The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
BAIL COURT, June 12.
(Sittings in Banco before Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN.)
JOAN AND HENRY BROOM V. THE QUEEN, IN ERROR.
This was an indictment against the two Brooms for
an assault and riot, in being engaged in a prize fight.
The parties were convicted. Subsequently they
brought a writ of error under the Bth and 9th Vict.,
c. 68. It appeared, however, by the third -section of
that Act, that if there should be any unnecessary
delay in proceeding with the writ of error, the Court
might quash the writ. A rule nisi having been
gattnted upon this ground to quash the writ,
Mr. BUTT, on behalf of John Broom only, showed
cause against such rule.
- The Comer, however, not considering the cause
shown to be sufficient, made the rule absolute.

A rule nisi was then obtained on behalf of Henry
Broom, to set aside so much of the order as related
to him, on the grouud that he had Lot been served
with notice of the rule.

Mr. PHILLIMORE this day showed cause against
this latter rule, contending that service of the notice
upon the attorneys of the party was sufficient.
Mr. HUMFREY, as Counsel for Henry Broom, sub-
patted that the parties referred to were not the
attorneys for his client.
Mr. Justice IVIGHTataN did not think that there
had been proper service. The rule would, therefore.
he made absolute ; but he should take time to consider
whether it would be with costs or not.

THE QUEEN V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. ADDISON applied for a rule to show cause why
a mandamus should not issue, commanding the rail-
way company to restore two ancient footways which
had been stopped up by the works of the railway,
either by making bridges across the railway, or by
the adoption of such other means as might be conve-
njont to the public. He moved on behalf of the
surveyors of the township of Deighton, near Hudders-
field, where the footways in question were situated.
Application granted.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

Samuel Smith, 44, and Mary, his wife, were in-
dicted for a burglary, in the dwelling-house of Re-
becca Eliza Lloyd, and stealing a large quantity of
plate, a considerable amount of gold, and bank notes,
and other valuable property, belonging to the prose-
cutrix.

The circumstances of this robbery were detailed
in full, at the last session, when two persons were
convicted of a participation in the same offence.
The case was opened by Mr. RYLAND, who prose-
cuted on behalf of the City, and at the close of his
statement,
The RECORDER expressed an opinion that the evi-
dence would not be sufficient to support the charge
against the prisoners.
The jury, therefore, return-ea a verdict of Not
Guilty.
Mr. PARRY made an application to the Court on
behalf of William Henry Vernon, one of the persons
committed for using seditious and treasonable lan-
guage at a Chartist meeting, to reduce the amount of
the recognizances which the magistrate bad required
him to enter into. The present amount was himself
in 4001. and four sureties of 1001. each ; he was
utterly unable, from his position in life, to obtain
sureties to that amount, and if it was not reduced
the effect would be that he must remain in gaol until
his trial, which, he said, was a proceeding contrary
to the spirit and intention of the statute, in cases of
misdemeanour.
The RECORDER declined to entertain the applica-
tion until notice of it had been given to the Solicitor
to.the Treasury.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK.)
Cry: William Jones, 31, a soldier, was indicted for steal-
ing a watch, cigar-case, 3/. 10s. in gold and silver
money, the property of Robert Edwards.
Mr. Ballantine prosecuted, and Mr. Robinson de-
fended the accused.

The prisoner, it appeared, is a corporal in the Ist
Life Guards, and the prosecutor is a trooper in the
same regiment. He was tried at the last session for
stealing a considerable sum of money from the troop-
major of the regiment, but on that occasion he was
acquitted, and the present indictment was post-
poned to this session on account of the ill-
ness of the prosecutor. In this case it seemed
that the prisoner and the prosecutor were quar-
tered on the same floor, in the Regent's Park-
barracks, and on the 25th (A' January the prisoner
saw Edwards go to his box, and had an opportunity
of observing the property, which was missed very
soon afterwards. From circumstances that tran-
spired, Inspector Haynes, of the detective police, who
bad been employed to make inquiries into the mat-
ter, had suspicion of the prisoner, and took him into
custody on the 23d March. The prisoner, who had
been admitted to bail, now surrendered, the principal
evidence against him being the circumstance that he
was alleged to have had the cigar-case stolen from
the prosecutor in his possession, and that he had
given it to some person at Windsor, who now pro
duced it.

Mr. ROBINSON addressed the jury for the prisoner,
said attempted to show that the prosecutor was mis-
taken as to the identity of the cigar-case, and that
it in reality belonged to the prisoner, but the evi-
dence was very far from being satisfactory upon that

point.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was
sentenced to be transported for seven years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Samuel Alexander was brought before the Lord
Mayor, charged by Shaps David Wolken, a foreigner,
with having, in confederacy with the complainant's
wife and her sister, plundered him of 45 sovereigns,
and a quantity of household goods, and other pro-
perty, of the value of upwards of 1001.
The complainant it appeared had been married to
his wife about six or seven years. He went into the
country early in April, and on the 16th of that
month he returned home and found that all was right,
and he handed over to his wife, whom he always made
his cashier, 451. in gold. He remained at home until
the Passover was at an end, and he then went into the
Borough to transact some business, leaving his wife
et was usual with him, in possession of all his
operty. When he came back he was shocked
pi
t only at the absence of his partner, whom
had taken "for better for worse," but at
rtotal disappearance of his furniture from
e premises, so that he found himself in the condition
of a pauper in a foreign country, and at an age when
vigorous exertion was no longer in his power. It was
not long before he learned that Mrs. Wolken was
under the lock and key of the prisoner, who, upon
being questioned upon the subject, saidhe had pur-
chased the furniture of the lady, and would not, of
course, thinking of parting with what he had paid for.
Thus circumstanced, the unfortunate husband was
obliged to apply at the station-house for the assistance
of the police.. An officer accompanied him into the
presence of his runaway wife, her sister, and the
prisoner, and when he spoke of the robbery of 451.
his wife was seen to pass to her sisterra
purse something,
which was afterwards ascertained to
con-
taining 171. 12s. 6d. " Oh," said the wife, " that's
my sister's money, which she gave me to keep for
her." The complainant then gave his wife and the
prisoner into custody.
The LORD MAYOR—Did you see your goods in
the prisoner's house ?
Complainant—No ;he would not let me in.
The prisoner's solicitor said he could prove that the
money in the purse was the property
oft
heprisoner,
and that the complainant and his wife hadagreed to
separate, and had applied to the High Priest for a
divorce, which was in progress, and by reason of
which a fair division of the property possessed by
both had taken place.
The LORD MAYOR —And the wife was determined
to bake carp of herself.—(A laugh.)
The complainant—They didn't leave me anything
to lie upon, but took all away, money, and watch,
and seals, and furnituge, and they were all going off
to America.
The Loan MAYOR—I am very sorry that I cannot
interfere so as to give you complete reparation. I
cannot detain the prisoner, but I shall order the
policeman to give you up the 171. 12s. 6d., as I have
no doubt whatever that it is part of your property.
The sister-in-law here stepped forward, apparently
for the purpose of claiming the purse, but
The LORD MAYOR said, it was quite evident that
the object of the wife was to jilt her husband, and she
had two ready assistants in her sister and brother-in-
he-

The prisoner's solicitor, then addressing the com-
plainant, said, " I give you notice, that if you take
that money, you take it at your peril."
Th e LORD 161Avolt—The money was found in the
pdssession of the wife of the complainant, and it shall
be given up to him. Let the prisoner be discharged.
The decision gave much satisfaction to those assem-
Wed in the justice-room.
GUILDHALL,
An old man, upwards of 70 ye...Nrs of age, named
Tfraliant Dubbee, was charged before Mr. Alderman
Johnoon with making the following desperate attempts
to destroy himself :
James O'Malley, 368 of the City police, stated
that while he was on duty at Blackfriars-bridge
about half-past three o'clock, he observed the pri-
soner get upon tlte parapet of tho centre arch, and
was going to precipitate himself into the river, when
witness caught bold of him and with difficulty drew
iaim back. He struggled violently, and attempted
twice to accomplish his desperate purpose, but did
wit succeed. When locked up at the stati on-house
11 I was discovered in the act of hanging himself, and
aft 'erwards had nearly strangled himself, in con-
aeq
uence of which a pair of handcuffs were put upon
412 hands behind him.

Alderman JOHNSON Well, prisoner, what have
you got to say? Prisoner—l came to London to
look for work, but could not obtain any. lam per-
fectly aware of the wickedness of what I attempted
to do, and am exceedingly sorry for it.
Alderman JOHNSON—When did you come, and
from where ? Prisoner From Farringdon, in
Berkshire, on last Tuesday week.
Alderman JOHNSON—There are plenty of rivers
there. Why did you not throw yourself into one of
them, instead of coming to London for the purpose of
creating sympathy in the public mind ? You no more
intended to kill yourself than I do at present, and
ought to be well flogged and sent home. I shall
commit you for seven days on short allowance.
He was then conveyed to prison.
BENEVOLENCE.—AIderman Johnson requested our
reporter to acknowledge the following donation of
10s. from "P. 8.," towards the relief of Mr. John
Ballard Lloyd, whose case was reported in our im-
pression about ten days back.
WESTMINSTER.

J. Lhotsky, better known as Dr. Lhotsky, a
German, apparently upwards of fifty years of age,
waslarought before Mr. Broderip, by Panting, one of
the summoning officers of the court, on a warrant
obtained against him on Saturday, by Baron Charles
Hugel, charging him with sending a threatening
letter to Prince Metternich.
On the oath being administered to Baron
Hugel in the witness-box, defendant said, " Did
you kiss the book," and on the Baron replying in
the affirmative, he enjoined him as a Christian to
remember its importance.
Baron Hugel stated that he was a friend of Prince
Metternich, and produced a letter which the latter
had received on the 7'th inst. He knew it to be the
handwriting of the defendant.
The following letter was then put in :
"My Lord Prince,—On your arrival here I pre-
sented you with three copies of my Second Reforma-
tion. When I had a few pounds I considered it my
duty to spend it thus, because I am sure that man-
kind requires to be quieted and comforted. You
only made it rise in revolt. God may forgive you as
I do. I want to go home now lam worn out, ill, and
distressed. I have, however, a great consolation in
death, which I am afraid you will be wanting, viz., I
intended to build, you to destroy. God forgive
The Embassy could easily obtain my .401. for me
they are, I suspect, at your command. I owe my;
landlord 21., and he has seven children. I cannot
sleep at times on that account. You can, I dare
I ought to take a
st
corel religion (Re Legeo) co
say, even on the ruins of Europe.
few shower baths. I've not a penny to pay for them,
ihwatha rn-
s I am, notwith-
standing, a little better now,
msoaynoduysoeue
twohdaot Gonod
,shall go again before
the police-court, and then before Lord Denman, so I
think it is best if I am enabled
to go away.
" When the harvest is
ripe He will send his reapers.
u J. LHTSKY.
"3, High-street, Bloomsbury,`
P.S.
June 5,(1846.
Russell. He knos
me."
w just written similarly to Lord J.
Mr. BRODERIP
that the writ ti observed that the letter mentioned
writer should go a • gain before the police-
court," and inquired
whetherff defendant had been
before charged withan
Baron Hugel replied 3
thatoffence.
defendanthad been taken
to Marlborough-street Po cionuHrt, for breaking the
Prince's windows, at his hotel Hanover square.
Mr. BRODER
IP inquiredwhether the Prince felt
that the defendant's annoyance was of
racter as to induce him to claim the protection of
the law ?

Baron Hugel replied that the Prince conceived
that it was defendant's object to annoy him by en-
deavouring to extort money. The Prince had thrown
himself upon the hospitality of this country, that he
might be unmolested and quiet, and thought that
English laws would protect him from such an an-
noyance.
Mr. BRODERIP inquired what the defendant had to
say to the charge ?
The defendant, who spoke extremely good Eng-
lish, appeared to labour under considerable excite-
ment. He said the Baron and he were not strangers
to each other. They had breakfasted and dined to-
gether, and the Baron had often shaken hands with
him, sometimes with both hands. He had known
the Baron more than fifteen years. He felt surprised
that the present proceedings should have been taken
against him, and complained of the solitary imprison-
ment he had had since he was taken into custody on
Saturday evening. After a pause, defendant said—
It is not my province to say the injury the Prince
has done my country. I certainly wrote the letter to
the Prince, I wanted him to give me a little money
to get back to Austria ; I have been deprived of some
property I had in Austria through the Prince. I ask
you whether I am likely to injure any one by the
contents of that letter, which was sent open, and by
post? Is it likely a man would injure another who
says in his letter, ' God forgive you, as I do ?' "
Mr. BRODERIP—If you have any claim on Austria,
that is beside the present question, you must seek
your remedy in another way. It will not justify you
in writing a letter of this description.
Defendant—Does your worship think it is threat-
ening to say " God forgive you, so I do ?" Is it
likely the man who wrote so would injure another ?
If you receive my word of honour, I will not go near
the Prince again. After a pause, defendant exclaimed
with some vehemence, "He is outlawed, and the
Hungarian Parliament has forbidden him to go back.
(With a degree of merriment.) If I had sent such a
letter to any one else, they would have said 'some
foolish fellow out of his mind has sent this,' and
would have thrown it in the fire." After a length-
ened pause, defendant exclaimed, "He has imbrued
his hands in the blood of his country, and he wanted
to imbrue his hands in mine. Mine are pure, and
(turning to the Baron) I wish yours and your mas-
ter's were as pure. (In an under tone) lam as good
a gentleman as the Baron. In the warrant upon
which I have been confined in a solitary cell for
nearly forty hours, it says, 'J. Lhotsky, known as
Dr. Lhotsky,' I am as well known as Dr. Lhotsky as
he is as Baron Hugel."
In reply to a question from Mr. BRODERIP, Baron
Hugel said that on his oath he apprehended the
Prince went in danger of annoyance from the de-
fendant.

The defendant, who produced a medical certificate,
to show that he was in a very indifferent state of
health, entreated the Baron to accept his solemn word
that he would not annoy the Prince again, by writ-
ing, going to his house, or by any other act, and the
Baron having consented to accept his promise to that
effect,
Mr. BRODERIP observed that bad the Baron prayed
the judgment of the Court upon defendant, he should
have felt bound to have come to such a decision as
would have protected the Prince. It was question-
able whether the letter was not of such a character as
to expose the defendant to the consequences of having
sent it with a view to extort money, but that, how-
ever, was not the charge before him. The Baron had
very humanely accepted his promise not to repeat the
annoyance, and if he kept his word he would hear no
more of this, but if he again offended he must take
the consequences. He (the worthy magistrate) would
suspend the warrant for two months, and if it were
found necessary to again put it in force against the
fondant he might depend upon it he would find him-
self effectually restrained by law from a repetition of
the annoyance.