The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-27 00:00:00

NEW COURT.

Thomas Douglas, aged 15 ; Joseph Douglas, aged 18 ;
John Wicks, aged 17 ; James Stoneheiver, aged 19 ;
Smith, aged 17 ; George Price, aged 17 ; Joseph Cle-
ments, 43 ; and Elizabeth Clements, his wife, were indicted,
the six first prisoners for breaking into a summer house, and
stealing several articles, the property of Benjamin Edward
Denham, Esq., and the two latter with feloniously receiving
the articles, ►ell knowing them to have been stolen.
The COMMON SERGE ANT, in summing up, said there
was no evidence against Thomas Douglas, nor against the
man Clements, whose wife appeared to manage all the affairs.
The Jury, after five minutes' deliberation, returned a
verdict of Guilty against all the others.
Mr. BODKIN said there were four other indictments
for similar offences against the prisoners, but it was on the
same evidence, and did not affect the male prisoner Cle-
ments, or the lad who had been acquitted.
The COMMON SERGEANT observed that it was a lamen-
table case, and one greatly reflecting on the female Cle-
ments. She whose age and experience in the world ought
to have placed her beyond ordinary temptation, had been
guilty of the vilest and most abominable practices. Her's
was a nursery of vice. She had been detected in harbour-
ing lads of that tender age, and initiating them in the art
of thieving, and having sent them out to commit depreda-
tions, bad received the plunder, and had gained a subsist-
ence on their infamy. As regarded Wicks, he had been be-
fore convicted of felony, and had received a slight punish-
ment, that having been his first offence. He considered
he should not be doing his duty to the public if he did not
treat the conviction of Mrs. Clements with the utmost se-
verity. The Learned SERGEANT then ordered the Clerk
of the Arraigns to call them up for judgment.
Elizabeth Clements and John Wicks were then sentenced
to fourteen years' transportation each, and the other pri-
soners who had been convicted to seven years.

On Thursday last, a man in the employment of
Messrs. Heslop, .Milward, and Co., of Lowca Foundry, White-
haven, saw a strange object afloat on the sea, off the embou-
chure of Lowca Beck, which attracted his attention. He
waded up to it, and found it to be an enormous turtle, appa-
rently dead, He mnuut f
e, upon it fgr the pippggp gf ppnyf3ying
it to land, when the monster showed vitality enough tq put its
fins in motion, and the adventurous navigator found himself
sailing out to sea like another Arlon. In this extraordinary
predicament, he dismounted "in all reasonable haste," CiPsl
dry land, It turned out to be a turtle of the edible species,
whiictkiii reachedtile:noee
and weighing no Itua than PO WeiOt gorter, This is
coast
loallr9oes:t
live
eoe,wt where etiortebaih:e:Fcgr
ashore, and
if nay
inrdut
ahleorduag?sesodi
ns to aittn c e
safe,anonct

the tirsL
of Cumberland.— initettaven

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

(Concluded from The Sun of yesterday.)
Mr. WEEDING moved a resolution to the effect that the
Court, adverting to the third resolution of the Court of
Proprietors of August last, in which it was recommend that
the commanders and officers of. the Company's ships, whose
charters were unexpired, were entitled to compensation.
The Court considered that the following scale of compensa-
tions would be equivalent to the loss they would sustain,
namely :—Commander, 3,0001. for each voyage not com-
pleted ; chief mates, 5001. ; second mate, 400/. ; surgeons,
4001. ; third mates, 2001. ; pursers, 2001. ; fourth mates,
100/. ; assistant surgeons, 100/. ; fifth and sixth mate, 501. ;
midshipmen, 301. ; boatswains, gunners, and carpenters, 25/.
for each voyage incompleted.

Mr. MACKENZIE seconded. the amendment

Sir C. FORBES thought the Resolution of the Court of
Directors ought to have been separated. As the amend-
ment now stood the effect would be, if carried, to annul the
resolution of the Court of Directors, approving of the scale
for the Company's maritime officers.

The CHAIRMAN said that if the amendment of the Hon.
Proprietor were adopted it would certainly have the effect of
superseding the motion he had proposed.
Mr. WEEDING should press his motion, relating as it did

to the officers of ships whose contracts were unexpired.
Mr. LINDLEY, a Director, said the effect of the motion
would be to place commanders of such ships in a better si-
tuation than the commanders of the Company's own ships,
as the latter had 5,000/. for five voyages, while the former
would have 9,000/. for three voycges incompleted.
Sir CHARLES FORBES could not support Mr. Weeding's
amendment, although he thought that a large amount of
compensation ought to be granted to the Commanders of
ships whose contracts were unexpired. He could not agree
that the Company's commanders should have only 5,0001.
for five voyages, while the commanders of vessels for con-
tracts which had not expired would have 9,0001. He
thought also that some better provision should be made for

the senior officers, many of whom, after having been ten
years in the service, were only to receive .50/. He thought
this would be a complete blight to their hopes.
Mr. WEEDING altered his amendment, with the view of

the Court's adopting the Resolution proposed by the Chair-
man, but adding an opinion of the Court of Proprietors
that the compensation he had brought forward should be
granted.
After a good deal of discussion upon a point of order,
in which Mr. Laurie, Sir Charles Forbes, and other Pro-
prietors joined, as to whether the amendment or the original
motion should be first put, the original motion was sub-
mitted for confirmation by the Chairman, and carried by a
very large majority, only three hands being held up against
it. The amendment of Mr. Weeding was therefore lost.
Mr. SWEET complained that by the course adopted he

had been deprived of the opportunity of moving the amend-
ment he had intended to propose, granting compensation to
the commanders and officers of the contract vessels on the
standard of the modified plan of the Board of Control.
The Court then adjourned ; being specially appointed,
and no other business being before it.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

Q UEEN- S Q U ARE.

Yesterday William Jenkins, in the employ of Messrs.
Armstrong the builders, in the Vauxhall-road, was charged
on a warrant before Messrs. BURRELL and HEATHCOTE,
with violently assaulting John Pitt, a workman in the em-
ploy of Messrs. Herbert, the proprietors of some extensive
saw-mills in the Vauxhall-road.

The shops of both masters are nearly opposite each other
in the Vauxhall-road, anti the men in Messrs. Armstrong's
employ belong to the Trades' Union, and those in Messrs.
Herbert's are anti-Unionists. This circumstance has occa-
sioned numerous quarrels amongst the men belonging to
the different establishments, and scarcely a day passes but
a fight of some description or another takes place.
The complainant, who had his arm in a sling, stated that
he was not a member of the Union. On Monday last,
about half-past twelve o'clock, he was going quietly to his
work at Messrs. Herbert's, when some person came be-
hind him, and struck him a violent blow, his arm instantly
dropped, and his shoulder • was dislocated. He turned
round, and the defendant was the nearest person to him.
He never spoke a word to one, nor did he give the slightest
provocation. _ _ _

John Franklin, another workman, stated that he was go-
ing to work at the same time, when the defendant and a
number of the Union came up. He distinctly saw the de-
fendant strike Pitt on the shoulder, when his arm dropped.
The defendant then turned round, and, addressing one of
the men, exclaimed, " It is your turn next."
A number of other witnesses were called, who swore po-
sitively that the defendant struck the blow that dislocated
the complainant's shoulder.
The defendant denied the charge, and was about to enter
into a detail of the different affrays which had taken place
between the men of the different establishments on the
previous week, but he was stopped by the Magistrates,
who desired him to confine himself to what had occurred
on Monday.
The defendant called several witnesses, but they could
only swear that they saw no blows struck.
Mr. BURRELL, having consulted with his colleague, said
that they were quite satisfied that the complainant had
committed the assault, and fined him 40s. and costs, or to
be imprisoned twenty days.—The fine was paid.
The next case was against William Horne, an anti-
Unionist, in Messrs. Herbert's employ, for assaulting John
Hutchinson of the opposite party, in Messrs. Armstrong's
employ.
It appeared from the statement of the complainant that
about three minutes past twelve o'clock on Monday after-
noon last, a short time previous to the last assault, he was
coming out of Messrs. Armstrong's yard with other men to
go to dinner, when the defendant, who appeared to be in-
toxicated, and others, came up. The defendant threw up
his cap, exclaiming " Where is Hutchinson ? I'll fight
Hutchinson." The defendant then aimed a blow at his
face, but it struck him on the side of his head. It was not
a very hard blow.
The defendant denied the charge, and called witnesses,
but they could not disprove the charge.
Mr. BURRELL said that they would fine any of the men
who committed an assault. The present case was not of
so aggravated a nature as the last, and the defendant must
pay a penalty of 10s. and costs. The fine was paid.