The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-25 00:00:00

THE LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING,_,NOVEMIBER 25, 1816.

the Andover Committee, made afalse statement with
respect to the reports on the condition of the leeighley
Unicn. Mr. Lewis had stated that Mr. Mott was sent
down to Neighley in consequence of a notice of motion
entered by Mr. Ferrand in the notice book of the House
of Commons, for an address to the Crown to rescind an
order of the Poor-law Commissioners with respect to the
which Mr. Ferrand denied, as his motion was not
made until June, whereas Mr. Mutt's report was dated
the 23d of April. Mr. Lewis stated that he had no com-
munication with Sir J. Graham before desiring Mr. Mott
to visit the union. Sir J. Walsham sent down to make a
similar investigation, in order to test the accuracy
of
Mr. Mott's report, and a Committee was appointed on
the 28th of June to investigate the subject, and made
their report on the 15th of July. The affidavit of Mr.
' Lewis stated that he did not direct Mr. Mott to make a
false report, and that he believed it to be strictly true;
that he did not carry it to Sir James Graham knowing
it to be false, and that he had never conspired with Sir
James Graham for the purpose of prejudicing Mr.
Fer-
rand or any other person; and Mr. Mott in his affidavit
denied that he received any instructions from Mr. Lewis
or any other person, to make a special or colourable re-
port. When Mr. Lewis was examined before the An-
dover Committee lie stated that Mr. Mutt was sent down
to Keighley in consequence of the motion of Mr.
Ferrand, but on the 1 lth of August, after the
second letter was published, he went before the
Committee, and explained that he meant Sir
John Walsham, and not Mr. Mott. What, must he
asked, have been the state of a sanguine man's mind, or
even the state of mind of a cool-minded man on reading
the evidence given by Mr. Lewis ? Why, believing that
he had been cruelly injured, that Mr. Mutt had been
directed to furnish a false report, and that the statement
of Mr. Lewis confirmed him in his belief; to take the
earliest and most public opportunity of wiping away the
imputations which had been cast upon him by Sir James
Grafts on the strength of these reports. The ptea:ter
-1' -ed in the hand; of their Lerd >hips, of cnahline
pet sene wit. felt themselves uegrieved to camerorwF.rd
and j'_a_lLat:', i+y preeeedings, thee- eye-
recto s, was :se valuable privilege, but it was one which
should be cautiously used, and not made subservient
to the injury of individuals who acted conscientiously.
He trusted he should satisfy the Court that Mr. F errand
in writing these letters was not actuated by any personal
or ill feeling towards Mr. Lewis, whose name he was
ignorant of, until he saw it in the Tines of August last;
and that he was induced to write the letter in quest en
whilst in a frame of mind which would have iudoced not
only a sanguine, but a cool-minded man, who believed
the statement of Mr. Lewis to be true, to act in a similar
manner. If he should satisfy their Lordships that the
letters were written under these circumstances, he appre-
bonded they would consider that Mr. Lewis bad a fair op-
portunity of vindicating his character by the proceedings
he had already taken, and that they would discharge the
rule. He bad no wish to speak of Mr. Lewis with any
harshness, but he thought he could point out that in this
matter he had not acted with that fairness which
the public had a right to expect from a per
son filling the situation he did. This would be
more evident when he stated that Mr. Lewis put
into Sir James Graham's hands the statements which
here undoubtedly false, and that he kept other
statements tack, which would have shown the report of
Mr. Mott to lan felse, and that when Sir James Graham
and Mr. Lewis were in possession of Sir John Wel-
sham's and of previous reports with respect to
the union, that Mr, Mott's report was alone
used. Mr. Lewis could scarcely be considered to
have acted fairly by putting forward the statement of
Mr. Mott alone, when others were in his possession,
which, to say the least of them, were contrary to that
report. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read
tee affidavit of Mr. Ferrand. It stated that he was
elected a Member of Parliament in 1841, and that he
had formed a very strong opinion as to the impolicy of
the New Poor-law, as he or any other man had a perfect
right to do; and that he was returned to Parliament on
the express statement made by him that he would use
the influence of his position to obtainthe abolition of that
law. Early that session hereceived a communication from
Sir James Graham, stating that he wished to see bin.
On waiting on him, Sir James Graham stated, on the
part of the Government, that they were anxious that he
should abstain from opposing the New Poor-law. He
replied that be coald not do so, as his conscientious
opinions were against it, and that he had pledged his
constituents to oppose it. He made a motion to rescind
an order of Ow Poor-law Commissioners of the 30th of
April, 1842, but afterwards abandoned it. On the 17th
of June lie made a speech in opposition to a Bill con-
nected with some alteration of the Poor- law ; and it was
on that occasion that Sir James Graham produced the
report of Mr. Mott. Sir John Walsham had made his
report on the 9th, and made a most savage attack upon
Mr. Ferrand, imputing to him the most dishonourable
4onducetstating that in his capacity of chairman of the
anion, and. as a magistrate, he had done all he could
-to
create business for the attorneys, and that he had made
certain regulations fur the purpose of creating new ex-
penses. He stated that there was not the slightest truth
in any of these charges—that they were most cruel and
unjust, and that he rose immediately after Sir James '
Graham, and stated so. This debate took place on the
17th of dilate, when both Sir James Graham and Mr.
Lewis roust have been in possession of Sir John Wal-
sham's report. The great complaints of Mr. Ferrand
up to the present time was, that although they were in
possession of many other reports at the tirae, Mr. Motes,
which cast upon him the grossest possible imputations,
was us: d. The affidavit concluded by stating that the
report of Mr. Mott was untrue, and that the committee
had so decided. He then read the affidavit of Mr.
Parker, stating that the statement of Mr. Ferrand
was correct; of Mr. Macdonald, the noes reporter, who
attended the committee on the Andover Union, con-
firming the evidence of Mr. Parker, and after comment-
ing on the material facts, he concluded by calling upon
the Court, under the circumstances, to discharge the
rule.
Mr. BooVILL followed on the same side. He dwelt
upon the fact that when Mr. Ferrand took the matter up
it had appeared in the limes, and although the appear-
ance of such a statement in a newspaper would be no
justification for a libel, it showed that Mr. Ferrand had
taken it up on public grounds, and that it had become
a public question, that no copy had been kept of the in-
structions given to Sir John Walsham in opposition to
the Poor-law Act ; that on the 17th of June,
when Mr. Mott's report was produced, that Mr.
Lewis had been the cause of all the injury
which Mr Ferrand had sustained, and trusted the Court
would not make the rule absolute.
Sir I". THES/GER then addressed the Court in support
of the rule. He said he had listened with regret to the
speeches of his learned friends, because throughout the
whole of their addresses, they had done all in their
power to . maintain the charges Mr. Ferrand had
made"; but he deeply and sincerely regretted that
Mr. Ferrand had not found seine one calm enough to
advise him to adopt a different course than the one lie
had adopted—not to add to the venom of the sting he
had inflicted, but to make some atonement for the injury
he had done- to- the character of Mr. Lewis. Now, it
appeared that Mr. Mott was not directed to visit the
union until tho middle of March, 1842, at which time
Mr. Ferrand lad not commenced his duties
as chairman until the 30th of March, and when he did
visit it, he did so in pursuance of an order from Mr.
Lewis, who was informed that many irregularities pre-
vailed in the union. The practice and the act in
itself was perfectly; legitimate, and the report, Mr.
Ferrand's common sense must tell him, was not of Mr.
Lewis, but for the Poor Law Commissioners to act upon,
and they did act upon it, and issued the order which Mr.
Ferrand had sought to rescind, and when the matter was
before Sir James Graham, he did that which at once
showed that there was nothing at all to induce the belief
that he had embarked in a conspiracy to obtain a fabri-
cated report, and that he had acted as an honourable
man occupying a high position in the Administration of
the affairs of the country, he suggested the propriety of
of sending Sir John Walsham to Keighley, who was in
its neighbourhood. Surely Mr. Ferran(' must see
that this conduct on the part of Sir James
Graham was entirely opposed to anything
like a conspiracy. Mr. Ferrand had stated in his affi-
davit that the committee on Mr. Mott's report was not
an impartial one, and that those who voted in the majority
were supporters of the:Governnsent. This was a matter of
which the Court could take no cognisance, and he only
mentioned it to show how sweeping and indiscriminatewerc
the assertions of Mr. Ferrand. Then he stated that
Mr. Mott's report " was a false report, and that it was
backed by another false report" (Sir John Walsham's),
which would seem to infer that Sir John Walsham
had been also .directed to furnish a fabricated
report, but the Committee held that the reports con-
firmed each other in all their material allegations, except
that some of the statements in Sir John Walsham's
report were too general, and required qualification.
Why this alone was sufficient to convince
any half-reasoned mane that there was no con-
spiracy, for if there had been, the reports would
no doubt have tallied to the letter. Then, again, he
stated thet he was prevented from examining Mr.
Mott when .
one
he was before the Committee. Very
great credulity was necessary to induce any to
give credence to such a statement,
Mr.
Mott was called before the Committee,
Mr. F
err afnod;,sthdeupurpose because
of
being examined, and it w
if the Committee, to take a part in that investigation.
a
igsst.
ioonne
Li is Learned Friend talked of Mr. Ferrand's violent pas-
sions, but was it to be said, that because a man had a
violent temper that he was to be allowed to run his head
against any one he chose? At a meeting at Leeds he
made the statements with respect to the report, and
added that Sir James Graham had broken his tool, but
the House of Commons subsequently voted the charge
" calumnious and false," or that the House of Commons
considered him a calumniator in this respect. Then the
letters referred to of Mr. Lewis's. and of which it was
urged, copies should have been kept, partake more of the
nature of private and confidential than of public
documents. It was not a letter from the Poor-
la es Commissioners, 'although the report w hich
arose out of it was ultimately presa-nted to them.
What had been the conduct of Mr. Ferrand daring the
whole-of the years over which these transactions were
spread? Had he come forward and said, " I believed
at the time that there was a conspiracy, but, as I find I
ate incorrect, I feel happy in making all the atone-
ment in ley power for the charges I have made?"
No ; he had persevered in his gross imputations ;
he
i4eav pepisted in them, and came forward to maintain
them, %eying that he bare no malice to Mr. Lewis. Oh!
no ; but if his Rothe nature could not be roused to any
violence, how could lie so grossly libel Mr. Lewis so late as
August last, so grossly asperse his character, that if there
were any truth in the charges therein made, he would be
wholly unfit to occupy his position, or to fulfil the duties
of private life ? The mistake of Mr. Lewis). in
eielastat.uting Sir John Welshers for Mr. Mete
in his examination before the Committee, was
tweet excusable,
for it was mis-
take,naostoiritieuwsastbv4aljWinr.gesroottrepethrfaon4edthefirst examination, yet Mr, Ferrand, in his letter,
referred to Mr. Mott's report of the 30th or

April, showing that be knew his was the first
report, and that Mr. Lewis, being confused by
dates, made a mistake. Was there, then, not much
boldness in Mr. Ferrand seeking to discharge
the rule? If they did discharge it, Mr. Mott coti!d
not fulfil the duties of his office, because
he was charged with conspiring with a great
public officer to suborn a subordinate official,
and an adverse decision woulii-'is;matise him as fs,uilts
of the charge, as nnfit to hold lin), public cific6. Whe
ever might be the feelings lurking in Mr. Ferrand's
breast, it was impossible, judging from his past conduct,
to avoid the inference that he was a malicious libeller.
Mr. PEACOCK was about to follow on the same side,
but he was stopped by
Lord DENMAN, who said, we are called upon for leave
to grant a criminal information in respect of two letters
containing charges conveyed in the very grossest lan-
guage. The excuse set up is that the gentleman who
issued those publieations was to a great degree inflamed
by circumstances, which, although they might not
justify the imputations which he has cast, yet might
show him to be in a state of mind to which some
reasonable indulgence ought to be extended ; and I oa n
that there is such a complication of circumstances that
I was very desirous to hear the statements on the other
side, and of looking at the affidavits, before I carne
to a conviction, in order that I might see
whether the defendant might not feel himself in twine
degree justified in the course he has pursued; but, &ler
hearing the explanation, and after the fall discus,iou
which has taken place, I am perrectly convinced not only
that there is nothing—not only no foundation for this
conspiracy which the letters set forth, but also that
there is nothing that has since occurred to give a
reasonable ground for Mr. Ferrand to suppose that
those imputations are just. Under these circum-
stances, it appears to me—notwithstanding some
matters showing a degree of negligence perhaps,
and some mist'ortune in not keeping copies of
documents which it may he possible to tely
has led to a d•• 'red of emil'osion in the op:ni.nF,
, by the ttt!e.Aarq in Ow of the CJail,li!t.-
that he stands without any excuse whatever fur uttering
such publication. It is not, in my opinion, necessary to
say more on the present occasion than that there is
nothing to show or raise the least reasonable ground for
saying that Mr. Lewis employed Mr. Mutt for
the purpose of doing any injury to •Mr. Ferranti,
or that Mr. Mott made any charge against Mr.
Ferrand which called for those strong sentimeuts which
appear to have been excited In his. mind, or that Sir
James Graham, or Mr. Mott, or any of them, have been
engaged in any improper proceedings fur the purpose
of injuring Mr. Ferrand; and therefore I think it is
quite imperative on the Court to say that this gentleman
stands completely without justification for what he has
done, and that this rule must be made absolute.
Mr. Ferranti then left the court.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 24.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
THE QUEEN v. HEALEY.
Mr. ITUDDLESToNE moved to enlarge a rule which had
been obtained by Mr. Bramwell for a criminal informa-
tion, on the part of Thomas Wakley. Esq., M.P., against
the editor of a paper called the Medical Times, for a
libel. The affidavits stated that there were likely to
arise from the proceedings many facts, which it would
he necessary to bring under the notice of the Court, and
which, owing to the lateness of the term, it would be
impossible to get up in sufficient time.
Mr. BRAMWELL could offer no objection, if his Lord-
ship thought the grounds for the enlargement sufficiently
strong.—Application granted.

THE QUEEN V.
Mr. MOODY moved for a writ of certiorari directed
to the magistrates of the county of Cornwall to remove
an indictmant which was to be preferred at the quarter
sessions fur that county against the defendant fur steal-
ing oysters from an oyster bed. His Lordship was
,aware that a prosecution of this nature would be at•
tended with peculiar difficulties as the property was
taken from an arm of the sea, and it would be necessary
to prove the title of the prosecutor to the oyster grounds
and his plwer of defeating the general right of any sub-
ject to take fish between high and low water mark The
magistrates before whom the case came before were
aware of the difficulty of this sort of case, and they en-
tertained it with the view of having it removed by writ
of certiorari.—Rule nisi granted.

THE QUEEN V. EDWARD LUTMAN.
Mr. PHINN moved for a rule for a quo warranto call-
irg on Edward Lutman to show cause why and by what
authority he exercised the office of town councillor of
Bath.
The affidavits stated that there being two vacancies in
the town council, three candidates presented themselves,
Messrs. Luttuan, Archer, and Crutwell; the votes
polled were, Archer, 212; Lutman, '212; and Crutwell,
210. After the election it was found that a very exten-
sive system of personation had taken place, and under
the Act a number of votes given for Archer and Lutman
were invalid, and therefore that Mr. Crutwell was at the
head of the poll.—Application granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 24.
MEREDITH V. TIOI.BIAN.

In this case MI:C.--lIA3IBERS moved for a rule to show
cause why a- nonsuit should not be entered for the plain-
tiff, or a new trial had, on the ground of misdirection.
The cause was tried a few days since before Mr. Baron
Platt, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff for two se-
' parate sums, of 325. and 10/.
It appeared that the defendant had delivered forty
sacks of coals to plaintiff, thirty-two of which were defi-
cient in weight. The plaintiff bringht this action to
recover the penalties, which were assessed by the
jury at the rate of Is. per sack. The second count of the
declaration charged the defendant with sending out the
coals in question without a ticket properly signed with
the name of the seller of the coals. Upon this count a
penalty of 101. was imposed by the jury.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS now moved, pursuant to leave re-
served at the trial, to enter a nonsuit, upon the ground
that the coals were not weighed in the mode prescribed
by Act of Parliament, the mode in which they were
weighed having been by placing upon one side of the
scale the weights and an empty sack, and upon the other
the coals and the full sack, the Act expressly stating
that the coals in the sacks should be first weighed, and
afterwards the empty sacks.
Upon the second count the Court ruled, that as the pa-
malty imposed by the Act did not exceed 20/. the Court
had no jurisdiction.
The Court granted a rule for a nonsuit upon the first
count, on the ground that the coals were not weighed
**cording to Act of Parliament.

MEREDITH V. HOLMAN.

In this cause, in which in the early part of the day
Mr. Chambers obtained a rule for a nonsuit and arrest of
judgment,
Mr. MARTIN moved, pursuant to leave given him at
the trial, for a rule to show cause why the amount of the
penalties should not be increased from one shilling
on each sack of coals that were found deficient
in weight to five pounds, that being the maxi-
mum penalty affixed by the Act of 1 and 2 Will.
IV., and also why the verdict for ten pounds on send-
ing out an improper ticket with the coals should not be
increased to twenty pounds, the maximum penalty im-
posed.by the Ist and 2d Victoria. This rule was sought in
order to raise the question whether the Court ought not
et the trial to have fixed the amount of the several
penalties, instead of leaving the question to be decided
by the jury.—ltule granted.

went, or in some other way to meet the CIS:!. The rule
must therefore be discharged.
llule discharged accordingly.
Picti. v. LE BLANC.—QUESTION Ca COPYRIGHT.

M;:COCKBITEN appeared against a rule obtained by
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, on the part of Mr. Aaron Pick,
calling upon him to show cause why the entry of a
book entitled "The Bible Students' Concordance," at
Stationers' Hall, in the name of Colonel Le Blanc, of
Chelsea, should not be expunged, or the name of Mr.
Aaron Pick substituted as the proprietor of the said
work. Colonel Le Blanc had assisted in collating the
work, had paid for the printing, and it had been agreed
that the c wyright should be vested in him.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURE having been heard in sup-
port of the rule,
The LOUD CHIEF JUSTICE suggested that an arrange-
ment shoal be come to, by which if the claim of Colon( 1
Le Blanc was liquidated, the copyright of the woik
might be given up to Mr. Pick.
Ultimately it was arranged that the rule should be
enlarged till next t'•rm, and that if in the interim the
claim of Colonel Le Blanc was discharged the rule
should then be made absolute ; and, further, that should
there be any dispute as to the amount claimed, the
nr.tter should be left to the arbitration of Mr. Mellor.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 24.
(Before Mr. Consmissioinr SHEentsnn.)
IN RE JOHN BADMAN, ALIAS "JOHNNY WALKER."
This insolvent came up tn his amended p,Aition, to
apply for an interim order, and
Air. DuNcas appeared to support the insolvent, and
Mr. Buchanan to oppose.
Mr. BUcHANAN opposed en the ground that the in•
solvent's Wits exceeded 300/., and also that he had
gone under a different name to that in which he peti-
tioned. To support this opposition Mr. Buchanan pro-
duced two bills from a firm in Scotland, and also a bill
of the play, in which the defendant, under the mime of
kv,..ll;er, epp(i.,ea ill C the A:0,440/8
Geeeiati and %He:Ala:l :st4teea.
Ma. esc ‘s übje,ical that, tip. Act did t,ot apply to
Scotland, and, therefore, that no debts due to Scottish
creditors could be adduced in opposition in this Court,
and therefore that Mr. Buchanan had no locus standi.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said the question was of
considerable importance, and he would therefore reserve
the point.
Mr. DUNCAN said that his Honour would clearly per-
ceive, that supposiAg an action was brought in Scotland
for the same debt, no plea in bar could be raised on the
discharge under this Act. The rejection of this debt
would !educe the amount.
The point of liability being reserved, the insolvent was
questioned as to the amount of the debt, and said that he
could not deny the correctness of the invoice.
The Learned COMMISSIOrER said that the invoice
could not be received in evidence at all. The insolvent
had sworn to the best of his belief ac to the amount of
his debt, and to make it greater, or to prove the invoice,
witnesses must prove the delivery of the goods.
Mr. BUCHANAN then produced the beer and spirit
licenses granted to the insolvent by the name of John
B. Walker, and contended this was a holding out to the
word a fictitious name, which must be taken as fraud,
and would prevent the Court from exercisiug a power of
granting an order.
The insolvent said that he had not given the name for
the purposes of fraud or concea'snenl, but hcieg known
by both names he had, in answer to the Excise officers,
given the name.
Mr. DuNcaN argued that no deceit could be inferred
in this case, where a man was so well known to the
world. If, however, the Scotch creditors had complaint
against " John, or Johnny Walker," they had no
right to complain in England of the conduct of John
Badman.
The Learned COMMIcSIONER said the insolvent ap-
peared to have been well known in both names, there
fore he could not allow the objection.
Interim order granted.

the room he apologised, and was going down stairs,
when the defendant soddenly rushed at him, seiz.?d him
by the collar, and threatened to kick him down stairs.
The defendant then attempted to force him down stairs,
and in the struggle used much violence, and hurt one of
his hands. Complainant told him he was a process
server, and had two subpoenas to serve on his brother.
Complainant produced the copy and the original, to show
that he had authority for his proceedings. The de-
fondtrit, however, continued his attempts to force him
Gown stairs, and called to his servant to fetch a police-
cons.able. The defendant ultimately left him, and went
out of the house to get, as he said, the assistance of the
police. Complainant waited in the hall for about ten
minutes, but finding no one came he left the house.
Mr. Breary, in defence, said, the complainant was
told that his brother was not within. Without mention-

ing his business, he said he would go into every room in
the house to satisfy himself ; and. he ran up stairs awl
ppned the door of snore than one room. Defendant
went after him, and insisted on his quitting the house
instantly, as he had an invalid patient under his care
who would be inconvenienced by his conduct. As the
c nnplainant took upon him to open the doors of the
rooms in his house, he (defendant) conceived he had a
just right to prevent such intrusion, and he certainly did
isv held of the complainant's collar to move him down
stairs, but without striking or otherwise assaulting the
eonsplah:ant. He (Jefendant) wished to know whether
the comp' ticant was authorised to enter his house and
search over it, on the plea that he was serving a legal
process ? Indeed, his opinion of the affair was that he
was the aggrieved party, and that he ought to have
sought for redrsss by law against the complainant.
The complainant's witness proved that the defendant
used considerable violence towards the complainant.
The defendant's witness said, the complainant was
toll that Mr. Edward Breary was not at home ; but he
would not pay attention to this denial, and he made his
wsy up F3:',nirs.
Mr. lica;ehriea sts!d a small Grip would mgt the juz-
tiee of too vast'. _ _ _

„
Mr. HARDWICii thought tL,t, too mu::1, violence had
been used by the defendant. The complainant, how-
ever, was not free from blame in his proceedings, he
having adopted a course likely to produce irritation. As
more than justifiable violence had been u.e.l, he should
inflict a tine of 20,3., and costs.

George Smith and F. S. Breewood were charged with
riot and assault in the coffee-house, 265, Oxford-street.
James Stewart, the proprietor of the coffeehouse,
said the two prisoners and some others came into his
house about half-past three o'clock, and ordered coffee
and bread and butter and cheroots fin' six. Complainant,
on their receiving these articles, asked fur payment.
Smith, the defendant, said "that's the payment I'll give
you," and threw the contents of a cup of coffee into his
(complainant's) face. Complainant struck him a back
stroke in the face, got up on the seat and collared Smith,
and Breewood then dealt him several- severe blows about
the head. Complainant went out and called the police,
and when he returned he found the defendants in con-
flict nith his waiter. The prisoner Breewood struck
witness in the chest. They were given into custody,
and in the struggle several articles of crockery-ware_and
the glass in the door were smashed to pieces, to the
arcount`of 10/. in value.

Several wituesses were called, who corroborated his

e s iderr.e.

The prisoners denied the charge, and called a witness,
who, on the testimony of the police, was more violent
than any present, and would have been taken into cus-
tody had there been force enough.
Mr. LONG said they must pay 40s. each for the assault
or go one month to the House of Correction.
Michael censor, Mary Slater, and Pat Hannan, were
charged with assault in the Victoria public-house, Castle-
street, Oxford-street.
John Williams, being sworn, said, the three prisoners
and some others came into his father's house, the Vic-
toria, on Monday night about half-past eleven o'cicck,
and called for a pint of rum. His father refused to serve
them. They told him if he would serve them they
would go out quietly, otherwise they would not go out
of the house. He then drew a pint of rum, and, holding
it in his hand, asked for the payment. Connor snatched
the measure out of his hand and drank off half the con-
tents; the female then had it, and drank the rest. His
father again asked for payment. Connor then struck
the landlord on the breast with the measure, and
parties went out and gave Connor into custody of a
policeman. The female at this time seized a pewter
measure off the bar and threw it at witness's mother,
whom it struck in the chest; she threw a two-quart jug
and a quart pewter pot at her. This done, she smashed
two gas glasses and set the taps running. She then
went up and assaulted the barmaid, scratching her face,
and tearing off her hair by handfuls.
Elizabeth Jones, the barmaid, said she had been eleven
years in the same house, and on the night in question
the prisoners came in and acted as had been stated. She
then took off her bonnet by desire of the Court, and ex-
hibited the one side of her head almost as bare as the
palm of the hand, contrasting strangely with the other
side, which was well covered with hair.
Police-constable E 118 said he took Connor into cus-
tody, and the other male prisoner, with the female, came
out and rescued him, and took him into the public house
again. The constable followed, and was struck by the
defendant Ilannan when proceeding to take Connor
again into custody.
Mr. Lost: said. Connor, for the assault on Mr. Wil-
liams, must pay 405., or go one month to the house of
Correction ; Hannan, for assaulting the policeman, 405.,
or one month's imprisonment ; but the female, for this
brutal and horrible assault on the barmaid, Inuit pay 51.,
or go two months to the House of Correction.
WORSH/P- S TR E ET.

A young man named John Clifford, the son of a
tradesman in Fashion-street, SpittiMelds, was placed at
the bar before Mr. Bingham, charged with assaulting
and wounding police-constable Norman, of the II divi-
sion, in the execution of his duty.
It appeared from the evidence of the constable, who
had been confined to his bed for more than a week, and
exhibited marks of severe recent injuries, that he was on
duty in Commercial-street, Whitechapel, between twelve
and one on the morning of Monday se'nnight, when he
was directed by his sergeant to proceed and quell a dis
turbance which had arisen in Flower arid Dean-street.
On reaching there he found the prisoner in the custody
of some other officers, through the hand of one of
whom, as he was told by a bystander, he had just
drawn a knife. Finding, however, that his assistance
was not required, he returned back to his beat, and
shortly afterwards saw the prisoner, who appeared to
have escaped from the constables approaching, sur-
rounded by a riotous mob, and he attempted to secure
him. The prisoner, however, on observing his intention,
instantly struck him a violent blow on the eye with a
large stone, which sent him reeling backwards and ren-
dered him powerless; and, before he could recover him-
self, he was as rapidly struck forward again by another
violent blow from some instrument on the back of his
head, and felled to the ground in a state of insensibility.
On being restored to consciousness, he found that he had
almost lost the sight of his left eye, and that his
clothes were completely saturated with blood, which
was pouring in such a stream down his face; that it was
with difficulty he could support himself by some railings
while he sprang his rattle for assistance. This ulti-
mately brought up two other constables, with whose aid
he was taken to bed at the station house, and had been
under surgical attendance ever since.
Policeman 193 H proved that at four o'clock that
morning he apprehended the accused, whom he found
in bed at his house in Fashion-street, having pre
viously seen him escaping from another constable,whorn
he had likewise assailed; and three other officers gave
almost equally direct testimony, and positively swore to
the identity of the prisoner, with whose person one of
them had been acquainted for several years.
Mr. Heritage, who appeared for the defence, said that,
notwithstanding the positive manner in which his client
had been sworn to by the police, he was instructed t 4
give a total denial to the charge, and had seven or eight
witnesses in attendance, who would prove that the con-
stables were altogether mistaken in their identification
of the prisoner, who, although he had certainly been
present as a spectator at the commencement of the
affray, had taken no part whatever in the actual outrage
which had afterwards been committed.
witnesses
the accused, he considered that it was solely the province
slelrwohrioahmu,
dh
unanimouslyowever
shorn
hwaotnat ftt(e)rtht he e
indue
nmtbi
teyr
oo
ff
of a jury to decide upon the cogency of any conflicting
testimony that might be produced in. that respect ; and
the sessions, but would adept substantial bail, under the
ahsadthneochheasrigtaetwioans
ionnceoomfmaittvinergythseerptoruissodneesrefroiprttiortna,l heat
circumstances stated by his solicitor, for his appearance
there to answer the charge.
The bail was shortly afterwards put in, and the pri-
soner thereupon liberated.
SOUTHWARK.
cdlings2. along
in his
trowsers pocket. When near King's Head-yard, he was
Catherine Watson was charged, with another female
(notincustody)with stealing 46/. 125., from the person of
Mr. Thomas Davies, a salesman of Leadenhall-market.
Prosecutor, who lives at Dockhead, said that about
'tlyCleo;c-street tto
that
morning,ihtu mhake ter
was
wipthro 461.ee
suddenly pounced upon by the prisoner and another
oe n
aa
female, one of whom pinioned his arms, while the other
put her hand in his pocket, and rifled it of its contents.
lle, however, disengaged her arms, and secured the pri-
soner, but her companim made her escape with all his
money. He could distinctly swear to the other should
goeuxti
htt eeenotti
other
time
to
rws
woman
which
hmh
aatt robberygan
gang
pockets, and the reply being in the affirmative, he said
asot
chat
ae.
opportunity
e.spt
osacwroEptaucpusrirnieri:eht
yi:ealnnlafydods apprehended.
alarming
.Idaparpttinvr
of the person by females was carried on in the locality
should be broken up and sent out of the country.
The Magistrate then remanded the prisoner, to give
con-
cerned in the robbery. nthe gtewini
ate(hisriel thej
money was loose in his

LAMBETH.
James Grand, late a police-constable belonging to the
P. division, was brought before Mr. Elliott, un a charge
of abduction.
Mr. Games, who attended for the prosecution, said,
that in the month of January last the prisoner, then a
policeman, was in custody upon the present charge, but
had managed to effect his escape. An application was
subsequently made to Mr. henry, at this Court, and a
warrant was granted for the prisoner's apprehension, but
the prisoner managed to elude the vigilance of the police
until the night before, when he was taken into custody.
It was not his (Mr. Games's) wish, at that late hour Of
the evening, to go into the case beyond showing suffi-
cient grounds for the prisoner's remand to a future day ;
and he should, therefore,. content himself by merely re-
questing that the sworn information upon which the
warrant was granted against him might be read.
Mr. Gunn, the clerk, then read over the examinations
of Elizabeth Ann Grant (the wife of the prisoner), and
Sarah Everest, her mother, taken before Mr. Henry on
the 20th day of January last, and which are as follow
" Elizabeth Ann Grant then stated that on Friday, the
31st day of October last, I left home to go to tea at

Mrs. Murrell's, in Locks fields, and tia I wtt hi the
shop, about half-past three o'clock in the afternoon, I
saw James Grant, a police-constable of the P division,
1,jo; 290, pass. He saw me and beckoned to me. He
had been paying his addresses to me, but against the
consent and wishes of my mother, for about six months ;
and I came out to him when he beckoned to me. He
then asked me to go to some house with him, and wanted
me to get married to him. I said, too young.'
I was then 15 years and seven months old only. He
perinaded me to go on board a steam-boat with him
from Westminster-bridge to Vauxhall. There he gave
me
_something to drink. and I became tipsy. He took
me to a brothel, No. 2, Gaywood street, London-road,
and there, by threats and persuasions, I consented to
his wishes. He kept me there, and at other lodgings,
for nearly two months, and at the end of that time I was
married to him, at the church of the parish of Christ-
church, in the county of Surrey. During the two months
and frequently since I have been, married, I have asked
him to let inc go home to my mother; but he has always
threatened would beat my brains out if. I did. On
Sunday night last, the ISth instant, he was writing, and
I said to him, ' I may as well write home to my mother,
may I V He said, No, if you do I'll stick these razors
through you!' sad took two razors cut of a drawer and
opened them, He struck, sue and knocked my head
ageinst the wall because I said I would write. Yester-
day I sent for my mother, and she fetched me away.
Darin; the time I have been w:fh Grant he has fre-
quently beaten me. Ha has done so nearly every day.
Yest,,•rday he told me he would murder me if I said any-
thing about him before the Magistrate--Sarah Evere,t,
on her oath, sai I—The last witness is my daughter by
my former husband, Thomas Currant, deceased. She was
15 years of age on the 15th day of March last, and on the
3 tat day of October last she went to taa at Mrs. Mur-
rell's, and did not return again ; and I did not see her
again until yesterday, when she sent for me, and Ifound
her at Grant's lodgings. About a fortnight before she
left m T found out that Grant and my daughter were
too iuturto, and I forbade his coming to the house, and
tries 11'd I could to keep my daughter out of his way;
and it was quite against my consent and wish that she
went to live with him, and that she got married to him.
My daughter will be entitled to 5001. when she becomes
of age."
Mrs. Everest was then put into the witness-box, and
deposed to the perfect truth of her statement.
Elizabeth Ann Grant next got into the witness-box,
and said that she did not wish to proceed further in
the matter; and that if the prisoner was agreeable to
return and live with her she had no objection to live
with him.

Mr. Roberts, who attended on behalf of the prisoner,
hoped that after this declaration the charge would nut
be proceeded with.
Mrs. Everest, however, declared her determination to
prosecute the prisoner, and this being the case,
Mr. ELLIOTT observed that the mother, and not the
daughter was the prosecutrix, and therefore it must be
proceeded with.
The prisoner was ultimately remanded.
MARKET -NE WS— ( ESTERDAY.)