The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-24 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRINIINA.L COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Baron PLATT and Alderman 'lncallA)
GUILDHALL MURDER.
John Smith, cook at the Guildhall Coffee-house, was placed
at the bar, indicted for the wilful murder of Susan Tolliday,
on Saturday morning last.
Mr. Ryland, with whom was Mr. Laurie, briefly recounted
the facts to the jury which appeared in the testimony of the
witnesses.
Win. Cart, a servant at the Guildhall Coffee-house, being
called, said he was, on the morning in question, cleaning the
windows in front of the hotel, commanding a side view of the
passage leading to the kitchen, which is on the same floor as
the bar, and saw Susan Tolliday, the kitchen-maid, run into
the passage, holding up her hands, the right one clasping a
knife, and the blood running from her throat. Before he
could lay hold of her she fell, and he left her immediately to
go into the kitchen. There the cook, who was alone, met
him, and said, " I have done it, and I wish you to take me in
charge," which he repeated to the policeman.
By Mr. CLARKSON—The prisoner said, she drove me
tot t."
Thomas Phillips said he had been in the kitchen about
five minutes before the deed was done, and saw the cook
there handling ducks, the kitchen-maid Susan and a little
girl both cutting beans. Afterwards he was attracted by a
scream in the kitchen, and saw the deceased fall near the
stairs. She died in a minute after.
Fanny Whitmore, the little girl mentioned by the previous
witness, said she had been cutting beans along with Susan
Tolliday, and was sent to the bar by the prisoner for milk
and eggs. As she returned she met the kitchen-maid bleed-
ing at the neck, and she screamed out.
By Mr. CLARKSON—She heard the deceased accuse the
prisoner of stealing tea and taking it home. This was on
Friday night. She had never known her call him a
liar, or throw knives at him, but she had seen her bite him.
Susan and he used to quarrel, and she called him names. The
witness never saw the kitchen-maid seize him by the shirt
and tear it off his bosom. On the Saturday, about half an
hour before, there was a quarrel between the cook and the
charwoman about money, which he said she owed him, and
Susan took the woman's part, and said to the cook, " why
don't you act like a man ?—go about your business." The
witness had heard Susan call the cook names, and she be-
lieved she had seen her smack his face, but not on Saturday.
When she bit his arm he only held her hands. They had
been quarrelling on that occasion.
William Carr recalled—Said he had heard the deceased use
bad language to the cook, and what he had heard was all
on one side. The cook had been 16 or 17 years in the same
house.
City constable 433, said he asked the prisoner his reason
for doing the deed, and he replied, she had been calling him
a thief, and he was afraid of the consequences, as he had a
wife and family. She goaded him to it.
Some other evidence, merely corroborative of the above,
closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. CLARKSON said there were several fellow-servants of
the prisoner who had not been examined before the magistrate,
but who had evidence as to the acts of provocation of which
the deceased had been guilty towards the prisoner, and
which might have an important bearing on the case. He
felt he had no right to have these called, but he hoped
his Lordship would allow it.
Baron Pnays said that mere words or even acts of
violence, if they were done some time before the deed in
question, would have no bearing on the case before the
court, and he could not allow of the irregularity, lest it might
be drawn into a precedent.
Mr. CLARKSON, who defended the prisoner with great
warmth and eloquence, said, he appeared as the advocate of
the unhappy man placed at the bar, acting at the request of
the worthy Under-Sheriff, who, under the direction of the
Sheriffs of London, sought to provide that the interests of a
fellow man, so situated as the prisoner was, might not be left
unprotected. He admitted, without any hesitation, that by the
man at the bar, who was criminal in so doing under any
circumstances—that by that man, and with that knife,
directed by his hand, the deed had been done. He said he
was prepared to go further ; he was prepared to admit that
the law looked upon acts of this kind as involving the
deepest criminality, unless reduced, either by witnesses or
by the surrounding circumstances. The jury, therefore,
would give him credit when he admitted that this deed,
now engaging the attention of the Court, amounted to
murder, unless circumstances, resting on testimony or the
probability of the case, proved that there must have been
provocation. He said nobody would fail to see that this
man had been many long years a servant in the same situa-
tion, enjoying the confidence of his master, a circumstance
which, as far as testimony to character might go, would
have more weight than any witnesses he could call. It ap-
peared, further, that twelve months ago he married a wo-
man—the relative of the deceased—and that about the
same time the deceased had got a situation in the house with
himself, probably through his interest, an act of kindness
to his relative, which evinced anything bat a malicious
spirit towards the deceased. From time to time quarrels had
arisen bet ween them, and she had been guilty of provoking
acts, which he had thought it desirable to have set be-
fore them by her fellow-servants, but his Lordship, fearing it
might be drawn into precedent, had refused that which he
admitted he had no right to ask. But, as men of the world,
they were to consider the circumstances which surrounded
the act, the probability which scarcely could exist of a man
within two or three minutes (the little girl had said she had
been absent five minutes, but young persons were ill judges
of time), turning upon his fellow-creature, his relative, and
without any cause severing her head from her body. He
admitted the prisoner had struck her, but could the jury
suppose that this act arose out of nothing? To use the words
of the prisoner himself, he had been goaded on by
provocation. It was for them to weigh the circumstances
which might tend to palliate this crime before they would
send the prisoner to the place of public execution. Wit-
nesses he could not call, and therefore he was compelled to
rely on the probabilities attending this unhappy event. But
he said, and not the less confidently, remembering that he
was there at the request of the Sheriffs of London, that the
man was not guilty of murder, notwithstanding that he could
not call living witnesses to prove it. The Learned Counsel
then laid down the law in reference to the evidence necessary
to prove manslaughter, and after alluding to the evidence on
the trial, which went to show the man had had provocation
from the kitchen maid on other occasions, asked the jury to
consider whether it was not probable that the young woman
and the cook, being at the same table, both engaged at their
lawful occupation, with knives in their hands, a quarrel might
have ensued; she might! have kicked him, as he had
evidence to show she had done before, and the man, in a mo-
ment of rage, did feloniously kill and slay her.
The Judge summed up the evidence, and sent the case to
the jury, who retired to consider their verdict. After being
out just one hour, they retured into Court with a verdict of
" Guilty of Murder," but they recommended him to mercy,
in consideration of his previous good character for 17 years,
and the possibility, there was of provocation having been
given, when none but the deceased and he were there.
Silence was then commanded in the Court, and
The JUDGE, after assuming the black cap, said—Prisoner
at the bar, you have been found guilty by a jury of your
countrymen of the crime of murder, but they, in considera-
tion, partly of your previous character, and partly
from suffering provocation at the moment, which may
have incited you, recommend you to mercy. I
wish I could listen to that appeal ; but your offence is of
that description which prevents me holding out any hope of
mercy. The crime which you have committed is denounced
by God and man, and whoever commits that crime in this
country forfeits his life as an atonement for his act. It is
most painful, deeply painful, to pass sentence on such a man
as you, who have been seventeen years in one situation,
where you had the confidence of your master. You
have a wife and four children depending upon you.
It is impossible to conceive a more painful duty to perform
than passing sentence upon such a man, but there is no
mitigation, no extenuation of such a crime as that of which
a jury of your countrymen, considering your acts, have found
you guilty. The doors of mercy are closed upon you on this
side the grave, and the Court sentences you to be taken back
to the prison whence you came, and at a convenient time to
be taken thence to the place of public execution, and there
hanged by the neck till dead, and your body to be buried
within the precincts of such gaol, and may the Almighty
God have mercy on your guilty soul.
The prisoner throughout the trial, and during the sentence,
maintained that calm composure which seemed to arise out
of settled despair.
J tines Button, aged nineteen, described as a labourer, was
arraigned for feloniously, with menaces, &c., demanding of
John Fielding Daniel his moneys, &c. No counsel was en-
gaged on either side.
Mr. Daniel said, that on the 29th of July last, returning
from Kensington, he went into a urinal opposite to St.
George's Hospital, when the prisoner, who was in another
compartment of it, pushed against him. The witness asked
what he wanted, and the prisoner said, "I want money, and
money I will have." Witness refused to give him any, and
left the place, when the prisoner followed him up Piccadilly
towards Park lane, asking for money, or be would accuse
him (witness) of a horrible crime. Witness still refusing,
the prisoner asked for some beer, and the witness threatened
ll
to give him in charge. Before this the prisoner said, wi
have first pull," and, a policeman coming up, the prisoner
gave witness in charge. The policeman took the charge, and
so did the sergeant and inspector at the station-hose, though
witness preferred a counter-charge against the prisoner.
Witness was locked up all night, and next day taken to
Marlborough-street police court, when the prisoner ap-
peared against him ; but Mr. Hardwick, the magistrate,
taking cognizance of both charges, and the character of the
witness having been proved by several witnesses to be
highly respectable, whilst that of the prisoner was proved to
the contrary, the former was discharged, and the latter de-
tained and committed for trial.
Baron PLAIT asked the prisoner what he had to say to the
witness's statement? The prisoner denied the truth of it;
but could give no satisfactory account of his mode of life.
No witnesses, though called upon by the Crier of the Court,
,appeared to speak to his character.
After a short address from the Learned Judge, the jury
found the prisoner Guilty.
Two policemen were then called, who said they knew the
prisoner as a lazy, idle fellow, and associate with convicted
thieves.
Baron PLATT (to the prisoner)—You have been convicted
of a most diabolical offence carried out in a most dastardly
way. Yon have taken the advantage of those who resort,
for their necessary purposes, to certain public conveniences,
and as they come in, you accost them in the way you have.
accosted this man. When a man has sufficient firmness to
refuse you, you have the audacity to turn round and charge
him with an offence of which you know him to be incapable
Besides, you dare appear before a magistrate the next morn-
ing and support your false charge by repeated perjury.
A more diabolical and wicked attempt I have never heard of.
I have given you every chance with the jury, and witnesses,
who could prove the previous infamy of your character, were
not called until the jury had discharged their duty by a
verdict of Guilty against you. A different verdict would
have stained the character of a respectable man, and guilt
would have got free. The sentence of the Court on you is,
that vou be Imprisoned in the House of Correction for
Two Years, and that yon be kept to hard labour.
The Learned JuocE told the prosecutor that if it would
?be any satisfaction to him be would declare publicly that
be did not think his character in any way affected by the
statetnents of the prisoner.
Mr: Daniel saiu coat such an opinion gave him great sa-
tisfaction. He had not employel counsel, because Le %%as
certain the Learned Judge and Jury would do him full jus-
tice on bearing a plain statement of the facts. Sooner. than
give mote"- to any one making such menaces as the prisoner
had done, he would cut off his right hand first.
The Cottrt applauded his moral courage, and rose at
five o'clock.
DISCHARC z or THE GRAND JURY.—The grand inquest
having ignored the bills of indictment against seven persons
they were called into court, and liberated by puulic procla-
mation.

NEW Co URT.
A young man, named William Spring, at- d John Clark,
aged 16, were indicted on
of Mrsr stealing a purs
radley containing five
sovere,gns, from the perso.
The 1 msoners were defended by Messrs. Doane and Payne.
Mrs. CradleY stated that she was in Chancery-lane, when
she was h %stied by the prisoners, and another person who
had escaped, . and one of them picked her pocket.
Some evid awe was given as to the good character of Clark,
which, howeN 'or, was at variance with the statement of the

officers of the Court who recognised an old associate of
thieves.
The prisoners were found Guilty.
The COMMON-SERGEANT sentenced the prisoners to hard la-
bour in the Compter for twelve months. Theprisoners appeared
to be agreeably surprised at the leniency of the Court, having
expected nothing less than transportation, and expressed
themselves to that effect.
Thomas Painter, who was represented as a traveller, was
indicted for stealing the sum of 3/. 9s. 9d., the property of A.
Ratcliff.
From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner was in
the employ of the prosecutor as town traveller, and had, in
that capacity, to collect debts on account of his employer.
The prisoner did not account for the sum in question, and
when interrogated respecting it, denied having received it.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced
to hard labour for twelve months.
W. S. Whiteford, J. Pottell, and W. Read, were severally
indicted for stealing a quantity of gunny bagging from the
London Dock Company. The evidence went to show that
several bales were taken away by means of a forged order,
and delivered over to a marine storekeeper, with the view of
getting money upon them. The jury returned a verdict of
Guilty against Whiteford and Pottell, and acquitted the
other party.
Whiteford was again indicted with another party, by the
name of John Cuddich, for a similar offence, and both were
found Guilty. Whiteford was then transported for seven
years, and Cuddick and Pottell were punished by imprison-
ment for two years with hard labour.
In the afternoon the foreman of the grand jury presented
a solitary bill in a charge of larceny. The Court was after-
wards told that the bill was found after the inquest had been
discharged in the other court, hence they were sent to ex-
plain. It turned out that the case was so.
The COMMON SERGEANT.—Gentlemen, I cannot enter-
tain this bill ; your functions have ceased—you are not a
grand jury now. You had better take the bill, and state
the facts to her Majesty's jvdges, and no doubt they will act
as we do in the country, give you leave to sit again.
The gentlemen of the late grand jury acted upon his
Lordship's suggestion, otherwise the prisoner must have been
detained until the 23d of September.
The Court sat to a late hour.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Aug. 20.
(Before Mr. Justice WlGursia.-1.)
Joseph Travers was indicted for having, at Winstanley, in
this county, shot at Joseph Birchall, with intent to murder
him. Mr. Pollock appeared for the prosecution, Mr. James

for the defence.
The prosecutor, it appeared, was a tenant of Sir J. Gerard,
and on the night of the 9th of April was sitting in his own
house in company with one John Birchall. Some of Sir J.
Gerard's watchers had been on the track of some poachers,
who it was understood were in the preserves, and they had
surrounded a cover called Caleb's Rough, in which it was
supposed they were lodged, and which immediately adjoined
the prosecutor's. The prisoner was seen by one of the
keepers, the moon being then at the full, to come out of the
cover into an open space adjoining, and on seeing the watcher
made a peculiar chirp with his lips, by way, it was sup-
posed, of alarming the others, and ran off in the direction of
Birchall's house. The watcher followed, crying, "Stop him,
stop him." The prosecutor, hearing the cry, ran out in
company with John Birchall, and saw the prisoner crossing
his garden. He ran after him, and the prisoner got out of
the garden into the adjoining croft. The prosecutor ran
after him, and had nearly reached him, when he faced
round with a gun, which he had in his hand, and cried
" Stand off." The prosecutor drew back a little, and the
prisoner then ran on. He reached the rails surrounding the
croft, and finding the prosecutor pressing on him, faced
about again and pointed the gun at him. He was then going
off along the side of the fence, where the prosecutor again
approached him, at which he turned round, and pointing the
gun at a distance of not more than a yard and a half, dis-
charged it. The prosecutor turned half round at the moment
the shot was fired, which caused the contents of the gun to
take him in a slanting direction on the left breast just below
the heart, and his jacket and waistcoat being both of a thick
woollen texture, the charge, which was small shot, fortu-
nately produced' no further injury than a contusion on his
side, which rendered it necessary to apply leeches for the
purpose of reducing the inflammation. He seized the pri-
soner and, with the assistance of John Birchall, succeeded in
taking him into custody. The charge of shot and the wad-
ding which had lodged in his jacket were now produced.
Many of the shot were clotted together, in consequence of
the closeness of the object at which the gun was fired, and
it seemed most extraordinary that no more serious injury
had been sustained by the proseutor.
Mr. JAMES addressed the jury for the defence.
The prisoner was found guilty of a common assault.
To be imprisoned 12 calendar months.
Peter Brown, aged 21, and of an appearance much younger,
was indicted for having at Warrington killed and slain his
father, John Brown.
Mr. Pollock conducted the prosecution; the prisoner was
defended by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.
It appeared that the prisoner was employed at the Vulcan
foundry in this county, and his father resided about five
miles off, at Warrington. The prisoner usually went home
every Saturday, and remained over Sunday. The prisoner's
mother, it appeared, had for some time been seriously ill,
and was confined to her bed. The prisoner, on the 10th of
May last, was at home on one of his weekly visits, and was
out until a pretty late hour. About 10 o'clock he came
home, and appeared to have been drinking. His father (the
deceased) was in the house, and was also somewhat intoxi-
cated. There were a number of persona in the house who
were lodging there at the time. The prisoner, on coming in,
spoke to his father, and after a few observations the prisoner
remarked that if anything happened to the old woman, he
(the deceased) must go to the workhouse. The deceased
said, " Nay, nay," and declared with an oath that the work-
house was not made for him. The prisoner several times re-
peated what he had said, upon which the deceased got up
and struck him. The prisoner then threw him down on the
sofa, and shook him. Some of the persons present
then interfered, and separated them. The deceased got
up and stood at the end of the sofa. The prisoner came up
to him, and the struggle recommenced. The prisoner threw
him down on the floor, and kicked him several times in the
side. The deceased called out " Oh, my side," several times,
and the prisoner discontinued striking him, and left the
room. The persons present lifted the old man on the sofa,
and afterwards assisted him to bed. He seemed very ill.
A short time after he had gone to bed some of the inmates
were alarmed by the noise he made, and going into his
room, found him gasping, and apparently dying. A
medical man was sent for, but before his arrival the
old man had expired. The prisoner, after the scuffle
with his father, had retired to bed, and on being informed
of what had occurred, displayed, it was said, no peculiar
emotion. He merely said, " Let them take me and hang
me now."
It appeared from the cross-examination of the witnesses
that the deceased was of a very ungovernable temper, and
given up to habits of intoxication. He made his living by
selling blacking, and spent his earnings principally in drink.
The prisoner was very kind to his mother, and always
brought her his earnings, by which, in fact, she was chiefly
supported.
The body of the deceased on being examined showed se-
veral marks of -violence, chiefly under the armpit on the right
side. Internally it appeared that three of the ribs were
broken, the fragments of which had penetrated the lungs and
caused his death.
Verdict Guilty. To be transported for seven years.
The grand jury were to-day discharged, and on coming
into court for that purpose, made the following presentment,
which was read aloud by the foreman :
" The grand jury having concluded the examination of the
cases submitted to them, feel it their imperative duty to place
on record their opinion as to the prevalent habits of drunken-
ness, se forcibly alluded to in the charge delivered to them
by Mr. Justice Wightman, as being the cause of at least four-
fifths of the offences comprised in this, as in almost all other
calendars, as well as with regard to the best and most effi-
cient means that can be adopted towards the extinction of
that degrading practice.
" It is obvious from all the records of crime that a very
large proportion of offences are committed by those who are
imperfectly or not at all educated, and on this most striking
fact the grand jury rest their conviction that no great im-
provement can be expected until the means of education are
placed within the reach of all classes of the people. They
are at the same time sensible that such an object can only be
obtained by means of a provision for national education to
be made by the State ; and for this purpose they do respect-
fully call upon the Government to introduce in the ensuing
session of Parliament a measure which, by its comprehensive
and conciliatory nature, shall be likely to obtain a general
consent, and which shall have the effect of securing the ge-
neral education of the population of these kingdoms.
" The grand jury are satisfied that while early education
alone can gradually eradicate vice and prevent the evil con-
sequence of drunkenness, it is also most importaut that a
better spirit and tendency should be produced in the mass of
the community by providing the means of recreation and em-
ployment of leisure hours in other pursuits than those which
now so unhappily prevail ; and they point with great grati-
fication to the exertions which have lately been made in this
town and Manchester, by the establishment of public parks
museums, and libraries, for that purpose. It is in vain to
look for any amendment in the national character until an
inducement can be offered to those who have hardly any
other enjoyment to relinquish the evil indulgence of habitual
drunkenness.
" The grand jury are aware that this is not the occasion to
enlarge further on these points, however important ; but they
earnestly hope that this public expression of the feelings
consequent on their position will conduce to the public good
by promoting the consideration of these subjects.
" On behalf of the szrandjurv,
" W. ENTWISTLE, Foreman."
On the civil side the Court was engaged the greater part
of the day in trying the case of " Moss v. Dickson," a ques-
tion relating to some oatmeal, the matter in dispute being
whether the oatmeal supplied by the defendant to the plain-
tiff, and which was engaged to be of a peculiar quality, en-
titled " Dickson's best fine," came up to that denomination
or not.
Mr. Martin Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Heath appeared for
the plaintiff; '
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Atherton, and Mr. Vance for
the defendant.
finally returned for the plaintiff—
Damages 300/.
WESTERN CIRCUIT.—BratoI, Aug. 20.
d Mr. Tagrell were counsel for the plain-
(Before Mr. JuslsptiNceEYEEVL.EsaEnAtraTC.ommon Jury.)
Mr. Crowder an •
been the
sub-editor
to defendant..
the
t i f f,I t anda:p
e'balrre.dCtohcaktb
theurn and
plaintiff lr.
hadP
defendant as proprietor of the Great Western .Aditertzser,
published in Bristol ; and he alleged that the defendant owed
h ill
nfor
him six months' salary, to recover which he brought the
present action. The defendant paid 201. into court.
The plaintiff resided in London, but in 1843, at the
request of the defendant, he came down to this city and
sub-edited the paper. At first the salary WB5 1201. per an-
num, but in May, 1845, it was increased to 2COI. a year, and
there was an arrangement that the engagement should be
put an- end to upon three months' 'notice ; but in No-
vember, 1845, the plaintiff was dismissed, and, as he con-
tended, without reason, and therefore, he said, he was
entitled to six months' salary, to May, 1846. This the de-
fendant refused to pay, and urged that lie was perfectly jug-
titled in dismissing the plaintiff, because he had stated to a
paper-maker, to whom the defendant was indsbted, that he
(the defendant) could not carry on the Great Western Ad-
vertiser for want of funds, thereby indeavouring to injure
the credit of the defendant; and this fact was proved by a
commercial traveller.
Mr. COCKBURN, in addition to the evidence, con-
tended that the plaintiff could not recover in this form
of action, indebitatEs assumpsit ; that he was only entitled
to salary due to him for work and labour actually done and
performed.
'the Learned JUDGE said, if it should be necessary, he
would reserve the point; but he would take the opinion of
the jury upon the evidence, which, if they believed, would
give a legal right to the defendant to dismiss the plaintiff,
because, according to the evidence of the commercial traveller,
the plaintiff had betrayed his trust ; and if a man did that, it
was a sufficient ground for his immediate dismissal. Of
course, if they disbelieved the evidence as to misconduct the
jury would find for the plaintiff.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.
The Court sat till ten at night..

POLICE INTELLIGENCE
GUILDHALL.
Mr. Turner, a musical instrument-seller, in Leaden-
hall-street, attended before Mr. Alderman Sidney, to
answer the complaint of Mr. Redhouse, of Threadneedle-
street, and produce two violins, manufactured in imita-
tion of cremonas, the property of complainant, which
bad been stolen and unlawfully sold to Mr. Turner.
Mr. Redhouse stated he was an amateur player, and
had several violins. He was acquainted with a maker
named Jacob Fendt, who resided in Little Bell-alley,
and purchased of him two violins, copies after the re-
nowned models of Joseph Guarnerius and of Straduarius.
The former was so close an imitation, and was so perfect
in tone, that it might be mistaken for an original. lie
gave Fendt 51. for each of them as a speculation, leaving
him the violins to be placed in the window for a time,
and sold, if 10/. could be obtained. This was six months
ago ; and missing them from Fendt's window on Mon-
day, he found they had been stolen. Fendt suspected a-
man who worked for him, and who had absconded.
Complainant subsequently found them at Mr. Turner's,
who produced a receipt, showing be had purchased them
of a man of the same name as the thief, for the sum of
4/. As the property was stolen, he claimed that it
should be restored free of charge, while Mr. Turner in-
sisted on the re-payment of the 41., which he thought
complainant might reclaim from Fendt.
The violins were produced. They had been painted
with resin across in front of the bridge, as if the bow
had been accustomed to move over the spot for a couple
of centuries. The varnish had been entirely worn off
the neck from the action of the left hand, and the upper
part of the instrument presented the appearance of wear,
and scratches and blemishes, such as would become a
precious old fiddle that had been taken care of. On
looking into the interior, however, there was no forgery
of the handwriting of the ancient maker, no attempt to
disguise the entire newness of the instrument.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY asked what was the value of
the violins? Mr. Fendt replied 20/.
Mr. Turner felt that his character was somewhat im-
peached by the high value set on them, as he had given
only 4/. for them. He appealed to the notorious fact
that nobody liked to play on a new fiddle. He wished
the alderman to ascertain whether any shopkeeper like
himself would give more than 21. for such new fiddles.
Mr. Redhouse replied, the quality might almost be
inferred from the choiceness of the wood in its various
parts.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY, after hearing Mr. Fendt's ac-
count of the loss of the violins, said he would let the
case stand over for a week. There should be an
effort to catch and punish the thief before he determined
upon what terms the property should be restored.
CLERKENWELL.

On Saturday, Maria Cooh, a repulsive-looking woman,
was finally examined, charged by Mary Ann Montgo •
mery, the wife of a carpenter, residing in Warwick-
court, Whitecross-street, St. Luke's, with having vio-
lently assaulted her, with intent to murder her. The
prosecutrix was brought to the Court in a cabriolet,
from the hospital, in a very weakly state. It appeared
that the prisoner was in the habit of quarrelling with the
prosecutrix, and had caused her husband's jealousy, by,
spreading false reports about her. On Tuesday fort-
night they met together in a public-house, when their
quarrel was renewed, and, after a great deal of recrimi-
nation, &c., on both sides, the prisoner struck prosecu
trix on the head with a quart-pot, and rendered her in-
sensible, She was conveyed to the hospital, where she
had since been in a dangerous state. Several witnesses
corroborated her evidence. The prisoner said nothing,
and she was fully committed for trial.
Mary Taylor, an elderly respectable-looking woman,
was charged with robbing children.
Mr. Paul, a tradesman of John's-place, Bedford-
row, Holborn, sent his little girl, six years of age, with
a bundle of clothes to a neighbour, when she was stopped
by the prisoner in Lamb's Conduit-street, who promised
her a penny to knock at a door whilst she minded her
bundle. She took the property and was leaving, when
a gentleman who had observed her conduct gave her into
the custody of Sergeant Fuller, E division, who took her
to the station-house.
The evidence in this case being clear and satisfactory,
the prisoner was committed for trial upon it.
Sergeant Fuller said if she was remanded he had no
doubt he could procure numerous charges against her, as
information had been received that a person answering
the prisoner's description had perpetrated innumerable
depredations on children under similar circumstances.
She was accordingly remanded.
A person named Bird, the tenant of the Spafields
burial ground, appealed to a bench of magistrates in
petty session, assembled at the Clerkenwell Session-
house, against a poor-rate which the authorities of the
parish had called on him to pay.
Mr. Wakeling, the vestry-clerk, suiported the rate.
He said that the burial ground occupied upwards of an
acre, and besides that, the defendant had a dwelling-
house and garden.
The appellant answered that, in consequence of the
falling off of the funerals in the ground, the rate had
been reduced from 1001. to 651., and the latter, he now
contended, was too much, for he could prove that during
the last year he had sustained a loss of 1171., from the
false rumours that had been raised against the property.
Only about a quarter of an sere was now used for in-
terments, for he had been bound down not to open any
other portion of the ground for a certain period.
Mr. KNIGHT, the magistrate, regretted that the law
had not stopped the pest, for it was a disgrace to the
metropolis. He inquired how many bodies had been
interred within the last month ? Bird said—About
thirty.
Mr. KNIGHT was of opinion that the present rate
(651. a year) was too low, and he trusted his brother
magistrates would not, at all events, lower it.
The bench unanimously affirmed the rate.
SOUTHWARK.

Bridget Mahoney, a stout coarse-looking Irishwoman,
with twin infants in her arms, was charged with va-
grancy.
Sergeant Parnell stated that the defendant was sitting
on the pavement in the most crowded part of the Ro
rough, with the two infants in her arms, and her legs
stretched our so as to obstruct the passengers. He saw
her receive charity, and on requesting her to move from
that situation, she flew into a violent passion, swore at
him in Irish, and, throwing the infants on the stones,
attempted to leave them. He stopped her, made her
take up her offspring, and then conveyed her to the
station-house.
The defendant was loud in her denunciations against
the sergeant, and said it was a hard case poor people
were precluded from receiving alms by the police.
Mr. CoTTINOHAM said he was confident the defendant
was an impostor, and that she had borrowed the children
to excite compassion. He committed her for 21 days to
hard labour.