The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-29 00:00:00

MARYLEBONE.

Mr. William Coxhead, master of the National School,
Hampstead, was charged with baying punished in an
excessive degree a little boy, named John Proctor.
Some gentlemen connected with the school were in
attendance during the proceedings.
_ The complainant, who was accompanied by his father
and mother, deposed that on Friday last, in consequence
of his laughing at another boy, he was ordered by Kelly,
a teacher in the first class, to go into the middle of the
school. He did so ; when defendant first beat him with
the cane, and then flogged him with the birch. He also
struck him with his fist and knocked him down, and he
was for some time senseless.

George Simmons (another boy) was called, and he
spoke as to the calling and flogging.
Edward Clements (also a pupil at the school)said that
defendant knocked Proctor down with his fist, and he
fell against a cupboard. Witness added, " Master gave
him the birch as well, ar.d cut a piece of flesh out of his
leg. I did not like to see a boy so ill-used, and a part of
the time I looked another way."
Mrs. Proctor stated that when her child came home
from school his stockings were saturated with blood,
which had run down into his shoes ; she took him to a
surgeon, who said that his head was much injured, and
it would probably be some time before he got well.
The father said that on going to defendant to remon-
strate with him, be (the latter) told him, that if he had
any complaint to make, he had better to do so to the
committee.

Defendant, in answer to the charge, denied having
struck the boy with his fist ; he desired him to hold up
his'hand to receive a stripe from the cane, which was
the common mode of punishment for refractory pupils,
but he refused to do so, and on being laid hold of, he in
a struggle fell down; ho then kicked at him (defendant),
and struck him several times. He certainly did " birch"
,him for.his misconduct, as a lesson to him and the other
boys, but be did not consider that he had used any undue
severity. He called two boys in support of the state
ment which he had made, and they alleged that the use
of the birch was very seldom resorted to.
The MAGISTRATE remarked that, as the evidence was
of a very conflicting nature, he should not decide the
matter himself, and ordered tho defendant to enter into
his own recognisance to appear at the sessions to answer
any indictment.

SOUTHWARK.
Mr. ()Ugh of the firm of 01ley and Bridges, coal mer-
chants, of Shad Thames, was summoned at the instance
of Mr. Daniel Benvitt, for sending out a quantity of
coals without a ticket, whereby he had incurred a heavy
penalty under the Ist and 2d Vic., cap. 5.
It appeared that Mr. Benvitt bad ordered three
chaldrons of coals at the defendant's wharf, and on their
delivery at his house the carman had no ticket signifying
the quantity and quality of the article. As it was an
omission on the part of the firm, which was likely to be
detrimental to the purchaser, the complainant therefore,
on public grounds, adopted the proceedings.
The defendant said no fraud was intended ; that the
complainant was present at the wharf and saw the coals
weighed and placed in the sacks, and on that account it
was not deemed necessary to send tickets with them.
Mr. &CHER said the worth of the Act were as distinct
as possible, setting forth that the seller was to produce
a ticket to the purchaser on delivery of the coals at his
premises; and the 3d section of the Act referred to ad-
mitted of no qualification, therefore it made no difference
in the offence, as to whether the purchaser was present
at the wharf and saw the coals weighed, or net. It was
the duty of the defendant to have sent the tickets with
.the coals ; and he (the magistrate), although not be-
lieving in this instance there was any intention of fraud,
still thought that it was a wise provision in the
in order to guard the public against losses on an article
of such consumption ; for in the transit from the wharf
to the place of delivery, how easy would it be for the
carman to dispose of some of the coals elsewhere, which
would be avoided by the production of the ticket agree-
ably to the words of the Act. Takirg all the circum-
stances, therefore, into consideration, he should, on the
present occasion, mitigate the penalty on the defendant
to 10s., with costs ; but at the same time it ought to
go forth to the trade the necessity of their being parti-
cular in furnishing the purchasers with tickets on delivery
of the coals.

LAMBETH.
William Durant, who has been in custody for the last
week, on the charge of committing a burglary and rob-
bery at Addington-park, near Croydon, Surrey, the
country residence of his Grace the Archbishop of Can-
terbury, was placed before Mr. Elliott, for final ex-
amination.

Mr. Hodgson, the private secretary of the Right Rev.
Prelate and prosecutor, was present, as was also Mr.
Humphreys, kis Grace's house steward.
The evidence extended to a considerable length, but
the brief facts of the case are these :—On the morning
of Monday, the 19th instant, the servants of his Grace,
on coming down stairs at an early hour, found the fas-
tenings of the door opening on to the lawn undone, as if
some person from the inside had let himself out,
and on examining the drawing-room a pair of candle-
sticks and various articles were missing. Informa-
tion of the robbery was forwarded to the police,
but no trace of the thief was discovered uatil the night
of the Tuesday following, when the prisoner, and a
female with whom he had been to a brothel in the vici-
nity of the Waterloo-road, went to the station-house in
Tower-street, when the former charged the latter with
robbing him. The woman denied the charge, and said
that, amongst other things, he had cbargtd her with
stealing seven duplicates, when, on searehing the place,
she found the duplicates under the pillow, and returned
them to him. Mr. Roger requested the prisoner to let
him see the duplicates, which be reluctantly did ; and,
on looking over them, the inspector found that they re-
lated to such property as that stolen from the mansion of
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he in consequence
put some questions to him on the subject. The prisoner,
after a Hole fencing, admitted that be had committed a
robbery at the Archbishop's, and said, "I don't care a
d—n if they transport me." Mr. Roger observed that
the property was small to get transported for, upon
which the prisoner replied that he should have had much
more if the dog had not barked so. It further appeared
that the prisoner had been formerly in the service of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, but had been dismissed for
irregular and improper conduct, so that he was very well
acquainted with the ways of the house in Addington-
park. It was also apparent that the prisoner must have
got into the house during evening or night, before the
doors had been closed, as the door had been opened from
the inside.
The assistants to the pawnbrokers with whom the
prisoner had pledged articles belonging to the Arch-
bishop on the day after the robbery, six domestics be-
longing to Addington-park, a woman at whose house
the prisoner had lodged after the robbery, and where he
left part of the stolen property, Inspector Roger and Ser-
geant Goff were bound over to appear at the next as-
sizes to be holden for the county of Surrey,
to
give evi-
dence against the prisoner, who was fully ommitted for
trial.

Mr. NokToN attended at the Court .to hear the final
examination of William -Wilmott Byron, the advertis-
ing swindler, in order to his being tried at the pre-
sent session at the Central Criminal Court. The prisoner
was committed upon three charges of obtaining money by
false representations; and it was also the intention of the
magistrate to have sent him for trial for one or more
cases of conspiracy with a person named Schoones. On
taking the evidence, however, it was found that both
parties had acted with such tact and adroitness as to ren-
der it &Mt imPlligibig VD tit itillktiziollt tdi CO'