The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-07 00:00:00

fetched Miss''Wetherell in Mr. Cooke's brongliain to
be taken to be married. Mr. Wetherell proposed to sell
everything at Byfield and Eaton-place, and settle the
proceeds on his daughter, and then go abroad and re-
side. I afterwards took possession of the house in Eton-
place, and when Mr. Wetherell endeavoured to move in,
we refused to let him do so, and he remained outside for
an hour or more. Mr. Waddy, Mr. Cooke, and my-
self went the day after this down to Byfield, but I swear
it was not our intention also to take possession of the
property there. I wished nothing of the kind. I did
not see any one seize a poker, neither did I see Mrs.
Cooke throw her arms round her husband's neck dur-
ing the altercation that took place at Byfield. Ido not
know where Mr. Cooke is living now. His last resi-
dence was in Seymour-street Edgeware-road. Ido not
know a Mr. Baynton.
Re-examined—Mr. Waddy is a Parliamentary agent,
and Mr. Gadsell is a captain in the army. At the time
Mr. Wetherell agreed to dispose of the property in Lon-
don and at Byfield, it was stated that everything had
been bought with Miss Wetherell's money, and it was in
consequence of this statement that Mr. Cooke took pos-
session of the house and property in Eaton-place. Mr.
Cooke did not owe five shillings beyond what be could
pay at the time of his marriage, and all his embarrass-
ments had occurred since.
The letters of the sth and Gth October, written by
Mrs. Cooke to her husband were here put in and read.
Mr. G. IL Corfield, examined by Sergeant SIIEE—
I am an attorney, and acted in that capacity for Mr.
Wetherell in 1842, as referree to the affairs of Mr.
Cooke, and it was part of my duty to ascertain the
liabilities of Mrs. Cooke previous to her marriage, and
I found the amount to be from 1,500/. to 2,0001. I re-
member in particularr one acceptance of Miss Wetherell
fur 550/., and the furniture in Eaton place had been
seized as security for the payment of this bill. Mr.
Wetherell and his daughter took up their residence at
Mivart's Hotel, in Oct. of the year 1842, and Mr. Cooke
endeavoured to see her, and I and Mr. Wetherell ar-
ranged that an interview should take place on the 22nd
of November, and Mr. Cooke came about seven in the
evening. He did not, however, see either Mr. Wetherell
or his daughter, because the former objected to it. and
he sent me down to pacify Mr. Cooke, and while I was
gone he took his daughter away in a cab. Mr. Cooke
was very much disappointed and excited at this proceed-
ing. Prior to this I had seen Mr. Wetherell near
Gray's Inn. Mr. Cooke was with me, and when Mr.
Wetherell saw him he ran away. I followed and over-
took him, and insisted upon his accompanying me to the
chambers of a gentleman named Nesbit, to clear up
something he had stated I had said respecting Mr.
Cooke. I then told him that Mr. Cooke had come to
me in a very excited state, and said that the defendant
had said, that I had told Mivart that Cooke's wife was
unchaste when he married her, and I asked the defend-
ant whether he had ever made any such statement,
and the defendant admitted he had, and persist, cl
in the statement of my having said so to Mivart.
The witness corrected himself; and said this occurred
ten days after the proceeding he had alluded to at Ali-
van's, and not before. He now proceeded with his evi-
dence. I insisted upon the defendant accompanying me
to Mivart's, and after objecting for some time he agreed
to do so, and two cabs were ordered, but when we ar-
rived at the hotel the defendant made his escape, and
would not see Mr. Mivart. Another appointment was
made, but the defendant did not come. During my
connexion with Mr. Wetherell he frequently made use
of strange expressions towards the plaintiff, and on the
28th of October, when at my office, after discussing
different matters, he said he had heard a strange charac
ter of Cooke, and asked if I knew him about town. I
replied that I did not. He then said he had heard
amongst other things that he was a man-whore, and that
he drove about the parks for hire. Upon another occa-
sion, when the defendant was endeavouring to induce
his daughter not to return to Mr. Cooke, he said amongst
other things that if she went back to him he would dis-
ease her, and another time I was present when the de-
fendant made his daughter take an oath that she would
never return to her husband. I thought he seemed to
possess very great influence upon her, for whatever reso-
lutions she came to when alone, they were all upset the
moment her father had been with her, but she generally
seemed anxious to return and live with Mr. Cooke. Ne-
gotiations were at this time going on regarding the first
nuptial settlement, and it was agreed by all parties that
Mr. and Mrs. Cooke should live apart until the set-
a went was completed. I acted professionally for
Mr. Wetherell, on the 25th November, and I then gave
up all the papers to Mr. Nesbit.
Cross-examined—l was acting in these matters as the
attorney for Mrs. Cooke, and had not had any conversa-
tion with Mr. Cooke before. She was very anxious that
such a settlement should be made as would have the ef-
fect of protecting her father from legal proceedings.
When the defendant made his daughter take the oath
that she would not live with her husband, I said,
" Surely, you only wish this to be during your life."
The oath was proposed ; but I cannot say positively
whether it was taken or not. Mr. Wetherell all along
appeared to have the greatest animosity and antipathy
for the plaintiff. I once heard Mr. Wetherell say, that
his daughter's life was in danger from Mr. Cooke, arid
she repeated the statement ; but I cannot state the time
when this occurred. I never heard from Mr. Cooke that
he was born in 1822. Mrs. Cooke always appeared to
me to be very fond of her husband. I should consider
her good looking on an evening but not on a morning.-
(Laughter.) She is well got up.—(Renewed laughter.
By that expression I mean, she was always very we
dressed.

In answer to a suggestion from a juror, the witness
said he declined4to state the reason why he declined to
act any longer for Mrs. Cooke. He said it was in conse-
quence of an opinion he had formed.
The juror—Weis it one of disgust ?
Witness—l should rather not answer the question or
give any further reason ; but I declined to act in con-
quence of an opinion I had formed founded upon parti-
cular facts.
S,?rgearit SHEE—Was there anything in the conduct
of Mr. Wetherell towards his daughter, or in her cone
dnct towards him, which induced you to decline to act
any longer for the lady ?
Witness—l would rather not state my reasons. I was
acting professionally for the lady, and I do not think
anything in the conduct
appeared to me that there
ofl ostuehgrehg
fteaattnoh
tes
rtsa?nt eE
tu
it,
ei i*sinsgy: nlu
See
was a most extraordinary degree of intimacy between
the father and the daughter, and that he had an extra-
ordinary influence over her.
Baron PARKE--How old is the defendant ? Witness
—I should think about sixty.
Sergeant SHEE then put in a letter, without date,
from the plaintiff's wife to her father, and the letter of
the defendant to her, signed " The Wretch." They will
be found in the copies of the correspondennee.
Gordon, the clerk to the plaintiff's attorney, was then
called, to prove, that upon an execution being served
against the effects of the defendant, the letters that had
been produced and a number of others, to tether with
some envelopes, addressed to T. C. Mills, Esq., and a
copy of the letters sent by the plaintiff's wife to her
husband, were found in a box among his property.
In cross-examination, the witness said that there were
five or six hundred letters in the box. Some envelopes
were a ldressed T. C. Mills, Esq., but he did not see any
letter addressed to Miss Mills. Mr. Cooke was now
living in Great Ormond-street. Before that, he lived in
Seymour-street. Mrs. Baynton was the landlady of the
house. He said he had not seen her present when the
witnesses who were to be questioned were present ; but
he would not swear that she had not been in campany
with Mr. Cooke in the Queen's Bench Prison, He did
not see Mrs. Baynton in Croydon upon the occasion of
the last trial, and he had not seen her in Guildford since
these assizes commenced.
Some other letters were here put in and read.
Mr. Baron PARKE observed that he did not see how
those letters could, in strictness, be produced as evi-
dence.
Sergeant CHANNELL said he did not object. He wished
the documents to be read.
The first nuptial settlement was then read. It com-
menced by reciting that a debt was due from the defen-
dant to his daughter amounting to 15,0001, and the
defendant undertook to repay the amount by yearly in-
stalments of 5001.. the whole of which was placed at the
disposal of Mrs. Cooke, and the plaintiff did not take any
interest or advantage under the deed.
At three o'clock the Court and jury adjourned for a
few minutes to take some refreshment, and the trial was
then proceeded with.
Eleanor Williams, examined by Mr. JAMES—I am at
present chambermaid at the Rummer Hotel, Bristol, and
in 1843 I was in the same capacity at the Beaufort
Arms, Chepstow, and I remember inquiries being made
of me in June, 1845, relative to some parties who had
come to the Beaufort Arms in August, 1843. I remem-
ber an old gentleman coming to the inn at Chepstow in
that month. He was accompanied by a young lady ap
parently about eight-and-twenty years old. There was
nothing particular about the dress of the gentleman, but
I noticed that he wore gold spectacles. I saw them both
upon their arrival in the inn, and they engaged a bed-
room, a sitting-room, and a dressing-room. Two of the
rooms were numbered 12 and 13. There was a large
bed and a small bed in the bedrooms, and
they selected the room which was usually
occupied by a lady and gentleman. They stopped
two nights in the hotel at Chepstow, and both
occupied the same bed. When they went away from
the hotel they left a box in the care of the boots, and I
am not aware of anything else being left. I lsfc my
situation at Chepstow to go to Bristol, in December,
1844. After the lady and gentleman left, some appli-
cation was made about a cloak and an umbrella, but I do
not think the articles were found, and I do not know
who made the inquiry respecting them. I was first asked
whether I could identify this lady and gentleman in the
summer of last year. Two gentleman came to the
Rummer Hotel, at Brist.,l, aad I saw a portrait, in the
bed-room, of one of them. 1 was taken to the Queen's
Bench prison in June last year, and I there saw the gen-
tleman whom I had seen before at the Beaufort Arms
with the young lady. lie had gold spectacle s on, arid
I recognised him immediately. I afterwards saw the
lady in the same pris,in. lam sure they are the parties
who were at the 13,aufort Arms at Chepstow, and who
slept together. I went back to my situation at Bristol,
and in a short time the plaintiff, Mr. Cooke, and another
gentleman, came to the Hummer Hotel, and it was on
this occasioa that I found a portrait in their room. It
was the portrait of a clergyman in his robes, and I
believe it to be the one now produced. I had not seen
the portrait before I recognised the gentleman in the
Queen's Bench prison. I saw the same gentleman sitting
in the Court at Croydon upon the last trial, and I pointed
him on-

Cross-examined—TlE,re was another chambermaid nt
the Beaufort Arms when I first went there, and we
shared the perquisites. She had them one week end
had them the other. I emnot ha whether she had left
the service in August, 1843. The ialy and gentleman
came to the inn in a postchaise. I will not swear that
they did not come by water. I will not swear either

way, or that a waterman did not bring their luggage.
I cannot say whether any other party came to the inn
that day. No. 13 was the dressing-room, and 12 the
bed-room. I cannot exactly say what number their
Maine. room was, but I think it was No. 12. I have
learned since that Mr. Cooke was one of the gentlemen
who applied to me at the Rummer. He was accompanied
by a lady, and they both occupied one room. The lady
first spoke to me upon the subject of the lady and gen-
tleman coming to Chepstow. I don't think Mr. Cooke
said anything to me upon the subject till the next morn-
ing. Mr. Pring is the landlord of the Rummer Hotel.
I believe the lady said that they were in search of a gen-
tleman and lady, and that the gentleman was an elderly
man, and that he stooped, wore spectacles, and had the
appearancepp lreplied
that of a clergyman,ed
notbut
I recollectcannotany such
say whetheri
I r
persons. I will swear that this did not occur
in the presence of Mr. Pring. The gentleman
did say to me, " Try what you can recollect by to-mor-
row." I went to London on the following day. I was
alone. I went to 29, Seymour-street, where I saw Mrs.
Baynton, the lady whom I had previously seen with Mr.
Cooke at Bristol. I was taken to the Queen's Bench
prison on the same day. I cannot swear whether I saw
Mr. Cooke and Mrs. Baynton the next day, or whether
they examined me. To the best of my belief, I cannot
say. Mrs. Baynton gave me the money to pay my fare
back to Bristol, and I was afterwards sent for a second
time by Mrs. Baynton, and it was upon this occasion I
was taken to the chapel of the prison, where I saw the
defendant and his daughter. Mrs. Baynton paid my ex-
penses both on the first and second visits. I showed the
portrait that was left in Mr. Cooke's room to the house-
keeper, and several other of the servants. I afterwards
took the portrait with me to Seymour•street. Mrs.
Baynton accompanied me to the last assizes in a cab. I
saw Lee, the boots at the Rummer, at Mrs. Baynton's,
in Seymour-street, but he did not stay till the trial. Ile
was one of the persons to whom I had shown the por-
trait. When I was examined upon the last trial, I said
that I had never seen a portrait, and I repeated the
answer, although I was asked the question several times.
I did not know what I was saying. I don't think I said
a word about finding the portrait in the dressing-case. I
have never said that the rooms occupied by the parties
were Nos. 13 and 17.
Re-examined—There was no other old gentleman
and young lady stopping at the house at the time in
question. I recoenised the gentleman again the moment
I saw him in the Queen's Bench. A man named Screm-
miger was with me, but he did not point him out to me.
I was taken ill, and fainted about the time. I was exa-
mined respecting the portrait. No one did show me the
portrait. I found it myself. lam still in the same ser-
vice at Bristol.
Mary Anne Hall—l am a married woman, and carry
on the business of a washerwoman in Hill-street, Dorset-
square. In the early part of 1843 I was in the habit of
washing for Mr. Wetherell and his daughter, and I
noticed from the first that a portion of his linen had
been washed with scented soap, and his shirts have been
sent to me wet. I noticed similar appearances upon the
linen of his daughter.
The rest of the evidence of this witness was of a simi-
lar character, and may not be further alluded to.
Mr. Wm. Pitman, clerk to a stock-broker, proved
that during the year 1841 he sold out 18,000/. standing
in the name of Miss Wetherell, by direction of Mr.
Wetherell. his daughter was present, and sanctioned
the proceedings of each sale of stock.
Mrs. Russell deposed, that she and her husband were
in the service of Mr. Wetherell in April, 1843. They
were engaged as general servants, and had the charge
of the house in Eaton- place. They were in the habit
of going backwards and forwards to Byfield. Mrs.
Cooke's bed-room was on the first-floor, and her father's
was next to it, and a dressing-room adjoining it. The
witness then said, when I had been in the service a
short time, not more than a week, I saw Mr. Wetherell
come out of his daughter's bed room at half-past five
o'clock in the morning, and he had nothing on but his
dressing gown and slippers. I saw him come out two
mornings running, and about the same time. The first
time I saw him he made a kind of stop or baulk ; but
the second he did not appear to take any notice of me,
I went into Mrs. Cooke's bed-room the first morning I
had seen her father come from it, and I found her
setting at a table, with only a dressing-gown. On one
occasion, when I looked at Mrs. Cooke's bed, I have no
doubt that two persons had slept in it. My husband
was assisting me to make the bed at this time, and I
pointed his attention to it. I never' saw Mrs. Cooke's
night dress in her bed-room, and it struck me as being
a remarkable circumstance. I do not know where she
put her night-dress. I never saw it except on her
person. Mr. Wetherell always used to make his own
bed, and his daughter gave me directions not to
make it, as she said her father always did so him-
self. I never saw his bed, or the condition
as though it had been slept in. I remember the de-
fendant and his daughter going away alone in August,
and being absent about ten dais. I do not know where
they went. On the previous June and July I had re-
marked that Mrs. Cooke appeared getting much stouter,
and I had much difficulty in getting her dresses to meet,
and I saw her altering two of them. She said to me,
on one occasion, that if I could not fasten her dresses
without tearing them that her papa should dress her.
When she came back, after being absent about ten days,
she seemed to be poorly, and was much thinner. I told
her she leoked ill, and she said she had been ill, but when
I said she ought to have a doctor, site replied that her
papa was her doctor. The witness then proceeded to
describe the appearance of some linen that was brought
home by the defendant's daughter, upon her return with
her father from their journey, and said that in her
opinion it d -noted that a mi-carriage had taken place.
She likewise said when Mr. Cooke was taken into cus-
tody, and the inquiry took place at the Queen-square
Police-office, upon their return home she heard Mrs.
Cooke say, that sooner than live with her husband again
she would see him transported beyond the seas.
Mr. R. G. Shute, a surgeon residing in Meek lenburgh-
square, deposed that he was in extensive practice as a
surgeon and accoucheur, and he expressed an opinion
that the appearances described by some of the witnesses
denoted a miscarriage to have taken place, and could not
be reasonably accounted for in any other manner in the
case of a young healthy woman.
In answer to questions from the Court, the witness
said that some disorders of a character peculiar to fe-
males might produce somewhat similar results.
Mr. Sells, another medical gentleman, gave a similar
opinion as to the appearances described being the result
of a miscarriage.
James Russell, the husband of the former witness, de-
posed that in consequence of a communication made to
him by the husband of the laundress, he was induced to
pay particular attention to the conduct of the defendant
and his daughter, as they thought there was something
very wrong going on. After he had gone to bed, he re-
peatedly heard the doors of the bed-rooms of Mr.
Wetherell and his daughter open and shut, and this hap-
pened at all hours of the night. The coachman (Revell)
also used to watch, and he had seen him listening on the
staircase. He once went into Mr. Wetherell's bed-room
without knocking, and he found them both there,
and Mrs. Cooke appeared very much confused, and
her hair was hanging about her shoulders. She
ge r.
af antdh e ofhe
replied, his go going.; to,n
etvheer rmo
lud,
had seen Mrs. Cooke go into her father's
cßwoiimitshspotl,
lti. complained
01 ticoek
bed-room with nothing on but her dressing-gown. They
used to be very loving at, meals, and used to shake one
another's hands, and if she happened to forget to bring
any thing down stairs, they would playfully struggle
together and push each other to try which should be first
to get it. They used to drink love to each other at
dinner time, and he had often seen Mr. Wetherell's
arm round his daughter's waist. He had seen her also
lying upon the sofa after dinner with nothing but a
dressing-gown on, and with her hair hanging about her
ears. Upon another occasion, about seven o'clock in
the morning, he missed Mr. Wetherell from his bed-
room, and his suspicion being excited, he knocked at the
bed-room door of Mrs. Cooke, and she said something
in a low tone and sent him away. The witness went on
to state, that before Mrs. Cooke and her lath, r left town
in Augtht, 1843, he had observed that the former ap-
peared to be getting very stoat, and on their return she
appeared very much thinner, and seemed to be very ill.
Cross-examined—Witness and his wife went to the
house in Eaton-place in April, 1843, and it was under-
stood that they were to remain there until the house was
let, and that they were in the mean time to wait upon
the defendant and his daughter. Could not say when
the occurrence took place of his not finding Mr. Wether-
ell in his bed-room ; it might have been in May, June,
July, or September, or perhaps August. He had re-
ceceived 101. from Mr. Cooke, and the money was
marked in the presence of Mr. Wetherell and a police-
man ; and on this occasion Mr. Wetherell told him not
to be bought cheap. He had seen Mr. Cooke at the
house in Seymour-street, but he did not know that
he was living with Mrs. Baynton at that house.
He saw Mrs. Baynton two or three times in the
3 ear 1844, but he denied having asked her for any
money. Mr. Cooke was present ou those occasions, but
he did not examine him, or inquire the evidence he had
to give in her presence. When he said that he had seen
Mrs. Cooke with nothing but a dressing-gown on, he did
mean that she had no other articles of clothing on, but
she had taken her gown off, and put on a dressing-gown.
It was hot weather at the time, and Mrs. Cooke was
said to be very poorly. When he was examined at the
last trial, he did not say a word about the defendant and
his daughter toying together when they were at dinner
\dr. Wetherell would say to his daughter at dinners
" My love to you, my dear."
Mr. CLARKSON—And did you think that indecent ?
Witness—l did. I thought their conduct was improper.
Baron PARE--I think you should give some other
reason for your opinion than what you have just stated.
By Mr. CHAMBERS—Had lived in many respectable
families, and he never saw a father act towards her
daughter in the manner Mr. Wetherell did to Mrs
Cooke.
At half past seven o'clock the further proceedings in
the cause were adjourned until this morning.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
A man named Jon Francis, was brought before Mr.
Alderman Gibbs, the locum tenens of the Lord Mayor,
clrArged with having pick, d the pocket of Mr. Russell
Ellice, merchant, of Leadenhall-street, of a pocket-
book.

Mr. Ellice stated that about twelve o'clock on Tues-
day as he was passing over London-bridge. he perceived
that he was followed by two men, one of them was the
prisoner, and observing that they were going on in a
hurried 'winner towards the City, he felt for his pocket_book, and immediately ascertained that it was
hands gone.
Witne,s having seen the prisoner's comp
wh
,ottiobrethoke away and
ti the pris oner,flung fidsomethin l iwed and
osver th eeizen
a parapet
d the latter,
g
into the Thames. The prisoner was then
- pprehended
by a policeman.
Thomas Randall? hatter? of Q;ford, was crossing over ,

- -
the bridge at the time the robbery was committed, and
saw the prisoner elude the grasp of Mr. Ellice, and
dodge behind carts and carriages on the road. When
the prisoner reached the western side of the bridge, the
witness distinctly saw him throw something dark,' re-
sembling a pocket-book, over the bridge. The witness
afterwards saw the pocket-book floating, and directed
the attention of a waterman's apprentice, who was in a
boat on the river, and who picked it up.
Mr. Ellice identified the pocket-book as his property.
The prisoner, who has bees long in practice in the
particular line of business in which he was detected,
said he thought that as he picked up the pocket-book on
the bridge, and he might be suspected of having got it
unfairly, the best way to escape trouble, was to give it
a chance over the bridge.
Committed fur trial.
A young woman, named Caroline Wolf, was com-
mitted for trial upon the charge of having robbed her
master, Mr. Benjamin, in whose service she had lived a
few months, of a variety of articles. It appeared that
the prisoner was so fond of dress as not to be able to
avoid the temptation to rob for a supply of finery.
BOW-STREET.
George Johnson, a young man of decent appearance, was
charged with stealing a portmanteau, the property of Mr.
Day, a trunk and portmanteau dealer in the Strand.
John Bliss, shopman to the prosecutor, said that he was
standing in the shop that morning, when a cabman came to
the door, and said that somebody was running away with a
portmanteau. lie went to the door just in time to see the
prisoner turning the corner of Wellington-street. He pur-
sued and succeeded in catching the prisoner, who had the
portmanteau produced on his shoulder.
The foreman at Mr. Day's shop identified the portmanteau
as his master's property.
The prisoner made no defence.
Mr. 1-IAbL said it would be necessary to remand the pri-
soner in order to bring forward the cabman. If the
latter refused to appear a warrant could be taken out.
The prisoner was remanded till this day week.
Samuel Paton, police-constable 142, E division, was charged
with having assaulted and used insulting language to Mr.
S. Irons, a law-stationer, of Cursitor-street, Chancery-lane.
The complainant went into Holborn between twelve and
one o'clock on Sunday night last, to witness the ruins of the
two houses which had fallen. He there saw the defendant
behaving roughly towards two lads in the mob, and was con-
sequently induced to advise the latter to go home and not
mind the police, as they (the boys) would be sure to get the
worst of it. The defendant turning towards the complain-
ant then exclaimed, " What the devil are you interfering
for ? We know you ; you are one of the swell mob. We
know you by your round hat," using other insulting lan-
guage of a similar kind. The mob, on hearing this, collected
round the complainant, and called upon the police "to take
him ;" until, fearing ill-treatment at their hands, he was
compelled to run into a confectioner's shop. The defendant,
however, followed him in, and, addressing himself to a young
woman behind the counter, said, "You have got a thief in
your house," at the same time seizing the complainant by
the collar, to thrust him into the street again. At this
moment the complainant was recognised by a friend, a Mr.
Sergeant, also a law-stationer, who assured the defendant
that he was mistaken ; upon which the constable told him
"that he was one of the same sort." Mr. Irons them took the
number of the constable, and lodged his complaint at the
police-station.
Mr. Wontner argued that the constable applied the insult. ing language to somebody else. To prove this he examined
a woman named Pounsbury, who said she was present—wit-
nessed the whole occurrence—heard the defendant call a
drunken man a thief, and also heard him say, when the com-
plainant asked if he applied the offensive expression to him,
"that he meant another party."
Policeman E 117 declared he was with him all the time,
but never heard him call anybody anything.
The confectioner above alluded to thought the constable
had acted rightly in forcing people out of his shop, and hoped
he would be protected for protecting the public. He didn't
know anything about the defendant's calling the complainant
a thief, but he believed the former to be a first-rate constable
and was very useful in the neighbourhood.
Sergeant Sigston, of the E division, believe the defendant
to be one of the best men in the force. He only wished every
policeman was like him.
Other policemen were examined, and their general leanir:g
towards the defendent was noticed by his Worship in terms of
condemnation.
The superintendent and his clerk, who received the charge
at the station-house, having been sent for by his Worship,
proved that the defendant, when apprised of the charge,
actually admitted that he had applied the insulting ex-
pressions to the complainant in mistake, and " was sorry
for it."
Mr. JARDINE then sentenced the defendant to one month's
imprisonment with hard labour.
THAMES.
The young man Joseph Davis, late clerk to Mr. David
Gadsden, Great St. Helen's, who stands charged with steal-
ing 850/., the moneys of his employer, was brought before
Mr. Broderip for final examination.
The prisoner was intrusted by Mr. David Gadsden, on the
22d of last June, with 933/. 10s. 2d., to pay into Williams,
Deacon, and Co.'s bank, to the account of James Gadsden
and Sons, who also occasionally employed him. Of this
amount 8501. was in Bank of England notes, a cheque for
82/. 17s. drawn by Wainwright and Gadsden, jun., and
13s. 2d. in cash. On the same day the prisoner received
from the firm of Wainwright and Gadsden, jun., two cheques
with directions to fill one of them up for the exact amount
of sugars purchased of Trueman and Cook, less the discount
if he could obtain the invoice, brit if he could not he was at
liberty to fill it up for 5001., and pay it over to the firm. He
received similar directions respecting the other cheque,
drawn in favour of Simpson, Scott, and Co., colonial brokers,
except that he was to fill it up for 350/. only, if he could not
obtain the invoice. He did not wait upon either firm for
the invoices, but filled up the cheques for 500/. and 350/. re-
spectively, and paid them over to Williams and Deacon to
the account of James Gadsden and Sons, and retained 850/.
in bank-notes, which he received of Mr. David Gadsden,
and appropriated that large sum to his own use. When
the deficiency was discovered, some weeks afterwards, the
prisoner was induced, by a promise made to him
by Mr. David Gadsden, to give up to that gentlemen 575/. in
notes, 10 sovereigns, and a half-sovereign. Among the
moneys so given up were three of the 1001. notes delivered
to the prisoner on the 22d of June. He was searched at the
station-house, and 201. more were found upon him. Although
only one cheege has been preferred against the prisoner,
there is no doubt his defalcations have been very great. In-
spector Scott, of the II division, has already recovered pro-
perty to the amount of 1,0001., purchased by Davis, and he
expects to find more. The prisoner's salary was only 501.
a year.
On Wednesday Mr. llumphreys called Mr. William Pickup.
clerk in the banking house of Williams, Deacon, and Co.,
who stated that James Gadsden and Son kept an account
there, and that on the 22d of June he received from the pri-
soner 933/. Ns. 2d. on their account. It was his belief that
the amount was paid in the three cheques produced, to-
gether with 13s. 2d. in cash. One of the cheques was for 5004
in favour of Trueman and Cook ; another in favour of Simp-
son and Scott, for 350/. ; and the third was in favour of
James Gadsden and Son, for 821. 17s. All the cheques were
drawn by Wainwright and Gadsden, and dated 22d June
1846.

f e Icier .aPt pelrheasemntwould not advise his client to make any de-
woteilhdarggeivseagtaiminesltyhinsoctliiceentt.o
Mr. Pelham
Mr. Hump fhirieeypsresfea
rid hredoether
CLERKENWELL.
The prisoner was then committed for trial.
John Tylor, a general dealer, in Turnmill-street, Clerken-
well, was charged with receiving, with a guilty knowledge,
an immense quantity of silver and electro-plated knives,
forks, spoons, &c., the property of Mr. Burton, of the late
firm of Rippon aed Burton, Oxford-street. On Monday last,
a man named Heath, who had been in the emp'oy of Messrs.
Rippon and Burton, was committed for tri,l on a charge of
robbing his employers of a large quantity of miscellaneous
property. It was then stated that the prisoner Heath had
disposed of the articles to Tylor, and the police have since
then been on the look•out for the latter, who quitted his
home and was no where to be seen in the neighbourhood.
Last night, however, two of the detective force succeeded in
apprehending him on board a vessel in Woolwich, on which
he had engaged himself as stoker.
The officer proved that he found some of the articles pro-
duced in the prisoner's dwelling, together with a large bunch
of picklock keys.
John Smart, foreman to Mr. Burton, proved that all the
articles exhibited were his master's property.
Elizabeth Tylor deposed that she had often seen the
prisoner and Heath in conversation in the shop in Turnmill-
treet.

The prisoner admitted having bought goods from a man
named Heath, who represented himself as an agent from
Birmingham. Bought some of the goods produced from him.
The prisoner denied any guilty knowledge, but did not in-
form the Bench why he absconded.--Remanded.

MURDEROUS ATTACK BY A
RAILWAY POLICE-SERGEANT.
ETON, WEDNESDAY.—Yesterday evening a man named
Anthony Thomas Rymes, about forty years of age, the
police-sergeant at the Maidenhead station, in the employ of
the Great Western Railway Company, was brought before
the Rev. Thomas Carter, the sitting magistrate, in custody
of Daniel Sexton, the Maidenhead constable, charged with
having inflicted a serious, and, it is feared, mortal wound,
upon the body of Mr. Henry Plumb, an articled clerk to Mr.
William Ward, solicitor, of Maidenhead, between nine and
ten oclock on Monday night.
Mr. J. J. Williams, barrister-at-law, and Mr. Ward, soli-
citor, attended on behalf of Mr. Plumb, who was in too weak
and dangerous a state to be present.
The following certificate from Mr. Dellis, surgeon, was
handed to the magistrate:--
" I hereby certify that Mr. Henry Plumb is not able to
attend the magistrates, in consequence of having a punctured
wound in the back."
The prisoner, upon being placed at the bar, appeared per-
fectly cool and unembarrassed.
Mr. John Mahon Williams (a son of Mr. Williams, the
barrister), who was on a visit at Mr. Ward's, at the time of
the unfortunate occurrence, deposed as follows :—I was
taking a walk with Mr. Plumb on Monday evening, at about
half-past nine o'clock, and as we were passing the Dumb
Bell public-house, which is opposite to the Maidenhead sta-
tion, we heard some music, which induced us to stop outside
to hear it. A boy (who it has since been wasascertained
e
the son of the prisoner, and who is a page in the service
us:
a family in the neighbourhood), who was standing
n
looked up in Mr. Plumb's face and laughed
and walked towards him. The boy then
"Father,ran aw
they have been
si Plumb then
remarked, "That's the famous Buttons." I
upada,; oh,
the is
roadit?
towards Maidenhead, calling out,
licking me." We ran a little way after
stopped. The boy turned round,
nthhee boy,and then
got
near
the
prisoner's house, and said, "You
ou
come here, and we will give
opposite the prisoner's h ouse,
Maidenhead. Just as we got _
it you." The boy then went in, and we walked on towards.
evidently mistaking uswas in the
the boy hallooed out two
foror tpirre.evvtanrnde,sa,sonit.'s young
.Ward,"
garden with his mother. then saw the prisoner run into the
house, and taking something from off the place on which a
candle was standing, immediately run out again and
jump over the gate into the road. The prisoner's wife called
after him, " Make haste, give it them well. ' Plumb ran away as
h stayedw as
coming
until
soon asp the
d oprisoner
gcaamtee; outb ofl htehne
sa house.w
after us, I ran away as fast as I could. Prisoner followed,
and when I found he was close ume I ran across the road
and jumped over the fence into the ground next to the rail-
way. Prisoner followed Plumb, calling out to some men in
the road, "Stop the young blackguard." I heard one of
these men say, " I shall not stop him; what has be done ? '
Almost immediately afterwards I heard the cries of Plumb.
I heard him distinctly say, " Have mercy on me, and don't
hit me with that." I Len ran across to the railway on to
Mr. Ward's house for assistance, and returned with Mr.
Ward's man-servant. On our return we found Mr. Plumb
at the King's Arms Inn, Maidenhead bridge, attended by
Mr. Bellis, the surgeon. As soon as I saw Plumb, and the
dreadful state he was in, t fainted away.
The :hire, waistcoat, trousers, c'at, worn by Mr.
Plumb at the time he was at444ed
produced by Sexton the eo,n4table. The the prisoner, were
lower part of the
Wai4tc94t 4.144 4411 Pci tie tryttorof froal was to bowl