The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-13 00:00:00

to Mr. Gay's shop, where she remained three days, and
then the prisoner made a communication to Mr. Gay,
the import of which was that Mrs. Gay had been un-
faithful to her husband, and she named a gentleman to
him. Mr. Gay immediately went to Ede, where his
wife was staying, and there he found the gentleman who
had been named to him by the prisoner, and he instantly
commenced an attack upon him, which ended in a con-
flict, and Mr. Gay was rather severely punished, and
was not able to attend to his business for some days.
Mrs. Gay returned to her shop in a day or two after
this, and then saw the prisoner in her shop, in the act
of turning over different goods. She also observed that
the prisoner's luggage wee packed up. An altercation
took place about what the prisoner had stated, and the
prisoner was told that the sooner she left the house the
better. Mr. Gay did not pay the prisoner what was
due to her, but said he would send her a post• office
order for the amount. The prisoner then left. On the
20th of July, in consequence of Mr. Gay missing some
gloves and other articles, he went to the house of the
prisoner, at North Curry, and he there found a carpet
bag, containing several articles belonging to him.
On the cross-examination of Mrs. Gay, it appeared that
she had sent and received several letters from the gentle-
man who had been named, and that she had also received
presents from him.

For the prisoner, it was urged that she had merely
taken these things as a security for the money that was
due to her, and witnesses were called who spoke of her
in the higheA terms.

The ju-ry found the prisoner Not Guilty, and stated
that there was not the slightest imputation on her
character.

Edward Williams and Abraham Michael were in-
dicted for a burglary in the dwelling-house of the Rev.
Robert Haynes, at Coomb Hay, and stealing a large
quantity of money.
Mr. Stone was counsel for the prosecution, and Mr.
Saunders and Mr. Cole for the prisoners.
On the morning of the 9th of May it was found that
the prosecutor's house had been broken into and the
money in question stolen. The prisoners were drinking
together the whole of the previous day. Some con-
stables had information given them, and they took both
the prisoners into custody at Williams's house ; and,
upon searching them, many 5/. notes were found upon
them, together with a gold watch, chain, and seals,
which the prosecutor identified as belonging to him.
Williams immediately started, but was followed and
detained, and in his pocket the constable found a jemmy.
The house of Williams was searched, and a centrebit
was :ound, which fitted an aperture in the prosecutor's
study shutter.

Afirhael pleaded Guilty, and the jury returned a ver-
dict of Guilty against the other prisoner, and they were
both sentenced to be transported for life.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Numerous complaints have been lately made against
persons to whom bills have been entrusted by individuals
desirous of obtaining cash fur them. One case, which
came before Aldtrman Gibbs three times, and which
shows the tenacity with which a certain class of bill-
discounters grasp what they have not the least claim to,
will serve as a sample, and, probably, operate as a
warning.
On Thursslay last John Singer Sydserff was brought
up in the custody of a policeman, charged with having
stolen the acceptance of air. Lewis, one of the Society of
Friends, for 127/.
It appeared that Mr. Lewis gave the bill to a Mr.
Dixon to get discounted. Mr. Dixon applied to the
prisoner, who said he could get it cashed after having
seen a copy of it, and obtained the original upon the un-
demanding that he would produce the amount or the bill
itself within a certain time. The prisoner laughed at
the repeated demands made by Mr. Dixon, who, of
course, informed the acceptor of the difficulties in which
he was placed. Mr. Lewis, apprehensive that a danger-
ous use might be made of the instrument, gave the pri-
soner into custody. The prisoner voluntarily entered
into his recognizances to appear next day, to answer the
accusation, Alderman Gibbs advising him, at the same
time, to settle the business by delivering up the bill to
the person from he had received it, there not being the
shadow of excuse for its detention.
On the following day Sydserff appeared before the
Alderman, accompanied by Mr. Woolfe, of the offices of
Mr. Flower, to make his defence.
Mr. Lewis having represented the particulars,
Alderman GIBBS asked whether the prisoner had re-
ceived instructions in writing to get the bill discounted?
Mr. Lewis replied in the negative, but a receipt, signed
by the prisoner, for the bill was produced; and it was
argued that the receipt was quite argument enough of
the obligation of the prisoner to return it.
Alderman GIBBS said that on no point could a felony
be proved against the prisoner ; but if the acceptor had
taken care to deliver written instructions with the bill
when he gave it to be discounted, it would be in the
power of the magistrate to commit the party detain;:ng it
for misdemeanour.
Mr. Woolfe said that his client had beer apprehended
as a common thief in the street and was very iguomi
niousl% treated.
Alderman GIBBS—Why does he not give the man his
bill ? Mr. Woolfe—My client does not know Mr. Lewis,
the acceptor, at all. The only person who had any deal
ing with him is Mr. Dixon, and how would ho be justi-
fied in handing over the bill to a stranger ? It is most
monstrous that a person should be seize d upon in the
street as a robber by a man whom he never saw before,
and in a case in which there is not the slightest testi-
mony that an offence has been committed.
Alderman Glens asked whether Mr. Dixon, who had
handed the bill to the prisoner to get it discounted, was
present, and was informed that he was not in the jus-
tice- room.
Alderman GIBBS read the section of the Act which
directs that written instructions are necessary in cases
where persons are employed to get bills discounted, and
said he regretted that he could render no assistance to
the prosecutor, who must bring an action as the only
means of procuring restitution. He again advised the
prisoner to restore the bill to the owner
The prisoner was then, very much to his satisfaction,
discharged, but made no promise.
On Monday last, however, Mr. Dixon, who had been
accidentally absent on Saturday, and who considered
that he was called upon to make every effort in his
power to get back the bill, caused Sydserff to be appre-
hended in the county of Middlesex, on the supposition
that the magistrates at Wosship-street Police Court
would find out some Act of Parliament better adapted to
his taste. He was, however, mistaken. The Worship-
street magistrates sent the prisoner back to the Man-
sion-house, where Mr. Dixon, in: tend of Mr. Lewis, ap-
peared as prosecutor.
Alderman GIBBS again heard the evidence, which
presented no new feature, and again recommended that
the bill should be given up to the owner.
Mr. Woolfe, for the prisoner, said that his client had
committed no offence, and called upon the Alderman to
discharge him.
Alderman GIBBS (to the prosecutor)—You have no
remedy except by action. The omission of the written
instructions to the person intrusted with the bill has
put you out of Court. I discharge the prisoner for
want of evidence.
The prisoner was then, evidently to the regret of the
respectable persons present, discharged.
TRAVELLING THROUGH THE CITY.—The Lord Mayor
has for a considerable length of time dedicated the in-
terval between nine and twelve o'clock on every Satur-
day to the hearing of cases of complaint against omni-
bus drivers and conductors, and his Lordship's activity
in causing the removal of obstructions has obtained for
him the warm thanks of the inhabitants of the leading
streets in his extensive district. His Lordship some-
times hears from fifty to seventy complaints on the ap
pointed day.
The plan adopted by his Lordship has been exceed-
ingly efficacious. Instead of fining the violators of the
law the largest amount of penalty, he inflicts no higher
fine than 10s., with the alternative of 14 days' imprison-
ment for each offence. That sentence subjects a delin •
quent to very low diet, so that if he refuse to pay in
pocket, he must pay dearly in person, and he cannot
upon leaving prison boast of a triumph over the Beak.
The offender, on the contrary, upon whom a large
penalty is inflicted, with the alternative of a longer period
of confinement, is not subjected to the pinching diet which
is measured out to the former, so that he willingly ac-
cepts the imprisonment, at the end of which he resumes
his occupation, after having escaped the pecuniary inflic-
tion, and been supported at the expense of the City. In
most of the former instances the masters pay the ten
shillings for the misbehaviour of the servants, and com-
pel them to pay back the amount by instalments, so
that the efficacy of the law is by such experiments most
completely tested.

BOW-STREET.
Mrs. Blewitt, the widow of Blewitt, the unfortunate victim
of the youth Graham's carelessness, appeared to-day to make
an application to Mr. Henry, with respect to the money sub-
scribed for the benefit of her child, which, it will be remem-
bered, she endeavoured to obtain some part of a few days
atter the conclusion of the case at this Court. She stated
that Mr. Le Raux, a Catholic priest, and a person of consi-
derable influence and authority at the Catholic school in
Clarendon-square, Somers-town, had undertaken to get the
cbild into that establishment, on payment of certain fees of
trifling amount. She was, therefore, anxious to have the
money, or some part of it, given up to Mr. Le Raux. She
herself intended, as soon as she could get the child provided
for, to go to service. If she failed, however, in getting her '
child into this school she would be obliged to have recourse
to parochial assistance. _

- .
Mr. HENRY was perfectly willing to give up any part of
the money, if he was convinced that it would be for the
benefit of the child alone. He feared, however, that the ap-
plicant only wanted to get possession of the money herself.
However, if Mr. Le Raux would call at the office and satisfy
him that the money would be applied to the uses of the child
alone, he would be willing to give it up; or if the applicant
should determine upon applying to the parish, he might
perhaps give it up to the parochial authorities fur the purpose
of placing the child at their school.

Mrs. Brewitt preferred having the child at the Catholic school
where she " would know tlee child would be taught as she
should wish," and it was therefore settled that Mr. Le Raux

should be requested to appear here on Saturday. _ [Mr. Le Raul is the superior of this school; he is cele •
brated in the neighbourhood for his benevolence and un-
ostentatious charity, and is universally esteemed and re-
spected by the inhabitants, more especially of the poorer
classes, of the vicinity.]

LAMBETH.
Ann Lynch, who had been remanded on Saturday last,
on a charge of having savagely assaulted a female,
named Mary Ann Perkins, of Marlborough-house,
Peckham, in the month of February last, was placed at
the bar before Mr. Elliott for further examination.
Mr. Cochrane, the chairman, and Mr. Jones, the
secretary, of the " Poor Man's Guardian Society," were
present, with Mr. Humphreys, the solitor, to prosecute ;
and Mr. Games was in attendance to watch the
proceedings on behalf of Mr. Richards, the proprietor
of Marlborough-house, where the assault had been
committed.

Mr. Humphreys, who attended on, behalf of the