The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-19 00:00:00

GROUP LXIV.

This Committee re-assembled to•day at twelve o'clock ; present Mr.
T. S. Duncornbe (chairman), and the other members.
IRISH GREAT WESTERN (PORTARLING.•
TON TO GALWAY).

MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN Or IRELAND
(MULLTNGAR TO GALWAY).

Mr.Fitzstephen French, M.P., chairman of the Irish Great West-
ern Company, deposed to having presided over a meeting which was
held on the 29th of May, in accordance with the Sessional Order,
and stated that there was only one party who was opposed to the
carrying out of the Bill.
After some further evidence,
Mr. COCKBURN, Q.C., addressed the Committee on behalf of some
of the shareholders of the Great Southern and Western Railway
(treland).
Zft; Sergeant WRANGIIAX contended that the statement of the
or the line in the preamble was not shown by the evidence.
A- dtscusston ensued, after which the Committee adjourned.

RS' COMMITTEES.
ad
jnoulerinrmLeoiriclt,shiinpsitoom
isitis, afternoon
ST A.ND-,„
vi---ous.DEE
on their list six
'lx G ORDERS'
two o'clock, pursuant to
,I%)7lliLisord Shaftesbury
of Winchester
trills, besides two on
met t 0P LORDS.
Ltieil,l to-morrow'
at
took the Chair, and there virei'eTrc'se " two
' and Lord Kinnaird. They had Dreamt— Marquis
second reference.
The only one called on was the
MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND urn,
The further conAderation of which wai, ~,,,,,,T,,)AnNeTi. JuNeTioN
Their Lordships then resolved themselves into a
on Merits, In order to proceed with a list of thirty.twa itV'mrinittee
all but nine were Railway Rills.
4. of which
THAMES HAVEN DOCK AND RAILWAY.
This case was part heard, and postponed till Monday.
DtiNDEE AND ARBROATH (EXTENSION).
This Bill was passed.
DUNDEE AND PERTH AMENDMENT.
The preamble of this Bill was declared proved.
EASTERN UNION (ARDLEIGII TO COLCHESTER).
Preamble proved.
MANCHESTER AND BIRMING/SAM.
The same decision was made in this case.
GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND (EASTERN EXTENSION).
The promoters of this Bill were equally succesful.
ALFORD VALLEY.

Preamble proved.
MIDLAND (EREWASEI VALLEY EXTENSION).
The preamble of this Bill was also proved.
YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND (LEEDS EXTENSION).
The promoters of this Bill also succeeded in provinu their preamble.
BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE, AND CHESHIRE JUNCTION.
This Bill was also passed.
NORTH-WESTERN.
The Committee declared the preamble proved.
GREAT GRIMSBY AND SHEFFIF:LD JUNCTION (HUMBER
FERRIES).
A similar decision was made In this case.
WILSON TOWN, MORNLNGS IDE, AND COLTNESS (BATHGATE
BRANCH).
WILSONTOWN, MORN INGSIDE, AND COLTNESS
(CALEFONIAN BR 1NICI).
WILSONTOWN, MORNINGSIDE. AND COL'fNESS (IMPROVE-
MENT AND BRANCHES).
These three branches of the 'Masontown, Morningslde, and Colt-
ness, and also the ilamannan (Balhgate, and Jawcraig Branches)
were called on, but Ole promoters not being prepared to proceed, they
stood over till Tuesday next.
EDINBURGH AND NORTHERN (NEWPORT RAILWAY AND
ST. ANDREW'S BRANCH).
EDINBURGH A,ND NORTHERN (PETTYCUR BRANCH AND
DYSART DEVIATION).
These two
ware Wlz ci the Zlizault 424 Northern BkilFam

ARBROATH AND FORFAR AMENDMENT.
This case Was adjourned till Tuesday.
CHARD CABAL RAILWAY.
The preamble of this Bill was also proved. In each of the above
cases clauses were in-erted in accordance with the resolution an-
nounced by the Committee on Saturday, as to placing lodges at level
crossings on public roads.
Five out of the nine Rills for local purposes above mentioned. were
passed, the remaining four stand over. They wore principally
estate and improvemeht Bills.
Their Lordships then resumed the form of a Hklnding Orders Com-
mittee, and proceeded with the consideration of the Bills remaining
on the standing orders list.
DEESIDE.
The promoters of this laconically initialed Bill had complied with
the standing orders.

MANCHESTER, BUXTON', 3fATLOCK, AND MIDLAND
JUNCTION.
This Bill, which in the length of its title *presehts a remarkable
contrast to 'he last, also passed through the Committee.
BRISTOL AND EXETER (CREWKERNE BRANCH).
The promoters of this Bill also proved compliance with their
Lordships' stauding orders.

Adjourned till tomorrow.S
The
h Oe F.
al:
nIeF FE
'the case with the

KILMARNOCK AND TROON.
The two remaining Bills bad come befere their Lordships on second
reference. They were the

SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLISHIRE EXTENSION,
the promoters of which were declared to have complied with the
standing orders; and the
GALWAY AND KILKENNY,

the further consideration of wkich was adjourned ill Tuesday.
Their Lordships then rose at half-past Four, and adjourned
till to•morrow at twelve.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jute I.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)

LEWIS V. ROE.

This was an action in trover, brought by Mr. Lewis, the Sheriff's-
officer, against Mr. Roe, an officer of the Guildhall Police-court, for
the unlawful conversion of certain goods in his possession, the pro-
perty of the plaintiff, tzT detaining the said goods for the purpose of
depriving the plaintiff or the use of them. The present action arose
out of certain proceedings that took place last year, arising out of a
seizure of goods belonging to a Mr. Cole, on the part of Messrs.
Bond and Co. At the instance ( f the latter Mr.
Lewis made a seizure of a diamond ring, a gold watch,
and chain, and other other articles of jewellery, which were subse-
quently advertised for sale on behalf of the seizing party by Mr. Isaacs,
th auctioneer. A brother of Mr. Cole attended the sale, and made
the purchase of what he conceived to be the seized articles, but upon
examination it came out that the goods were not the articles that
were seized, but jewellery of an inferior character which had been
substituted. Some proceedings arose in consequence of this disco-
very, when Mr. Lewis, Mr. Isaacs, and other parties were brought
up before Mr. Alderman Farebrother on the charge of conspiracy,
with intention to defraud. The goods sold to Cole's brother, with
those that were ascertained to be the goods actually seized were
produced in Court, and at tits order of the Alderman, Mr.
Roe, the officer of the Court, was instructed to take possession of
them, and Mr. Lewis was held in bail for a charge that might be
preferred against him at the ensuing Central Criminal Court. The
second examination at Guildhall took place on the 19th of April.
The ensuing sessions were held ou the 12th of May, but the
case did not come on then. In the meantime an ar-
rangement was come to between the parties, Mr. Lewis
giving an undertaking, that if no further proceedings were taken he
would deliver up the goods, and meet certain expenses arising out
of the proceedings. On the 9th of June a demand was made on the
defendant, Mr. Roe, to give up the goods, in order to be able to fulfil
the undertaking entered into by Mr. Cole's attorney. Mr. Roe re-
fused ; and at the sessions held on the 20th June, a verdict of " not
guilty" was, with consent, entered, and the matter was disposed of,
subject to the undertaking being completed. The present action,
therefore, was brought against Roe for detaining the goods when
demanded to deliver them up on the 9th of June, and after the
parties had compromised the matter.

Counsel to-day was heard on both sides, and a host of witnesses
examined, the Learned Gentleman for the plaintiff dwelling strongly
on the difficulty his client was placed in, after having made an ar-
rangement, not being enabled to carry it into effect from the deten-
tion of the goods, thus being subject to an action for not fulfilling the
contract he had been a party to.
Mr. Justice PATTESON, in charging the jury, said that it was per-
fectly clear that the magistrate bad a right to order the goods
to he detained, to satisfy the ends of justice, and that the officer had
a right to bold them and not to deliver them up to any one till the
matter was finally disposed of in Court. Now, the demand was made
on the 9th of June, and the case was not before the sessions till after
the /oth ; the point, therefore, they had t^ consider was, did the de-
fendant, under the circumstances, detain the goods with the object of
unlawfully converting them to his own use, or of depriving the plain-
tiff of the permanent use of them.
The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 18.

(Sittings at .Nisi Prius, before the Loan extEr BARON and Middlesex

Special Juries.)

The cases of "the Attorney-General v. *. Bailey," and of "the At-
torney-General v. J. Bailey," were called on this morning for trial,
but the same objection in law being taken in them on behalf of the
respective defendants as was urged yesterday in the case of " the
Attorney-General v. C. Bailey," by Mr. Martin, the Court directed
them to be placed in the list of remanents for Michaelmas Term.
In the case of the Attorney-General v. Griffiths, for the illegal dis-
tillation of spirits, a verdict was entered for tne Crown.
The Court afterwards sat in banco, for the first time OUt of term,
according to previous notice.

SHERIFFS' COURT, June 18.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL)
WEBB V. CROSS.

SELLING OF PUTRID MEAT FOR NENVGATE-MAARIT.—
The plaintiff in this action is a butcher in Newgate-market,
and the defendant is a horse slaughterer at Camden Town.
The action was brought to recover the sum of Si., for money
had and received by defendant, under the following circum-
stances :

The principal witnesses were George Benton, assistant to
plaintiff, who proved that in April last plaintiff bargained
with defendant for the carcase of a cow, which was said to be
in the Ram Inn yard, Smithfield. Defendant said it was
fresh, fat, and bright, like one he pointed out, and said it had
been killed that morning by his son. Plaintiff said that if so
he would give Si. for it. The money was paid, but when
the cow was seen it was found to be unfit even for cats' meat.

Thomas Fairey, a slaughterman in the Ram Inn yard,
proved that defendant took the cow early in the morning, but
after it was dressed witness found it so bad that he cut it in
two and setit aside, as it was not fit for human food. Witness
told defendant it was not fit to go to market, and he would
not send it, or have anything to do with it? Defendant stood
by whilst it was dressed. Defendant afterwards said he had
sold it to plaintiff for 81. Witness would not have delivered
it in the market, as he would have been liable to an action.
:Witness recommended defendant to return the money, and
take the cow away. Defendant said he would not ; he had
got the money, and he would " stick" to it. He had known
him sell other cows. Witness had never bought any himself.
He sent for a policeman to see the meat, but he would not
take the defendant into custody, and the meat was con-
demned.

Wm. Grafton, one of defendant's men, gave the strongest
evidence as to the bad state of the meat ; it was carried to
the Ram on the knacker's cart. Defendant said he could
make a better job of it than cutting it up into dogs' meat
and he should try to get 91. or 101. for it. Defendant
bought it of a person in Kentish-town for 275. 6d. It had
died a natural death.
Other evidence was adduced to the same effect.
For the defence it was contended that in law no
bargain could be set aside where there was any consideration,
and if a person made a bad bargain he must put up with the
loss. It was contended that, however ban a "knackerman"
might be to sell an old diseased cow for human food, the
butcher must be worse; arid the jury ought not to assist him
by giving a verdict.
Witnesses were called to prove that defendant gave
61. hi-. for the cow, and that it had nut died
a natural death, but had been killed because it was
very " weak on its legs" and " giddy."
Mr.- Cooper, a veterinary surgeon, deposed that the cow
was not diseased in the flesh, but had wnat is called the cold
phellaim, which only affected the spine.
Robert Hale, a slaughterman, said that the animal had
been offered to him, but when he began to cut it he found it
was a " stinker ;" it was a dead one, and must have been dead
some days.
Mr. Tnomas, for the plaintiff, in reply, said that the abuse
of his client was unmerited, as he had been grossly imposed
on, and the cow spoken of by Mr. Cooper could not be the one
offered to be sold to Hale and the plaintiff.
The UNDER-SHERIFF summed up, and said that if the jury
were of opinion that both parties were culpable—that was,
if they thought the plaintiff had any notion that he was
making a purchase of what was not exactly good, the de-
fendant would be entitled to the consideration. It
would be seers that plaintiff had dealt with the
defendant, knowing him to be a knackerman,
and if he was only deceived as to the extent to which the
meat had become bad, but thought it would just do, that
would not entitle him to a verdict; but if, on the contrary,
the plaintiff had been wholly deceived, and had not had what
he had bargained fur, then there was a failure of con-
sideration.

The jury retired, and on their return gave a verdict for the
defendant, but expressed their opinion that the case was dis-
graceful, particularly on the part of the defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURE.
(Before Baron Roue and Alderman Mvsattove.)
John graham was placed at the bar, indicted for feloniously killing
and slayiag Thos. Blewitt, in the month of May laat, in Drury-lane.
Mr. 'MIND, who conducted the case for the prosecution, ad-
dressed the jury, and proceeded to call witnesses.
Louisa Cook, having been sworn, stated that on Saturday, the 25th
of April, she was passing through Drury-lane, about five minutes
past eight o clock, when she met the prisoner, and pushed acciden-
tally against him. lie made use of a bad expression, and said,
" liew did you do that ? Go along." She called him a puppy, and
went up Prince's-street, but was followed by the prisoner, who
caught her by the shoulder, and atter a few words went to Drury-
lane. Ile returned a second time, with a pistol under his right arm,
and the witness said to him, " Ir you don't go away I'll give you in
charge," and called out " Police." The prisoner ran away, and she
saw no more of him till near an hour after, when he was in theacus-
tody of the police.
Cross-examined by Mr. CLARKSON—She never saw the prisoner
before that night. She was certain the prisoner is the same person.
Willies's Hathaway, compositor, said about twenty-five minutes to
nine o'clock on that night he saw the visoner in Drury-lane with a
pistol presented in his right hand. Ile walked up to the witness,
having the muzzle of the pistol presented at him. Witness moved
aside and stood still, the prisoner also made a stop. There was
another man near at the time. Immediately after witness heard a
report of a pistol, and Blewitt say " I'm shot." The prisoner after-
wards ran away with the pistol in his hard.
By the JUDGE—Witness saw the prisoner all the time, and when
he fired he was but a yard from him. Blewitt stood near the wit •
ness ; neither of them, however, had touched the prisoner. There
were many others passing at the time.
Charles Gilmour corroborated the testimony of the other witnesses.
He saw both the prisoner and the deceased within five or six yards
of each other, the prisoner having something in his right hand, and
the instant atter he heard the report and saw the flash. The deceased
staggered, and the prisoner stood for a minute and a half and than
ran away. He heard the prisoner, after being caught, repeatedly
say it was an accident.
Cross-examined—The witness saw the prisoner's hands in a posi-
tion such as they would assume in reducing the pistol tojhalacock.
Police-constable F 32 saw the occurrence, and heard the deceased
cry out, "0 Lori, 0 dear t" Witness walked seven or eight paces,
and met the prisoner, to whom he said, " Why, what's thematter ?"
The prisoner risoner said his pistol had gone off by accident. Witness did
not see anything in his hand, and as several persons cried out a man
had shot himself, he let the prisoner
John Fisher, a chimney-sweep, said he laid h Id of the prisoner
go.
and gave him into the custody of a policeman. The prisoner had a
h
pistolsTan,iafmoietnstahitynclni:ea
leaden
ibsupl
toe::
diVahipoc
powder
rsafiidashkeohnadhilmet. off Drury
rhea, examined--Was
83 searched the prisoner at the station-house,n
bullet had struck the fifth rib of the house-surgeons
setisvdKjeitotnf the
g,;ll.BCoblrloeuggehrlt
seventh. That wound was the causetiie of Illewitt's death.
on its entrance. and passed out near the
Mr. CLARKSON then addressed' chest. The
having received a gun-st:ilere
owuhednonTlithomerasighßtal
After several witnesses were calledury in defence of the prisoner.
After to speak to the prisoner's.
Baron ROLFE went through the evidence, and addressed the jury
at some length on the distinctions which hold between murder.
manslaughter, and accident.
The jury retired to consider their verdict at ten minutes past twelve
o'clock, and had not returned their verdict at five o'el.,ck, coins
five of them having by that time cautioned their wives by letter not
to look for thrill before to-morrow morning.
Baron RoLFE, however, sent for them at six minutes after five
o'clock, when the Court was about to rise, and said that
he was afraid that the manner of his putting the case
U them
had perplexed them. 'there was what he would call
that involved •
culpable negligence, and manslaughter. There
mitre
do rashness, which was, however, was a more bold brava still only
manslaughter, though of a deeper shade. But there was a
venial
negligence, aga
inst which ordiit theforprisoger.nary cou d not guard; if it
n
was What, the jury would acqu
The jury then consulted for a few minutes, without retiring, and
returned a verdict of 'Sot guilty.
o be discharged.
The prisoner was then ordered t

SELF-DEVOTION.—A very melancholy catastrophe
occurred on Shun lay last at a place called Ballyglass, in the neigh.
bourhood of Woodford. A man named Flanagan, tenant to the Hon.
A. Nugent, who had been married only two months, accompan ed his
wife to their farm for the purpose of milking the cows. While she
was thus employed, the husbaEd went to bathe in an adjoining river;
his cries soon attracted his wife's attention ; she ran to his assist-
**lce. ounze ha, ithl ha the otruiej Qll2 zritted. au Tway
niongr

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A stalwart powerful man, about 40 years of age, dressed in fashion-
able style, who on being charged at the station-house, described him-
self as " John Macdonald, captain in the British army, and at present
residing at St. John's Wood," was placed at the bar to answer for
committing the following outrageous and unprovoked assault upon
Mr. John Lovelace, a tradesman, living at No. 16, Casle-street,
Leicester-square.
The complainant stated that between eleven and twelve o'clock
en Wednesday, as he was entering the doer of his own residence, the
defendant suddenly came upon him, and striking him a heavy blow
on the head felled him to the ground. Whilst he was lying prostrate
on the footway pavement, and nearly insensible from the effects of
the defendant's violence, he 4e a furious kick at a part of com-
plainant's ;'erson likely to produce the most serious, if not fatal con-
sequences. Fortunately at the instant police-sergeant No. 115 of the
C division came up and secured the defendant.
The sergeant said he was on the opposite side of the way and wit-
nessed the attack made by the defendant upon the complainant; it
was of a most violent and brutal description ; the comptinant most
luckily escaped the injury the defendant evidently intended by the
kick he attempted to inflict.
Mr. Mixrav asked ,f the complainant gave the defendant any pro-
vocation whatever? The complainant—None in the least.
_ _ _ . _ _

Mr. MAx.Tay—Do you koow him? Complainant—l certainly do
by sight, he having greatly annoyed and forced his company on a
lady living in our house. tine is a married woman, and wishes to
dispense with the detendant's importunities; he will, however, take
no denial, an., has repeatedly scaled the wall to get to the lady's
chamber at night. The lady is in the receipt of a handsome annuity,
a share of which .seems particularly attractive to the defendant.
Mr. INlAtany asked the defendant what he had to say In answer to
the charge against him? The defendant said that the complainant
had grossly insulted him by calling him opprobrlus names. He
would not have lifted hiN hand aaainst such a person without the
strongest provocation. He denied having actually kicked the de-
fendant, although he said he deserved It.

Mr. Mahraysald the charge was proved to his satisfaction, and
he should impose a tine of 51., or two months' imprisonment en the
defendant, who not having the r-Auired, amount was locked up.

WORSHIP-STREET.

Wednesday two young German women, named-Mary and
Elizabeth Kauffman, were placed at the bar before Mr.
Broughton, charged with having absconded from their bail,
under the following remarkable circumstances :
On the preceding evening three Germans attended at the
court, and, after drawing the magistrate's attention to a re-
port in a newspaper, detailing the particulars of a horrible
outrage that had been perpetrated upon two women in York-
shire, about two months since, by six men, five of whom had
subsequently been taken into custody and committed to York
Castle to await their trial at the ensuing assizes for that
county, and the facts of which outrage excited much public
attention at the time, from their being attended with cir-
cumstances of peculiar atrocity, the applicants proceeded to
state that the injured women, whose master had been bound
over for their appearance to prosecute, had been since tam-
pered with by a relative of the prisoners, and brought up to
Landon, where they had been placed in temporary lodgings,
and had places taken for them in a steam-packet, which was
to sail the next morning for the continent; and they there-
fore sought the magistrate's instant interposition to secure
the young women's persons, or they would, in a few hours,
be out of his jurisdiction, and the ends of justice be entirely
defeated.

Upon hearing this statement, Mr. Bingham placed the
matter in the hands of Rowland, the warrant-officer, who
forthwith accompanied the Applicants to a lodging- house in
Buckly-street, Whitechapel, where the two prisoners were
pointed out to him as the persons in question, and he there-
fore took them into custody.
In answer to questions from the magistrate, the elder of
the young women, appaarently about twenty years of age,
now stated, that she and her sister had been brought over to
this country about two years since, under articles of
indenture for three years, to serve a fellow-countryman
of theirs, named Conrad Mauritz, as itinerant musi-
cians, and that while travelling together at the time
above mentioned in a secluded part of the country in
the neighbourhood of Sheffield, they were suddenly set
upon by six men, who overcame their resistance by the
most brutal violence, and ultimately in succession sub-
jected one of them (the eldest) to treatment of too shocking
a nature to be further described, the youngest only escap-
ing the final act of atrocity to which her unfortunate sister
had been exposed, by precipitate flight, while the eldest was
struggling with her a.ssailsnt.. Five of the ruffians were ap-
prehended on the following morning and committed for trial
by the local magistracy, who also bound over Mauritz to
prosecute, and produce them (the young women) as wit-
ne-ses ; but the sister of one of the men had since found
means to communicate with them, and having frightened
them by telling them that if they ventured to appear at the
trial against their assailants their lives would certainly be
sacrificed, made them engage to quit this country imme-
diately. The woman afterwards presented each of them with
a sovereign and an outfit of clothing, and having brought
them to town by the railway, purchased a passage for each
of them in a Calais steam-brit, in which they were to have
sailed that very morning for France, had they not been taken
into custody on the night before.
A G..rnia r woman, named Isabella Sorg, was then called,
arid stated, that at a late hour on Sunday evening last the
two prisoners were brought into her house by a woman, who
hired an apartment for them for a few days, and having seen
them safely deposited there, went away. Soon after she had
left, however, thinking the circumstance bore a very suspi-
cious appearance, she engaged the young women in conversa-
tion, and having ascertained from them the facts one of the
girls had just stated, she immediately informed her husband,
and the result was that the prisoners were placed in the care
of the police, who conveyed them to the station. The two
girls had only been removed a very short time by the con-
stable, when the same woman who had taken the lodging for
them called at the witness's house, and demanded to know
why they had not kept their appointment, and met her at
the steam-packet wharf; but upon being apprised of the
cause of their not doing so, she made a precipitate retreat,
and had not been found since.

Mr. BROUGHTON said that it was manifest an infamous
conspiracy had been resorted to to stop the course of ustice
in one of the most monstrous outrages that had ever come
under his notice, by procuring the abduction of the only per-
sons whose evidence to the fact could be of any value ; and
he therefore felt it his duty to order the young women to be
kept in safe custody until the police authorities of the county
in which the offence, or rather offences, had been perpe-
trated, could be made acquainted with what had taken place,
and could adopt the proper steps to insure the attendance of
the young women at the York assizes, when the trial of the
ruffians eame on.

The prisoners were afterwards removed in the van to the
Westminister Bridewell.

SOUTH IVA 17K.

John Rohe, a powerful-looking man, was charged with
assaulting, with intent to rob, a Mr. Tilley, and also with
making a very determined resistance on being taken into
custody.

The complainant stated that on the preceding afternoon
he had just quitted a shop in High. street with a Mr. Grant,
who had just got outside the door, and was reckoning some
money, when the prisoner came up and made a sudden snatch
at it. The complainant, however, closed his hand at
the moment, and thus prevented the attempt being carried
into effect, when the prisoner, disappointed, rushed at
him, and struck him a tremendous blow under the ear,
which knocked him down. The complainant's friend, Mr.
Grant, here interfered, and was also assaulted and knocked
down ; and when he called out for assistance, the prisoner,
with an oath, swore that he would rip up the first policeman
that attempted to take him. Several policemen came
to the spot, and after a most determined resistance the
prisoner was at length secured and. taken to the station-
house. In the course of the examination, it was stated that
the prisoner had been recenly liberated from gaol, after
undergoing two years' imprisonment for a similar offence,
and that in fact he had suffered incarceration on many other
occasions.
The prisoner was committed.
WESTMINSTER.

Yesterday George Jonei, alias itri/cox, a young man who
has been before in custody for felony, was charged with the
following impudent robbery :
At about 8 o'clock yesterday morning, Benjamin Burn,
police -constable 150 B, saw the prisoner step from the cell of
the parlour-window of Mrs. Dowling, No. 2, Stafford-row,
Pimlico, on to the area railings in front of the house, and
thence jump to the ground, and run off at full speed. The
policeman pursued him, and after a sharp run of nearly a
mile captured the fellow, and, having no;doubt that he bad
purloined something from The house he had seen him leave,
immediately searched him, and found in his pocket a silver
cream ewer, a very handsome silver mustard pot, and five
silver spoow, which were identified by Mrs. Dowling's son
as her property. They were articles of plate in common use
at Mrs. a.wling's. and had been placed on the breakfast
table by the servant a few minutes only before they were
stolen. The parlour window had been left open, and the
prisoner must have entered in the same way as he was seen
to leave.—He was committed for trial.