The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-12 00:00:00

MARYLEBONE.

John Sutherlanci,apWvateofthe2,l battalion of the
Grenadier Guards, appeared this day, to answer to a
summons issued against him at the instance of Mary
Ann Carter, residing at No. s,Henrietta•street, Oxford-
street.
The complainant, a pretty-looking girl, of about 10
years of age, stated, that being in town for two or three
weeks, on a visit from Oxford, she was going to meet a
friend, and thatithe defendant suddenly accosted her in
Hyde-park, and asked her to go and have a glass of ale
with him, which she declined, telling him at the same
time to go about his business ; that he then laid hold of
her and pulled her along, and endeavoured to drag her
up the first street they came to, and that on her endea-
vouring to escape from him he struck her twice on the
neck.

in answer to Mr. RAWLINSON, complainant added,
that this occurred about eleven o'clock last Sunday
evening. _ _

Mr. James Halloran, of 22, Grove-place, Brompton,
said, that he and several other persons who witnessed
the transaction, recommended complainant to give the
soldier in charge, which was done. That he followed
her to the station-house, and that the sergeant refused
to take the charge as she showed no marks of violence,
but merely pointed to her neck.
Mr. RAWLINSON expressed considerable surprise at
the mention of the latter circumstance, and then called
on defendant for his answer to the charge.
Defendant admitted that he had accosted the girl, and
denied having struck her.
Mr. Wellington Guern.ey, who was in company with
Mr. Halloran at the time, fully corroborated that gen-
tletnan's evidence.

Mr. RAWLINSON said he regarded it as a most dis
graceful outrage. He should fine him 40s.
The fine was paid.

SOUTHWARK.

William Turner was brought before Mr. Cottingham
for re-examination, charged with obtaining 70/. worth
of leather of J. Wooland, a tanner of Bermondsey, under
false pretences.
It appeared that between four and five months ago the
prisoner obtained the possession of leather to the above
amount from complainant, tendering him in payment a bill
for 50L, accepted by a person named Higgins, and the re-
mainder in cash. When, however, the former became due
it was dishonoured, and, upon subsequent inquiry into the
matter, it was ascertained that the prisoner had purchased
the bill of a person named Sanderson for 5/., who had pro-
cured it in the first instance of the acceptor, who at the
period in question was a bankrupt. When application was
made to Higgins, he asserted that he had no recollection of
having given his acceptance to Sanderson for the amount,
but admitted that he had sent two blank acceptances
into the country, and that the one in question might
have been filled up, and put into circulation, but he
added that it was without his sanction. On the first
examination Sanderson was in attendance, and admitted
the fact of his having sold the blank acceptance, given
to him by Higgins, afterwards to the prisoner, but that
it was not filled up until after it had passed from his
hands. In the course of the proceedings it was stated
that soon after the prisoner obtained possession of the
leather belonging to the complainant, he left his usual
place of abode, and although repeated inquiries were
made to discover %%here he was, he was not met with
until within the last few days, when he was given into
custody.
The prisoner said he had purchased the bill for 5/.
of Sanderson, ignorant at the time the acceptor was a
bankrupt, and that he thought it was a bona fide trans-
action.

Mr. COTTINGHAM said it was ridiculous to suppose
the prisoner was not fully aware of the nefarious nature
of the transaction—the very circumstance of his admis-
sion that he had only given 51. far a bill of 501. showed
the character of the affair. That a most gross fraud
had been perpetrated there was no question ; but to pro-
ceed with it and punish the delinquent, it was absolutely
necessary, for the ends of public justice, to procure, if
possible, the attendance of the alleged acceptor of the
50/. bill.

The solicitor, on the part of the prosecution, said that
every means should be exerted for the purpose, with the
view to ascertain whether he had sanctioned Sanderson
in the part that individual had taken in the affair.
On Thursday, when the case was called on, the solicitor,
addressing the magistrate, said that Higgins, the alleged
acceptor of the 501. bill, being either in the country or
abroad, his attendance at present could not be procured.
Mr. COTTINGHAM said, that it was palpable enough.
that a most gross fraud had been committed on the com-
plainant, but as Higgins was not present it would be im-
possible to proceed further in the case. The magistrate
then addressing the prisoner, said, that he had offered to
accept of bail for his appearance on that day ; but, in-
stead of procuring it, he (the prisoner) bad been locked
up. Could he not have found the necessary sureties ?
The prisoner said he had only one friend living in
London, and he was out of town, and that was the reason
he was compelled to lie in gaol.
Mr. COTTINGIFIAM said that he should now adjudge the
prisoner to enter into his recognizance in 100/. to appear
on a future day, in order, if possible, to procure the at-
tendance of the alleged acceptor of the bill.
The witness Sanderson, whose name is mixed up in
the transaction, did not attend the examination.