The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEEIN.ESDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 1546.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Dee. 1.

The Lord Chancellor sat in the old hall, Lincoln's
Inn, to-day, it being the first seal after Michaelmas
Term. His Lordship took appeal motions and appeals,
but nothing calling for a particular report came before
his Lordship during the morning.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Dec. 1.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLtND.)
This being the first seal after Michaelmas Term, His
Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England sat in his court
In Lincoln's Inn to-day.

NEATE v. PINK.-lUDGMENT.

His Hortoun gave judgment to-day in this case, which
came before him during last term at Westminster, upon
petition praying that a reference might be directed to
the Master with respect to certain funds in court, the
produce of estates in Jamaica. His Honour directed a
reference to the Master to inquire and state to the Court
whether any and what sum of money had been paid into
court in the cause by William Horsley Palmer, the
receiver, and whether it had been paid in respect of
the profits and proceeds of the moiety of the Bindley
Halt estate ; and his Honour further ordered that, until
the Master should have made hi 3 report, no money
standing in the cause should be paid out without notice
to the petitioner. The Master was also to state special
circumstances, and any party to have liberty to apply.

May. Saw Mr. May forcibly turn her from the house.
Cross-examined—His mother kept a tavern in Shef-
fiFld Recollects Mrs May going on one occasion to
Manchester, but not to Cheltenham. She went to the
plaintiff's, who is a bookseller and printer in Bristol,
before she ultimately left her husband. She went to
these places during the time she was living with her
husband. Had heard that she was a servant of all work
to a Mr. Turner before she was married, but he believed
this was untrue, and that she was a governess in Mr.
Turner's family. He did not know whether she was
mulled or not. No person of the name of Levick was
in the habit of meeting Mrs. May at his mother's tavern.
Re-examined—Mrs. May went to Manchester because
the defendant had ill-used her.

Mary Ann Wright, who had been a servant in the
plaintiff's family, deposed to the residence of Mrs. May
and the condition in which she lived. _ _ _

Mr. Aird, the plaintiff's solicitor, detailed the various
transactions which took place in the matter. Mrs. May
came to Mr. Jefferies at Bristol in April 1843, and stated
that he would not be responsible for her maintenance in
she continued from home.

- - - This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. MARTIN then proceeded to address the jury of
behalf of the defendant. Ho said great stress had been
laid on the value of the defendant's property, and that
he was in a fit condition to allow his wife, who was es-
tranged from him, 255. a week, but the very contrary
was the fact ; his whole property was not more than
1301. a year, out of which he had not only himself but
his family to support.
Mr. CROWDER said this was not correct. He could
prove by Mr. Aird that the defendant's property was
annually worth 278/. 10s.
Mr. Aird was called, and stated that he had made
inquiries at Sheffield, and stated that the property was
of nearly that value.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Compton appeared for the de-
fendant.

Mr. Martin proceeded—He said Mrs. May, who Ira S a
handsome woman, was not a governess at the time she
was married to Mr. May, but lived on intimate terms,
and in a menial situation to a friend of his. In the first
year of their marriage, when the children were very
young, some words ensued at dinner one day, and she
left the house, obtained 501. from Mr. May's banker and
absconded. She returned in 1836, and he allowed her
to remain. The children had grown up, and he took
another house for them, and from 1836 to the time of
their final separation the children lived in one dwelling
and the defendant and his wife in the other, She was
in the habit of going at night to her sisters against her
husband's will, and returning late at night. On one
occasion her husband returned home and found her
absent and the bed unmade by her orders. As it was
not made by the time he usually went to bed, and as she
had not eome home, he slept in the house his children
occupied. The next morning she took part of the fur-
niture and left him.

Mr. Justice ERLE considered that Mr. Martin ought
not to advert to circumstances anterior to the time Mrs.
May first left her husband. If a man and woman sepa-
rated, and then again lived with each other, " by-pones
should be by-genes," as it was evident they must have
come to an understanding.
Mr. MARTIN was content not to trace the history of
the parties further than the occasion when Mrs. May
last left her husband. He admitted that he could not
adduce proof of the alleged adultery of Mrs. May, and
therefore he threw that part of the case overboard en-
tirely. He said he should call a number of witnesses be-
fore them, to show that no undue violence was used by
the defendant, who was a quiet, inoffensive man towards
his wife ; that she was not justified in leaving him, and
that she now remained absent from him against his wish,
and concluded by trusting that they would return a ver-
dict for the defendant. He then called the following wit-
s,es

Mr. King, an attorney of Bristol, proved that he, Mr.
May, and Mr. Unwin, went to the house of the plaintiff,
on the 18th of April, 1843 ; that he demanded his wife ;
that the plaintiff denied she was there ; that Mr. May
offered to pay him up to that time all that was due, and
he told him if he kept his wife after that, he would do
so at his peril, adding " Why do you bring actions
against me for the maintenance of my wife, when you
know I want her to come back to me ?" The
_plaintiff
declined to tell him where his wife was, and refused the
tender of the money offered. Pointed out the advertise-
ment respecting Mrs. May in a Bristol paper.
Mr. Unwin corroborated the last witness's evidence.
Mr. May was about 68 years of age; Mrs. May was 15
years yoanger. The property of the plaintiff had been
mortgaged. Should say he was worth about 120/. a-
year. Never heard any allegation of cruelty until this
action was brought.
Eliza Jones, one of the defendant's daughters, deposed
that Mrs. May left her father soon after their marriage,
and returned in 1836; on her return she and her father
lived in a separate house from the children. Never saw
her father at her feet or strike Mrs. May, and never saw
her with black eyes, though she was in the habit of seeing
her every day, Recollects the altercation referred to.
She went into the house with her brother in consequence
of hearing Mrs. May cry out " Murder," a cry she fre-
quently used without being struck or ill-used by her
father. her hair was hanging about her neck and face.
Her brother asked her father what he had been doing,
to which he replied, " I declare to God I did not strike
her." She ran out of the room screaming " Murder."
Did not make use of the expression about the " pie-
meat" imputed to her. Mrs. May often visited her
sister, and came home at ten, eleven, and twelve o'clock
at night, and when her father asked her whero she had
been, she used to say, " That is my business—where I
have a mind." She left of her own consent, no violence
being used towards her.
Harriett May, another daughter of the defendant, cor-
rollorated the principal part of her evidence, with this
addition—that she had heard Mrs. May call " Murder"
three times ; on each occasion her father was absent, and
no one gave her any provocation.
James. May corroborated the evidence of his sisters,
and said the business which his father transferred to him
was worth 1,5001.

Other witnesses having testified that they never saw
any violence on the part of DEr. May towards his wife,
and having spoken to acts of violence and passion on her
part,

- Mr. CROWDER replied.
Mr. Justice FILE then summed up, and explained the
law to the jury.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
78/. 155., the jury being of opinion that Mrs. May had
been treated with personal cruelty, and that she had no
reasonable ground to justify her in supposing that she
would have met with better treatment from the defendant
had she returned to his house.

The Court was occupied up to half-past six o'clock,
when the jury returned their verdict.

BAIL COURT, Dec. 1.
ZLANDERS V. SIR H. BUNBURY.

This was a special case, the alieCiOf•which was to
ascertain whether certain lands in Suffolk were tithe-
able under the provisions of the Tithe Commutatien Act.
The arguments were not concluded when the Court
rose.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 1.
CUSTOMS FRAUDS -THE DIAMOND TRADE-THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. ALLEN.

This was an information filed by the Attorney-Gene-
ral against the defendant, for having in his possession a
large quantity of diamond rings and other articles of
jewelltery, alleged to be of foreign manufacture, and upon
which the duty had not been paid.
The defendant carried on business as a pawnbroker
in Clare-street, Clare-market, and the goods in question
were seized by the Custom-house officers upon two se-
parate occasions, in consequence of information given to
them by a female servant residing in the house of the
defendant.

The Attorney-General, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Pearson
app aced on the part of the Crown ; Mr. Montagu
Chambers and Mr. Wordsworth for the defendant.
On the part of the Crown witnesses were called to
prove the seizure of the goods from the house of the de-
fendant. Several jewellers were also called, who gave it
as their opinion that the articles were of a foreign
fabric, and got up for the purpose of "rigging" the
trade.

At the conclusion of the case on the part of the Crown,
Mr. M. CHAMBERS addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant, and proceeded to call,
Mr. Hickman, working jeweller, of Rawstorn-street,
Clerkenwell, who proved that he had himself made the
articles in question. Several persons employed by him
also gave evidence of the articles having been made upon
the premises of Mr. Hickman.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that after the positive
evidence which had been given on the part of the
defendant, he should consider it his duty not to proceed
any further in the case. He considered, however, that
there were sufficient grounds for the seizure of the
articles, and requested the Lord Chief Baron to certify
to that effect.

MS LORDSHIP took the same view of the question,
and the jury accordingly returned a verdict for the
defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 1.

WAREHAM V. PRANCE, NASH, AND OTHERS.-THE GREAT
WESTERN ROBBERIES.
This was an action of trespass, brought by Thomas
Wareham against Mr. Vaughan Prance, Mr. Nash, and
Arr. Collard, who had been connected with conducting
the prosecutions of Alaynard, Garratt, and others last
year, for the robberies committed on the Great Western
Railway, to recover damages for an alleged false impri-
sonment.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Foster appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Sergeant
Murphy, Mr. Sergeant Channel, and Mr. Hoggins were
for the defendants.

Mr. Sergeant Muctss having gone over the particu-
lars which he intended to prove in evidence, proceeded
o call his witnesses.

George Gardner Dun, a waiter at the public-house in.
Foley-street where Thomas Wareham lodged, deposed
that on the 20th of August, last year, three persons,
answering to the description of the defendants, came to
the house, and took Mr. and Mrs. Wareham in a cab.
Hannah O'Connell evidenced to the same apprehension
on the day in question.
Mr. Seymour Clarke, superintendent of the Great
Western Company at the Paddington station, said ho
remembered the plaintiff, Thomas Wareham, calling at
the station about the Ist of August last year. Maynard
was then in custody in reference to the property lost
on the railway. When he called he said he was ac-
quainted with Garrett, and that he could give some in-
formation about him. Witness sent him with a
messenger to the solicitor of the company. A man
called Chilman was sent with the plaintiff to Mr. Nash.
Nash was then clerk to Messrs. Maples and Co.
Cross-examined by Sergeant TALFounD—He could
not state precisely the day referred to, but it was soon
after Maynard was taken into custody. He could not
state how long after. Mr. Nash had the charge of the
railway department of Messrs. Maples and Co. There

bad, previous to this time, been many depredations com-
mitted on the Great Western Railway. Mr. Vaughan
Prance had: complained of the loss of his property.
When that gentleman first lost his writing case the in-
quiry came to witness, and he communicated the fact to
the solicitor of the company.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant MURPHY—Ware-
ham did not say he was mixed up with Maynard. He
only said he bad some information respecting Garrett
and Maynard in connexion with these robberies. He did
not say he lived in Maynard's house, or that he was in-
timate with that party or Garrett.
Davy, an officer of the police at the Pad-
dington station, was here called to prove the fact
of the plaintiff on the day of his apprehension being
taken to the station, and kept all right, but on being
called three times in Court, he did not appear.
Mr. Sergeant TALroutry wished to explain that he
understood the witness was ill, and could not attend.
He wished this to be known, that it might not be sup-
posed the company had anything whatever to do with
his absence.
This was the case for the plaintiff.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD addressed the jury on the
behalf of Mr. Prance and Mr. Collard. His defence, as
far as Prance was concerned, was, that on the day May-
nard was taken up, he was at Nether Stoney, in Somer-
setshire, and could not have been one of the three in the
public-house. He was prepared to prove that, and also
to prove that the one of the three, supposed to be him,
was another person. Mr. Prance had nothing whatever
to do with the conducting of the prosecution against
Maynard awl Garrett, out of which the apprehension of
Wareham had arisen. Those prosecutions were con-
ducted on behalf of the Great Western Company. The
only position in which Mr. Prance stood in the matter,
was the fact that he had lost property worth 2,0001, and
that he originally entered into negotiations with May-
nard to recover his writing desk, which ended in the
apprehension of the latter, and the matter being taken
up by the Great Western Company. After that
he had nothing whatever to do with the proceedings.
With reference to the general defence of the two defen-
dants for which he appeared, the Learned Gentleman
called the attention of the jury to the robberies perpe-
trated by Maynard and Garrett. It had been clearly
proved that Garratt was the principal thief; that May-
nard, though ostensibly a house agent, was extensively
engaged in these felonious transactions, and had been
convicted for the same. When this was known, and
they found Wareham living in the same house with
Maynard, mixed up with his transactions, and actually
offering to give information respecting the felonious pro-
ceedings of Garrett and Maynard, did it not furnish a
strong presumption that the plaintiff was also connected
with them. This view of the question was further sup-
ported by the fact of Wareham endeavouring to act fur
Maynard in several suspicious particulars. The Learned
gentleman recapitulated the principal facts of the whole
proceedings taken preliminary to the apprehension of
Maynard and Garrett. He considered id would have
been wiser to have taken the plaintiff and his wife at
once before a magistrate, so as to be relieved from all
responsibility on account of the apprehension; still,
under the circumstances, there a ere strong reasons for
justifying the course taken by the defendants. If
dameges were at all to be given he submitted they should
not be more than a farthing.
Mr. Sergeant Munpisy addressed the jury on behalf
of Mr. Nash. He admitted that his client was present
at the public-house at the apprehension of the plantiff,
but contended that he did no more than was absolutely
necessary for him to do in the case of a person suspected
of felony, which was to keep him in safe custody till the
following mornirg, when he would be taken before the
magistrate, and when the charges against him would be
fully investigated.
Witnesses were then called for the defence.

Three witnesses severally deposed that on the day on
which the apprehension took place, the defendant
Prance was 150 miles distant.

George E. Evans, oire----ofihe turnkeys of the Giltspur-
street Uoripter, gave evidence of interviews that had
taken place there between the prisoner Maynard and
the plaintiff, accompanied by a person whu gave his
name as Smith.

Wm. Springet, another turnkey, gave evidence to the
same effect, and deposed that on the 7th of August
Wareham came with a person who called himself Smith,
but who turned out afterwards to be Garratt. On that
occasion certain proceedings took place at the interview
which led witness to suppose that they were connected
together, and that they gave addresses which subse-
quently turned cut false.
Thomas Tricker was examined by Mr. Ser-
geant TALFOURD as to the circumstances under
which Wareham and Maynard lived together in
Hoyland-street. On some occasions Wareham ap-
peared as landlord, and on others Maynard.
On most occasions, however, when he called at the house,
Mr. Wareham appeared as the managing party. Wit-
ness recollected Maynard being taken up, and saw Ware-
ham two days after. He then told witness that " May-
nard was taken up, poor fellow, and that he did not know
whether he was guilty or not ; but that if he was, there
were many others also." He lkewise told witness about
the writing-desk left in the house by Maynard, which
he stated to contain a great deal of property. May-
nard bad told plaintiff to take care of it if anything
happened to him, and that when the officers were in the
house the plaintiff and Garratt took it away and
left it at a public-house. The desk was stated
to contain many duplicates and valuable docu-
ments. He promised witness, who was acting for
the proprietor of the house, that he would deliver up
what documents he had any claim to, if he gave him
some money for them. Witness subsequently was shown
a large handful of duplicates, which plaintiff said he bad
taken from the desk, and which he offered for sale. lie
had some conversation with Wareham the day after he
had been taken to the Great Wetern station. Mrs.
Wareham was present. He said "he did not care a
- about it. He had had plenty to eat and drink, and
a half-crown when ho loft, and that was more than he
would have earned at home." _

Examined by Mr. Sergeant MURPHY, for Mr. Nash—
On one occasion, when speaking to Wareham about the
papers in the desk, plaintiff said the property in it was
of great value, and that if the officers got hold of the
documents it would play the greatest mischief with him.
Cross-examined—The property of Dr. Rogers, to
whom the house belonged, was furniture, and china and
glass ; there were also some duplicates belonging to the
doctor. He had told the story he had stated that day
over and over again to Mr. Nash. He had been with
that gentleman four or five times.
Arthur Spencer said lie was a dealer in marine stores
in Paddington. Had known Maynard for two years
prior to his conviction. Did not know Wareham till he
went to live in Hoyland-street. Maynard had lived in
Hoyland•street about four months before his apprehen-
sion. On several occasions when witness called there he
saw Wareham. On one occasion he met with Wareham
at the King and Queen public house, and the latter then
stated Maynard was only a lodger, and that the house
was his. He had some conversation with Ware-
ham after Maynard was taken up, and he
stated the facts about the writing-deik, and
said there was the deuce to pay at home.
After Maynard had been examined at the Guildhall
witness was told by plaintiff that he had received a
letter from Maynard, wishing him to act as his agent
and look after his wife and fancily. Wareham said he
would not do anything without money, and that he
would not give up the writing case without a sum was
paid him. The witness gave the details of other inter-
views with the plaintiff which went to show that he was
intimately mixed up with the proceedings of Maynard
and Garratt.

The cross-examination did not materially affect the
evidence in chief.

Joseph Halfpenny, landlord of the Bell public-house,
in Tichfield street, deposed generally to conversations
with Wareham about Maynard's affairs, of a similar
nature to those referred to by the previous witness. He
also gave evidence that Garratt, on one occasion, left a
leather portmanteau in his custody till he or Wareham
called for it, and that about three weeks after the plaintiff
called and took it away.

, .
John Davy, an appraiser in Union-street, gave evi-
dence to the same effect about conversations with Ware-
ham. On one occasion the plaintiff mentioned the
writing-case, and said Collard and Nash were in search
of it, but that he would take very good care of it.
Henry Avery, clerk of the Central Criminal Court,
produced the convictions of Garrett and Maynard.
Mr. Serjeant WILKINS submitted that these convic-
tions were irrelevant, as they only proved the conviction
of Maynard and Garrett, and could not be taken as
proof of the felony as applied to the case of a third
party.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD contended they were not
irrelevant, and should be taken as evidence of the felony
committed.

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE referred to the case of the
Irish Society, on behalf of which he appeared before the
House of Lords. On that occasion a similar point was
raised, and it was decided that such could not be re-
ceived as evidence against another party. The con-
victions, therefore, might be received as proof of the
fact of the decision of the Court, and for any collateral
purpose arising out of that, but not as evidence of the
fact that felony was committed by the parties in question.
Mr. Vandyke Lawrence, deputy• governor of Millbank
prison, deposed to Garratt being delivered to him, and to
taking him with 199 others to Woolwich.
Henry Masterman proved receiving Daniel Garratt on
the Bth of December, and placing him on board a convict
ship then bound for Bermuda.
Mr. Evens, a clerk in the criminal department of the
Home-office, put in a return from Bermuda, stating the
arrival of Daniel Garrett there.
The Clerk of the Court here read a rule which had
been obtained, empowering the Master of the Court, or
commissioners, if that were not practicable, to examine
Garratt, since his conviction, in relation to the whole
proceedings.
The examination of Garratt was next read in extenso,
which embraced the whole proceedings relating to the
stealing of the writing-case. The substance of it went
to show that Maynard and Wareham had acted to-
gether in the transaction about • the writing-case. In
other respects it corroborated the evidence of the wit-
nesses examined on this point today—that Wareham
was privy in a great measure to the nature of the pro-
perty, and that it had been feloniously obtained.
The case was then adjourned till to-morrow

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 1.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONDLANQUE.)
CLOSING THE COURT--IN RE
RAy—TTIE TORBIY
RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was a case of insolvency. The insolvent bad been
a director of the Torbay Railway Company, and to-day
was appointed for the examination of the secretary and
others connected with the company, and the production
of books, &c. on behalf of Mr. Whitmore, the official
assignee, to investigate the liability of the insolvent as
such director. _ _

It appeared, that the railway 7 ..13
formed in 1838, but subsequently, the money raised not
being sufficient for the proposed scheme), some of the

directors allotted other shares, and the question now was
how far the insolvent, or his estate, was bound by the
acts of the other directors. It was alleged that insolvent
was not present at the meetings, and that, in fact. no
such meetings took place as those entered in the minute
books.

Mr. JAMES took an objection, in limine, to the exa-
mination of the company's officers or books in this case.
The acts of the directors were the acts of the company,
and Mr. Wray was one of the directors ; indeed the
proposition was "suicidal," for if Mr. Wray, through Mr.
Whitmore, the official assignee, succeeded in provi,g that
the allotment of the shares was fraudulent, he made
his own estate liable, for it had been held in a recent
case, that if any allotment was mane in fraud, the di-
rectors were liable. It had been urged that the proceedings
had been Toided througa the non-attendance of some of
the directors, otherwise the whole object of the Act
might be thwarted by the deliberate non-attendance of
some of the parties. He had to contend that the act of
some of the directors sitting as a board was binding
on all.
Mr. COOKE denied that the insolvent had ever sanc-
tioned the allotment.

The Learned COMMISSIONER said, if a co-director, co-
partner, or co-trustee assented to proceedings, diri;ctly
or indirectly, he must be bound; but if there had been
any fraud committed, he w:is not, and in equity was
entitled to an inquiry. It was now at issue whether
there had or had not been fraud, al d he was of opinion
the examination should go on. As it was to take rlaco
in the Court, every one was at liberty to take notes as
far as they went, and in any way they wished, but it must
be understood no publication of the examination should
take p!aee until after the proceedings had concluded, or
he would close the doors, whi-h he had the power of
doing in that Court.
This discussion arose on the question whether the
notes should be taken as evidence if perjury was im-
puted.
The examination was proceeding, but, under the cir-
cumstances, cannot of course be given.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,
MANSION-HOUSE.
Thomas Johnson, porter to Messrs. Chaplin and Horne,
carriers, was brought before the Lord Mayor, charged
with having stolen a truss of silk of considerable value.
Mr. Riches, manaeing clerk to Messrs. Chaplin and
Home at the South-Western Railway Terminus, stated
that the prisoner had been engaged by him in the middle
of June as a delivering porter for the town, and that on
the 24th of November it was the duty of the prisoner to
deliver parcels which came by the railway in different
parts of London. There were 36 parcels altogether to
be delivered by him on that day to various consignees,
and amongst them was a truss addressed to Machin and
Sons, Twisters-alley, Bunhill-row. On his return to
the station he said he had met with a bad job and lost a
truss. Witness said he did not understand such a story,
and desired hi'n to send the boy in a ho had accompanied
him. Finding that the prisoner di I not go quickly, thd
witness went out and saw the prisoner talking to the
boy. The witness, upon questioning both, found a great
discrepancy in their statements, and suspecting the pri-
soner, looked to the delivery book, and found that the
missing truss was a truss of silk worth 125/. Further
inquiry confirmed the suspicion, and the prisoner was
given into custody.
Joseph Webb, porter, residing at No. 7, Little Lent-
street, Borough, stated that on the 24th instant, as he
was going up Blackfriars-road, he saw three parties
whom he knew to be bad characters, and he followed
them to Smithfield and into St. John-street. After he
had watched them for some considerable time, he
observed one of them go through a lane leading into
Charter-hot:se-square. Upcn getting into the square he
saw a green cart with a brown horse in it, and in that
cart were three persons, and the cart was draw n up to
the waggon which the prisoner drove, and witness saw
the prisoner put a small bale into the cart. It was some-
where about five o'clock, and nearly dark, and the three
parties in the cart drove off. Witness came down into
Smithfield, and the driver of the cart whistled to his
horse, and it went off at a handsome pace.
Inspector Wocdruffe requested that the Lord Mayor
would remand the case till Tuesday week.
The prisoner said he did not know at all how or where
the robbery took place, and that ho was equally ignorant
of the contents of the truss.
Remanded till Tuesday week.
Charles Cotton was charged with having robbed James
Finnis of a watch.
It appeared that the prosecutor went into a clothes
exchange for the purpose of making a purchase, at
twelve o'clock in the day. The prisoner suddenly
whipped the watch out of the prosecutor's waistcoat
pocket and ran, but handed the watch to an accomplice
as he went along, and it was lost sight of. Barney
Aaron, who has ascended from the character of
a fighting man into that of a constable, stopped the thief
with skill and effect, although threatened by some ruf-
fians in the neighbourhood for interfering.—Committed
for trial.
John Johnson, a man employed on the Ipswich Rail-
road, was brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with
having robbed a fellow labourer, in whose house he
lodged, of clothes and money.
Inspector Todhunter stated that the prosecutor
charged the prisoner and his own wife, at the station
house with having robbed him and absconded from his
house, and the charge, which it was clear could be estab-
lished against Johnson, was entered against that person.
The wife, however, who was willing to appear before
the magistrate was, as a matter of course, discharged.
The prosecutor said he was surprised upon returning
home one day from work to find that his wife and the two
youngest children had de parted by the Orwell st, am
vessel for London. As no time was to be lost he took to
the railroad, and arrived to catch the party, with the
addition of the prisoner, who had evidently taken his
place in his wife's affection. He did not exactly know
what money his wife was possessed of when she eloped,
but he was in the habit of supplying her with money
weekly, and when he apprehended her she had not a
farthing about her. The prisoner had between seven
and nine pounds about him.
The LORD MAYOR —How long did the prisoner live in
the house with you ? The prosecutor—Upwards of
two years,and we always worked together. But lam
ready to give her all if she'll come back with me.
The wife of the prosecutor declared that she merely
came to London to see her sister, and the prisoner ac-
companied her as her husband's presence was necessary
at home to support her two elder children, and keep
things straight and comfortable in her absence. The
prisoner never induced her to come away to London,
and her husband's clothes were merely borrowed for a
time.
The LORD Maroa—Then you are willing to go back
with your husband ? The prosecutor's wife—Certainly
I am. I never intended to stay away from him.
The LORD MAYOR—What could have led you to such
an act ? The prosecutor's wife—My sister is married
to a miller somewhere in London, and I wanted to have
a little conversation with her.
The prosecutor—'Tis true, your Lordship, she has a
sister here who is married to a miller. But I'll think
nothing of what has taken place if she'll only come back.
I'll forgive both of 'em.
The Loan MAYOR—Then you don't wish to prosecute
the man any further ? The prosecutor—No, I won't
hurt either of them at all.
The prisoner—I didn't take any things of his, I wily
took care of them for his wife, and I'm sure we're as in.
nocent as the two children she has with her.
The LORD MAYOR (to the prosecutor)—Well, as you
seem to think that no harm has been done, I don't wish
to disturb your tranquillity. As for you (to the pri-
soner), if the charge had been pressed against you, the
probability is that under such circumstances, transporta-
tion would be the penalty you would have paid tor your
baseness.

The injured but forgiving husband then took his
clothes and his wife andchildren, and a sovereign, which
it appeared his wife had handed to the prisoner, upond
their departure ; and Johnson, to whom the woman said
all the rest of the money belonged, pocketed the rest, and
the whole party walked off to settle the affair more com-
pletely in a public-house.
It was stated by a gentleman who had experierein
railroad tnatters, that the ancient British system o
com-
munity of wives was fast reappearing with therailroad
system, and that such scenes as the above described
were
frequent upon thec variousLEß lines.
K
ENWE LL.
George Wilmot, alias Smith, was brought up onMrs.
re-
mand, charged with having attempted to murder
Susanna Haines, wife of Mr. James Haines,
when
glacier, Islington, of Paradise-row, Liverpool-road, w
the Court was crowded to excess.
Mrs. Haines was brought to the Court in a cabriolet,
in a very weakly condition.
Mr. Haines, surgeon, who was called upon to attend
her after the murderous attack, now attended and said,
that she was not yet in a fit state to give her evidence,
and it might lead to a dangerous result if she attended
at the sessions to give evidence.
The prisoner stood at the bar, pale and dejected. He
said nothing, and he was remanded until the 14th of De-
cember. He was taken to prison, and Mrs. Haines was
conveyed to her residence.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Sarah Brook, and her two sons, Alfred and Samuel,
who were remanded last week on a charge of robbing
Mr. Deare, a tailor, 1, Leicester-square (the boy Alfred's
master), were brought up to-day for re-examination.
Several pawnbrokers attended and produced articles
which were identified by the prosecutor. None of the
pawnbrokers could identify the prisoners except Mr.
Syers, Drury-lane, who identified the boy Samuel Brook
as having pledged a piece of satin with him.
Mr. Loma said there was no case against the mother
or the prisoner Samuel Brook. He therefore discharged
them, and remanded Alfred Brook till this day week.
WORSHIP-STREET.
George Galloway, a youth, about 17 years of age, an
apprentice to a Mr. Wells, was charged with refusing to
work, lac.
Mr. Herbert Wells, ivory turner, No. 8, Britannia-
terrace, deposed that the defendant, who was apprenticed
to him abaut two years since, had out of that time ab-
sented himself for the space of five months, and on one
occasion witness was obliged to bring him to this Court
for his bad conduct, and he was sent to the treadmill for
a month. Latterly, when any work had been given to
him, he merely laughed and jeered at witness, and said
that witness and the magistrate had done what they
could with him, but he cared neither for magistrate nor
master ; and rather than work, he would spend the
whole of his time in prison. It would be a charity if the
nrigistrate would cancel his indentures.
Mr. BINGIUM—Yes, to you it would b 2 a charity no
doubt, but not to the rate-payers. You are under a bond
to keep him. However, I'll take --
Here the defendant's courage entire!), forsook him,
and he blubbered out, " I will, indeed I will, do the best
I can in future.
Mr. BrwmAm—Very well; I will give you are chance
have given perfect satisfaction to your master, I'll try if
I can't bring you to a proper sense of your duty.