The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-21 00:00:00

structures of the body being perfectly healthy, there
could be no doubt that death was occasioned by the
wound inflicted with the knife produced.
Mr. Caywood Wordsworth, the house surgeon, who
assisted the last witness in performing the post modem
examination, entirely concurred in the previous wit-
ness's testimony ; and the dying declaration of the de-
ceased having been read over to the prisoner, who, by
the advice of her solicitor, Mr. Bolton, reserved her de-
fence,
She was fully committed to Newgate for trial upon
the charge of wilful murder.
The prisoner, who has throughout the proceedings
exhibited a remarkable degree of apathy, was stated by
Alderman, the gaoler, to have been several times in
custody for various offences, and to have also been sen-
tenced to a long term of imprisonment upon a charge of
felony.
William Charles Clarke a middle-aged man of re-
spectable appearance, described as a watchmaker, wtis
next placed at the bar upon two charges, the first of
committing a capital offence upon the person of his own
child, Anne Clarke, a little girl 12 years of age, and the
second of a criminal assault, with intent, &c., upon
another of his children, a girl two years younger.
It appeared that the prisoner, a married man with four
or five children, had separated from his wife in Apr it
last, she residing with her children at a house in Bri-
tannia. street, City-road, and he with his father in
Nelson-street, opposite. Notwithstanding the separa-
tion of the parents, the children were in the habit of
visiting their father, ard according to the evidence of
Anne Clarke, the victim of his brutality in the first
case, having gone to see the prisoner about five weeks
ago, he bolted her in his room, and perpetrated the
charge alleged against him. She said she was afraid to
cry out for help in consequence of his being her own
father, and that he cautioned her not to inform her
mother or any one else, or he would certainly be hanged
for it. The child's dress, however, having exhibited
symptoms of such a nature as to raise suspicions in the
mind of her mother, she was closely questioned, and a
full revelation of the prisoner's conduct having; been
made by the little creature, information was given to
the police, and the prisoner was taken into custody by
Sergeant Lambert, to whom he declared that it was a
conspiracy on the part of his wife, who had threatened
to ruin him.
Mr. Coward, the police surgeon, deposed to examining
the child, and his evidence left not the slightest doubt of
the full capital offence having been completed, accom-
panied by circumstances of great atrocity.
The second charge was preferred by another of the
prisoner's daughters, Sarah Clarke, a child only ten years
of age, and though the circumstances of thi. owed b...n
close affinity to those of the preceding, the surgeon's
evidence did not bear it out to a greater extent than an
infamous assault.
The prisoner, who said he should decline offering any
defence at present, was fully committed to Newgate for
trial upon both charges.
The greatest disgust and indignation were frequently
displayed by the auditors in a very crowded court, and
the officers had some trouble in repressing their ebulli-
tions of disapprobation.

LAMBETH.
Mr. James Galway, a cheesemonger in a large way
of business in the Walworth road, and who is said to be
a man of considerable property, was placed at the bar
before Mr. Elliott, on a charge of having had in his pos-
session a parcel containing 71 pairs of expensive gloves,
part of a bankrupt's stock, that had been stolen from
the shop No. 17, Regent-street, on the night of the 14th
of February, 1844.
Mr. Games appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. Inspector Haines, of the detective force, deposed
that on the night above-mentioned property, amounting
to 600/., and consisting of gloves, silk stockings, shawls,
and other articles, were carried away from the shop, No.
17, Regent-street West. He had been employed to trace
the property, and discover the thieves, but up to Thurs-
day last he could find not the slightest trace of either.
On that day, however, Mr. Wright, landlord of the
Horse and Groom, High-street, Newington, delivered to
him a parcel which he said had been left at his house by
the prisoner about 18 mouths before, and which contained
71 pairs of the stolen gloves. On the following day the
prisoner called upon him at Scotland-yard, and address-
ing him said, " I understand you received a parcel of
gloves from Mr. Wright last night ; if you want me for
them, here I am." Witness told him he did not want
him just then ; upon which he replied, " You can have
me at any time." He then went away, and witness did
not see him again until the evening before, when be told
him to be in attendance at this Court at eleven o'clock
this forenoon, and he was in atttendance accordingly.
In reply to the questions of Mr. Games, the witness
said, that instead of avoiding an investigation of the
circumstance, he expressed his perfect readiness to attend
at any time and place he (witness) wished. When the
prisoner called upon him on Friday morning, he said,
that nearly two years ago a parcel had been brought to
his house during his absence from home, and left there ;
the parties leaving it having also left a message that they
would see him at Wright's. On examining the parcel,
and finding that it contained a quantity of gloves, silk
stockings, and other property, he on the following day
carried it to Mr. Wright's, directing that if the parties
who left it should call, they were to have it. On seeing
the parcel in bis (Mr. Haines's) possession, the prisoner
declared it did not contain half the property that had
been in it when deposited with Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright was next called, and deposed that he was
landlord of the Horse and Groom, High-street, Newing-
ton, and that about eighteen months ago the prisoner,
whom he had known for four or five years, left a
parcel at his house, the contents of which, from the
paper being partially torn off, he believed to be gloves.
Witness said nothing whatever of the parcel being in
his possession until last week, when he and the pri-
soner had a quarrel, and the prisoner accused him
with being a receiver of stolen property. He, in conse-
quence, sent for Inspector Haines on the following day,
and delivered up the property to him. He could not
tell the prisoner's motive for leaving a parcel in his
(witness's) house so long. All the time that it was there
no person called for it, but the day upon which witness
delivered it up to Mr. Haines, a man came to his bar and
asked for it, but he then told him it was too late, as he
had delivered it to an officer.
Mr. ELLIOTT—Who was the person who called ?
Witness—l don't know who he was, your Worship.
Prisoner—lndeed you do as well as I do, and better,
for the first time I met him was with you, and in your

Witness—No such thing, the first time I saw him was
with you.
Cross-examined by Mr. Games—He did not help him.
self or his friends to any of the gloves from the parcel,
nor had he disposed of any other goods which the parcel
contained. Had never offered valuable property, which,
in addition to the gloves, the parcel contained, to Mr.
Elgee, a publican in the Kent-road. The prisoner had
frequently been at his house when there were police-
officers there, but it was not until they had quarrelled,
and that the prisoner had charged him with having stolen
property in his possession, that he thought of giving the
parcel up.
Henry Boor, assistant to Mr. Hamber, one of the
messengers to the Bankruptcy Court, stated that on the
20th of January, 1844, he was put into possession of the
stock of a bankrupt, named Williams, No. 17, Regent-
street. On the Ist or 2d of February an assignee was
appointed, and it was arranged that the stock, which was
of the value of 1,3001., should be disposed of at a valua-
tion. Witness remained on the premises until the night
of the 14th of February, when he went home, and on
returning on the following morning, he discovered that
the place had been robbed of about 6001. worth of pro-
perty. The property produced he believed to be a part
of that stolen.
George Hancock, at present a railway guard, but for-
merly a shopman to Mr. Williams, of No. 17, Regent-
street, deposed to all the property produced being a
portion of the stock of Mr. Williams at the_time of his
bankruptcy.
Mr. Hamber, one of the messengers belonging to the
Court of Bankruptcy, here requested to state that he
was messenger in possession of the goods of Williams,
in January, and the earlier part of February, 1844, and
had, unfortunately, been held accountable for the loss,
so that, in point of fact, he was the prosecutor in the
present case. The prisoner, in his account to him (Mr.
Hamber), said that when he had deposited the parcel at
Wright's, there was a vast quantity of property in it,
which was not to be found, such as silk stockings and
other things, and that Wright, as he should be able to
prove, had offered part of the goods for sale at different
places. Wright, on the contrary, gave the prisoner the
worst character possible, and the latter, retorting, paid
him off with interest.
Mr. Games addressed the magistrate at some length
in reply to the evidence, and expressed a hope that his
client wouldj not be kept in custody for one moment
upon the testimony of such a witness as Wright had
shown himself to be.
Mr. ELLIOTT thought that there were two strong
points in the case affecting the prisoner; the first was his
recent possession of the property after it had been stolen,
and his threat against the landlord of having stolen
goods in his possession. In his opinion there was a
prima facie case established, and as the case was one
which would require a lengthened investigation, he
should remand tho accused till that day week.
Mr. Games applied for the prisoner's liberation on
bail, but Mr. Elliott refused to accept bail.
WESTMINSTER.
Two fellows of notoriously bad character, who gave
their names John Smith and Edward Watson, were
charged with the following daring highway robbery.
Robert Hurd, a pensioner from the British Legion in
Spain, stated that at about four o'clock on the previous
afternoon he met Watson, of whom he had some pre
vious knowledge, and, on his representing that he
was very unwell, took him into a public-house and gave
him something to drink, in paying for which he exposed
some sovereigns. On leaving the house, a few minutes
afterwards, he proceeded up Pear-street, Westminster,
but had not gone above a dozen yards when the pri-
soners came behind him, and Watson seized him by the
throat, and, with the assistance of his companion, threw
him on the ground. Watson continued his hold, pressing
prosecutor's throat with such violence that the blood
gushed from his mouth and nostrils, whilst the other
fellow rifled his pockets of 8L in gold, some silver, and
two watches, with which they immediately made off.
John Thropp, a mason at the House of Lords, who
was passing at the time, and saw the offence committed,
very quietly followel the prisoners, and saw them jump
into a cabin Peter street, and gave directions to be driven
over the water. The mason ran after the cab until he
met with a policeman, when the prisoners were secured,
and the watches found under the seat of the cab, but no
trace was discovered of the money.
The prisoners, who admitted to the police that they
had taken the watches, but denied all knowledge of the
money, made no defence, and were fully committed to
Newgate for the highway robbery.

The Marquis of Lansdowne (Lord President), has re-
turned to his seat Bowood-park, Wilts, from a visit to her
Majesty at Windsor Castle.