The Sun.
London, England, 1833-10-26 00:00:00

G UILDHALL.

A lad named William Denning was yesterday
charged before Aldermen KELLY and VENABLES
with tricking an errand boy out of a dozen light
blue plush caps, which he had been intrusted to
deliver.

The prisoner denied the charge altogether, bu
was fully committed for trial.

B 0 W. S TREE T.

Yesterday an elderly Frenchman, of respectable
appearance, who stated his name to be Pierre De
Francois, and that he was a merchant at Ostend,
was charged by Ernest Bessinseaux, a native of Bel-
gium, residing in the neighbourhood of the Hay-
mark er, with unlawfully detaining four gold watches,
his property, which he intrusted to the defendant
to sell.

Mr. MiNstiuu. told the eefendant that he had
acted in a very dishonest manner, and advised him
to make restitution of the property, which he had
obtained under a specific agreement, which he had
failed to perform. The Magistrate then told him
he was discharged, and advised the complainant to
f Tow him from the office, and endeavour to induce
him.to give up the watches.
The defendant, however, as soon as he under-
stood he was at liberty, bolted from the bar as
quickly as he could, and on reaching the street run
away with the swiftness of a hare, leaving the
complainant behind to lament his misplaced con-
fidence and ruminate on the loss of his property.
MARLBORO UGH- STREET.
Mr. Beech, an uphokterer and feather-bed maker,
in Kingsga,e-street, Holborn, was yesterday sum-
moned before Sir GEORGE FARRANT, for having
refused to contribute towards the support of his own
father.

Mr. Tucker, the overseer of the parsh of St.
Giles, said the defendant possessed an excellent

The defendant thought it exceedingly hard that
he should be called upon to do anything for his fa-
ther, especially as he had paid, since September last,
no less a sum than 30s. for his support. lie also
paid poor-rates, and that circumstance, he considered,
entitled him to expect that his father should be
maintained in the workhouse.

Sir G. FARRANT explained the nature of the law
on the subject to Mr. Beech, and informed him that
where proof was afforded of a child's capability of
contributing towards the support of a parent—in
case common decency and humanity should fail in
obliging him to make proper provis'.on —the law em•
powered magistrates to make an order for the pay-
ment of a certain sum weekly.
Mr. Beech considered the law to be very arbi-
trary if it obliged him to pay anything more than
be had aheady paid for hii parent's maintenance,
and he was very much surprised that an application
had been made to him in preference to other mem-
bers of the family, who were in affluent circum-
stances compared with his own situation.

The son-in-law of the old man, who was present,
here observed that Mr. Beech had by no means
done his duty his father, or he would never have
permitted him to become the inmate of a wot khouge.
For upwards cf ten months he had maintained the
old man, and he would have continued still to do so
had his circumstances permitted, but this not b..ing
the case he had been obliged to send him tc the
defendant, who soon contrived to get rid of the burl
den by sending him to the parish.
Son—l have done my duty by him. I pay the
poor-rate, and I don't see why I should be obliged
to keep him.

Son-in-law—Why, you make a brag that your
score is 303. a-week at a public-house, and that you
pretend to say is a score of necessity.
Sir G. FARRANT stopped the torrent of recrimi-
nation by making an order on the defendant to pay
ss. weekly while his father was supported in the
workhouse.