The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-04 00:00:00

A
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
Daniel Cruclgington, 33,
shoemaker, and Joshua
Kemp, 24, cabinet-maker, were indicted for the
manslaughter of William Ives.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Clerk conducted the prosecu-
tion for the Treasury ; Mr. Payne defended Crudg-
iagton.
From the evidence of the witnesses it appeared that
on the 24th of December the deceased, who was a
poor labouring wan, was engsged in sweeping the
road at Hackney, when the prisoners ran against him,
and, on his inquiring their reason for such conduct,
they abused him, and eventually made a most brutal
attack upon him, the result of which was that four of
his ribs were broken. He was taken to his house,
where, it appeared, he was subsequently attacked by
small-pox, that disease being latent in his system at
the time the attack was made upon him, but he re-
covered from that malady, and ultimately died from
the effects of the former injury.
The jury found the prisoners Guilty, and they
were sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for one )ear
William Pollard surrendered to take his trial upon
an indictment charging him with cutting and wound-
ing James Berry.
This case was also prosecuted by Mr. Bodkin and
Mr. Clerk on behalf of the Treasury. Mr. Parnell
appeared for the prisoner.
From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner
was the mate of a vessel called the Constance, which,
on the day mentioned in the indictment, was unloading
deals in a dock at Rotherhithe. The prosecutor and
several other men were in the hold, engaged in put-
ting the deals through a port-hole on to the quay,
and the prisoner, it appeared, had nailed a piece of
board under the port-hole to prevent the edge from
being torn by the deals. This
piece of board was
knocked down by the deals passing over it, and the
prisoner nailed it up, and repeated the operation three
times, when it was again knocked down, and upon
this it seemed that in a violent fit of passion he
threw the hammer into the bold with great violence,
and it struck the prosecutor on the eye, and knocked
it completely out of his head. The prisoner, it ap•
peared, expressed his sorrow for the occurrence im-
mediately afterwards, and desired to make compensa-
tion to the prosecutor for the injury he had sustained.
The jury found him Guilty of a common assault.
Mr. PARNELL, on behalf of the prisoner, said he
was instructed to repeat his expression of regret at
the unfortunate result of his imprudent conduct, and
he begged to inform the Court that 51. had already
been given to the prosecutor, and a further sum of
101. would be raised for him by the prisoner's friends.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said that was very small
compensation for the loss of an eye.
The prisoner was then sentenced to be imprisoned
for six months, but the Learned Judge at the same
time gave him an intimation that if he paid a fine of
401., which sum measures would be taken to have
handed over to the prosecutor, the sentence of im-
prisonment would be remitted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Edward Wrixen, secretary to the Art Union,
Suffolk-street, was brought before Mr. Hardwick,
charged with having embezzled the sum of 61. 15s.
belonging to the society, under these circumstances :
Mr. Winter, of 205, OxforWstreet, stated that he
obtained a 251. prize in the Art Union last year. Pre-
ferring another picture at 35 guineas, he paid the
balance, 111. 1.5,, and on giving up his prize he be-
came possessed of the picture.
Mr. George Stevens, treasurer, proved that the
only amount he received from the prisoner in respect
of this transaction was Si.
In defence the prisoner said, he had authority from
the artist to dispose of the picture
The solicitor on behalf of the society said he could
prove that the artist was dissatisfied with the transac-
tion. It would be shown at the next examination
that the prisoner had embezzled money to a con-
siderable amount in a similar way.
The prisoner was remanded till Wednesday next.
WORSHIP-STREET.

A well-dressed youth, named Thomas George Bass,
was placed at the bar, charged under the following
singular and suspicious circumstances :
Kelly, a constable of the H division, stated, that
while on duty in Great Garden-street, Spitalfields,
between eleven and twelve o'clock at night, his atten-
tion was attracted to the prisoner, who had just got
out of a cab, and was conversing with a woman in
such a state of intoxication that he could scarcely
stand. The prisoner was trying to get some money
out of a purse, and at last succeeded by jerking out
a number of sovereigns and half sovereigns, which
rolled along the pavement. Witness picked up the
money, amounting to 91., and retaining possession of
it, took it and the prisoner to the station, where he
was searched, and, in addition to another purse,
nearly filled with silver, a valuable watch and chain,
a pair of lady's kid gloves, and other articles, were
found upon him. On recovering sobriety sufficiently
to be able to comprehend anything, he was questioned
by Inspector Ellis as to his possession of the property,
and having stated that he was in the service Mrs.
Mary Anne Howes, a draper in Whitechapel, said
that the gloves, which were quite new, and other
articles, were his own, and that the meney com-
prised his salary, which he had just been paid, and
various presents he had received as Christmas-boxes
from wholesale houses his mistress dealt with, and of
which she herself had presented him with 10s.
Mr. W. Sinter, foreman to Mrs. Howes, entirely
contradicted this statement (the making of which by
the accused was also deposed to by Inspector Ellis),
and said, that so far from the prisoner receiving any-
thing like the amount of money found upon him for
salary he was only an apprentice to Mrs. Howes, and
was not to receive any money at all until the end of
the first twelvemonth, of which only 10 months had
expired. The prisoner had been suspected for some
time past of dishonesty, in consequence of a lady
informing Mrs. Howes that she had seen him place
some money she had paid him for a purchase in his
pocket instead of the till, and a watch was, therefore,
kept upon his actions, but nothing resulted from it.
The pair of 1 idy's gloves produced by the police,
however, he could p.,sitively identify as his mis-
tress's property, as he had missed them a few days
before, and on asking about them was told by the pri-
soner that he had sold them in regular course across
the counter.
Mrs. Howes ci•rohorated the last witness's evi-
dence, and -tested th,t t,lou.:h she had at various
times green the prisoner trltilng suns, the whale did
not amount to more than ioe or lls.; and she had
not, as he had stated. presented him with any money
for a Christmas-box. She also had suspected him for
a long time of defrauding her, as a sovereign had
been missed from a desk to which he had access, and,
although a close inquiry was made after it, it was
never recovered. She could likewise identify the
gloves without hesitation as hers, she having pur-
chased them of a wh Jessie house in Wool-street,
and, the leather having been imperfectly dressed, she
had noticed a trifling defect in them while offering
them to a customer, who had refused them on that ac-
count.
A woman named Cooke, in whose company the
prisoner was found at the time he was taken care of
by the police, deposed to accidentally meeting the
prisoner, who escorted her to the theatre, and then to
a saloon, where he paid for wine and other refresh-
ments for both with get at liberality, and afterwards
called a cab, while hunting for the hire of which he
rolled out the gold as before described.
Mr. Ashley addressed the magistrate on behalf of
the accused, pointing out the defectiveness of the evi-
fence produced in fixing his client with any dis-
honesty, and considered that it might be taken that
e s
he had honestly purchased th
gloves, which consti
tuted the only suspoicwio4serc,ir.wcuamosftance
against him.
Mr. ARNOLD, however,
and considering the appropriation
eoa different opinion,
of the gloves, at all
events, clearly established, ordered the prisoner to be
committed for trial for stealing them.
Then, father,
there a very respectable-locking
man, exhibited the greatest affliction
wpasrisone present,r's
at his son's position.
SOUTHWARK.

ht
beforee o f
r
Catherine Boyle, a young woman, the daughter
a harness-maker in Kent-street, was brought
Mr. Seeker, charged with creating a disturbance
in
front of her father's house.
The complainant, a well.dressed man in comparison
to his daughter, who was miserably clad, stated, that
on the previous night she cattle to his house, and in
consequence of his refusal to give her some money,
which he was not in a situation to do, she made a
great noise, abused him, collected a crowd, and he
was compelled to give her into custody.
The daughter (crying) said, that her father closed
his doors against her, and that as she had nowhere
else to go she went to his house to beg of him to give
her as much as would get a lodging, but he refu-ed,
and she admitted that she trade a noise on his refusal.
Mr. SECKER. asked the father why he did not let
the girl into his house instead of allowing her to re -
main in the streets?
The father, in reply,
•
said that he had two other
children to maintain, 1-at_he was in very bad circum-
stances,
stances, and couldtiie
cicot)trnaptlfaoirdt t,o,s?pport the daughter
who
1‘ i hadr .
sE , madeK a i
t
told the father I.,t4hiants th3h i
his house ho hahmdi;
Ikt admit his daughterinto
prleafeuesda 1
her
et or
for he must be well
in a most dangerous posit':
aware of the hazard of penunniit. a young girl like
weatheronndon
her to perambulate,the streets oTff, at night, in.
dependently of the s:,ver.•
The father said that she could
workhouse, and lie reiterated that he ''
ha,v,w prev.albeg.
"PPiied to the
' to support her. WE, quite unable
; The girl said that she did apply for admission to
:itiEsp,.. the workhouse, but was refused, " and where else,"
4-1,---.7-7-- added she,
." bad I to go, but my father's house ?"
c• 1-4._ Mr. Sscazz severely censured the father's conduct
-.- _.. .
li , -,r,PA 41.,,-..,-;,:f1 r'" •

t
$

I s