The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-01 00:00:00

moving some furniture from one of the railways,
but in reality to go round with them to the various re-
ceiving-houses in London, and ask if there were any
goods for the Brighton luggage train, and in a number
of instances they succeeded in obtaining a large quantity
of property. On the day in question they obtained
from the Golden-cross, Charing-cross, some packages of
China, glass, &c., to the amount of 151., and at the
White Horse, Fetter-lane, a paper parcel containing
crimson moreen and printed furniture of the value of 9/.
The evidence then went to show that the three first pri-
soners were the parties who had called for these parcels,
and that they were conveyed to the prisonerElsworthy's
house, and there, opened, after which it was shown that
a portion of one package, containing plate-glass, was' dis-
posed of in Holborn, by the prisoners Salmon and Harris.
It was also proved that the carts of Elsworthy were used
for the above purposes. The principal testimony against
the three last prisoners was that of Smith, who made a
confession as to the above circumstances, and whose
statement was to a great extent corroborated by the va
rious witnesses from all the different offices where they
had called, and also by the purchasers of a portion of the
property.
Mr. Humphreys said that it would hardly be believed
to what extent this system had been carried. _

Mr. Ogle contended that the evidence against bis client
was so slight that he hoped Mr. Alderman Johnson
would accept bail for him.
Mr. Humphreys reviewed the whole of the evidence
as against Etsworthy, and objected to his being admitted
to bail.

Alderman JOHNSON committed them all for trial, and
refused bail.

MARYLEBONE.

Mr. Thomas Havard, a chemist and druggist, High•
street, St. John's-wood, was brought before Mr. Brough-
ton, charged with having committed a cowardly assault
upon his wife, Rebecca Havard.
The complainant, whose head and face were covered
with wounds, stated that on Sunday herself and the
prisoner, accompanied by their five children, went
to dine with the prisoner's mother at Wool-
wich. In consequence of being somewhat late
when they arrived at the latter place, the
mother-in-law spoke in an angry tone to the prisoner.
The latter took offence at this and left the house, and
proceeded home, leaving herself and family behind. On
her return home at half-past ten o'clock the same night,
she was told by a neighbour that the prisoner had gone
to bed. Complainant then knocked at the door, and tried
to make him hear. Not succeeding, she went to a person
residing close by, and procured a ladder, by means of
which a man got into the house by the window, and
found the prisoner lying in bed. The noise of the chil-
dren who were with her awoke the prisoner, who came
down stairs in a great passion, and abused her by ad-
dressing her in language of the filthiest nature. He then
tore her bonnet and clothes, and having thrown her
down on a chair, put ono hand round her neck, while
with the other he beat her severely about the head and
face. He then attempted to strangle her. She called
out for help, end after a sharp struggle she managed to
get away, and ran to the house of a neighbour, who sent
for a surgeon to dress her wounds. Complainant added,
that her clothes were completely saturated with blood,
which flowed in torrents from the wounds inflicted by
the prisoner.
Further evidence having been received, he admitted
the assault, and was very sorry for his conduct towards
his wife. He hardly knew what he was doing.
Mr. BROUGHTON said, in all his experience he never
heard or saw a more disgraceful and cowardly assault.
It did not appear that any provocation at all had been
offered on the part of the prosecutrix, whom, instead of
protecting, as he had sworn at :the altar to do, he bad
treated worse than a savage treated his victim. It was
his (Mr. Broughton's) business now to send him for trial,
but as that would be inflicting an additional injury on
the prosecutrix; he would take upon himself to dispose of
the case. He, therefore, fined him 51. for the brutal
assault on his (prisoner's) wife, and in default would
commit him for two months to the House of Correction.
In addition to that, he should require him to enter into
his own recognizances in 50/., and to find two sureties
in 401. each, with 24 hours' notice of bail.

The prisoner was,thenconveyed to prison in the van

SOUTH MARK.

F. J. Moss, an attorney, was charged before Mr.
Combo with obtaining 11. 145., costs in a cause decided
in the Southwark County Court, under false pretences.
Mr. Roberts, a solicitor in the above court, said that
some time since a cause, Hill against Robinson, was tried
and determined at the Southwark County Court, and
that the prisoner was subpoenaed on the part of the plain-
tiff to give evidence. But subsequently to the issue of
the case, the prisoner called at the court and represented
himself to have been the attorney engaged in the busi-
ness, and that upon this false representation the costs,
amounting to IL 145., were paid over to him. Mr.
Roberts added, that he was prepared to prove that the
prisoner was not engaged in the way he described, and
that if he did so to the magistrate's satisfaction, be
trusted that he would treat the charge as that of obtain-
ing money under false pretences, and send it before a
jury. He then:called
Mr. Farmer, a clerk in the Southwark County Court,
who produced a book containing the entry of the case
Hill against Robinson, and stated that the prisoner
called at the court subsequently to the decision of the
case, and represented, in answer to the questions put to
him, that he was the attorney engaged in the matter.
That upon this representation he (witness) paid him over
the costs, amounting to 11. 14s.
The prisoner contended that he was engaged as soli-
citor in the case referred to, and that he was only
anxious to court inquiry, and would be enabled to prove
satisfactorily that he had not acted in the business con-
trary to the Act regulating County Courts.
Mr. CONDE said, that in his opinion, if a fraud had
been committed, it was against the County Court; that
as the matter at present stood he would give the com-
plaining party an opportunity of indicting the prisoner,
and for that purpose he should adjudge him to enter
into his own recognisances to appear at that Court op
Wednesday; and in the mean time proceedings might be
adopted against him at the sessions, which were then
holding for the county of Surrey.
The accused having entered lato his recognisances,
was liberated, and Mr. Roberts proceeded to the Ses-
sions-home to commence proceedings against him.

SALMON FISHING IN SUTHERLA NDSHIRB.—We
understand his Grace the Duke of Sutherland has given
a jubilee this year to all his rivers in Sutherlandshire;
and as this applies to net as well as rod fishing, the
rivers are absolutely teeming with salmon, grilse, and
trout. A friend from the banks of the Shin writes that
that river presents the appearance of a boiling pot of
water, from the constant leaping of the fish; and, as
the watching is strictly preserved, he anticipates the
same increased produce next year from the rivers, which
a year's rest secures from the land. It is only, however,
a few counties, like Sutherlandsbire, where the fishings
are in the hands of one or two proprietors, that such an
experiment can be effectually tried; as in the case of the
Tay, where the upper and lower portions of the river
belong to different proprietors, the interests of the
parties are too conflicting to admit of a common mea-
sure of the above nature. We may mention that the
gentleman above referred to is yearly receiving addi-
tional confirmation of his theory, that the par is the
young of the salmon at a particular stage. A great
variety of that genus were taken from the Shin in
December last, and transferred to ponds formed at the
sides of the river, some of which showed the silvery
scale of the smolt in May, and others subsequently, ac-
cording to their age. There seems now, indeed, no
ground upon which this fact can reasonably be disputed,
Glasgow Courier.
IMP

ER.I.AL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 31.
IRELAND.

Lord BROUGHANT;tidthatl;efore the prorogation,
he was desirous of calling the attention of the House to
the state of Ireland, and for that purpose he would, on
Thursday next, move that there be laid on the table the
proclamation of the Lord:.Lieutenant for the apprehen-
sion of political offenders, when he would take the op-
portunity of stating his -views with regard to Ireland ge-
nerally. He expressed the hope, however, that Govern-
ment would consider whether, in the present state of the
country, it was expedient to have any prorogation at all.
He might add, that in the course of a few days—perhaps
before Thursday evening—they might see the civil war
which was now threatened, completely checked, and in
that case his motion would be unnecessary, and in that
case he should not bring it on.
The Earl of GLENGALL wished to ask a question
of her Majesty's Government, relative to a subject of
much importance. On the lath instant a meeting of
delegates was held in Dublin, when a resolution was
carried that an attempt should be made to subvert Bri-
tish dominion in Ireland. At that meeting three or
four magistrates of the borough of Kilkenny attended
as a deputation from the town of Kilkenny. He begged
lea►e to ask whether those persons were still in the
commission of the peace? The words of the resolution
were similar to a declaration of war, and were of a highly
treasonable nature. The magistrates, in many parts of
Ireland, were swearing in special constables, and if those
magistrates, to whom he alluded, should be equally active,
there was great danger of clubbists being sworn in as
special constables.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he was unable
to state whether those gentlemen had been removed from
the commission of the peace, but lie gave the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government in Ireland, and the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, credit for being alive to the
proceedings of persons entrusted with such au important
trust.

EVICTED DESTITUTE. POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
Thu Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved that their
Lordships should not adhere to the amendments they
had made in this Bill. He did not expact there would be
any opposition to the motion, as the other House of Par-
liament had unanimously adopted the original provisions
of the Bill.

Lord MONTEAGLE objected that such important
matters should be disposed of without discussion. The
question at issue was whether the guardians should have
notice forty-eight hours before the eviction took place,
or twelve hours after, and whether the names of the jus-
tices should he specified, or merely the lands. Ho
thought the specification of the lands only would not be
the best course in order to discover who the parties were
to be relieved. Their Lordships' amendments required
that the names of the parties should be given, and be
thought they should adhere to that. He should say non-
content.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that they
were obliged to give notice that the writ was to be
executed, and that would display the names of the
parties as well as the lands. It would be useless to
give notice twelve hours after the eviction, at a place
twenty miles distant, as would be frequently the case
after these persons were destitute and house-
less. It was the habit in Ireland to collect rents under
the threats of notices to quit, which ,vas a state of rural
economy which should be put a stop to. It would be
more becoming their dignity to agree to the amend-
mote) unanimously agreed to by the House of Commons.