The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-20 00:00:00

The existence of the mass he saw was prejudicial to
the health of the neighbourhood, but it could not be
disturbed without increasing the danger. If man
poisoned the air he breathed he must pay the
penalty.
Mr. Alderman JOHNSON asked, if by a further
addition of fresh earth a level surface were formed
and well covered with concrete, would not the mis-
chief be removed ?—Mr. Walker thought it would
not. Fissures would occur, through which the
poison would issue. It had been tried at a mortuary
chapel he visited near Ilull, and when the sexton
opened the door he retreated some paces to allow the
stench to escape. Witness went up to the desk, and
found the minister's book thoroughly saturated with
the stench from the mass of corruption below, in spite
of the pains taken to prevent the nuisance.
Mr. Alderman JOHNSON asked what he would sug-
gest should be done in this case as a complete remedy ?
Mr. Walker was not prepared to say.
Mr. Alderman HoopEa asked Mr. Friskin when
the vault was last used as a place of interment ?—Mr
Friskin said at least three years and a half ago. The
trustees when they took the chapel, had a clause in-
serted in the lease, that the relations of persons in-
terred there should not have a right of burial there.
They had lately removed some of the contents of the
vault from one side to the other, and the effect of this
had been exaggerated very much. The nuisance was
now abated, and the chapel being private property no
one had a right to intrude, or interfere with it. 'They
had employed Mr. Fowler, a builder, to do what was
necessary, though in fact the place could no longer
be deemed a nuisance.
The MAGISTRATES said if the trustees disputed
their authority, it was the duty of the justices to
assert it, and protect the public health. They should
insist on the best remedy being immediately applied
by the Commissioners of Sewers, if the defendants did
not choose to obey the order that would be made.
The order was accordingly made for the immediate
abatement of the nuisance.
WESTMINSTER.

John Dignum, late clerk in the employment of Mr.
Archbutt, solicitor, Chelsea, was finally examined,
charged on suspicion of stealing a gold watch and
chain, and a large quantity of plate, jewellery, and
wearing-apparel, from that gentleman's residence.
The circumstances are briefly these :—On the 4th
instant Mr. Archbutt and family went out of town,
leaving his house in charge of Jane West, a female
servant, and on his return in a few days afterwards it
was found that the different drawers and wardrobes,
in which valuable property had been deposited, had
all been broken open, and plate, jewellery, and other
articles of considerable value, stolen. According to
the account given by the servant West, she left the
house the day after Mr. Archbutt left London, in care
of the prisoner, for three hours, whilst she took a walk
with a friend of his, named Ensor (in custody now
for burglary), who assumed the name of O'Neale.
On her return the prisoner left with Ensor, and on the
following morning she missed the plate. She then
went in quest of Dignum, to acquaint him with the
circumstance, when he said he would come to the office
and find it out, but he neglected to do so, and ab-
sconded from his employment.
The prisoner cross-examined the servant West at
some length, and asked her whether she had not al-
lowed persons to sleep in the house during her master's
absence, and whether he himself had not done so,
which she denied. She, however, admitted that she
had been visited by a large circle of relations and ac-
quaintances, amongst whom was a brother-in-law, who
had been convicted of felony.
Mr. Archbutt stopped the case. After what he
had heard, coupled with the circumstance of his
feeling convinced, from the circumstance of his linen,
comb, and brush, having been used in his absence,
that some person had been permitted to sleep in the
house, he would not proceed any further against the
prisoner.
The accused was accordingly discharged.
Thomas Ensor was then charged with burglariously
breaking and entering they dwelling-house of Mr.
Toby, a gentleman of fortune, at Chelsea, and pur-
loining plate and other property of great value. The
particulars of the case were detailed in our last.
There was no fresh evidence adduced, but the
officer in the case stated that if the prisoner was
again remanded, he had some reason to believe that
he could trace the property.
The prisoner was remanded until Thursday.
James Iladderway, a labouring man, was charged
by the authorites of St. Luke's, Chelsea, with threat-
ening to desert his wife and family.
One of the relieving officers said the defendant came
for relief that morning, when it was offered him,
upon his going to work in the stoneyard, which
he refused to do, and declared that unless he had re-
lief he would leave his wife and children a burden
on the parish.
Mr. BURRELL never remembered a case of persons
being committed for threatening to desert.
The relieving officer produced an Act passed in
the reign of James 1., which created the offence.
Mr. Taylor, the chief clerk, in reply to an inquiry
from the Magistrate, expressed his opinion that it
was obsolete.
Mr. BURRELL was evidently not disposed to act
upon it, and upon the defendant's stating that he had
work to go to on Monday, and that he would main-
tain his family, discharged him, at the same time
assuring him that if brought before him for desertion,
he would inflict the utmost punishment.
The relieving officer said the frequency of deser-
tion had induced him to bring the matter forward.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Oa Friday a well-dressed boy, about nine years of
age, was brought to this court by a person who had
taken some interest in his welfare, for the purpose of
having advice as to the future maintenance of the
child. It was explained to the Magistrate that the
boy had been supported for some time by persons at
Brighton, who were in such circumstances as pre-
vented them from any longer incurring the burden.
They had sent the child to London to be placed in
the care of his mother, who was a cook in a gentle-
man's family at Brompton. The applicant allowed
the boy to sleep at his house last night, the mother
having absolutely refused to receive her child, or to
make any provision for his maintenance. Applicant
Mr. BINGIIAM said, the course for the applicant to
take was to go to the relieving overseer of St. Pan-
cras, and to request him to take the child into the
wished
suchto know
circumstances. what
h
was to do with the child
e
u de
workhouse as casual poor, and then for the parish to
proceed against the mother for refusing to maintain
her child.
Police-constable Scott, one of the police attached
to the court, was sent with the applicant and the boy
to the St. Pancras workhouse, with a message from
the Bench, to take the boy into the house.
The parties shortly afterwards returned and stated
that the authorities at the workhouse had not only
flatly refused to receive the boy, but bad threatened
to expel the applicants if they did not leave the pre-
mises.

Mr. BniGUAM immediately issued a peremptory
summons against the parish authorities to show cause
why they refused to relieve the boy.
The overseer, Mr. 'Williams, illiams, in a short time made
his appearance in court, and was put in possession of
the circumstances connected with the poor child's
story, and an explanation was required of the parish
authorities for their refusal to give him the relief es-
tablished by law.
The overseer stated, that the refusal to receive the
boy was grounded on one or two reasons. First, the
parish authorities believed it was some trick oa the
part of the boy's Brighton friends and the boy's mo-
ther; and next that they did not conceive the parish
of St. Pancras was liable to be required to receive
the boy.
Mr. BINGHAM said the mother of the boy had re-
fused to support or to receive her child, and the child
had been left in the street. The child, consequently,
became casual poor, and the parish in which he had
last slept was bound to receive the child into the
house, and then to take such steps as might be need.
ful against his parents.
The overseer replied that, with all due deference to
the Bench, the parish did not consider that the boy's
sleeping in the parish for a night or two constituted
such a residence as compelled the parish to interfere.
The boy's residence, he apprehended, was where ithe
mother at present resided.
Mr. BINGHAM said it had been proved that the
mother bad refused to receive the child. The child
was, therefore, in a destitute state, and must be re-
turned as casual poor by the parish in which he last
slept. He was quite sure that this was the true view
of the law, and that no lawyer would question this
opinion. If the parish of St. Pancras wished to argue
the point, he was quite ready to appoiet a day to hear
the arguments of counsel.
The overseer said the parish objected on principle,
and with the intention of questioning a magis-
trate's authority.
Mr. Bnionam replied that he was always reluc-
tant to press hardly on the parish officers, as their
duties were sufficiently onerous and disagreeable; but
this wasj one of those disagreeable cases they must
deal with, and he should recommend the parish at
once to relieve the boy, and he would grant a sum-
mons against the mother.
The overseer agreed to this suggestion and left the
court.

On Saturday all the parties were in attendance
including the boy's mother, a middle-aged woman,
named CoHinson.

The mother stated that the only reason why she re-
fused to support the child was her inability. She had
been deserteet by her husband two years ago, and she
had supported her two children hitherto, but at pre-
sent, being anly in service, she was unable to keep
more than one of her children.
Mr. BINGIEAM said her story was doubtless true,
and her case a hard one, but she could not be per-
mitted to cant her child loose on the streets, and to
make no effort for its support. The course for her to