The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-07 00:00:00

Nelio]

LAMBETH._

Eliza Eaton, alias Fitzgerald, who stands com-
mitted with a young fellow named Foster to take her
trial on a charge of receiving a quantity of cloth,
stolen from a shop in Tunbridge-wells, with a guilty
knowledge, and Mary Taylor, were placed at the bar
before Mr. Elliott for final examination on a charge
of being concerned in robbing a Mr. Jones, a gentle-
man residing at Carshalton, of a valuable gold watch.
The short facts of the case were these. On the
night of the 28th of last month, and during the
Goodwood races, Mr. Jones, while walking up the
iligh-street, Chichester, in company with a friend,
was accosted by a female, and immediately after was
attacked by three men, who knocked him down and
robbed him of his gold watch. On the morning of
Monday, the 23d of last month, Sergeant Morten,
7 F, on searching the house of the prisoner Fitz-
gerald, found in her own apartment the gold watch
which had been stolen from Mr. Jones. On a former
examination Mr. Jones, the prosecutor, recognised
the prisoner Taylor, who was at the time in the body
as a person he had seen in Chichester,
been given into custody there for rob-
bingaoaf
dt hweheao court, as
Mr. Smith, a friend of his, of two shillings.
This was denied on the part of the prisoner and her
solicitor, and it was solemnly asserted that she had
never been to Chichester.
To-day, Maiden, a constable at Chichester, who
had taken her into custody, and his wife, who had
searched and attended to her while in custody, were
in attendance, and swore positively as to her identity,
and both the prisoners were committed for trial.
As the magistrate had not made up his mind
whether he should send the case to the assizes in the
county of Sussex, the prisoner Fitzgerald having been
already committed to the Old Bailey, the prisoners
were ordered to be brought up on a future day.
John Stock, a middle-aged man, of gentlemanly
appearance and address, was placed at the bar on a
charge of stealing a small silver fruit knife, the pro-
perty of Mrs. Eliza Sheffield.
The complainant stated that on that forenoon her
daughter called out to her that a gentleman had come
about the lodgings, and upon her coming down stairs
and entering the parlour she found the prisoner there,
and recognised him as a person who had called to
look at a room she had to let the week before. She
asked him to accompany her up stairs to see the room,
and he replied he would. She then left the parlour
to proceed up stairs with him, and finding that he did
not follow her, but remained in the parlour for some
moments after her, she at once suspected his object
was to steal something; she, in consequence, returned
into the parlour, and missing a small silver fruit knife
from the mantelpiece, which had been there a moment
before, she charged him with taking it. The prisoner
indignantly denied the charge, but feeling conscious
in her own mind that no other person eould have
stolen it, she sent for a constable.
Police-constable 60 M said the prisoner had be(

given into custody by the last witness, and after lock-
ing him up he (witness) returned to the house, and
found the knife produced, and which the prosecutrix
identified, behind some drawers in the back parlour.
Mrs. Sheffield added to her former evidence that
the prisoner had gone into the back parlour while the
policeman had been sent for, and while there some-
thing had been heard to knock against the window ;
BO that she had no doubt the prisoner had attempted
to throw the knife out of the window, which was
partly down at the top, and
then instead of doing so,
he knocked it against the window, and it fell up ,n it,
and had been found.
The prisoner, who spoke with a south-of-Ireland
accent, denied tt e charge, assured the Magistrate that
he was perfectly incapable of committing such an
act, as his Worship would see on the perusal of a letter
he was just about to post, and said that if Lord Mor-
peth was in town he would testify to his character for
honour and respectability.
Mr. ELLIOTT read the letter handed to him, but
instead of its having the effect of satisfying his Wor •
ship on the point of his character and respectability,
he told him he must know. something more about him
before he could consent to his liberation.
The prisoner begged hard to have his case at once
disposed of, but he was refused, and he was remanded
to the following (this) day.
THAMES.
David Walton, the owner of three small tenements
In Hayes-court, Glatshouse-street, Rosemary-lane,
was summoned by the trustees of St. Mary, White-
chapel, before Mr. Yardley, to show cause why he
should not be compelled to remove a nuisance of a
most disgusting and frightful description, which as
allegod has caused a virulent fever in the above place,
and the deaths of several persons.
Mr. Smith, vestry clerk of Whitechapel said, this
was a proceeding under the 9th and 10th Vict., cap.
96, to abate a nuisance caused by the overflowing of
an open privy in Hayes-court, which contained four
houses, three of them were owned by the defendant,
and they were all occupied by poor families. The
privy was uncovered, and the soil had overflowed into
the passage and caused such a nauseous effluvia that
fever had been engendered and several deaths had
taken place. The subject had already been made
public in various newspapers in the reports of inquests
held on the bodies of persons who had died of fever in
Hayes-court, and another death had taken piece there
only that morning. The place in question was com-
mon to the tenan's of all the houses in the court, and
is a clilapilated state. The fail oopsi, through