The Sun.
London, England, 1834-09-25 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX INTERMEDIATE SESSIONS.

(Before B. ROTCH, Esq., and a Bench of Magistrates.)
The Court was occupied the whole morning with parish
appeals, the greater number of which possessed no points of
any public importance.

THE NEW POOR LAW BILL.-THE PARISH OF MILE END
OLD TOWN V. THE PARISH OF SIIOREDITCH.
_ _ _

Mr. PRENDERGAST, who together with 11I;.C1.ARKSON,
appeared in favour of the appellants, stated that he believed
that the Court was called upon in the present case to ad-
judicate for the first time under the new Poor Law Bill.
The appeal was brought by the parish of Mile End Old
Town, against the parish of Shoreditch, for the remo-
val of a pauper from• the parish of the respondents
to that of the appellants. It appeared from the
statement of Mr. Prendergast, that a female named
Ann Cotterell, born of Irish parents, but a non-
resident of that county had, since the Poor Law Act
Amendment Bill came into operation (4th of August)
gave birth to a bastard child, which 'had been removed
from the parish of Shoreditch to • that of Mile End
Old Town. By the 71st section of the new Poor
Law Act, every bastard child born after the pass-
ing of the Act should follow the settlement of the mother
till it was 16 years of age. As according to the provisions
of that Act the father, mother, and child might all be re-
moveable to Ireland, the question was whether the re-
moval to the parish of Mile-end, Old Town, was
right, or whether it ought not to have been to Ireland
the birthplace of the father and mother of its parents. Ac-
cording to the old law, the settlement of the child was the
place of its birth, but under the new Poor Law Bill, the
settlement of the child was that of the mother.

Mr. ADOLPHUS appeared for the respondent, contending
that the removal was a correct one.

The •CHAIRMAN said that the present case was one of
the greatest importance, not only to the public, but to the
right construction of the new Poor Law Act.
It appeared to him that the provision in the Act,
authorising the removal of children to the birth-
place . of the mother's parents could only apply to children
that had no settlement whatever by birth. or otherwise.
On the whole, it was his opinion, the mother, although
born of Irish parents, had a settlement in this country,
and, therefore, if he was right in that, under the new
Poor Law Act the child would be entitled to the settle-
ment of its mother, and the order appealed from would
be correct.

Mr. JESSOP differed from the Chairman, considering
that the child had acquired no settlement whatever in this
country, in consequence of the mother having one.
Mr. BENNETT considered, that as the child had acquired
the benefit of the Poor Laws of this country, could not
be removed to a country where no Poor Laws existed.
After some further arguments from the bench,

The CHAIRMAN stated that he thought it would be bet-
ter, as the case was of such importance, that it should be
argued before the Court of King's Bench.

MANSION HOUSE.-(THIS DAY.)

Thomas. Payne, a very respectably dressed man, was re-
examined before the Lord Mayor, charged with stealing a
coat, value 21. 25., the property of Mr. Johnson, an auc-
tioneer in Gracechurch-street.

William Abell stated that he was in Mr. Johnson's
Rooms yesterday, between eleven and twelve o'clock. He
saw the prisoner there ; he tried on a coat, a black surtout,
the same as the one produced ; he waited in the room for
ten minutes after he first put it on ; he then walked off with
it, leaving his old one in its stead.

Mr. HoBLER—Did it seem to fit I Witness—Very
well ; he walked about, and I expected he was going to ask
me how it fitted him.

Mr. Johnson—lt might fit him well enough, but it would
not at all suit me.

Thomas Cope, a porter with Mr. Johnson, received in-
formation of the robbery from the last witness, and followed
the prisoner, whom he took in Lombard-street, with the
coat on—he found his old one when he went back to the
room.

Mr. Johnson identified the coat as his property.
The Prisoner said he had been visited with compunctions
of conscience, and was returning to the rooms with the
coat when be was taken into custody.
The Loan MAYOR said if he could persuade Mr. John-
son of the truth of that story, he might get off, otherwise
it would be his (the Lord Mayor's) duty to commit him for
trial, and he must then tell his story to the Jury.
Mr. Johnson said he had been robbed to an enormous
extent, and he was determined to put a stop to it if pos-
sible. He would pursue the present case as far as he
was able.

The prisoner was then fully committed to Ncwgate for
trial, and the parties bound over to prosecute.

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)

Jane Barns, a middle-aged woman, who was charged, on
Saturday last, before Mr. MINSHULL, with various acts of
swindling, was again placed at the bar to-day. The office,
we noticed, was more full than usual, and on the prisoner
being brought in, there was quite a stare amongst the per-
sons present, and many of them at once recognized her as
an old acquaintance, by cries of " That's her, that's her !"
The Police constable F 153, gave some further evidence,
but requested some time in order to have an opportunity of
completing a more serious case against the prisoner, of
which he had received infermation.

There were upwards of 30 persons to present charges
against her ; but the MAGISTRATE remanded her till this
day week, and requested the whole of the complaining par-
ties to attend on that day.

The woman, it appears, on a late occasion, at Maidstone,
was a principal witness against two of her sons, who were
convicted of a robbery in the house of Mr. ArnoLl, at
Gravesend. She left a very unfavourable impression upon
the minds of all present, from the careless manner in which
she behaved on the trial.