who
endeavoured to elicit from him that he had written letters
to Anne Sitrnons,:and that when her boxes were being
searched, he called her into the bed-room, and begged
of her, for God's sake, to give hint up alt the notes he had
mitten to her. The witness vehemently and indignantly
answered, " Upon my soul, I never wrote to her a note on
any subject in my life."
Mr. Sergeant Witness—You are not here to swear
upon your soul. The only soul you are upon here is
the sole of your foot.—(Great laughter.)
The Arroarmt-GEuguss, protested against the in-
decency of the observation, and said that the witness
had only exhibited a natural resentment at an insulting
imputation.
The cross-examination proceeded, in which the wit-
ness solemnly denied that he gave Simons the ,dress in
which she went to the ball at Cricklewood, or that he
wrote a note to her, requesting she should wear a blue
dress.

A sister of the prisoner Simons was called, but she
only proved that Hickman sent money and legal assist.
ance to the prisoner when she was taken into custody.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL endeavoured to elicit from
the witness that she obtained her living in a disreput-
able way.
Mr. Sergeant WiLiciNs protested against the indecency
of the Attorney-General disparaging so vilely his own
witness.

After some discussion, the question—".Do you live
under the protection of any gentleman ?" was allowed
to be put, the Judge informing the witness that she wa.
not obliged to answer the question. She accordingly
declined to answer. She had repeatedly seen Mr.
Stinton walking in Regent-street and elsewhere at
night. He always passed witness without speaking.
The laundress of the chambers occupied by Hickman
was called. She merely proved that he occupied the
rooms for four or five years—that Simons visited him,
seemed to possess his entire confidence, and had exclu-
sively the keys of the chest of drawers, as well as of
the boxes in which the goods of the prosecutor's were
found. Ile might not know anything of what they
costuitied. Nothing was ever removed from the chambers
by Mr. Hickman during:the years that ho was
The witness's servant C ,nfirmed this, and added that
Hickman was out of town when the boxes were brought
to his chambers by Simons.
Several other witnesses were examined for the prose-
cution, hut added nothing material.

Mr. Sergeant WILKI:xs addressed the jury at great
length for the prisoner Shnons. He complained of the
conduct of the counsel for the prosecution, and said
that the jury must have perceived from the questions put
to Mr. Stinton, that the defence which he was instructed
to offer would implicate him in this case, although the
intimacy with the prisoner, al'eged to have subsisted be-
tween them, was carried on in secrecy, and not per-
fectly capable of proof. The sister, however, had sworn
to meeting them walking at night about the streets,
under circumstances which gave some colour to her
allegation, when it was considered that he was a
married man. It was evident that the prisoner's
statement that Stinton introduced her to the
establishment was true, because Mr. Marshall swore he
never saw her until she was in the house; and the sister
swore positively that it was ho who gave her the place.
The Learned Counsel also dvri It at great length on the
circumstance that Mr. Stinton had the control of the
affairs of the establishment, the management of the
books, purchases and sales, and of the taking of stock.
It was strange, too, that whilst he denied that ho gave
the dress in which Simons went to the ball, ho could
not recollect the dress of any other lady whatever, not
even of his own wife. He contended also that the
defence of the prisoner was corroborated by Mr.
‘. anklet 4b.s was nrongod
until she wisa commit tad. sasu notesing upon
the subject when the charge was first made in
his presence—he never reproached the prisoner,
never spoke to her, although she stood beside his desk.
Mr. Stinton also admitted, in contradiction of his partner,
that Barber was discharged for saying that he (Stinton)
was too intimate with Simons. It was strange also that
both partners admitted that not one of the articles found
in her possession had ever been missed, and they ad-
mitted that the persons employed were allowed to pur-
chase goods at cost price over the counter. lie pressed
the latter admission upon the consideration of the jury,
in connexion with Mr. Stinton's saying, that he believed
her to be a young woman of some property, and her
allegation that she had the property with his know-
ledge.
Sir FREDERICK TBESICER then addressed the jury
for Mr. Hickman at considerable length.
The Learned JUDGE then summed up, when
The jury, at half-past six o'clock, returned a verdict
of Guilty against Simons, and Acquitted Hickman.

WORSHIP-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
TIM LATE CASK OF MATRICIDE, AT HACKNEY.—This
being the day appointed by Mr. Harnmill for the final
examination of the prisoner, Willia►n Stewart Sheridan,
for the alleged murder of his own mother, Mrs. Frances
Sheridan, widow of an officer in the army, and late of
Mare-street, Hackney, who, it will be remembered,
expired on the 29th ult , after a few days illness. The
office was crowded by some of the most influential per-
sons residing in the neighbourhood of Hackney.
The prisoner, on being ushered into the dock, made a
slight obeisance to the Court, and displayed similar
coolness and self-possession as he had hitherto done.
Mr. Humpheys, the prisoner's solicitor, was in at-
tendance, and re•examined some of the witnesses upon
certain points of their evidence as it was read over to
them by Mr. Houlston, one of the clerks, but Mr. Hum-
phrey's method of cross-examination did not appear,
in some instances, precisely to suit the prisoner,
as he exclaimed on one or two occasions, although
cautioned by Mr. H. not to do so, "if my solicitor
will not cross-examine the witnesses, I will."
The depositions of the various medical gentlemen,