The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-02 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM BUTT.

This was a novel case. The insolvent had been ht.ard
at Ilchester, and remanded for two months for a vexa-
tious defence at the suit at the detaining creditor. He
was discharged as to his other debts, conditionally on
satisfying the Court that an advertisement had appeared
in a newspaper, according to the prescribed time. The
advertisement turned out to be inserted too late, and
consequently the case stood adjourned to the next Cir
cuit, and the present application was to obtain bail until
the Circuit in October.

The detaining creditor opposed on an affidavit.

(J a•
On the part of the insolvent it was contended, that
as the period of remand had expired, the party could•
not oppose.
Mr. Commissioner IsTrcrioLs said there was a novelty in
this case. It was true the time had expired, but the
Act only ordered notice to the detaining creditors for
all creditors, and he should therefore admit the oppo-
sition.

An affidavit was read as to the bail, and the Court re-
jected them.
It was complained on the part of the insolvent that it
was a very hard case on him.
The Learned COMMISSIONER, after he had concluded
the country bail, proceeded with the town cases.. Very
few were opposed, and nearly all were allowed for the
sittings in November.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A man named Matthew Kelly, and his wife, were
brought before Sir Peter Laurie on the following charge:
On the sth of August a little boy, between two and.
three years of age, was found by a policeman sitting alone
on the step of a hall-door in Milk-street, Cheapside.
The policeman, having waited some time to see whe-
ther any person would go up to the boy's protection, and
having seen nobody, took him to the union station in
Cannon-street, by the officers of which he was conveyed
to the Norwood Institution. Hand-bills and placards
were circulated, and it was at length ascertained that
Mrs. Kelly had exposed the child in the hope that some
Samaritan would give the protection which she had
ceased to yield to the poor infant. She 'and her hus-
band were then taken into custody
•

Mrs. Kelly said that she had but a very simple state-
ment to make. The little boy was her child, by a man
with whom she had been intimate before she was mar-
ried, and her husband had taken such an aversion to
him, and showed such extraordinary abhorrence, that
she was almost tempted to make away with the child
altogether. The feelings of nature, however, became
predominant, and she determined to leave the boy in
the street, and watch him from a distance. She accord-
ingly placed him on the step of a door, and soon after-
wards saw the policeman take him up and convey him
away. Convinced that he was perfectly safe, she re-
turned home with her husband, who was in her company
at the time. She resolved to lose her child, and but for
whom she never would have thought of such means of
separation.
Sir PETER LAURIE asked the male prisoner what he
did when his wife determined to abandon her infant ?
Kelly said that he had taken a complete hatred to the
little boy in consequence of the conduct of his father, who
had dared to call and visit his mother, although she was
a married woman. Before he married Mrs. Kelly he was
aware of the folly she had committed, but he paid every
attention and kindness to the little boy. Returning one
day, however, after a walk with the child, whom did he
see but his wife's paramour in her company, and he con-
ceived from that moment the most unconquerable hatred
to her son. lie admitted that he made no objection to
the proposition of his wife to expose the child.
Sir PETER Lime asked whether the father gave any
support to the. child ? Mrs. Kelly—lie never gave
me one farthing since the birth of the child, and it was
my husband's'fault that the father came to the house, for
My husband, notwithstanding all he says, invited him
to dinner instead of turning him out as he ought to
have done.

Sir P. LAURIE—That was certainly an encouragement
to the renewal of the old intimacy, and very disgraceful.
Mrs. Kelly—My husband was master of his own hott4e,
and ought to have exercised his authority.
Sir P. LAURIE—He ought not to have hesitated to
support the child when he married you, knowing
what had occurred.

One of the parochial officers of the district in which
the child was found stated that the poor-rates were enor-
mous on account of the number of children whose
fathers the Poor-law refused to touch. The casualties
exceeded all imagination.

Sir P. LAURIE said it was quite impossible that the
Poor-law could remain as it was, and he hoped the new
Administration would introduce the necessary alterations
and modifications.

Kelly said that he had, upon Marrying his wife, most

willingly undertaken to support the buy, and i. had ac-
cordingly treated the child with as inuch t::1-:::,.:rness as
she had exercised towsrds his child, which she had in
her arms.

Sir P. LA:unrE—l commit you both for trial for the
offence, which is a very bad one. Nothing can be worse
than to desert a poor infant.
Mrs. Kelly—l knew perfectly well that no harm would
come to him from the policeman, whom I saw carry him
to the union ; and the life I led with my husband was
dreadful on account of him.

Kelly—l could not help my hatred of the boy.
The two prisoners were committed for trial, and the
child was sent to the Institution at Norwood.

A gentleman of the name of Barnes applied to Sir
Peter Laurie, in consequence of a very intolerable nui-
sance, which is unfortunately of long standing in this
metropolis. He considered that Sir Peter Laurie would
afford him assistance to put an end to, or to abate at any
rate, the annoyance to which respectable people were sub-
jected by its operation. He alluded to the conduct of a
set of fellows who were in the habit of infesting auction-
rooms, and contrived by insulting gentlemen and ladies
who attended to bid for; the goods, to get everything of
any value into their own hands at their own price. Ho
particularly alluded to the Jew dealers, who inade
a point of insulting those who came to auctions
to supply themselves with articles of which they
might stand in need. A case had just occurred in the
Lord Mayor's district in which he (Mr. Barnes) had been
grossly insulted, and he had applied to the police, but
they did not consider themselves justified in interfering
to any great extent. The evil was a very serious one in
many respects, particularly as to the depreciation of the
property for sale.
Mr, Wheeler, the Common Councilman, who accom-
panied Mr. Barnes, stated that he had frequently wit-
nessed the conduct objected to. All the property for
sale at the various auction-rooms was justly depreciated
by the fellows described, who tittered unbounded abuse
in order to clear the place, and have all that was valu-
able to themselves. Ladies were sure to be insulted with
the grossest language.
Sir P. LAURIE was glad that public notice was taken
of the evil, as he had no doubt that the public exposure
would lead to a remedy.
. .

A policeman stated that he had been called in by Mr.
Barnes, who complained of being grossly insulted. There
was a great noise of chaffing and jeering amongst the
Jew brokers, and witness put one of them out of the
room. The broker, however, soon afterwards returned,
and called Mr. Barnes a liar.

Mr. Hobler said that the brokers, after they succeeded
in preventing respectable people from bidding, had ,that
they called a " knock out" amongst themselves—a divi-
sion of the goods—and the public'had no chance what-
ever against them. The police officers were right in
acting with caution, but the persons described by Mr.
&ants could be indicted for a conspiracy to injure the
property for sale, and it would, in his opinion, be easy to
obtain a conviction.

Sir P. LAURIE approved of the suggestion of Mr. Hob-
ler, and stated that he should wish very much to be in-
strumental to a reform of so great an abuse. lie then
advised Mr. Barnes and Mr. Wheeler to employ certain
officers of great skill and experience in proceeding
against the offenders, whom, he believed, it would be a
matter of no difficulty to get convicted by 'a Jury.
The two gentlemen returned thanks to Sir Peter
Laurie, and said that they would certainly follow his
excellent advice.