The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-19 00:00:00

had met his own brother just after seeing the alleged
thieves, and spoken to him respecting a sum of money
which he asserted the brother owed him. But the bro-
ther, on being now called for the prosecution, denied the
fact of the meeting, and said that nothing of the kind
had ever occurred.

Verdict—Guilty.
His LORDSHIP addressed to the prisoner some words
of comment on the seriousness of the offence and the
atrocious motive by which he had professed to have been
prompted in this perjury—a crime the nature and ten-
dency of which called on him (Mr. Justice Erle) to make
the punishment such as would be a strong example.
Sentence—To be transported for seven years.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT, Northampton, July 17.
CIVIL SIDE.

(Beforo Mr. Justice PATTESON and a Common Jury.)
EDWARDS AND OTHERS (ASSIGNEES OP PETER MARTIN)

P. JOHN HIGGINS.

This was an action to recover the sum of 4081. on the
ground of the fraudulent preference of the defendant by
the bankrupt.
Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., and Mr. Mellor, were counsel for
the plaintiffs ; Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C., and Mr. Macau-
lay, conducted the defendant's case.
The bankrupt. Martin, had been a corn-dealer, miller,
and baker, in Bridge-street, in this town. Some years
ago ho had borrowed the sum of 200/. of a Mr. Whit.
worth, giving as a security a promissory note, in which
his two brothers-in law, Messrs. John and Thomas Hig-
gins, joined. More recently the amount of the debt
, and a fresh note, in lieu of the
iinncrmreearS,ed
into
which4oC'l also the brothers-in-law joined,
was given for that amount. Mr. Whitworth, to
whom the bankrupt owed 1601., beyond the amount of
the note and interest, became pressing for the pay-
ment of the note and interest, which he insisted upon
having by the 25th of March. The bankrupt promised
that he would see that paid, and in the months of Fe-
bruary and March made extensive purchases of different
species of corn, from Saturday to Saturday, frona nume-
rous farmers, saying in each case that he was short of
money just then, but would pay ou the following Satur-
day, The great bulk of the corn so acquired was imme-
diately sent off to Coventry and converted into money,
in order, beyond doubt, to discharge the claim of Mr.
Whitworth upon the note, and the bankrupt presented to
the present defendant the 4051., with a request that he
would go and take it up. To this the present defendant
replied, " that whatever transactions he had with him he
wished him to have it through Mr. Arrowsmith, his soli-
citor." The money was then accordingly, by the bank-
rupt, given to Mr. Arrowsmith, who therewith took up
the note. The dpped farmers then, to the number of
nearly a dozen,. called upon Martin, whom they found
with his friendb, drinking and smoking their pipes.
Martin invited them all in to have pipes also, and
they went. One of them said to Martin, " Why didn't
you send me back my sacks ?" To which he made
answer, "I'm afraid it's not the sacks you want; I'm
afraid you want the money." The farmer replied, " Yes,
I do ;" and then they were all informed, "It's of no use
to put off the ball ; the trap's down, and I'm done. I've
got nothing." He told them also that he was obliged to
pay the note, as his brothers-in-law were in for that, and
that as soon as he had paid that note it was all up with
him. Martin was then made a bankrupt, surrendered,
and ran off to America or elsewhere.

His LORDSHIP left it to the jury to say whether Mar-
tin paid the money by way of fraudulent preference, or
honestly under the pressure of Whitworth, and to find
their verdict accordingly.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full
amount sought, that is, in effect that it was a fraudulent
preference.
The Counsel for the defendant had leave to move the
Court above to enter a verdict for him on the ground of
his non-liability under these circumstances, he never
having been a creditor or received the money.
July 18.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Lord Chief Justice
DENMAN.)
John Hadley, labourer, aged 26, was indicted for a
rape, in the month of June, 1846, in the parish of East
Haddon, upon Lucy Hasler, a girl of 15, daughter of his
wife by a former marriage.
Mr. Macaulay conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Miller appeared as counsel for the prisoner.
The prosecutrix deposed that she was now nearly 18
years of age. She was delivered of a child about two
months ago. Her father was dead, and about seven
years ago tier mother married John Hadley, the pri-
soner. She lived at home with them. On a day in the
month of June, 1846, the prisoner asked her to go down
to the garden, not saying for what, beyond working on
the ground. He then took hold of her and threw her
down. and committed the offence charged, threatening
to kill her if she did not submit. He said that if she
told any body he would flog her. She called out, but
nobody came ; and she said no more about it. He used
force and violence to her, and hurt her very much. She
went home and left him in the garden. Did not tell her
mother, because she dared not, for fear be would beat
her. The connection had taken place several times
since without resistance on her part, and the child was
his. She had never had connection with any other
man. Had always been in fear he would beat her if
she told.

The question was, whether on the first occasion in the
garden, which was at some little distance from the
house, but adjoined the. public road from Raventhorpe
to East Haddon,. force and ♦iolence, and threats had
been used ? - The prosecutrix now deposed to the em-
ployment of et • three. She had, however, gone a year
ago to visit her grandmother for a week, and made no
cotnplaint to her, or to any one until recently, and ad-
mitted tine consent on all the subsequent occasions.

The prisorTr, when taken before the magi'trates,
stated, " Indeed, I don't know anything about it, no
further than what she said herself. She has said, before
her own mother, that I was not the father of the i."
The second statement of the girl was, however, now
admitted to be true, with the exception of that part of
it relating to the coercion in the first instance.
The prosecution arose after so great a lapse of time
in consequence of the birth of the child, and the clergy.
man's then going to see and question the girl, and being
by her told the whole story as she stated it to-day.
The jury returned a verdict of Acquittal.
The Learned JUDGE then stated that he felt it to be
his duty to ask them whether they were of opinion that
the prisoner, in any the slightest degree, laid his hands
upon or touched the girl against her will, as by threats
or otherwise. If they should be of such opinion, they
would find him guilty of a common assault.
Such verdict was immediately returned, and he was
sentenced to imprisonment for two years.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ABAlus and a full Bench of
•
Magistrates.)
John Jones and John Smith were convicted of picking
pockets at Drury- lane Theatre, on the occasion of her
Majesty's state visit on the 11th inst.
Jones was sentenced to six, and Smith to eight months'
hard labour.

Henry Johnson, aged 30, a discarded coachmar, was
indicted for stealing a shawl, value 101., the property of
Miss Caroline Matilda Sarel.
Edward Pinnock stated that ho was a coachman, and
on the night of the Spitalfields Ball at Drury-lane. he
drove the Rev. H. R. Sarel, of Balcomb, Sussex, Mrs.
Sarel, and their daughters, to the theatre. While wait-
ing to take them up near the theatre at three o'clock in
the morning, the prisoner opened the carriage dour, and
stole the shawl from the seat.

The prisoner's defence was that it was all done out if
a lark, to see if the coachman was " wide awake."
The prisoner was convicted, and sentenced to three
months' hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Mr. Thomas Hawkins, of No. 5, Charlotte-street,
Portland•place, applied to the Lord Mayor upon public
grounds, under the circumstances stated in the following
narrative: —I consider it to be my duty to wait upon
your Lordship, knowing your anxiety for the protection
of the public, to complain of the conduct of the captain
of the Syren steam-boat, which plies between London
and Woolwich. I went on board at Greenwich yester-
day with some others, for the purpose of coming to
town. We were amongst the first who went on board,
and we found that the captain was shipping such multi-
tudes, that if he continued to do so any longer imminent
danger must be incurred. We requested that he would
discontinue the crowding, and he did so, and we pro-
ceeded on the passage. The boat was at this time so
crammed that we were all standing up, and a female
was seized with violent hysterics. When we reached,
another pier, notwithstanding our condition, the cap-
tain took on board more passengers. I again repre
sented the hazard of human life, and I solemnly de-
clared that if the vessel did not immediately go on with-
out increasing its numbers, I should represent the
case to the Lord Mayor. The threat had the desired
effect at that pier, but when we arrived at the Commercial
Dock Pier, at Rotherhithe, the captain, in spite of all I
could say, began to take in more persons. I wanted to
leave the boat, but was thrust back by one of the men,
and I they leaped from the vessel to the pier, followed
by others. The man who had thrust me back then
asked me for my ticket, but I refused to give it up, as I
considered it might be necessary to produce it as evi-
dence. He then said I should not leave the pier with-
out delivering my ticket to him, and ho pushed me and
struck mo ; but, as I could not patiently stand the blow.
I returned him, at any rate, as good as he gave ; but
there were four or five men with him, and I considered
it necessary to send a friend who accompanied me fur a
policeman. The moment the policeman appeared the
man who assaulted me, and acted in other respects so
outrageously, said I might ge, but I was determined not
to let the matter end is that way ; so, after some consi-
deration, I took the number of the police inan, who said
he should produce my assailant when called upon, and I
made up my mind to complain of the whole transaction
to your Lordship.
The LORD MAYOR—You considered the danger great
from the over-crowding before the vessel arrived at the
pier at which you were assaulted ?
Mr. Hawkins—Certainly. My great object in ap-
plying to your Lordship, as I have been advised by my
solicitor, is to prevent the dreadful catastrophe which
those who now daily witness the overcrowding of the
steamers are constantly predicting.
The LORD MAYOR—There is a clear case of assault
against the man who thrust you away when you wanted
to go ashore, and afterwards struck you, and I advise
you to complain of that outrage to the magistrates of
the district in which it occurred. As to that most se-
rious part of your complaint, which refers to the over.
crowding of the vessel, I am afraid that question will
only be settled by the intelligence, ono of these days,
that 400 or 500 of our fellow-creatures have been hur-
ried into eternity.
Mr. Hawkins—l have been given to understand, my
Lord, that the bye-laws passed by the Court of Alder-
men inflicted a penalty for the admission of every indivi-
dual above a certain number for which each vessel is
registered.