The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-28 00:00:00

EVENING, JULY 28, 1851

mere slaying a heretical sovereign. He was not the
man to write mock sentiment about his " beloved Sove-
reign," and put forth anonymous treason betraying a
heart that would rejoice in that Sovereign's assassina-
tion. He was English-born and English-bred; and,
whatever political Papists may think of him, there is not
a true Englishman living who would refuse to do justice
to the venerable Romanist who now sleeps within the
grave at St. Cuthbert', College, Ushaw.—Church and
State Gazette.

died from injuries received by it on the head, producing
congestion of blood on the brain, and from a cut in the
side extending from the breast bone to the spine, which
had been made during life. Convulsions would produce
the same appearances of congestion. On the 7th of
March the prisoner was apprehended on this charge, and
she then stated that she had not had a child at Skir-
laugh ; that when she left the workhouse with her child
she brought it to her parent's house, where it died, and
that it was buried at Sutton on the sth of February.
On inquiry this was found not to be true, the child
found in the ditch was in a decomposed state, and ap-
peared to be about five weeks old, and was a female
child. There was no proof of the identity of the child
found with the prisoner's child beyond the circumstances.
For the defence it was contended that the identity of
the child found had not been established; and, oven if it
had, the appearances it presented were such as might be
accounted for in a child which had died of convulsions;
that convulsions might have been produced by cold in a
child so young, and that the cut in the side might have
been done with the spade of the man who, in cleaning
ont the ditch, found the child.

His LORDSHIP directed the jury to be satisfied first as
to the proof of the identity of the child. If that were not
established the charge entirely failed. Secondly, if
satisfied as to that, they must consider whether or no in
their opinion the charge was made out that the child
had died from the violence the prisoner inflicted upon
Hts Lordship then went carefully through the evi-
dence, directing the jury, if they had any reasonable
doubt as to the effect of it, to give the prisoner the be-
nefit of it.

The jury, after a short absence, found the prisoner
Not Guilty.
George Crabtree was indicted for perjury committed at
the last Yyrk assizes.

Mr. Pickering and Mr. Hardy prosecuted, and Mr.
Overend and Mr. West defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner livid at Burley-wood-
head, near Bingley, and a man named Cooper lived at
Bingley. In September last a man named Smith had
lent Cooper some woolcombs, and he went to Cooper's
house to get them back. On going into a chamber in
Cooper's house to get these combs he saw seven parcels
of wool-tops lying there, which excite d his suspicion.
He eccordingly gave information to the inspectors ap-
pointed under the Worsted Act (an Act passed to p. e-
vent the purloining of wool intrusted to workmen to
work up, and giving extensive posers of search). On
this information, Smith and a man named Cheese•
borough watched Cooper's house on the night of the
24th of September, and Cooper was seen to leave
his house at two o'clock in the morning, and was
followed to Burley•wood-head, eight miles off, where
he was seen to enter the prisoner's house, at
four in the morning, with a bundle. He left
the prisoner's house in about ten minutes, the prisoner
first coming to the door and looking about, saying, " It
is all right, there is nobody about." When Cooper left,
he had an empty sack with him. On his way to Burley-
wood-head the prisoner was met by several persons who
knew him and spoke to him, and he was seen to go back
to his own house about six o'clock in the morning. On
this information being given to the police, the prisoner's
house was searched, and in it were found seven tops of
wool, which Smith subsequently swore, on an informa-
tion preferred under the Worsted Act, were the same
tops he had seen in Cooper's house. For this evidence
Smith was indicted for perjury, for having stated he had
seen Cooper go to the prisoner's house on the morning
of the 24th of September, as stated; and the prisoner on
the trial of that indictment swore that he bad not been
up in the course of that night, and that he had heard no
noise at his house until the constables came at six o'clock,
and that he had not received any wool of any kind from
any one that night, and that he did not at that time know
Cooper, and had never seen him, nor had Cooper brought
him any tops. For giving this evidence the prisoner
was now indicted, and witnesses were called to corrobo-
rate Smith's statement that Cooper had been seen to en-
ter his (prisoner's) house on the night in question with
a bundle, as stated. Many of these witnesses, on cross-
examination, appeared to be of indifferent character,
having been in Wakefield House of Correction, and as to
some of the facts deposed to there was only oath against
oath.

Mr. OVEREND having addressed the jury for the pri.
Boner in an able speech,

_
His LORDSHIP summed up, carefully going through
the evidence.

The jury, after a short absence, found the prisoner No
Guilty. _ .

July 26.

Mr. Justice Williams satin the Crown Court at eight
o'clock this morning.
Joseph Cliff was indicted for wilful and corrupt per-
jury, before the Bankruptcy Commissioner for the Leeds
district, at Leeds, on the 12th of June last.

Mr. Overend and Mr. Campbell Foster prosecuted, and
Mr. Hardy and Mr. Shaw defended the prisoner.
It appeared, from the opening statement of the counsel
for the prosecution, that the defendant, who was in part-
nership with his brother's widow, carried on business
with her at Bradford as a brass and iron. founder, under
the firm of " J. and J. Cliff," and that previously to last
April, this firm had had extensive business transactions
with a Mr. Thomas Dixon, an iron merchant at Brad-
ford. Mr. Dixon becoming insolvent, it became neces-
sary to call a meeting of his creditors on the 16th of 1a.4
April, at which the defendant attended. At that time
Dixon owed to the firm of J. and J. Cliff 2501.15. 11d.

for goods sold and delivered, as a security for
which they held a dishonoured bill for 3001. Thsy
had also been paid by Dixon another bill fir 3421.
7s. 4d., not then at maturity. It also appeared that they
held a third bill, drawn by Dixon on Messrs. Rangeley
and Wright, of Sheffield, and accepted by them, and en-
dorsed to the firm of J. and J. Cliff by Dixon, in part
payment of his account. At the meeting of Dixon's
creditors, it was agreed that Dixon should make an as-
signment of all his goods and effects to assignees for the
benefit of his creditors, and the defendant assented to
that assignment. The deed of assignment was after-
wards duly executed, but, within the time allowed by
law the defendant presented a petition praying for an
adjudication of bankruptcy against Dixon on this act of
bankruptcy. In his affidavit verifying his petition be
swore the debt of 3501. 2s. 11d. due to the firm of J. and
J. Cliff to be due to himself trading under that firm.
This affidavit was alleged to be false, and on this perjury
was assigned. On the sth of June last the trading, act of
bankruptcy, and petitioning creditor's debt having been
proved before the Commissioner, Dixon was adjudged
bankrupt, and, at a public sitting of the Court, held on
the 12th June at Leeds, the adjudication of bankruptcy
was disputed by the bankrupt, on the grounds that the
debt sworn to by the prisoner Cliff was not due to
him but to him and his partner jointly, and that as to
the debt due to the partnership, the prisoner had come
in under the assignment. The prisoner then swore be-
fore the Commissioner that he had no partner, that the
debt was due to him alone, and that he only came in
under the assignment conditionally that the bill for 3421.
7s. 4d. should be provided for when it arrived at matu-
rity, but that he had since been compelled to pay it by
process out of the court. Both these statements were
averred to be false, and on each of them perjury was as-
signed. On the 4th of July last a sitting was held at
the Bankruptcy Court for the proof of debts, and the
prisoner then proved his debt to be 3501. 2s. 1 td. for
goods sold and delivered, and 3421. 78. 4d. for money
paid to meet the bill for that amount; and he then swore
that he held no other security for this said debt than
the dishonoured bill for 3001. and the bill for 342/.75. 4d.
which he had paid. This was alleged to be false, as he
then held the bill for 1494 drawn by Dixon on Rao-
geley, Wright, and Co., then running on, and which he
compelled them by process, out of the court, eight days
afterwards, to pay, thus getting the dividend on his
debt and the 1491. besides. On this statement perjury
was also assigned.
In support of these various allegations of perjury the
proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court were put in, and
witnesses were called to prove that at a meeting of
Dixon's creditors on the 16th Of April the defendant
assented to the assignment of Dixon as a creditor, and
that the assignment was afterwards executed, and he
was not heard to make any terms that the bill for 342 h
then running should be met or he would not come in
under the assignment; and that the defendant had held
himself out as a partner with Mrs. Cliff. On cross-
examination these witnesses admitted that the defendant
might have made an objection respecting the 3421. bill
at the meeting of creditors, and they not hear it, and
that an account of the defendant's demand was handed
round which mentioned in it this bill. It also appeared
that, subsequently, before the Commissioner, Mr. Ca-
riss, attorney, of Leeds, attended on behalf of the bank-
rupt, and then objected to the adjudication of bank-
ruptcy, on the ground that Airs. Cliff was a partner;
that Mrs. Cliff was examined and denied the
partnership, and he gave up the objection. The bank-
rupt was then called to prove tnat the bill for 1491. was
held by the defendant at the time he was examined
before the Commissioner as a security for his debt then
sworn to. On cross-examination he admitted that he
owed the defendant 2001, in addition to that debt, and
that the 1491. bill might hare been held as security fur
that 2004 debt. The indictment had been preferred, in
the first instance, before the grand jury, and had not
been ordered by the magistrates.
His LORDSHIP inquired who was the prosecutor in the
case? The witness replied that he was.
His LORDSHIP—Where did you get the money to pay
the costs? I borrowed it.
His LORDSHIP said the charge against the defendant
appeared to him entirely to fail.
Mr. OVEREND said that, after that opinion from his
Lordship, he should not feel it his duty to further press
the prosecution.
The defendant was therefore Acquitted.
His LORDSHIP said the prosecution appeared to him to
be entirely groundless.
This finished the criminal business of the assize.

POLICE IN TELLIGEN CE.
BOW-STREET.

Mr. William Austin, a barrister, was charged with
having assaulted Obadiah Bellamy.
The complainant is a checktaker at the concerts of
the Sacred Harmonic Society at Exeter-hall. He was
officiating in this capacity at the orchestra gate on
Friday evening, when the defendant present himself for
admission by a ticket which proved to be the property of
Mr. Jenkin, a member, and was not transferable. The
complainant explained this circumstance to the defendant,
and retained the ticket, with the view of laying it before
the committee, as was usual when any such irregularities
occurred. The defendant was not satisfied with the ex- 1
planation given, and demanded the return of his friend's
ticket, but he was told that it could not be delivers
back to him, as Mr. Jenkin was aware that the members
tickets were untransferable. The defendant became ex-
tremely violent, and wrenched the ticket from Mr. Be,.
lamy's hand, upon which he inflicted a severe laceration
by the process. He then ran off, but was stopped by a
constable and conducted back to the office of the com-
mittee. Here he was informed that the complainant had
merely discharged his duty, but that he was willing to
take no further steps in the matter, if as apology was

given. The &fondant refused to apologizo, and was
con,eqm ntly given into cusi'.c!iy upon the prebelic chgrge
of assault.

Mr. el..tikin explained that ha had authorised his friend
Mr. Austin to take one of two tickets from an envelope
at his residebce, and that he had accidentally taken the
wrong one,
Mr. Ricardo, a friend of the defendant, was about to
convince his worship of the defendant's respectability,
when

Mr. HALL declared that he (mild show no respect to
persons, and would not be influenned by such evidence.
The defendant had acted with unpardonable violence
and obstinacy, and must pay, as he deserved to pay, the
fullest penalty that he was enabled to it..flict. His wor-
ship then fined the defendant el., which was instantly
paid.