The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-10 00:00:00

Underwood, and she was present when the letter was re-
ceived and the certificate of its registration given to Mrs.
Rice. When the letter arrived at its destination in due
course, it was found that the note had been abstracted,
and acommunication of the fact was immediately made to
the Post office authorities. Inquiries were then mad,,,
and it turned out that on the stn of June the prisoner
had gone to the shop of a Mr Griffi,hs, a 1,14 berdasher
at Notting-hill, where she purchas-d a variety of article
of dress, which she paid for with the identical note
that had been stolen from the letter, and received
six or seven pounds in change. When the prisoner
was afterwards questioned upon the subject she at once
admitted that she had purchased the goods 'rom Mr.
Griffith,, and that she had paid for them with a 10/.
note, but sbe positively asserted that the note had been
in her possession since the preceding month of February.
This, however, W 45 manifestly a falsehood, us it appeared
that the note was dated in April of ,he present year,
and, of course, had not been issued from the Bank at
the period the prisoner represented it to have bee❑ in her
possession.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Sentence was deterred in both the Post-office cases.

Thomas Brewer Hatton was brought up for judgtnent
just before the rising of the Court, and hentenced to be
kept to hard labour for 18 months.
NEW COURT.
(Before the RECURDXR
Lewis John Jones, 21, clerk, w‘s land for embezzling
the sums of 241. 14s. 6d., 11/ 21., 61., 41 45., and other
sums of money, belonging to his master, Joh❑ Walter
Iluodleston.

The prisoner seemed deeply affected at the degraded
position in which he had placed himtself, 'IAA kept his
face averted from the gas of the Court during the
whole time ho was in the dock.
He pleaded guilty.
It will be recollected that the prisoner had been clerk
to Mr. Huddleston, the barrister, and the num6 embezzled
had been the tees paid to him and the moneys intrusted
to him by his master.
Mr. PARRY, who appeared for the prisoner, in alluding
to the nature of the offence, said that the case was a pe•
culiarly distressing one, as the prisoner had up to this
time borne a high character and boon most attentive to
his duties, and he was glad to be able to inform the
Court that the prisoner's defalcation would not be found
so hsavy as it was at first expected. The reason of his
present degradation was his having been drawn into bad
company, and becoming addicted to betting and the com-
pany of locee women; and under tbeso circumstances he
hoped the Court would act as leniently as consistently
with its duty it could. With regard to the course pur-
sued by his Learned Friend towards the prisoner he
could not too warmly eulogise it. He bad taken him to
be his clerk when a boy, and had all along acted as a
father to him, and treated him in every way as though
he had been his son.

Tht. RECORDER asked, over how long a period the em
bezzlement F xtended?

Mr. ISARRY said, from January, 1830; but his Learned
Friend's confidence and kindness towards the prisoner
had been the reason of bis not having found out his de-
falcations at an earlier period.
Mr. BALLANTINE said he appeared on behalf of his
Learned Friend Mr. Huddleston. The duty imposed
upon them to appear against a young man with whom
they had been so long associated was most painful, as
up to this time he bad stood high in the opinio❑ of all
who knew him. He (the Learned Counsel) had known
him from a mere boy, and could affirm that he had been
moat assiduous in his duties, and believed that his being
drawn into bad company was the cause of this, Gen-
tlemen in their profession were of necessity obliged to
place great trust in their clerks, and large sums of
money came into their hands; in tact, the highest trust
was reposed i❑ their, and seldom or ever, he was happy
to say, was it misplaced; and as a class he had the
highest opinion of their integrity and attention to the
interests of their emplo) era. The amount, as Mr. Parry
had stated, would be much less than at first xpected—
not, he believed, above 801. or 100/. ins►ead of 1701.
Mr. PARRY said, the prisoner had told him that he
expected that his feet, on the Oxford circuit, which he
was about going with his master, would have enabled
I him to relieve himselr ; but he (Mr. Parr)) thought he
was too much enthralled ever to have relieved

The RECORDER said he should postpone passing sem
tenee.

THIRD COUR7'.
(Before the CoDIMON SERGEANT.)
Thomas Erskine Souper, 43, clerk, was indicted for
embezzling the sums of 304, 581 10i., and 371., the
moneys of William Blandft,rd, his ma*ter.

The prisoner pleaded guilty.
Mr. Clarkson prosecuted, and Mr. Bodkin was for the
prisoner.
Mr. BODKIN, on behalf of the prisoner, said, that,
although the sums laid in the indictment were not very
heavy, he could not but inform the Court that the priso-
ner's defalcations amounted to upwards of 3.0001., and
this was one of the very melancholy cases where a man
holding a highly confidential and important situation had
been induced to speculate in the purchase of railway
shares with the moneys of his employers. The prisoner,
excepting this transaction, bad borne an irreproachable
character, and had for some years held the situation of
clerk to the Thames Plate Glass Company, the moneys
of which company he bad been making use of. The
greatest confidence was reposed in him, and the com-
pany were not aware that the prisoner was a defaulter
until he could no longer bear the situation in
which he was placed, and gave himself into
custody, making the fullest statement of the
affairs of the company to the directors, of which they
were totally ignorant. After he bad first given him-
self up the directors of the company permitted him to
remain a• large, but ultimate-ly preferred the charge
against him. The prisoner had eiven up the policies of
his life insurance to the company, who would also re-
ceive 5001. from the Guarantee Society. The prisoner's
defalcattons may be -*aid to have originated from the
fact that when he first obtained the situation he had a
loan of 1,500/. granted him by one of the directors, to
repay which nearly the whole of his salary had been
stopped, and to make up which he had been speculating,
and became enthrall-d in the manner he had, and be
hoped, under these circumstauces, the Court would net
consider this a case where it was bound to pass the fullest
sentence the law allowed for such offences.

51r. CLARKSON said the company had no wi.jh to press
with vindictiveness against the prisoner, and with regard
to the mode in which he had become enthralled and had
stated the affair to the company, it was correct; but it
was not correct about the money that had been lent—
that was a private loan from one director, with which the
company had nothing to do; and the policies spoken of
hand been left by the prisoner in his iron safe when he
left the company.
Mr. &Dim then called several witnesses, who gave
the prisoner a most unexceptionable c'taracter, several
of the gentlemen so called being shareholders of the
company.
The CoDIMON-SERGEANT said he should take time to
consider the sentence.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
woRSHIP-STREET.

William Bailey, a middle-aged man of dissipated ap-
pesrsucs, was brought up before Mr. Arnold, charged
with the following series of brutal outrages upo❑ Louisa
Bliley, his wite:—

The complainant, a respectable looking woman, whose
bosom was enveloped in surgical bandages, stated, that
she had been married for several years to the prisoner,
by whom she had four children, but that she had been
subjected for a long time past to the must cruel treatment
by him in consequence of his drunken propensities,
which induced him to squander every shilling he
could obtain among the most degrading associates, and
the slightest remonstrance or opposition on her part to
the gratification of his depraved tastes inevitably brought
upon her the severest illusage. Halt his time was spent
in the company of a large and ferocious sort of mastiff he
had recently purchased, which he led about by a chain,
to the terror of the neighbours, and upon his being
thwarted in obtaining some money from the servant that
morning to purchase drink with, he set the dog upon her
(the mistress), and the brute fixed his teeth iu her thigh
and bit her severely. The prisoner then lett the house,
swearing vengeance upon her and the family when
he came back; and about twelve o'clock ho did re-
turn, accompanied by a broker and an assistant, to whom
he wanted to pawn or sell all the furniture. She tried
to persuade him out of such a cruel resolution, and the
broker did not appear inclined to purchase, but the pri-
soner insisted that he should, rushed up stairs, and re-
turned with two pillows off her bed to commence the tale.
She clung to the pillows arid would not let theca go, upon
which a struggle ensued between them; and the pri-
soner, on finding that he could not effect the sale of
them, ran into the yard, unchained the dog, and bounded
him upon her; the dog immediately sprang at her neck
and seised her by the left breast, in which and her
clothes he fixed his teeth so firmly that in extricating
herself from his bite a large
piece was torn out of her
dress. Upon escaping from the animal 811,1 hastened to
the shop of a neighbouring surgeon, where her wounds
were dressed, but she was still suffsting acute pain from
the injuries she had sustained, and she was in much ap-
prehension that her breast Was festering. (The com-
plainant handed in a certificate from me. Miller, a sur-
geon at Stoke Newington, describing the nature of the
injuries, and from that it appeared that, in addi.ion to the
wounds produced by the animal's teeth, she had also a
serious contusion upon the bosom, apparently the result
of a heavy blow.)
John Tolladay, the broker, Thomas Chapman, his
assistant, and Sarah Dowton, the complainate's servant,
corroborated the prosecutrix's testimony, and the latter
witness added, that upon her refusing to lend him money
to purchase liquor with, the prisoner expressed his de-
, and was
the value of whatever they fetched be-
termination to tell the goods. and esid he and his dog
would drink up
produced in court by the police,
tween them.
The doe was
smuacnh
baalda large
escaped and powerfulwi
th tno injuries
ei
at
secured
bywa
as
surprisingchain n
the
his defence the prisoner, in a
she had.
When called upon: :
sullen tone, denied that he had set the dog upon his wife,
declaring that it had voluntarily sprung upon her in
consequence of seeing the struggle between them about
but it having been proved that he had wil-
yirojedsit;ed the animal to attack the woman, and held
tfu
the go
el chain in his hand while it did so,
Mr. ARNOLD, af:er characterising it as one of the most
savage and bru,al an,actions that had ever come under
his notice, and expressing his regret that he could not
more severely punish him, sentenced the prisoner to pay
the ill!! penalty of 51., or in default to stand committed
to the House of Correction for two months, and further-
more ordered him, at the expiration of that period, to
put in substantial bail for his good behaviour fur the fur-
ther term of 12 months. _ _

The prisoner was n7tprepared with the money, and
was therefore tranaterred to the Huuso of Currtction in
.he van.

WESTMINSTER.
cwrgc shim, au omnibus drirsr, was oharge4 with