The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-17 00:00:00

would belong to an enactment of a more comprehensive
kind; and will, therefore, not be hurried through the
House with any indecent precipitation. But if it appear
to be the object of those who arrogate to themselves
the title of Irish patriots to impede the progress of pub-
lic business and thwart the operations of national com-
merce, then the sympathies of England will be against,
and not with, the opponents of a rigorous policy ; and
men who would otherwise have looked with a lenient eye
on the errors or omissions of Liberal politicians, will
begin to ask one another what is the value of that pa-
triotism which in England is so active in obstructing
legislation, but in Ireland was so cold and sluggish in
rebuking MURDER?

LAW INTELLIGENCE,
ROLL'S COURT, April 16.
IN RE SMITH.
Mr. KINDERSLEY presented a petition on the part of
Mr. Smith, praying for the payment of certain sums of
money in Court to the credit of this cause.
This case, which occupied the remainder of the day,
has been before the Court at least a hundred times, and
had reference to the taxation of a bill of costs. The
facts of the case have already appeared at such consider-
able length in The Sun as to render unnecessary any
detail of its peculiar features.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April 16.
THE QUEEN V. PELHAM.

The defendant in this case, Mrs. Harriet Eleanor Pel-
ham, was convicted some time back, before Mr. Justice
Williams, upon the second and third counts of an indict-
ment, which charged her with cruel and wilful neglect,
and close confinement of her illegitimate son, Brent
Spencer. The case again part-heard yesterday must
still be fresh in the recollection of the public from the
disgusting and filthy state in which the young man was
found, and from its many other strange and peculiar
features. The prosecution, it will be recollected,
was instituted by the parish officers of Chelsea,
who discovered that the defendant had her
son confined in her own house in the manner
laid in the indictment and obtained a magistrate's
warrant at Queen-square Police-court to make search
into the matter. The officers of police thus autlezirised
entered the defendant's house, where they found defen-
dant and another son of hers, who were indignant at
the officers entering the house, and questioned their au-
thority. On entering the room where Brent Spencer
was confined, they (the officers) were disgusted with
the state in which they found the young man, repre-
sented by his mother and brother to be a lunatic. He
was stretched upon a litter of the most filthy descrip-
tion. He sat up and stared wildly at them when they
entered, his whole appearance indicating that of a ne-
glected idiot. His mouth and chin were thickly covered
with beard. The bed covering was thick with vermin,
and the mattress on which he lay, when taken up by the
officers, fell to pieces, being thoroughly rotten from soil,
&c. The room in which this scene of misery was exhi-
bited, and which was most offensive in smell, was almost
dark, the window, which was secured on the outside
with iron bars, being so thickly covered with dirt, as to
;really exclude the light. The floor of the room was
also covered with a caked layer of dirt, defying the
officers to tell what it (the floor) was composed of. In
this melancholy state the young man had been confined
for a space of ten years. There was a night-chair in
the room, but it did not appear that he at all made use
of it. The officers removed him to the workhouse, where
the necessary care was taken of him.
The testimony of the medical officer of the work.
house was somewhat in farour of the defendant, the
young man, Brent Spencer, appearing to him to be in
good health and plump in flesh ; and it further appeared
that he did not, after the first night, use the night chair
placed in the ward for his accommodation. In the ward,
however, he was occasionally heard to exclaim, as he
stroked his beard, " What a shame that a young man,
such as I am, should be kept in confinement as I have
been." He was understood to be the illegitimate son of
the late General Spencer, and to be indirectly connected
with a noble family.
Since the conviction of defendant, Mr. Edwin James
(with whom was Mr. Phinn), obtained a rule nisi, for
arrest of judgment, and for a new trial. In support of
the application for arresting judgment, it was contended
that the second count of the indictment was bad, be-
cause it did not allege in terms any duty which obliged
the defendant to take care of her grown up illegitimate
son after he had reached the age of 21 years; nor any
facts from which the law would infer the existence of
any such duty; and the third count was bad, because,
though it alleged the duty, it did not allege any special
injury as the result of the neglect of that duty. There
was also no proof that there had been an imprisonment
of Brent Spencer by any restraint cruelly and unneces-
sarily exercised by the defendant.
Mr. WATSON, Q.C., yesterday showed cause against
the rule, and in support of his arguments cited a num-
ber of authorities. In the course of the Learned Gentle-
man's arguments, it appeared that the defendant received
491 per quarter, payable through Coutts's Bank, for the
care and maintenance of the lunatic—a noble family di-
recting the payment. The Learned Gentleman urged
that if, during the imprisonment, the lunatic (who was
not capable of taking care of himself), had lost his life
by the exercise of neglect of the duties which the law
imposed, such as not feeding him, or other indirect in-
jury, the case would be one of manslaughter against the
defendant, who had undertaken the proper care of him.
He considered the decision of the jury good ; and,
therefore, hoped the verdict would not be disturbed.

Mr. PuniN was yesterday part heard in support of
the rale for arrest of judgment, and for a new trial, and
this morning resumed and concluded his arguments.
Ho was followed by Mr. James ; after which their
Lordships looked into the indictment, and conferred
together for some time.
The CHIEF JUSTICE then said it was better to take
time to consider the matter.

Their Lordships' decision was consequently deferred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
A young man nan named Samuel Lea was charged
wirh having embezzled various sums of money, the pro-
perty of Messrs. Morley and Co., lace manufacturers,.of
Manchester, and of Friday-street, Cheapside.
Mr. Humphreys attended for the prosecution, Mr.
Wolfe for the prisoner.
William Perry, a person in the employment of Messrs.
Smith and Watkins, stated that on the 11th of June,
he paid to the prisoner a cheque for 45/ 9s. for goods
furnished to the firm by Messrs. Morley on the day be-
fore, as appeared from the invoice annexed to the
cheque.
Mr. J. R. Smith, one of the firm of Smith and Wat-
kins, stated that on the 11th of June he paid to the pri-
soner a cheque for 321. 133., in payment of goods re
ferred to in the invoice produced. On the 24th of June
the firm recived goods by a porter from Messrs. Morley
and Co., and an invoice for 16/. 7s. was brought with
the goods, from receiving which witness gave to the
porter a note containing a cheque for that amount. The
three cheques produced for 451. 95., 321. 135., and for
GI. 7s. had been duly returned to the firm as paid.
Joseph Stammers. a porter occasionally employed by
Messrs. Morley and Co., was the bearer of the goods to
the amount of 161. 7s. referred to in the evidence of the
last witness, and delivered the note containing the
cheque for that sum to the prisoner.
Mr. Edwin Newby, Goldsmith-street, warehouseman,
stated that on the 14th of August, 1844, he purchased
goods of Messrs. Morley and Co. to the amount of
211. 125., and he paid to the prisoner on the same day
the cheque produced for that sum. That cheque had
been duly returned to him by his banker as paid, and
the prisoner wrote the receipt at the foot of the invoice.
Mr. Samuel Morley, a partner in the house at Man-
chester a-id in Friday-street, stated that the prisoner
conducted the business in Friday-street as sale.man to
the firm, and it was his duty to receive moneys on ac-
count of the firm, to furnish a weekly account on paper
of the sales, and to enter in the book at Friday-street
all sums of money received by him. Witness produced
the prisoner's account of • the week's sales, comprehend-
ing the 14th of August, 1844, and he stated that he had
searched the books, but found no entry of the sale of the
goods, or the receipt of 21/ 12s. from Mr. Newby. He
also produced the weekly accounts, comprehending the
dates mentioned on the other cheques. The receipts
produced at the foot of the invoices were written by the
prisoner.
On his cross-examination the witness said there was
no entry of a payment of 121 12s. from Mr. Newby that
he could find, but there was an entry of some of the
same sort of goods to another person, on another date.
Alderman CHALLIS refused the application to accept
bail for the prisoner's appearance to take his trial at the
Central Criminal Court, and committed him to Newgate.
The prisoner, it was stated, had maintained an excel-
lent character for many years.
Florence Collins and Albert Collins, his son, was
charged with having committed violent assaults upon
William Leedham, City-policeman, No. 586.
In this case the tables were turned upon the police-
man. The following is an outline of the matter, which
was detailed at considerable length :—The complainant,
at half-past ten o'clock in the morning of Wednesday,
was what is called "larking" with another policeman,
who resided next door, and one of them threw a slipper
at the other. The slipper, it was supposed, struck a
child, who was playing in the court, and the mother of
the child, who seemed to have sustained some injury,
bitterly complained of the conduct of persons from
whom protection against offences ought to be expected.
The indignation of the complainant was strongly roused
a
is
ads
en ieegorgsnae
tasideae, nsdbu
thesohotwfeo t. him,tpu ih ee
abspartypye odmost
eth
dwo
foullyidht ahe r e
wf de
vhr
ittitochu
hwpq
eiuhtrehai question i
hdno
egrnge.
sahs
ni
tianooudnt
nsh
sheo
trera iwf
fct y
oihnt:
ns not relishing the language used towards the woman,
who happened to be his wife, expostulated with the com
plainant, but received the compliment of a violent knock-
Id haveand if h
hise
eson,
completely Albert Collins,
overpowered.
complainant received in theconflict what he very well
deserved—_a black eye ; and he was aided in his offen-
sive conduct by policeman, No. 552.
_ J. Green, ward-beadle of Queenhithe, stated that
he was present during the whole of the affair, and he
bore testimony to the highly reprehensible conduct of
the.two policemen. The complainant was evidently in-
hwehs Inspectora investigatedt hesitate o s aWy °°
thatdtrh°
down stairs and entered the apartment of the defendants,
and he came
pulled out Florence Collinschallenged him to fight,
and punched him most violently.
he added, had determined
of Police, before whom an
decidedly in error in the transaction. The defendant,
case
shrewdtaotconsidered
complainte a nthd station-house,eint intelligent l
complainanti
theg e n
Commis-
sioner t
did officer,weaest
take place.
The Alderman
Alderman CHALLIS said he was happy to find that the
case was to be brought before the Commissioner, who,
investigation was to
he had no doubt, would do justice upon the occasigii,
then discharged the defendants.