The Sun.
London, England, 1847-10-07 00:00:00

LAMBETH.

Yesterday Mr. George Crook Gray, a young man
whose friends are of the highest respectability, ap-
peared before Mr. Elliott to answer to two summonses
—the one charging him with an act of wilful damage
to property, and the other with such wilful misbe-
haviour as was likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
Mr. Humphreys attended to support the sum-
monses; and Mr. Borlase (of the firm of Holmes and
Borlase, solicitors, Great James. street, Bedford-row)
appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Mr. Humphreys said it was his painful duty to
urge against the defendant two charges—the one for
maliciously injuring property, and the other with
being guilty of such behaviour as was likely to lead
to a breach of the peace. Mr. Gray, the defendant,
was the son of a highly respectable gentleman, resid-
ing next door to Mr. Martin, the gentleman on whose
behalf he (Mr. Humphreys) attended, in Windmill-
place, Camberwell; and to show something like a
motive for the conduct with which he was charged,
it was necessary for him (Mr. Humphreys) to go a
little into detail of the circumstances out of which it
had arisen. Soon after Mr. Martin had taken up his
residence in Windmill-place, a friendly intercourse
took place between his family and that of Mr. Gray,
his next door neighbour, and when this had gone on
for about twelve months, Mr. Gray, jun. (the
defendant), thought proper to make some proposals
to Miss Martin, which were not only re-
jected by Miss Martin's family, but by her-
self, and it was at that time found neces-
sary to break off the feeling previously existing
between bo'h families. Mr. Gray had, notwith-
standing, continued his importunities and his annoy-
ance of Miss Martin to such an extent that it was
found necessary to forward a letter to his father,
complaining of his conduct. Mr. Gray, sen., in
consequence, waited on the family of Mr. Martin,
and said that his son had solemnly promised never to
molest in the slightest degree Miss Martin or her
family, provided she rejected his proposals in the
presence of both the families. Miss Martin expressed
her willingness to do so, and in the presence of her
father, mother, Mr. Gray, sen., and Mr. Gray, jun.,
she made the required declaration. The defendant,
however, soon forgot his promise, and recommenced
such a system of annoyance towards Miss Martin
that it was ultimately found necessary to bring him
to this Court, when he was convicted in a penalty.
This circumstance, together with the severe admo-
nition which the defendant bad experienced at the
hands of the then presiding Magistrate, led Mr.
Martin and his family to hope that there would be an
end to his annoyance ; but in this, as the witnesses
would prove, they were disappointed. In conclusion,
Mr. Humphreys said he was anxious to spare the
feelings of Miss Martin, and therefore did not intend
to call her as a witness, but as it was the wish of the
other side that she should be present, she was in
attendance and ready to answer any question they
might think proper to put to her..
Mary Evans was then called, and upon being sworn
stated that she was servant to Mr. Martin, 6, Wind-
mill-place, Camberwell, and that the father of the
defendant lived next door. On the evening of the
27th of last month she spread a night-dress belonging
to Miss Martin, four muslin curtains, and a towel, on
a plot of grass in her master's garden, and in a few
minutes after she saw all these articles covered over
with large black spots, as if a shower of ink had fallen
upon them. She instantly ran to the wall which
separates the garden of Mr. Gray from her master's,
and saw the defendant, whom she had just before seen
in another part of his father's garden, hurrying to-
wards his house. The spots on the articles she had
named had been caused by some composition which
would not wash out, so that the whole of the articles,
which were worth 21., were rendered perfectly useless.
Inspector Valentine, of the P division, said he was
called into the house of Mr. Martin by the last wit-
ness, and saw the articles of property produced be-
fore they had been removed from the glass plot. He
traced the black spots across the garden to the wall
separating the garden from that of the defendant's
father, and on carefully examining this wall he found
a hole fresh made from a summerhouse on the other
side right through, and in which a fresh cork was
placed. He (Mr. Valentine) had no doubt whatever
that the liquid composition which had destroyed the
property produced had been forced by a syringe
through the hole he had mentioned.
This and the other witness were cross-examined at
considerable length, but nothing favourable to the
defendant was elicited.
Mr. Borlase addressed the bench at some length,
and dwelt on the great improbability that the de-
fendant should have committed the offence alleged at
a moment when he must have been certain of de. ,

tection.
In the second charge, Mr. George Martin, of No. 4,
Thomas-street, Borough, deposed that such was the
annoyance experienced by his sister from the de-
fendant, that she was obliged to discontinue her
attendance at Camberwell Church. On Sunday, the
19th of last month, he took his sister to a church in
town, and after coming out his sister and himself
went to his house in Thomas-street. In the course
of the afternoon he came out with the intention of
putting his sister into an omnibus, and returning to
dinner ; but, in passing up the street, he saw the
defendant, and he in consequence determined on
seeing his sister home. The defendant walked along-
side of them all the way, and when they walked
quick or slow, to avoid him, he did the same. On
arriving at their residence the defendant opened his
gate, and, in a peculiar tone, called out " Good morn-
ing, Miss Martin." He (witness) remonstrated with
him, upon which he called him a goose; and, putting
up both his hands, extended his fingers, and took what
was called " a sight."
In his cross-examination, the witness admitted he
had called the defendant an unmanly scoundrel, shook
his fist at him, and said, that had it not been for his
sister, he should not have been able to have kept his
hands off him.

Mr. Humphreys here remarked that the defendant
had now an opportunity, if he chose, of calling Miss
Martin, and having the benefit of her evidence; and
if he did not choose to take advantage of her presence,
it would be adding insult to injury in requiring her to
attend.
Mr. Borlase said, he had no wish to call Miss Mar-

tin, and in reply to the charge remarked on the im-
probability of his client's wish to insult a young lady
to whom he was, notwithstanding all that had oc-

curred, so much attached. The language used by
him, namely, " Good morning, Miss Martin," was not
of an insulting character, and as to what he said to
her brother it was not to be wondered at, when he, the
brother, in the first instance called him an unmanly
scoundrel.

Mr. ELLIOTT remarked, that the defendant, it
appeared, had formerly been brought to this court
for an annoyance of an unmanly kind towards Miss
Martin, when his brother magistrate, as had been stated
by Mr. Humphreys, had not only imposed a penalty,
but cautioned him as to his future conduct. This,
however, appeared to have had no effect on him, as
it seemed he had soon resorted to a similar species
of annoyance. On the present occasion there were
two charges proved against him, the first, one of the
meanest and most dastardly acts that any person could
be guilty of; namely, throwing a quantity of filthy
liquid over the night•dress of Miss Martin, and for
this he should punish him to the utmost penalty of
the law, which was 40s. for the wilful damage, and
405., the amount of the property destroyed, or, in
a
which
aenr
tw penaltyadelsbaetrias ft
of.aie
imposecharge,
The defendant
default, to one month's imprisonment ; and on the next
to4droisl y. pr ruoat E.hodit.
sh, here
nr
slsoehnoatunhl d
paid the 61. penalty, together ,ds
imprisonment.
re.w o
Y
left the Court. er 6s. expenses, and

TVESTAIINSTER,
Yesterday Elizabeth Lewis was charged by In-
spector Haines, of the detective police, with having
robbed a gentleman of a gold watch,
Mr. Haine2 said, that In consequence of a com-
munication made by a French gentleman, named