The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-10 00:00:00

COURT OF ALDERMEN

Yesterday a Court of Aldermen was held at the Man-
sion-house, for the purpose of receiving a communication
from the Lord Mayor relative to the steps his Lordship
had taken in respect to the Spital sermon, and other
matters connected therewith.

self, send to Paris some one on whose judgment and
taste you can rely. With a little wind and a bright sun
the effect is more beautiful than anything of the kind I
have ever seen—l will not except the six rainbows at
Terni—perhaps Mr. Barry may have seen it. I send a
copy of this to Sir R. Peel ; but my appeal is to you,
not to him, because I know he dislikes being approached
upon any subject except through the proper official
channel. Yours, sincerely,

To the Earl of Lincoln, &c.

THE GUANO TRADE.-HILL AND ANOTHER U. SUGHRTIE.

he would fine her the amount of the damage, Bs., but
would append a note to the commitment requesting the
surgeon of the prison to inquire into the state of the
defendant's mind. _ _ _

The defendant was removed in the van at the usual time.
EFFECTS OF DRINK.—Mr. John Fiddes, of 4. St.
Anne's Villa, Acaccia-road, was summoned for having
menaced his wife Harriet, whereby she went in bodily
fear.
IF. W. TRENCH.Mr. Hobler attended for the wife.

This was an action to recover damages for the breach
of a contract on a charter party, in which judgment was
suffered by default. The present proceeding was a
writ of inquiry to assess the damages.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Lush were for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Hoggins for the de-
fendants.
The evidence showed that the plaintiffs are merchants
in Rood-lane, and the defendant a shipowner. In Sep-
tember, 1844, a charter party contract was made between
the parties for a cargo of guano, in the ship Seffings,
from Ichaboe, West Africa, at 4/. 15s. a ton, provided
it was delivered in London by the following April, or at
4/. 12s. 6d. a ton if delivered after that period. The
vessel reached Ichaboe in January, 1845. There were
300 ships on the same errand, and 3,000 men at work.
The best guano pits had been exhausted, and the cap-
tain could only procure fifty tons of an inferior quality,
the tonnage of the vessel being 522. He went to Mala-
gars, Saldanah Bay, where he got a cargo, and arrived
at Hull in September last. Before his arrival, however,
the defendant had made an agreement with other par-
ties, and sold the cargo at 51. a ton. The price in April
was 51. a ton, and in September 71. 10s.
The case for the plaintiff was, that they were entitled
to the price of the guano in September, and not the April
price. For the defence it was said the defendant could
not fulfil the contract. _ _

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SECONDARIES' COURT, April 9.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)

At the desire of the Lord Mayor Mr. Forth, of the
Town Clerk's office, read a correspondence which took
place between the Town Clerk upon the part of the Lord
:':ayor and Mr. Trollope upon the part of the President
of Christ's Hospital, from which it appeared that his
Lordship had determined, in consequence of the non-
recognition of his authority, as head of the hospital, not
to attend on Monday and Tuesday next to hear the
Spital sermon at thaat institution, nor to receive the
children of the establishment at the Mansion-house ac-
cording to the usual custom. A record was produced from
which it appeared that from the year 1721 to the year
1795, it had been the custom of the Court of Aldermen
to appoint that the Spital sermons should be preached on
Easter Monday and Easter Tuesday, at St. Bride's
Church, and there was no record to prove that until sub-
sequently to the year 1795, the Spital sermon had been
preached at Christ Church. Under these circumstances
his Lordship, considering that an indignity had been
cast upon his high office by the terms, and substance of
the correspondence, addressed a letter to the Rev. Mr.
Dale, canon of St. Paul's, and vicar of St. Bride's Church,
to grant permission for the use of St. Bride's Church, for
the preaching of the Spital sermons before the Court, and
the governors of the several hospitals. To that letter
the vicar returned an immediate answer of acquiescence,
requesting at the same time that it should be distinctly
understood that he did not at all meddle with the ques-
tion between the Lord Mayor and the president of the
hospital.
A long discussion, or rather conversation, took place,
which ended in the unanimous adoption of two resolu-
tions, the first requesting the Right Rev. Connop, Lord
Bishop of St. David's, and the Rev. Charles Farebrother,
chaplain to the Lord Mayor, to preach before the Court
and the governors of the several hospitals at the parish
church of St. Bride's, on Monday and Tuesday in Easter
week, and the second requesting the use of that church
of the vicar.
The LORD MAYOR intimated that his brethren having
settled the essential point by adopting his suggestion, he
should waive his objection, which sprung out of the in-
dignity offered to him as to the reception of the scholars,
and invite them on the usual day to the Mansion House.
The Court then adjourned.

SIR F. TRENCH and LORD LINCOLN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS.
The following letters have been lately printed. No
one will dissent from the opinions set forth, although it
is not a little strange that the letters should have been
published.— Times.

85, Pall-mall, Feb. 9.

The Learned SECONDARY left the case to the jury to
assess the damages.
The jury retired at a little before two, and came into
Court at six o'clock. They assessed the damages at 5001.

SHERIFFS' COURT, April 9.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCESLL, and a Common
Jury).

LISRETT V. DI‘CANN.-A UNIVERSAL RAILWAY DIRECTOR.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, to re-
cover of the defendant the sum of 91. 4s. 6d. for services
rendered. _ _

To this the defendant pleaded, first, that he was never
indebted ; and secondly, a " set off."
Mr. PARRY said, the plaintiff was a medical gentle-
man, and brought the present action to recover the sum
of 91. 4s. 6d. for his services as an assistant to the de-
fendant, Mr. M'Cann, the well-known surgeon of Par-
liament-street, Westminster. In the latter part of the
year 1843 the plaintiff entered the service of the de-
fendant, with the understanding that he was to receive a
salary of 20/. for the first year, 251. for the second ; and
301. for the third. On the 13th of January last a
quarrel took place between them, which led to a separa-
tion, there being then due to the plaintiff a balance
amounting to 91. 4s. 6d.
Henry John Crawford, clerk to plaintiff's attorney,
stated that he served the defendant with the writ in the
action, and told him that the claim was for one quarter
and three weeks' salary from the 11th of September,
1845, until the Ist of January, 1846. Mr. M`Cann com-
plained that Mr. Laskett had detained a book belonging
to him, and that he would not pay him a farthing until
it was returned.

Mr. J. Hawkins was present in August, 1543, when
Mr. Laskett engaged with Mr. M'Cann. The agree-
ment was, that he should have 201. the first year, and 5/.
per annum increase afterwards, if he suited.
Cross-examined by Mr. NOGGINS—CouId not remem-
ber exactly whether there was a written agreement.
He might hare signed one, but it was so long ago, he
could not swear that he had. _ _

It appeared that the parties had been separated for
some time, and that the complainant by her own exer-
tions maintained herself and her two children. The de-
fendant, however, followed her from place to place,
acting in a manner so as to excite serious fears for her
own and her children's safety. The defendant's conduct
was exceedingly violent when he was under the influence
of liquor, which indeed was an habitual vice. Mrs.
Fiddes gave several instances of the defendant's me-
nacing behavour towards her with his stick, and called
evidence to show that it was not safe for her to be with
her husband, in consequence of the effect which drink
had on him.
A surgeon, who had attended the husband profes-
sionally, said he knew that the consequences of indul-
gence in drink had been to produce delirium tremens in
the defendant. He thought the defendant could not be
safely trusted when intoxicated.
The defendant, whose language towards his wife was
very endearing, said if his wife, whom he dearly loved,
would live with him again, he would promise to give up
drink, and would keep sober.
The wife said she could not depend upon that promise.
It had often before been given and always broken.
The husband said his object in pursuing his wife from
place to place was to see that she had no visitors. He
objected to her living in private lodgings by herself.
Mr. Hobler said the complainant was only visited by
old friends of tie family.
Mr. HAnDwicK said, after the evidence of habitual
intoxication, and the violence to be apprehended from
the defendant when in that state, he was of opinion
that the wife was entitled to the protection of the law,
which she prayed, against her husband. He should,
therefore, require him to find sureties, himself in 1001.,
and two sureties in 501. each, to keep the peace to-
wards her. _

Mr. HOGGINS here produced a document, and asked
the witness if he had ever seen it before? The witness
said that it now occurred to him that he had signed a
written document; the one produced was the same. His
own signature left no doubt upon his mind.—(Laughter.)
It had been executed at the time, but it was only an
agreement for the first year. It was afterwards arranged
by a verbal agreement that plaintiff was to receive a
progressive salary.
Mr. HOGGINS addressed the jury for the defendant,
contending that the document which had been put in
proved beyond a doubt that the plaintiff had engaged to
serve the defendant for 201. per annum. He would ad-
mit that the defendant had paid the plaintiff 51. more
than the salary for the second year. It was not done in
the fulfilment of any agreement between them, but as a
gratuity bestowed for attention to business. There had
been other transactions between the plaintiff and de-
fendant, upon which the second plea was founded. In
the year 1845 Mr. MiCann was a " provisional director "
of the Madrid and Valentia Railway; which the plain-
tiff being aware of, applied to the defendant for an allot-
ment of shares. Mr. M'Cann told him that he could

not grant them, but that he could, if ho wished, write
to the committee. The plaintiff did so, and received an
allotment of ten shares, on which a deposit of 21. per
share was to be paid within a certain time, at the bank-
ing-house of Messrs. Forbcs. To pay this deposit,
the plaintiff having no money, the defendant kindly lent
him 201., which was the set-off he should now estab-
lish.

My dear Lord Lincoln,—Early this morning, in
crossing Leicester-square, I saw a magnificent boll of
an elm-tree so skilfully suspended by chain slings as to
attract my admiration. I followed it towards Long-
acre, and was struck with the beautiful graining of its
butt, which I should guess to be twelve feet in circum-
ference ; it was about nine feet in circumference at the
top, and the length might be twenty-five to thirty feet,
and it was as straight as an arrow. I asked one of the
waggoners where it came from, and you may judge my
dismay when he said " from Hyde Park."
You may recollect that at Sir Robert Peel's dinner I
told you that I was on the point of writing to you, to
beg that you would not allow any old trees to be cut
down without your special permission, and very much
do I regret that the fear of being deemed intrusive pre-
vented my so doing, as it might have been the means of
saving those superb old trees which have been cut down
since, and which all the wealth of the world cannot now
replace.
When I lamented the destruction of the fine old avenue
of horse chesnuts between the King's-road and Chelsea
Hospital (which are to be replaced by fine young trees),
you told me you did not know who had ordered them to
be cut down. I went to the spot to inquire, but could not
obtain any information ; but I saw prostrate on the
ground no less than fifty, independent of a magnificent
and venerable tree (not in the avenue), under whose
shade I have often seen a hundred or two hundred people
listening to a ranting Methodist preacher. I asked a
carpenter working at one end of the new houses what
he thought one of the avenues of trees might be worth?
and he said " between 21. and 34;" 1504 to the Ex-
chequer, yet millions would not replace them.
I thick it was on the morning of the 6th of this
month I went to look over Coventry House, and was
struck by the magnificence of an old elm tree (the only
one, as my informant told me, left of a group of ten or
twelve) ; its top was shattered by storm or lightning,
but it might have been cut so as to produce good
shoots, and to form a head like one of the two that are
left opposite Grafton House, and near the reservoir.
But, alas! next morning, as I passed along Piccadilly,
before nine o'clock, I found a gang of carpenters felling
it, and so rapid were their operations, that as I returned
through Hyde Park, by the Serpentine, I met a waggon
conveying toppings and loppings to what the waggoner
called " the wood depot;" and the place where it
had stood was already filled up. Next morning I
took a rule and measured it, and several of the great
stems that lay near the sawpit. Some of the butts,
when squared and sawn into planks, measured 8 feet in
diameter, and others between 2i and 3 feet. I consider
the destruction of these trees a sacrilege—if an embank-
ment was necessary they might have been surrounded
with a guard of bricks, as is done with the three small
plane trees (probably in consequence of your orders) ;
but if the walk had been continued on the level of Lord
Coventry's garden till it came nearly opposite to Cam-
bridge House, according to a plan I submitted to you,
every one of these fine old trees might have been spared,
and two flights of steps (60, 70, or 80 feet wide), with a
broad landing between them (as at the bottom of Water-
loo-place), and with a handsome balustrade leading up
to the level of the reservoir, would have been a beautiful
feature, and probably would net have cost so much as
the removal of the earth to form the embankment
which has caused the destruction of these venerable old
trees.

Mr. J. H. J. Roberts, assistant to Mr. M'Cann, said
he knew the plaintiff, and recollected his having an
allotment of shares in the " Madrid and Valentia Rail-
way." The plaintiff told him that Mr. M'Cann had
given him the money to pay for them, and he hoped they
would soon be at a premium.—(Laughter.)
Mr. PARRY—Was Mr. M'Cann provisional director of
more than one railway ? Witness—l believe he was a
director of a great number of railways.
Mr. PARRY —Then he was a sort of universal railway
_ .

director ?—(A laugh.) Witness—l believe so.
Mr. PARRY—There was a great deal of business done
in the railway line at the defendant's surgery, I believe ?
Witness—There was.

Mr. PARRY—Has not the plaintiff written letters on
railway matters for Mr. M'Cann ? Witness—Yes.
Mr. PARRY—Did he not sit up until three o'clock in
the morning conducting Mr. M'Cann's railway business ?
Witness—Sometimes.

Mr. PARRY—How many railways was Mr. M'Cann a
director of ? Was he a director of ten ? Witness—
More.

Mr. PARRY—Twenty ? Witness—More than twenty.
Mr. PARRY—Hare you not written letters for Mr.
M'Cann ? Witness—l have.

Mr. PARRY—Then you have been " stagging it ?"
(Laughter.) Witness—A little.—(Renewed laughter.)
Mr. PARRY—NOW, on your oath, has not Mr. M'Cann
instructed you to write in your own name for shares in
various speculations ? Witness—He has not. I have
written in his name, but not in my own.

Mr. PARRY—Are you not aware that the 201. was
given the plaintiff for extra services ? Witness—l be-
lieve it was ; the plaintiff has told me so.
Re examined—The plaintiff has sat up more than
once. I think defendant had about two hundred shares
in the Madrid and Valentia Railway Company. Mr.
M'Cann has got plaintiff's shares. He gave them to him
as security for the 201., plaintiff to have the profits.
Mr. H. T. Forbin, clerk to Messrs. Forbyn, bankers,
said that the plaintiff came to the banking-house on the
15th of October last, and presented a cheque for 201. as
a deposit on ten shares in the Madrid and Valentia Rail-
way Company. Witness said to him, " You are a fortu-
nate fellow to get an allotment "—(Laughter)—" and
Mr. M'Cann to give vou the money to pay for them."
The plaintiff said, " Yes, he was." He also presented a
cheque for 5001. as payment for Mr. M•Cann's shares.
Mr. PARRY having replied,
The jury, without any hesitation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

BREAKING THE WINDOWS OF SIR JAMES GRAHAM.
—Mary Stuart, of No. 184, Kent-street, was brought
before Mr. Hardwick, charged with having wilfully
broken two squares of glass in a window of the residence
of Sir James Graham, No. 31, Hill-street, Berkeley.
square.
Webb, the porter to Sir James Graham, said the de-
fendant called that morning at the house, and said she
wanted to see Sir James Graham. She was told to go
to the Home-office, but she replied she had been there
until she was tired, and she 11 ould not go again. She
then walked away, declaring she would have her re-
venge. She then deliberately pulled a stone out of her
pocket and smashed two panes of glass in the hall win-
dow. The stone was thrown with force, and passed very
close to the head of Sir James's valet, who was writing
in the hall. The damage done was about Bs.
Mr. HARDWICK called on the defendant to explain the
reason of her conduct.

I have been at a loss what to do with this letter ; but
I believe you are still at the head of the Woods and
Forests, and, therefore, I address it you, and do entreat
that you, or your successor, will give orders " that, for
the future, no tree shall be cut down without your
special permission."
The same motive which led me to send a copy of my
note to you about fountains to Sir R. Peel, added to the
fear that this letter may fall to the ground (ineffectual)
between you and your successor, induce me to adopt the
same course now. The emergency appears to me to
justify this intrusion, even in this moment of unexam-
pled pressure ; for if the evil spirit which has been
guilty of the massacre of these fine old trees is not
checked in its sudden rapid course, who knows what
havoc may be made ?
Yours sincerely

F. W. TRENCH.

To the Earl of Lincoln.
A LETTER To LORD LINCOLN ON THE SUBJECT OF

THE FOUNTAINS IN TRAFALGAR-SQUARE.

Scarborough, Nov. 17, 1845.
My dear Lord Lincoln,—l have been making a short
tour in Spain (the land of fountains), and have visited
Corunna, Vigo, Lisbon, Cadiz, Seville, Algeciras,
Malaga, Grenada (not forgetting Sotto di Roma, though
no fountains are to be seen there), Almeria, Carthagena,
Alicante, Valencia, Barcelona, Git ona, Figusiras, Per-
pignan, Montpelier, Clermont, Orleans, Blois, Paris, and
Rouen. _ _

The defendant, a middle-aged woman, respectably
dressed, with great composure said—l am the grand-
daughter of Charles Stuart, who fought the battle of
Culloden in 1745. In 1828 I was employed as lady's
maid in the family of the Marquis of Winchester. My
royal birth was discovered, and an application was made
to Government on my behalf. Seventeen years ago I
made application for assistance to Government, but I
could get nothing done, and I was prevented from taking
another situation. George IV. paid attention to my
claim to royal birth, but did nothing for me. In 1841,
when the present Ministerial party came in, I applied to
Lady Annabella Ramsden, but she insulted my birth,
and would not assist me in getting a situation. My title
has been examined by the Marquis of Queensberry, who
has seen the writing and the arms of my ancestor James
11. I applied also to the King of Hanover, and his
Majesty promised to make application to Government
on account of my birth, but he has done nothing. I am
now reduced to the greatest destitution and distress, and
I had no other resource than to apply to Sir J. Graham.
Mr. HaapwicK—Why did you apply to Sir James
Graham in particular ? Defendant—Because he is Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department. I have
written to him, but he wrote to inquire whether I was
really the granddaughter of Charles Stuart or out of my
senses. The Lord Mayor has got my testimonials, and
between them all I am deprived of an opportunity of
getting any living. I do not know what I am to do,
unless it is to go into the workhouse.
Mr. HARDWICK—And why not ? Defendant—On
account of my age. As to my birth I don't think any-
thing of that. I only want to get my living, and it's very
hard I am prevented from doing so.
Mr. HARDWICK—You must not attempt to gain your
object by breaking windows.
Defendant—Why does not Sir James Graham give
me an answer ? I have applied at the Home-office, and
can get no attention paid to me.
Mr. HARDWICK, taking into consideration the obvious
incoherence 91the defendant's umunier And language) aid,

Everywhere I looked for fountains, and have seen
them of every shape and size, from a simple dolphin to
the elaborate groups on some of the Spanish alamedas,
or the gaudy and less modest exhibition of the lusty
buxom nymphs in the Place de Concorde, at Paris. But
no where have I seen anything so mesquin and so
ungraceful as your fountains in Trafalgar-square.
As I passed through London I perceived that prepara-
tions were making for some alterations, and I therefore
obtrude myself to call your attention to a fountain which
I saw (and for the first time) in the Champs Ely6es, and
which, to my taste, surpasses in beauty anything of the
kind anywhere. It has neither architecture embellish-
ment nor sculptural decoration. It must be the cheapest
of all possible fountains, for it requires nothing but a
proper distribution of the pipes, of which you can easily
obtain a plan, and a sufficiency of water, which the
Thames or your London water-works oan give more
liberally than the river Seine, or the French sources.
If you have not seen it, I earnestly recommend it to
your *special notice ; or, if you =WA 100 k At it your- ,

E SvN, LONDON 2 FRIDAY,EVENING,Rix 10, 1846.

Henry Kempton, a tradesman residing in the vicinity of
this Court, attended on the preceding day to make
complaint of an imposition which was practised upon
his wife in the course of some proceedings which had

taken place there.
The applicant stated, that a few days since he bad
occasion to give his wife into custody for assaulting him,
and that the magistrate (Mr. Cottingham) held her to
bail in two securities of 20/. each to keep the peace.
The defendant not being in a situation at the moment
to find the required bail, she was locked up, but had
not been long in the cell, when a person named Hall,
described as an attorney's clerk, had an interview
with her, during which he undertook to procure
the requisite securities for her liberation if she
gave him a sovereign and something for his trouble.
Applicant's wife, anxious, of course, to obtain her re-
lease, immediately handed over the sum to Hall, who
immediately went away, promising to return speedily
with the persons who would become bail for her. After
waiting, however, in a state of suspense, the promised
bail was not put in, and the result was that his wife was
conveyed at five o'clock to the county gaol. The next
day he (applicant) attended at this Court with a desire
of making arrangements for the liberation of his wife,
when she made him acquainted with the above particu-
lars, and as he considered a very gross imposition had
been practised on his wife, he thought he was only per-
forming a public duty by bringing the matter under the

notice of the Court. - -
Mr. COTTINGHAM expressed his surprise that such an
advantage should have been taken of a person in de-
fendant's situation at the time, and inquired by what
means the person complained against had the oppor-
tunity of having an interview with the applicant's wife
after she was locked up?
Spikin, the gaoler, said that attorneys and their clerks
were permitted to see their clients in their cells, and that
as Hall was supposed to be interested in Mrs. Kempton's
behalf, he was not prevented from seeing her.
Mr. COTTINGRAM directed that, in future, access to
prisoners should not be permitted, unless by application
made to the Court, with a view to prevent the recurrence
of such a transaction in future.
Some time afterwards Mr. Hall entered the Court to
defend a prisoner, but the moment he stood up for the
purpose, Mr. COTTINGNAM said that a charge of a very
serious nature had been alleged against him, and that
while it was pending he could not be perinitted, to act
there professionally. The magistrate then describea'the
nature of the accusation brought against Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall admitted that he had received a sovereign
from Mrs. Kempton for his professional services, and
that he was well acquainted both with her and her hus-
band, and did not imagine that any complaint would
have been made against him for taking a fee for his at-

tendance on her behalf.
Mr. Kempton said that the sovereign was not given as
a fee, but for the purpose of bail being procured.
Mr. Hall still asserted that he took the sovereign in
the nature of a fee; but that, as such scruples were now
made about it, he was willing to return it to the person
from whom he had it.
Mr. COTTINGHAM said, that it was a charge of so
serious a nature, as affected the individual complained
against, that it must not be permitted to drop ; and that,
for the purpose of investigating it, he should request the
attendance of Mr. Kempton and his wife, and also the
person to whom the money had been given for a specific
purpose.
Yesterday was the day appointed for entering into the
merits of the case. Mr. Kempton and his wife were pre-
sent, according to appointment, but Mr. Hall did not
make his appearance.
The MAGISTRATE told Mr. Kempton that he should
not lose sight of the matter.
THAMES.
STABBING.—Sarah Maclean, a dissipated-looking
woman, about 45 years of age, who has been in custody
a fortnight, was brought before Mr. Ballantine for final
examination, on a charge of cutting and wounding
George Dixon, a man about her own age, who was
brought from the hospital in a very weak condition.
The prosecutor is a lumper employed in the docks, and
has cohabited with the prisoner for the last seven years.
They lived in Lambeth-street, Whitechapel. On the
27th of March the prisoner went in search of Dixon,
who had been absent from her several days, and
found him at the East India Dock. Some words
passed, but they afterwards became friends, and began
drinking together. After visiting several public-houses
they proceeded in a half-drunken state to the dwelling
of the prisoner's son, in Queen Catherine-court, Ratcliff.
After remaining there some time, and partaking of more
liquor, Dixon offered to leave the prisoner and fetch
some more gin. She attempted to stop him, a struggle
ensued, and the man was wounded in the back of the
head with a knife. It was such a wound as nearly cost
him his ,life, but neither Dixoa nor the woman's son
could or would state how it was inflicted. Dixon him-
self stated there was a struggle, that his head was cut
open, that he afterwards became insensible, and next
morning found himself in the London Hospital.
The prisoner's son, a dock labourer, said his mother
aad the prisoner were both drunk, but his mother
was the worst of the two. The prisoner hit his
mother, and she hit him in return, but he
saw no knife. After the parties left the house,
Dixon went into a chemist's shop, and his wound was
dressed. The blood continued to flow profusely after-
wards, and a mob collected about the parties. The at-
tention of How, a policeman, was called to the cir-
cumstance, on hearing several persons say, " There is
the woman who stabbed the man." He took the pri-
soner into custody. Dixon was led to the station-house
with the blood streaming down his face and clothes.
Townson, the sergeant on duty, seated him on a chair
and asked him who had wounded him. He pointed '
the prisoner, and said she jobbed a table-knife at him.
The prisoner said, "Yes, you vagabond, and I'll do for
you yet. You have not been near me since Saturday
last.' The man immediately became insensible, and
after being attended by a surgeon, was sent by Townson
to the London Hospital, where he remained until yes-
terday, when he was allowed to come out and give evi-
dence. The policeman, How, afterwards found a knife
in the room where the affray took place. It was spotted
with blood, and the point of it was turned back, evi-
dently by coming in contact with some hard substance.
William Maclean, the prisoner's son, identified the
knife. It was in the table-drawer before the struggle,
and the point was not turned back then.
Mr. James Stock, surgeon, in King David-lane, Shad-
well, saw the prosecutor on the 27th of March. He
was then bleeding profusely from a wound on the head.
It was an inch and a half above the right ear, at the
back of the head. The wound was a lacerated one, with
jagged edges, an inch in extent, and a branch of the
occipital artery was divided.
The prisoner, in defence, said she had not drank any
liquor for twelve months previous to the 27th of March,
and got drunk because Dixon was drinking.
Mr. BALLANTINE committed the prisoner for trial.
SAVAGE ASSAULT BY A HUSBAND ON HIS WIFE.—
On Thursday Neil Maclean, a ship-joiner, residing at
3, Sun Tavern Gap, Shadwell, was charged before Mr.
Ballantine with committing a series of cruel and
cowardly assaults on Ellen Maclean, his wife, to whom
he has only been married eleven months.
It appeared from the statement of the wife, who
carried in her arms an infant to which she had recently
given birth, that she was a widosi in comfortable cir-
cumstances when she married the prisoner, who had ever
since ill-used her in a most barbarous manner. He
frequently knocked her down while she was in a state of
pregnancy. That morning about two o'clock he came
home partly inebriated, and after beating her tore her
cap from her head, drove her from her bed and turned
her out of doors. Her husband threw the bed on the
floor, and threatened to kill her. Assaults of a similar
description had been often committed upon her.
The prisoner vehemently protested that he had never
ill-used his wife at all. He would be the last man to do it.
The wife said her neighbours had been witnesses of
the ill-usage, and two of them were sent for. They
stated that they had seen the prisoner strike his wife,
blacken her eyes, and make her nosebleed. The neigh-
bourhood was continually disturbed by her screams and
cries for mercy.
The prisoner was then fined 51., and in default of pay-
ment was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment.
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY.—John Massey, a powerful
man, a boiler maker, in the employ of Messrs. Ditchburn
and Mare, at Blackwell, was charged with assaulting
Mary Anderson, his next door neighbour.
The parties lived in Mary-street, Poplar, and accord-
ing to her statement, she was standing at her own door
talking to her son, when the defendant came up and cast
some reflections on her husband. She retorted, and the
fellow after using some very bad language, struck her a
very severe blow with his fist on the face, and knocked
her down. When she got up she ran towards her own
house. Massey followed her, and overtook her in the
passage, and then kicked her, and inflicted a very serious
injury upon her, from which she is still suffering. The
transaction occurred on Monday last, and the bruises on
the woman's face, and her blackened eyes, were indica-
tive of the violence of the blows she received.
Two witnesses confirmed the statement of the com-
plainant in every respect.
The prisoner, in defence, said there had been a
squabble. but he denied there ;had been any blows
struck at all, and he called three witnesses. Their evi-
dence was very unsatisfactory and contradictory, but
they agreed in one thing, that Massey did not strike
Mrs. Anderson.
The complainant said the defendant's witnesses were
not present during any part of the transaction.
Mr. BALLANTINE, who investigated the case with
much care, was of opinion the defendant's witnesses did
not see the affray at all, and spoke in terms of severe
reprehension of their conduct. After commenting on
the brutal conduct of the prisoner, he sentenced him to
pay a fine of 5/., which he was unable to do, and was
committed to the House of Correcti
ICHn for six weeks.
GREENW
THE MURDER OF THE POLICE-CONSTABLE AT DEPT-
FORD.— Sullivan, Brozon, alias O'Keefe, Collins, and
M'Carthy, the four men who stand charged with the
wilful murder of James Hastie, police-constable
334 R, were brought from Horsemonger-lane Gaol for
re-examination before Mr. Traill, the newly-appointed
magistrate at this Court consequent on the retirement
of Mr. Grove.
Mr. Haywood, of the Treasury Solicitor's office, ap-
peared for the prosecution; and Mr. Austen, of London,
on the part of the prisoners.
The whole of the evidence taken during the many
examinations was gone through anew in order that Mr.
Traill should be perfectly acquainted with the details,
which engrossed the attention of a crowded Court
nearly four hours and a half.
Mr. TRAILL said, he thought the prisoners' attention
should have been drawn to Hastie's declaration, in order
that they might deny, and if then silent the case would
be much stronger than at present. The case did not
present that point where deceased was conscious of dying
at the time it was made. The coroner's jury had re-
turned a verdict of wiful murder, and upon that verdict
the prisoners would be arraigned before another tribunal.
He (Mr. Traill) would remand the case until the 30th
indent, when other evidence might be forthcoming, and