The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-23 00:00:00

Q UEEN- S QUARE.

Yesterday a female, respectably attired in black, was
brought before Mr. BURRELL by a police constable of the
I. division, No. 94, charged with being drunk and disor-
derly in the public streets on the previous evening.
Magistrate—What is your name ? Defendant—What's
that to you ? I'll see you before I tell my name to
such a parcel of vagabonds.
The constable stated that on the previous evening ho

found the defendant in the London-road, Lambeth, very
drunk and disorderly. A number of persons were present,
and the language of the defendant was the most blackguard
he had ever heard.
Defendant—You are a liar. Speak the truth, you vaga-
bond. I was not drunk. It was my spirit and my temper.
A man was ill-using a poor woman, and I took her part,
and this vagabond said I was drunk, and dragged me to the
station-house.
Another police constable, No. 86, confirmed the above
statement, when the unknown defendant, after a torrent of
abuie, seized him by the collar, and struck him several
blows. A scuffle now took place in the office, the unknown
let flysight and left at every person that came in her way.
With great difficulty she was at last secured, but her vio-
knee was. so great that the officers were compelled to hand-
cuff her. In about two hours time her passion had some-
what cooled, and she was again brought into the office care-
fully guarded, and placed in the dock before Messrs. Bun-
RELL and GREGORIE, when she was charged with assault-
ing the constable before the Magistrate.
The constable stated the case.
Magistrate—What are you ? Defendant—What am I !
A respectable woman, And get my living in the laundressing
line at Clapham. I was no more drunk than you are, blow
you ; my spirit was only up to see a poor woman abused,
and these cowardly vagabonds swear I was drunk ; but I'll
mark them both, if it is for a twelvemonth to come. I wish
I could get at them now.
Mr. BURRELL, after consulting with his colleague, told
her that she must pay a fine to the King of 60s. for as-
saulting the constable in the office.
Defendant—l'll see you all first before you rob me
of sixty shillings.
Mr. BURRELL—In default of payment you will be com-
mitted for one month to the House of Correction.
Defendant—l'll lay as many months as you please in
prison ; but you get no 60s. out of me.
The defendant was then removed, venting curses on the
police.
John Smith, Thonzas Powell, and John Buxton, three
professional gentlemen, as they termed themselves, were
charged by a police-constable with making a noise in the
streets, and being very disorderly, as they were returning
to their domicile in St. Ann's-lane.
The constable stated that the defendants were making
the most extraordinary noise he ever heard in his life ; he
could not tell what it was like.
Defendant—Your worship, we were going quietly home,
rehearsint, our parts.
Mr. BURRELL—Pray what are you? Defendant.—
Why, we are. hactors. .
Mr. BURRELL—Actors! Defendant—Yes, hactors. I
plays tunes on my cheeks, and makes better music than
any one on their chins. I calls myself a cheek melodist.
The constable here produced a wooden doll, some cups
and balls, &c.
Defendant.—Thems the things wot we performs with,
just a little of the hanky-panky business at public-houses.
There did not appear to be any thing like high treason
in the articles found on the defendants, and they were dis-
charged, with a recommendation to rehearse their parts at
home for, the future.
A poor old woman, named Caffray, was charged, by a
police-constable of the B division, with exposing a board,
containing fruit and vegetables, on the carriage and foot-
way pavements in Strutton-ground, Westminster.
The poor woman, in her defence, said that she had no
other mode of getting her living. She had a husband, up-
wards of 70 years of age, who was unable to work from his
infirmities, and whom she supported without applying to
the parish for relief, and she hoped for his sake she might go,
and she would never place her board on the pavement again.
Glass, the messenger of St. Margaret's workhouse, who
was in the office, confirmed the defendant's statement as to
the state of her husband.
Mr. GREGORIE said that she must pay a penalty of 40s.
and her goods must be confiscated.
The defendant declared that she had not any money, and
begged to be let off.
The money not being forthcoming, she was committed for
l 4 days to the House of Correction.

HATTON-GARDEN.

EXTENSIVE ROBBERY.-Illary Daley, a fashionably
attired and handsome-looking female, about twenty-five
years of age, was charged with having stolen two 51. Bank
of England notes, sixteen sovereigns, one gold watch, two
silver watches, one tortoiseshell box, containing a quantity
of jewellery ; one China crape shawl, some ostrich feathers,
twelve yards of silk, and a great many other articles, the
property of an elderly widow lady, named Mary Stalker.
The prosecutrix deposed that she occupied the first floor
of No. 22, Lower-street, Islington. Seven weeks ago the
Prisoner took a furnished parlour in the same house ; a few
days afterwards witness invited her to tea, when she was so
delighted with her lady-like manners and interesting conver-
sation that ever afterwards while she was at home, she sought
her society. In fact, such was the confidence she reposed
in her that she was led to make known to her all the
secrets, even as to the property she possessed in the Funds, and
other places. She, however, had been grossly deceived in
the accused, for, on Saturday last, while witness was out, she
broke into her apartments, opened her trunks and drawers,
and stole nearly every valuable they contained, with which
she decamped. She gave information of her loss to the po-
lice, who fortunately succeeded in finding out her retreat.
George Havill, a police sergeant, No. 9 N division, said,
after much trouble he traced the prisoner to No. 2, Pem-
broke-square, Kensington, where she had taken elegantly
furnished apartments. She at first- denied that her name
was Daley, and said she had never been in Islington, but
afterwards confessed that she was the person of whom he
was in search. With the exception of three sovereigns
witness had recovered the whole of the prosecutrix's
property.
The Magistrate said the constable deserved great praise.
The prisoner, who declined making any defence, was
fully committed to Newgate.
Yesterday James Hart, a young man residing at No.
31, Britannia-row, Islington, was brought before Mr. SEL-
Low, charged on suspicion of being privy to the death of
Joseph Hart, who has disappeared in a mysterious manner.
From the evidence of Mrs. Jane Hart, of No. 14, Fox-
court, Gray's-Inn-lane, it appeared that the missing man,
who was her husband, left his home in company of the pri-
soner at an early hour in the morning of the 3d of August
last year, and she had not since heard of him. The pri-
soner returned to his lodgings at a late hour on the follow-
ing night, and when asked by witness what had become of
hor husband, he answered, " Joe will be back no more."
Mr. Sergeant SELLON said it was an extraordinary charge,
and asked the prosecutrix the reason why she had given the
prisoner into custody ? She replied, that she thought he
was concerned in his death.
Mr. Sergeant SELLON—This is a very serious offence,
and before you make such a charge you should be prepared
with evidence to support it.
Prosecutrix—l am sure the prisoner knows something
about my husband. If he was living I should hear from
him ; he would never desert me. .

Mr. Sergeant SELLON inquired of the prisoner whether
he was desirous of saying anything.
Prisoner—l am unable to tell what has become of her
husband. He went out with me, it is true, but I did not
stay with him many minutes. I parted with him to go to
my work, and I supposed he was going to his. I never said
to Mrs. Hart that Joe would be back no more.

Prosecutrix—Oh yes, you did ; your wife heard you.
Mr. Sergeant SELLON being informed that the prisoners'
wife was in attendance, ordered her to be sworn. She was
then questioned by the Magistrate, but nothing was elicited
to unravel the mystery. She most positively denied that her
husband made use of the expression attributed to him.
The Magistrate said there was not the slightest ground
for apprehending the prisoner, whom he discharged.