The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-16 00:00:00

GUILDHALL.

A waterman, named George Jones, was placed at the
bar before Mr. Alderman Gibbs, on the charge of i .ole•
bing a person who came up from the country to see tleee.
Lord Mayor's show, to the amount of nearly 201.
Alderman Geniis said he should send the prisoner tee.
the Central Criminal Court.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Two well-dressed young men, who gave the names of
John Williams and Francis Boot (one of the names is
fictitious), were brought before Mr. Hardwick charg of
by Margaret Broughton with having stolen her brow..., 'l,
value four guineas, and damaged her clothes very much.
The complainant, who was rather stylishly attiredl,
said, she had been to visit a friend, and was returning'
home through St. Martin's-lane, about two o'clock in the,
meraiug, when the two defendants came up to her, well
one of them insisted on having a kiss. She told them, if,'
they were gentlemen, to behave as such. The de-
fendants, however, laid hold of her and pulled her about,
and before she could free herself from them her " vieitcr
and satin dress were torn. As soon as the defendants
had left her she missed her brooch, which, she said, was
worth 4 guineas. She immediately ran after the defend-
ants and accused them of stealing her property. A po-
lice-constable came up, and she gave both the defendant::
into custody.
Police-sergeant English said, he took the two de•
fendanta into custody on a charge of having assaulted the
complainant and stolen her brooch. The complainant.
was quite sober; the defendants had been drinking.
Witness searched the defendants, but no brooch was
found in their possession. Witness looked about where
the scuffle had taken place, but he could not find any
brooch. The defendants denied the charge, an l witness
was certain from their manner that they had not com-
mitted an offence of that sort. They had, however, evi-
dently been rude to the complainant, whose dress was.
disordered and torn.
Mr. Leadlcy, the chief clerk, put some questions to.
the complainant in reference to her being out in such a.
place at such a time in the morning.
The complainant, who at first represented herself as
a married woman, admitted that she did not live with
her husband, and that she had formerly been " gay."
Mr. HARDWICK thought, as the charge of felony was.
not established, that it would be the best course for the
defendant to retire and make some arrangement with the
complainant for the damage done to her dress.
The defendants preferred to leave the whole affair to.
the decision of the bench.
Mr. Illaunweex then fined them 40s. each for the as-
sault, and 20s. each for the damage.
MARY LEBONE.
Henry Cockburn, son of the late General Cockburn,
was brought before Mr. Broughton in the custody of.
Sergeant Bewley, 20 I), charged under the followings
extraordinary circumstances :
Hannah Partridge, in the service of Mr. William:
Cockburn, No. 8, Brook-street, Hyde-park, deposed that;
on the previous afternoon, during the absence of bete
master, defendant made Isis way into the house, and sport
afterwards she hoard s grent.noise upstairs; she went tee
see what was the matter, and saw the defendant smash-
ing pictures and other articles in the apartment with fa
poker which he had in his hand. The floor was come
pletely strewn with the fragments of frames, chimney
ornaments, crockery, &c., and he remarked that he was
able to pay for what he had broken. Witness ran down
to call upon some. inen, but they refused to interferes,
alleging that it was nothing but a " family affair." Du-
fendant, who had shortly before this treated the men
with some gin, then called witness up, and told her te)
see what he had done, at the same time saying that he
had had his revenge ; he also gave witness a blow,
after which he went away.• • -
Harriet Spence, sister of the last witness, and who lives
in the same honer', said she saw the property which had
been destroyed, and heard defendant exclaim that he
would " kilt the b--- w-- with whom his brothev•
was living whenever he might chance to meet her.''
Witness did not see the assault committed upon Hanite h
Partridge. Witness added, that she heard erdendient
say that he should have been married last week to a
lady with 1,0001., if he had not been prevented by the
lady under his brother's protection.
Mr. W. Cockburn, a clerk in the Ordnance-office, said
that on his arrival at home, at a quarter to six, he found
the pictures, &c., in the state previously described. The
damage was not at all
.short of 2001. ; his mother, to
whom the property was left, intrusted it to his care.
Defendant—Your worship, the things were as much
mine as my brother's ; and, because I could not get any
of them, I broke what I considered to be my share.
Mr. W. Cockburn, in answer to the magistrate, said,
that the paintings and drawings, which were principally
landscapes, were by his father, and that defendant was
jealous and envious of witness having them under his
care. In letters which the defendant had written a week
or two ago he held out a threat to him (witness), as
also with regard to the young woman who was living
with him.
Mr. BROUGHTON—Do you go in fear of personal
violence? Witness—l do.
By defendant—l know a lady named Field, and having
been introduced to her by you I received her as a friend.
You showed me a letter setting forth that my young
woman had been too intimate with some officers at Maid-
stone, but the letter was got up on purpose to annoy me.
I believe she did receive 10s. from a Lieutenant Gray.
Elizabeth Masters, a pretty looking young woman,
about twenty years of age, said that she had lived with
Mr. William Cockburn more than twelve months. She
admitted that three weeks ago she went from Gravesend
to Maidstone with two officers, and that she went to the
Mitre Tavern in their company; one of the officers par-
took too freely of wine in the course of the afternoon,
and left her, and the other was kind enough, at a late
hour, to pay for her conveyance back to Mrs. Field's.
She certainly acted very imprudently, but asserted in the
most emphatic manner that nothing of au improper nature
took place.
Defendant—Was it not through you that the marriage
brtween me and Mrs. Field was prevented? Witness--
Certainly not.
Bewley, 20 D, and Bushell, 9 D, gave evidence to the
effect that, after witnessing the demolition which had
occurred at Mr, W. Cockburn's apartments, they fol-
lowed the defendant to his home in Queen-street, where
he barricaded the door, and threatened to " shoot them
like b— rats if they dared to enter;" he also declared
that he would shoot his brother and the woman who was
with him. It was further shown that the defendant was
ultimately taken into custody at eleven o'clock the next
morning (yesterday) upon a warrant granted against
him for tho assault upon the witness Hannah Partridge.
The defendant complained of neglect being shown
towards him by his family; and, not being in any em-
ployment at present, he had a right to look to them for
the means of support.
Some other particulars were gone into, and
Mr. 13notrauTore, atter expressing himself in terms of
severe reprehension as to the unjustifiable nature of the
conduct pursued by the defendant, ordered him to find
good bail for his keeping the peace towards his brother
and Elizabeth Masters for six months, himself in 601.,
and two sureties in 401. each, with 24 hours' notice.

CLERKEIVWELL.
A poor young woman, with an infant at her breast,
attended at this court to solicit the advice and assistance
of Mr. Tyrvvhitt under the following circumstances:—
* The applicant gave her name Button, and said her
parents, who wore respectable, were dead, and she was
left friendle,s arid destitute. She had been sedoecil, and
the result was the birth of the infant which she held in
her arms, in Shoreditch workhouse, about six weeks ago.
On Monday last the overseer of that parish gave her an
order of a friendly nature upon hor parish, Clerkenwell,
in o
that
atrde worr
kt
hh a o
ut
se. she moing hht be e
r arrival admitted with
there
she her child
presented
intothe
order to a person named Bennett, who acts in the capa-
city of c!erk to the board, when that functionary look
the order from her, and ordered her to go back to Shore-
ditch, that she might be passed in the usual way. Ho
detained the order, and she proceeded back to Shore-
ditch, where the parties then refused to receive her,
and told her to go back to Clerkenwell, where
they were bound to receive her, as they had kept
the order, and that was her legal settlement. She
accordingly returned to Clerkenwell, where they then
refused to receive or relieve her without an order. She
told the gatekeeper that she had given the order to Ben-
nett, and she was ordered to be off and go back to
Shoreditch, and thus she was bandied about from one
parish to another, and she was walking about all night
with her child in a starving condition, not having a
farthing in her possession, and no place to go to for
shelter, and hunger and exhaustion urged her to make
this complaint to the magistrate and seek his advice and
assistance.

The unfortunate creature fainted away through weak-
fleas, and the officers supported her into the air, where
restoratives were used until she recovered.
Mr. TYRWHITT thought it most extraordinary con-
duct on the part of Bennett, and directed Mr. Nesbitt, the
usher of the court, to afford the complainant immediate
nourishment and necessary assistance, and afterwards to
take her to Clerkenwell workhouse, which he did.
He subsequently reported to Mr. Tyrwhitt that he
took them to the workhouse, where he saw Bennett, who
treated the matter with poniposity; and it was with the
greatest difficulty, and not until a threat was held out
that ho would be reported if he refused to receive the
woman, that he consented to take her and her children
into the workhouse.

EDINBURGH CHARTIST TRIALS.
VERDICT OF THE JURY.
On Tuesday the case of Grant, Ranken, and Hamilton
was resumed, and witnesses were examined on the part
of the prisoners. Mr. Moncrieff addressed the jury in
a speech of nearly two hours and a half in defence of
Ranken, and was immediately followed by Mr. Logan on
behalf of Grant and Hamilton. The Lord Justice Clerk
having summed up, the jury retired at 20 minutes past
nine o'clock to consider their verdict, and returned into
court in about three-quarters of an hour.
The Foreman intimated the verdict as follows•
" The jury unanimously find the charge of conspiracy
against the three panels as libelled not proven.
"The jury unanimously find John Grant not guilty of
sedition as libelled.
"The jury further unanimously find Robert Hamilton
guilty of using language calculated to excite popular dis-
affection and resistance to lawful authority.
"And by a majority of one find Henry Ranken guilty
of using similar language."
The LORD JITSTCE CLERK said—Be good enough to
observe, in regard to that part of the verdict that con-
tains the speciality, and which finds Hamilton and
Ranken guilty of language calculated to excite popular
disaffection and resistance to lawful authority, that this
is the description of sedition libelled. To make your
verdict correct you should determine whether they are
guilty or not guilty of sedition to any extent that you
please. You may, for example, say they are guilty
of sedition in so far as that they used language calcu-
lated to excite popular disaffection and resistance to
lawful authority.
The Foreman of the Jury—That is quite our meaning,
my Lord.