The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-25 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON SESSIONS.

Richard Archer and John Sutherland were indicted for
assaulting William Miller.
It appeared by the evidence that the parties met in
Cursitor-street, and an altercation having arisen a box-
ing match ensued, when the prosecutor received a severe
blow, in consequence of which he was confined for several
weeks in the hospital.
Mr. Payne defended the prisoners, and cross-ex-
amined the prosecutor, who said his mother was matron
in the hospital, but he was admitted there as a patient,
and did not go as a visitor to her. More than a week
elapsed from the time of the assault until he was ad-
mitted to the hospital, labourinc, under a concussion of
the brain. He had been previously affected with a brain
fever, but did not attribute his recent illness to it.
Several witnesses having been called for the defence,
who stated that Archer had never struck the prosecutor,
The RECORDER. summed up, and said the question
for the Jury to decide upon was, whether the parties mu-
tually agreed to fight, or whether Miller was struck by
the prisoners without any such agreement, as in the latter
case alone could an indictment for assault be laid.

The Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Robert Shaw, alias Darrow, and George Watson were
indicted for assaulting Mrs. Sarah Abrahams.
The brief facts of this case, which have been recently
before the public, were, that the two prisoners passed a
bad half-crown in the shop of the prosecutrix, and a po-
liceman, seeing them leave the shop, suspected what
had been their object, when he brought them back in
custody; and Mrs. Abrahams, having produced the half-
crown, the prisoner Shaw seized her by the arm, and
snatched it from her hand, swallowed it. The other
prisoner, Watson, called out the cant phrase among
smashers—" Gnash it." From the fact of the prisoners'
having destroyed the half-crown no evidence could be ad-
duced against them of passing base coin, and in order that
they might not entirely evade justiee, the present in•
dictment was laid.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the pri-
soners were sentenced to three months' imprisonment,
with hard labour.

Several persons were indicted by the Police for keeping
houses of ill-fame, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment,
varying from six weeks to three months, and ordered to
enter into their own recognizances in the sum of 3001.,
to be of good behaviour for two years. Tho nuisances
complained of were mostly situated in the Courts lead-
ing from Fleet-street.

LONDON SESSIONS, GUILDHALL.
OCT. 23.—Mr. Bodkin applied on behalf of Mr. Lewis
Benjamin, proprietor of Howard's Coffee-house, St.
James's, Duke's-place, for the renewal of a music and
dancing license, and said it was very desirable his client
should be protected against common informers, as per-
sons of the Jewish persuasion were in the habit of cele-
brating their marriages in this house by grand musical
entertainments.

There was no opposition, and the license was renewed.
Mr. Bodkin then applied for a similar license for Mr.
John Turins, of the Fox and Grapes, Primrose-street,
Bishopsgate, and stated that, upon an action being
brought against a house permitting such performances
without license, the Judges decided that it was requisite
for every man to have a license for music and dancing.
Lord Abinger had expressed an opinion that places oc-
casionally used for dancing and music did not come within
the meaning of the Act, and that proof was necessary that
a place was ordinarily used for such purposes, to
support an information, but that decision had been set
aside. He trusted that a license would be granted to
his client, since about twenty or thirty societies of a
philanthropic and benevolent character were in the habit
of using it, and spending the evening in the national
amusement of singing. The petition was supported by
about 300 of the most respectable neighbours, and there
would be no difficulty in obtaining the signature of every
councilman in the ward.

The ALDERMEN, after conferring together, said that,
though the applicant was a most respectable man, still
there was no security how long he would continue to
keep the house ; that, if this license were granted, a si-
milar one could not be refused to every house in the
City ; they would, therefore, refuse the application.
Mr. Bodkin thought, if any legal objections existed to
the license being granted, they should be stated in Court.
No avowed opposition of any kind had been offered. He
observed that some alteration was greatly required in the
law upon this subject.

SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS.
GEORGE POOR V. A CONVICTION OF J.COTTINGEAM, ESQ.

This was an appeal against a decision of Mr. Cutting-
ham, the Union-hall Magistrate, sentencing the appellant
to two months' hard labour as a rogue and vagabond.
The circumstances were of rather an extraordinary cha-
racter. The appellant was charged by two policemen
with having attempted to pick pockets at .Camberwell
fair, and it was sworn that he had been seen attempting
to pick several gentlemen's pockets, and, also, that he was
a notorious bad character ; and, upon this evidence, Mr.
Cottingham convicted the appellant, and ordered him to
be kept to hard labour for two months. It turned out
that the lad bore a very good character, that his friends
were respectable mechanics, and that so far from his
having been in the fair for the purpose of committing
felony, that ho had gone there with three other lads to
amuse themselves, and that he had himself been robbed
of his handkerchief. An appeal was immediately entered
against the conviction 'under the provisions of the Act of
the sth Geo. IV., and came on this day to be heard.
Mr. Walline;er; who appeared for the appellant, stated
the circumstances under which the appeal arose, and he
said that he believed the worthy Magistrate, from his
knowledge of the real circumstances of the case, had no
intention to support .his conviction ; and he, therefore,
moved that the conviction be quashed.
The COURT was about to allow the appeal accordingly,
when the policeman got into the box, and expressed a
wish to proceed with the case.
The CHAIRMAN, after consulting with his colleagues,
said, that as Mr. Cottingham had not thought proper
to instruct Counsel to support his conviction, they had no
doubt he had good grounds for not doing so, and he
did not see how the Court could go on in his absence.

Mr. Wallinger observed that Mr. Cottingham had
thought it was a proper case ho would have instructed
Counsel to support the conviction.
The COURT concurred, and ordered the conviction
t,) be quashed, and the appellant to bo set at liberty.

PER TINS, ESQ., V. AN ORDER OF TWO JUSTICES TO STOP
UP
_A HIGHWAY CALLED CLAY-LANE, IN NUTFIILD.

This was an appeal of a somewhat novel and important
character. It occupied the Court for seven hours on
Eriday, and was not concluded until nearly 11 at night.
The question came before the Court in this shape :
The Magistrates had signed as order to stop up the lane
in question, and at the same time declared that it was
unnnecessary for the public. The appellant, on the
other hand, appealed, on the ground that he was acr-
e;rieved by the road being closed, and also on the ground
that the road was necessary for the convenience of the
public, and a Jury was empanelled to try those issues.
Mr. Wallinger and Mr. Locke conducted the case for
the appellant, and Mr. Montagu Chambers conducted
the respondent's case.
When the Jury had been sworn, a long discussion
arose as to which party ought to begin ; and it being al-
together a novel case, some considerable difficulty ap-
peared to felt upon the subject. The Court ultimately
decided that as the appellant had set up certain facts
in support of the appeal, it was incumbent upon him to
make out his case in the first instance.
A number of witnesses were then called from whose
evidence it appeared that Mr. Perkins, who is a gentle-
man of fortune residing at Nutfield, was in the possession
of property abutting upon this Clay-lane, and across
which the South-Eastern Railway is carried, and as there
awtacsit another road near the spot it was arranged that no
arch should be made by that Company, but that their
part orderb
rdkemtchelean;inould be carried across it, and the Magis-
trates after going through the necessary forms, signed an
appellant, the
it roadwae
question was a convenience
of his propertywas unnecessary.
t h atte
lOannetliine
another,ence. tobu
but
himt appearedto go fro
that onet
carrot
and it was also admPitotne
were other equally convenient modes of access to it,
that the lace in question was
only a summer road, and that in winter it was com-
pletely impassable, and could
months in the year, and that in parts
to pass, and it n4'Fiyts itb
ewaeusevderyfonrearrfoeww,
inly affording room for one v
ap-
peared that taking it, altogether,
real utility or convenience to the itubliaL )ti(cli. it
was
yproved
e
that a better road had beenla made at a short
distance. A number of
Pe
placeva nrd thatf.re
n they
iving
neighbourhood were examined, andin the
they expressed
their opinion that the road was necessary,
were in the habit of using it to go to one,
t tilde eally
an-
other in the neighbourhood. There was e
evi-
dence, however, to show that the plaintiff individually
little
was aggrieved by the road being stopped up.
Mr. Chambers, at the close of the evidence, proceeded
to reply upon the whole case, and he contended that tke
appellant had failed in making out his grounds of appeal.
The CHAIRMAN summed up, and the Jury, after about
ten minutes' deliberation, returned the following ver-
dict :—" We find that the appellant, Mr. Perkins, NI
not aggrieved by the road being closed, but we are of
opinion that the road is necessary for the convenience of
the public."
The effect of this verdict will he that the Magistrates'
order will be quashed, and the road be again thrown open
to the public.

On Saturday, at the Town Hall of St. Albans,
Jabez Kirk, aged 19, a private in the 34th Regiment of
Foot, was brought up for re-examination, charged with
having attempted to murder Jane Pearce, an unfortu-
nate girl, aged 18. Dr. Webster, in answer to a ques-
tion from the Magistrates, having stated that it would
be some time before the girl would recover, and that she
rettivievlciillercio:Tstheoef hweoruledx abme
washo not in a fit state to be examined, said he thought,
isnot
tifaorh recoveredThepri
sboyn}e'rr,i dwahyonaepx.t.
Itncoucertied,wltstlim remanded till that day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A young man, who said that his name was George
Junes, was brought before Mr. Alderman ririe (the Lord
Mayer elect) charged with having committed an assault
upon Mrs. Hannah Townley, on Friday night.
Bromley, the policeman, who apprehended the defen-
dant, stated that he had another man in company with
Jones, for having also offended the lady, but the Inspec-
tor not having allowed him to put handcuffs on the two
men, one of them escaped as he was conducting them
from the Compter.
Mrs. Townley stated that she had been at the house
of a friend near Houndsditch until eleven o'clock, and
while she was waiting at the corner of the street for an
omnibus, the defendant and two other persons came up
and used very offensive language to her. She threatened
to give them in charge to a policeman, upon which they
declared that they would give her in charge, and laid
hold of her. A young man came up, when she called
for protection, to her assistance, when he was immedi-
ately knocked down by the defendant, whose language
was'most grossly insulting. One of the three men escaped.
The defendant and the other were taken into custody by
the policemen.
Alfred Allendale, a mere lad, stated that upon hear-
ing the cry for protection he ran up and saw the defen-
dant and two other men with their hands upon Mrs.
Townley. The defendant, who was the worst of the
three, offered to fight witness for a sovereign, and pitched
into him at once. _

Defendant stated that he was a shopman at a draper's
inlVhitechapel, and that he was tipsy on the occasion,
and insulted Mrs. Townley, but never laid a hand on her.
Alderman Pintr, ordered that the defendant should
find bail to answer the complaint next Sessions, himself
in 501., and two sureties in 251. each.
HA TrON GARDEN.

A gentleman, named Handscomb, was brought before
Mr. Jardine, charged by police constable Owen, 109 G,
with assaulting him in the execution of his duty.
Mr. Head, from the office of Mr. Steele, defended the
prisoner.
The complainant, having been sworn, stated that be-
tween eleven and twelve o'clock on Friday night, while
on duty in Exmouth-street, Spafields, he picked up
a white pocket handkerchief, and, three females
claiming it, he asked them separately if there
was any particular mark by which either of them
could distinguish it. At this time the defendant
had come up, and, pointing to one of the ladies, he
said, " Why don't you give it to her, and go about
your business ?" To which witness replied, " How do
you know ?" When he answered, " Any one can see
by her manner that it is her property. You don't know
your business." The same female then mentioned that
a bit of edging had been torn off the handkerchief, and
witness finding that to be so, immediately restored it to
her, and the persons who had assembled, with the ex-
ception of the prisoner, began to disperse. The latter,
however, refused to go on, and declared his intention of
staying there as long as he liked, at the same instant de-
siring witness to proceed on his beat, and pushing him
forward. Upon this witness observed, " Such conduct
as this does not become you, and if you persist in stop-
ping here, I shall remove 3ou to the station-house." The
prisoner did persist in remaining there, and witness in
consequence locked him up.
In answer to Mr. Head, the complainant said he
thought Mr. Handscomb had been drinking ; but he did
not charge him with intoxication, but with assaulting
him by pushing him.
Hutchings, No. 22 G, a very steady and excellent offi-
cer, was next examined, and gave a very different feature
to the case. He said his beat was on the opposite side
of the street to that of the complainant, and hearing him
in altercation with some persons, he walked over to see
what it was about. The defendant and several other
gentlemen were good-humouredly requesting constable
Owen to hand over the handkerchief to a lady; and they
complaining that he had kept them quibbling about it for
more than a quarter of an hour, witness remarked,'" Why
don't you give it up? If you have any doubt about it,
take it to the station-house." Owen thereupon gave up
the handkerchief, and most of the bystanders instantly
dispersed, the defendant intimating to Owen that if he
proceeded forward all would be instantly quiet. Owen,
however, insisted on Mr. Handscomb going away first ;
and he objecting, the officer took him to the station-house.
Mr. JARDINE-Dill the gentleman who is now at the
bar assault your brother officer? Hutchings—Not at all.
Mr. JARDINE—Did he lay hands upon him ? Hutch-
ings—No, Sir ; he merely motioned his hand when he
told to Owen that he had better proceed on his duty.
Mr. JARDINE—Did his hand touch him then ? Hutch-
ings—lt might have slightly brushed his sleeve ; but I
did not see it. They were very close together. The
defendant was leaning his back against some shutters,
and Owen was in front of him.

Mr. Head—lf my client had assaulted the officer by,
pushing him violently must you have seen him ? Hutch-
ings—Certainly.
Mr. Head (te Mr. Jardine)—After what you have
heard, probably you will think it unnecessary for me to
comment on the case, or call any witnesses. The evi-
dence of Hutchings speaks volumes for my injured client.
Mr. JARDINE—I should certainly decide at once that
it is unnecessary for me to hear further testimony to in-
duce me to say that Mr. Handscomb has been wrong-
fully charged; but as I have another object in view I
will hear one of them.
Mr. Head then called a gentleman named Williams,
who resides in York-street, Queen-square. lie stated
that hearing an altercation in Exmouth-street, on Friday
night, he stopped andlotind that it arose about a pocket-
handkerchief, and his first impression was that the police-
man (Owen) was drunk, and that impression was con-
firmed in consequence of there bentg several other officers
in the crowd, not one of whom interfered until Hutchings
recommended him to hand over the handkerchief to the
rightful owner ; on which Mr. Handscomb, in a gentle-
manly manner, observed, " Ah, take the advice of your
brother officer, and let the woman go." Owen, after
telling the defendant that he was drunk, did as Hutchings
had recommended ; and all might then ye quietly ended
had the complainant chosen. It was plain, however,
that there was a bad feeling on the part of Owen, and
witness stopped to hear the result, which was that Mr.
Handscomb was dragged to the station-house without the
slightest cause. The defendant, when seized by Owen,
did not resist, but the latter used him violently, and many
times pushed him as he took him along.
Mr. JARDINE—Are you a friend of Mr. Handscomb?
Mr. Williams—Until last night I had never, to my
knowledge, seen him.
Mr. JARDINE, addressing Mr. Handscomb. said he
considered he had been greatly ill-used, and that he had
done no act whatever which in the slightest degree called
for the interference of a constable. Such treatment he
deeply regretted, and without saying anything further,
he should dismiss the complaint.
Mr. Handscomb having thanked the Magistrate for the
attention he had bestowed upon the matter, bowed, and
retired with his friends.

Jane Coope, a handsome young female, was put to the
bar, charged with felony, under very aggravated circum-
stances.

Mr. James Creedy, a baker in, Rawstorne-street,
Clerkenwell, stated that the prisoner was a neighbour
and housekeeper of her brother, who is a most respect-
able tradesman. Not long ago, the latter called upon
Mrs. Creedy and said that his sister had been taken sud-
denly ill, and she being, comparatively speaking, a
stranger in that district, she did not know any female
that she could take the liberty of consulting with, and
he asked her advice under the circumstances. Mrs.
Creedy immediately voluuteered her assistance, and ac-
companied the brother to the prisoner, who was certainly
♦ery ill. She attended the prisoner for several days and
nights, invited her after recovery to her house, and
treated her in every respect with the greatest kindnois.
She frequently visited at witness's house, and no suspicion
of the prisoner's disposition appeared until the present
week, when, in consequence of witness missing a sum
of 9/. from a drawer in a sleeping-room, and none
but his own family having access to that, excepting the
prisoner, the painful fact struck forcibly on his mind that
she was the thief. For three days afterwards the accused
was in and out of the house, and money being again
missed, he took means to make a detection, by marking
a number of pieces of coin in the presence of several per-
sons. On that morning the prisoner paid her accustomed
visit, and was seen to enter the bud-room, and directly
she came out, the sum of IL 19s. being missed, she was
accused of the robbery, which she denied in the most
positive terms. The police were sent fur, and she was
handed over to a woman to be searched, when the whole
of the marked money was found on her, and she was at
once removed to this office.

The prisoner was fully committed to Newgate.
LAMBETH-STREET.

Saturday a considerable portion of the time of the sit-
ting Magistrate, Mr. Norton, was occupied in hearing
the evidence against Edward Beamond and Solomon
Levine, who were brought from the Mansion-house,
and who have been examined on a charge of being con-
cerned with others in obtaining several bales of goods
from Miller's Wharf, Lower East Smithfield, by means
of forged orders.
Mr. Child appeared for the prisoner Levine, Mr. Stod-
dart forßeamond, and Mr.llumphries for the prosecution.
From the evidence given at the Mansion-house, it
appeared that a person, not as yet in custody, called at
Miller's Wharf, and presented an order purporting to
come froth Mr. Sangster, of Queen-street, Cheapside, for
three bales of goods which had been brought from Scot-
land. The order being in the usual printed form, and
signed by a clerk in the employment of Mr. Sangster,
no suspicion was entertained about it, and the goods
were delivered up to the man, and on the following day
the forgery was detected. On the following day also a
great portion of the goods so stolen were traced to the
possession of the prisoner Beamond, and they were sub-
sequently sold by the prisoner Levine to different trades-
man at the cast end of the town.

W Mr. Manning, alinen-draper in
tpeicelre e lso, f deposeeot t
o nd
that he had purchased thirty-fourgoods from Levine, who had been known to him as a
commission agent for some years, on the 13th of the
present month, for ad. I Is. Bd., or 30. per yard,
and paid him by a cheque. Levine led him
to believe the goods belonged to Beamond, who
had brought them from the country, and who at-
tended with Levine when he received the cheque in
payment for them. Mr. Seaward, of the Commercial-
road, purchased eighty-four pieces of the stolen goods
for 33/. uls., and Mr. Spcckman, of Ratcliffe Iligl7way,
ten pieces for 10/. lls., and in all cases Beamond was
present to receive the money, and Levine made the in-
voices out in his name. In addition to this evidence
Mrs. Slade, of No. 116, Lucas-street, Commercial-road,
stated that the prisoner Levine lodged at her house since
the 9th of August last, and represented himself as a com-
mission agent. On Wednesday week the prisoner Bea-
mond called at the house with a horse and cart, and left
a bale and a bag for Levine, and in the course of the day
both prisoners came to her house together and opened
the packages, which contained pieces of cotton, such as
that produced by the officer, and they took away some
of the property with them, and ultimately took away all,

except one piece which Levine induced her, witness, to
purchase. She had seen the prisoner• Beamond at her
house with Levine, and on one occasion he brought a
bag of tallow on a truck and left it for Levine, and thi,
they afterwards carried away.
After a very lengthened examination, Mr. Humphrie
applied to have the prisoners remanded to a future day.
In doing so he remarked that the robbery was one of au
extensive description, and one which had been accom-
plished with such cunning and tact that it was perfectly
clear there were more than the prisoners engaged in it.
and the object of the remand was, therefore, to get at
those parties not yet in custody.
Mr. Child applied to admit his client to bail, observing
he had nothing whatever to do with obtaining the goods,
and all he had done was merely to sell them openly as
the agent of Beamond.
Mr. NonToN refused the application, and the prisoners
were remanded to a future day.