The Sun.
London, England, 1851-10-21 00:00:00

WORSHIP-STREET.

Mr. William Scadden, a master bricklayer in
Charlotte-street, Curtain-road, was charged with
having violently assaulted, and thereby caused the
death of Thomas John Taylor, a labourer in his
service.

A young man, named Robert Creese, stated that
shortly after one o'clock on Saturdry afternoon he
was passing through Chiswell-street, Finsbury, when
his attention was attracted to an angry altercation be-
tween the deceased and the prisoner, and he heard
the latter exclaim, "If you repeat that expression,
I'll knock you down." The deceased thereupon re-
peated the observation, and the prisoner instantly
struck him a violent blow under the ear, which
caused him to stagger back and fall heavily upon the
pavement. He was immediately raised by some of
the bystanders, who conveyed him to the surgery of
a medical gentleman in the neighbourhood, on
reaching which he was ascertained to be quite dead.
On seeing the man fall, the prisoner walked off, with
the observation "that he had only given him what he
deserved," but he was subsequently traced by Hay-
ward, one of the warrant officers of this court, who
took him into custody.

The prisoner, who made no observation in reply to
the charge, was ordered to be remanded to await the
result of the post modem examination.

WESTMINSTER.

A miserable•looking barefooted woman was brought
before Mr. Arnold under the following circum-
stances :

A police-constable proved that his attention was
called to the defendant by a gentleman who found her
sitting on the previous evening on the step of a door
in Belgrave-square. Finding, upon inquiries, that she
was in a state of destitution without any place of
abode, the constable took her to St. George's work-
house, in Mountestreet, Grosvenor-square, when the
porter said she had been there before, and refused to
admit her. Under those circumstances, the constable
took her to the station for shelter.

Mr. ARNOLD directed the constable to request the
attendance of one of the parish officers of St. George's
to give some explanation why a woman found in this
destitute condition wax refused relief.

In the course of the day, Lacey, one of the officers,
attended, when Mr. Arnold represented to him the
circumstances of the case.

Lacey said he was not in attendance when she was
brought to the workhouse, as stated by the constable,
but begged to put the magistrate in possession of
some circumstances connected with her history. She
was a short time ago charged at the Marlborough-
street Police-court with attempting to commit suicide
by drowning herself in the Serpentine, but she had
merely walked up to her middle in water, and then
screamed to attract attention until she was got out.
As she was then in a state of destitution she was
taken to the workhouse and clothed, but subsequently
demanded her discharge, and left the place. In about
a fortnight afterwards she was again taken before
Mr. Hard wick for an act of mendicancy, and com-
mitted for seven days. She had, besides the occasion
on which she had discharged herself from the work-
house, been clothed from bead to foot by the authori-
ties. Something, he thought, ought to be done with
her, as she was addicted to very indecent and filthy
practices.
Mr. ARNOLD observed that the point was, the
woman was found on the present occasion really in a
state of destitution, and taken by the constable to the
workhouse, where nothing was done for her.
Lacey said he had before stated when she had the
opportunity of being maintained in the workhouse she
insisted upon being discharged.
Mr. ARNOLD thought that, being evidently in a
state of utter destitution, it was the duty of the porter
at the workhouse to have relieved her, irrespective of
character, and his refusal had compelled the police to
lock her up, because they did not know what else to
do with her. It was the porter's duty to have taken
her in, to be dealt with as the board of guardians
might think fit. The circumstance was one bring-
ing great odium upon the administration of the poor-
law. He thought it was harsh treatment to have
refused her relief.

Lacey said he would take the woman to the work-
house, and see that she was properly attended to.
Mr. ARNOLD observed that it would be as well, in
so obvious a case of destitution as the present, that
the porter did not act so authoritatively, and refuse
admission.
John Groves, a chimney sweeper, was charged
with disturbing one of the ministers of St. Luke,
Chelsea, while performing .a funeral service.
Upon the case being called on,
Johnson, the parish sexton, said that the Rev. W.
A. Snake, the minister, who bad been interrupted by
defendant, had desired him to state that he wished to
withdraw the charge.
Mr. ARNOLD observed that he had no doubt the
Rev. Gentleman was actuated by the kindest motives,
but as it was a matter of public misconduct, and as
the Rev. Gentleman was not the person who had
charged the defendant upon the police-sheet, but
Johnson, the sexton, he must hear the case.
Johnson then stated that while the clergyman was
reading the burial service at a funeral in the church-
yard, on Saturday afternoon, the defendant called out
through the rails, " Why don't you pull off your
smock ?" and added something about no fees for bu-
rials, baptisms, and churchings. The clergyman, at
the conclusion of the service, directed witness to find
a police-constable, and give the defendant in charge ;
which he did. Defendant had since waited upon the
Rev. Gentleman, and having expressed the greatest
contrition for his misconduct, he (the sexton) had
been requested, as he had before stated, to solicit his
discharge.
Mr. ARNOLD asked the defendant what he had to
say to the charge ? Defendant replied that he was
extremely sorry, but he was under the influence of
liquor at the time he committed the offence, and did
aot know what he was about.
Mr. ARNOLD inquired whether be was a dissenter ?
Defendant, in a faltering tone, evidently ashamed
of the avowal after such gross misconduct, replied
that he was a member of the Established Church.
Mr. ARNOLD said he had been guilty of the most
disgraceful and indecent conduct,
calculated to out-
rage the feelings of the minister in the highest de-
gree; but as that gentleman had expressed his desire
to withdraw the charge he would pay attention to the
request, which he was sure was dictated by the
kindest motive. H e hoped the defendant's expression
of contrition was sincere, and he should discharge him
upon his entering into his own recognizances to keep
the peace and be of good behaviour for the next six
months.