The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-21 00:00:00

LAMI3ETIT

A lod _er in the house and a police-constable deposed
to the defendant being an habitual drunkard, anti that
in the first instance she had accused other parties than
Mr. Powell and the cowkeeper of being her abductors
and the authors of the outrage upon her.
The husband of the defendant expressed it to be his
opinion that his wife's statement was true, but the
Mag;strate, on the contrary, remarked that when the
application was made to him two or three days ago by
the defendant's husband, he thought the statement ex-
ceedingly improbable, and that the defendant must have
been labouring under some delusion. He was now con
firmed in that impression, and it was his opinion that
she had been removed from the Peckham Asylum a
great deal too soon.

Mr. Powell said he had been subject to great annoy-
ance by the strange fancies of the defendant, and he
feared he should be subjected to much more unless she
was restrained by his wor. hip.
Mr. ELLIOTT at first ordered the defendant to find
bail, but finding the extraordinary excesses she pro-
ceeded to in the Court, he desired that she might be at
once taken to the Lambeth workhouse with a view to
'nil. being sent back to the Peckham Asylum.
EXTRAORDINARY RoDBERY OF BANK NOTES.—John
Coffin, who was described as a law stationer, was fined),
examined, and fully committed for trial, on a charge of
stealing W. in bank notes, the property of Mr. Davis, a
law stationer in Castle-street, Holborn. The brief facts
of the case were these:—")n the 21st of last month, the
pros'-cut.ir played the part of Richard the Third at an
amateur perf )rmance at the Bower Saloon, Stangate, and
in changing his dress, had left six five pound notes, and
two for ten pounds each in the pocket of his tights. The
prisoner, who acted as prompter, was in the dressing-
room at the time the prosecutor changed his dress, and
absconded the following day. On Friday week he was
apprehended near Ware, in Hertfordshire, and upon
being searched, two of the stolen notes, namely, one for
five and the other for ten pounds were found in his pos-
session.

The magistrate refused to take bail to any amount fur
,he prisoner.

SOUTHWARK.
Mr. Thames Babson, a merchant, residing in Three-
crown-square, Southwark, was brought before Mr.
Clive, charged with committing an assault on Charles
Brown, one of the railway constables belonging to the
South-Eastern Railway.
Charles Brown stated that he is a constable belonging
to the South- Eastern Company, and that at half-past
four o'clock that morning, on the arrival or the express
train from Dover, he collected the passengers' tickets.
The defendant tieing in a first-class carriage, he was
asked for his ticket, when he produced a s•-cond-class
one, and being informed that he had to pay 2z. more,
being a passenger from Tunbridge, he immediately paid
it, but refused to deliver up the ticket. He was told
that the ticket must be delivered, and informed of the
consequences if he did not ; but he still refused to do so.
Finding the defendant determined not to resign posses-
sion of the ticket, witness took him gently by the arm,
upon which, the defendant immediately seized hint
round the waist, and threw him down upon his back,
and while on the ground, struck him on the mouth.
Witness added, that the defendant was then taken in a
cab to the station-house, where he delivered up the
ticket to the inspector on duty.
In the witness's cross-examination he said that the
defendant told him he had given up his return-ticket at
Tonbridge to one of the railway servants, who did not
give it back again. That witness, on hearing it, did not
say to the defendant, " Then you are a tl—d fool," but
might have said that it was foolish of him to do so.
The defence was, that on the preceding morning the
defendant purchased a second-class return ticket to Ton-
bridge, from London. bridge, intending to come back the
same evening. When the train arrived at Tonbridge, he
gave his ticket to the policeman on duty there, in order
to mark it, or " punch it," as it is termed. In the con-
fusion, however, created by the arrival of' another train,
the policeman hum, d away, without returning the
ticket ; and he (defendant) thinking it would be set
right when he returned to the station, mentioned it to
the clerk, and while the necessary inquiries were.rnaking
on the subject, the train he intended to start by left the
station, and he was detained at Tonbridge until half-past
two that morning, awaiting the express-train, the clerk
assuring him that if he paid the fare there, it would be
returned to him, on his explanation of the matter at the
terminus. He did explain it all at the London-bridge
station, and refused to deliver up the ticket without some
acknowledgment—having paid double fare—until he saw
the secretary. The ticket however was still demanded,
and as he refused to part with it, he was seized with vio-
lence, and in resisting they both fell to the ground.
Mr. CLIVE, addressing a gentleman in attendance on
the part of the South-Eastern Company, asked what
clause would justify the Act of taking the defendant
into custody, for refusing to deliver up his ticket ?
The by-laws of the company were produced, by
which it appeared a power was given for that purpose ;
but Mr. Clive, on referring to the Bth Victoria, chap.
20, said that even supposing it was proved the defendant
intended to have defrauded the company by refusing to
deliver up his ticket, still he did not think it would
justify his being taken into custody, much less when it
did not appear that he had any such intention, but
i merely wished to retain t, to have a portion of the fare
investigates:
by to him when the matter would be
by the secretary. Under the circumstances, therefore,
he (the magistrate) should dismiss the complaint against
the defendant.

The defendant's solicitor expressed his client's deter-
mination to enter an action immediately against the
South-Eastern Railway Company, to prevent acts of the
above description being perpetrated on the public who
travel on their railway.
il'illiani Staunton, a porter, belonging to the South-
Eastern Railway Company, was brought up for his ex-
amination charged with stealing a live crab out of a
basket from A:hford.

appeared that on the arrival of an early train from
Ashford on Monday morning, the prisoner, whose duty
it was to help to unload the trucks, was observed to have
something bulky under his coat. He was followed to
the entrance gates b:: Mr. Shaw, the superintendant,
who, suspecting that he had taken something, insisted
on an examination, and discovered that he had a large
live crab under his coat. The prisoner at first said he
only had a few apples, but when the crab was discovered
he beggad hard for forgiveness, and wanted to replace
the crab in the basket from which he had taken it, but
he was prevented, and given into custody.
Mr. HENRY' said that extensive depredations were
committed on the property intrusted to the company for
conveyance, and that an example was intended to be
made on a discovery.
The magistrate committed the prisoner for trial.
MARYLEBONE.
William Bardwall, an architect, residing at 49, Great
Queen-street, Westminster, was chargi.d with having
wifully damaged one of the public baths recently opened
in George-street, Easton-square.
William Ward, an attendant on the baths, deposed
that on the previous evening he prepared a second-class
bath for the prisoner, and, upon his coming out, witness
smelt something unpleasant in the bath. Upon looking
in, he found that a great portion of the wall had been
blackened, and a part of the enamel of the bath damaged.
lie then gave directions that the prisoner should be
s t
sTepregde.a
tllNe
by some very powerful liquid.
ceeoind s,i3d est
,e the damage to have been done
asked he prisoner what he had wadgats,t cinalhleids pocket? to ttohaaa-thihche
his replied. " Nothing ' • if you touch me you shall suffer
for it." Witness then searched the prisoner, and found
an empty half-phial in one of his pockets, but the
prisoner refused to say what it had contained.
Mr. Thomas Harris, superintendent of the baths, said
that the damage, which was evidently caused by some
extremely strong acid, amounted to no lea than 41. The
act must have been of a wilful nature. Nothing what-
ever was used in cleaning the baths but soap anti water,
and the room was perfectly clean before the prisoner
went into it.

The prisoner said that he had used nothing in the
bath but a solution of sulphur, which he was in the habit

SINGULAR DELUSION.—Mrs. Susan Lawrence, the
wife of a compositor in the employment of Messrs.
Clowes and Sons, of Duke-street, Lambeth, appeared
before Mr. Elliott, on a warrant charging her with
threatening the life of Mr. Powell, an egg-merchant.
The comp!anant stated that in consequence of several
slanderous report circulated throughout the neigbour-
hood tiganst him by the defendant, Mrs. Lawrence, he,
on Tuesday evening last, went to see her husband, and
speak to him upon the subject. Upon seeing him the
defendrnt commenced abusing him in the most unmea-
sured language, and charged him with having, in com-
pany with a respectable cow-keeper in the neighbour-
hood, taken her from her own house to a house of ill-
fame in Westminster, when both of them treated her in
a brutal manner, and threatened to run her through
with a knife. Her statement, in so far as he, witness,
was concerned, was a gross fabrication, *-s he could
prove, if necessary, that on the night she had mentioned,
namely the Bth of May last, as that upon which the out-
rage had been committed, he had a party at his house
to celebrate his birthday, and had not been away from
home for a single moment.
The defendant, who had frequently interrupted the
complainant, and it was difficult to keep quiet, rrplied
that his conduct to her had been scandalous, and that
he knew it.