The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-21 00:00:00

THE SUN,

out of the wanes of seamen. It was managed under the
direction of various Acts of Parliament, and the result
had been that it wash aght to he condition in which it
now was, when it was .ialcelated a deficiency to the ex-
tent of no less theo aoout „JOU would bo found upon
the winding up of the eflairs of the fund, which was in-
tended as a tort of benevolent institu►ion originally.
Last, year he had hoped to bring the fl.nd into some
order, by proposing an additional tax of t.ixpecce a
month on seamen, adding about 30,0001. from the Ex-
chequer. But his experience had led him to conclude
that seamen would not be easily induced to
consent to contribute more from their wages for
any prospective benefit. He, therefore, abandoned the
scheme he had then conceived, and now proposed to in-
troduce one on a different principle. He proposed to
wind up the affairs of the old fund altogether, and thus
put an end at once to what had been a fruitful source of
discontent amongst merchant seamen. That, however,
could not be done without the State bearing a heavy
burden in the work, to an extent of no less than 600,000/.
or 700,0001.; but that was to be spread over a period of
thirty years, and by 1880 he hoped it would all be paid.
The provisions of the Bill were as follow:—First, ho pro-
posed to wind up the old fund, to stop all compulsory
payments, and to guarantee the payment of all pensions.
Any persons omitting payments for two years to forfeit
their pension; but those who wished to continue still
their payments to be entitled to the benefit. He pro-
posed that all the assets of the fund should be collected
and applied to carry out the objects of the new fund, and
all to be placed under the stringent management of the
Board of Trade. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded
by moving for leave to bring in a Bill with the fore-
going provisions, which he trusted would tend really
and materially to benefit the condition of the merchant

Leave having been given, the Bill was brought in, read
a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on that
day we,k.
The House then adjourned at a Qaarter-past Oce
o'clock.

LAW IN i'ELLIC+EN CE.
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, June 20.
(Sittings upon Crown Cases Reserved. Present—The
LORD CHIEF BARON, and Barons PARKE and MAR-
TIN, and Justices PATTESON and WIGHTMAN.)
THE QUEEN U. MARY HOGAN.
The defendant sires indicted tor abandoning her child
with intent to defraud a parish, and another count
charged the intent to be to defraud the overseers of a
parish. She was found guilty, but discharged on her
own recognizance, in order that the matter might come
before this Court.
Mr. PHINN said the object of the indictment was not
to punish the party, but to bring the state of the law
before the judges, that public attention might be called
to it, so that the Legislature might alter the law. The
whole had arisen in consequence of the decision of Mr.
Justice Wightman. The Act of the sth George IV.,
cap. 83, sect. 4, enacted that any person running
sri awah
y
and leaving his or her family chargeable to a ps
should be guilty of an indictable offence. Mr. Justice
Wightman had held that that had reference only to
legitimate children, and not to illegitimate children.
The question, therefore, was whether when a mother
abandoeed her illegitimate child with intent to cause
other persons to maintain the child, it was an indictable
offence at common law. Alter hearing a short argument.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said they were all of opinion
that the indictment could not be sustained. It was no
doubt an offence to neglect a child where there was a
duty to take care of it, so as thereby to neglect the
health of the child, but in this case it was not alleged
that any injury occurred to the child in consequence of
the act of the mother, nor did it appear that the mother
had any means of providing for it. With respect to
the supposed injury to the parish, it appeared to him
they ought not to go beyond the authorities, and he
did not find any authority for stating that any person
who occasioned a possible loss to the parish by leaving
it to maintain the casual poor was indictable. Is was
quite consistent with every allegation in this indictment,
that this woman, being utterly unable to maintain the
child, left it for a moment for the purpose of taking care
of herself, that she might not starve, leaving the child
to be taken care of as casual poor. He might say for
himself, that summoning the judges to hear an argu-
ment of this sort was not the wry to induce the Legible-
tare to alter the law, and perhaps it might not be a very
successful one.
Mr. Baron PARKE fully agreed with the Lord Chief
Baron, and he would add that the indictment was defec.
tive, because there was no averment that the mother
had the means of maintaining the child. The indictment
was bad.
Mr. Jnstice PATTESON agreed with the other judges.
What did it signify to the parish, if the mother had not
the means of maintaining the child, whether she aban-
doped it or not, because they must have maintained it?
The other judges concurred. The recognisances to be
discharged.
(Sittings in Error on Cases from the Queen's Bench.
Present—Barons PARKE, ALDERSON, and MARTIN.)

LAVEY V. THE QUEEN.

Mr. Baron PARKS said this was an indictment for
perjury committed in the County Court of Whitechapel.
Two opjections had been made—first, that the court in
which the proceeding had taken place was not properly
designated. The Court did not think this objection ought
to prevail. It was a court constituted pursuant to the
statute of 9th and 10th V,ctoria. The second objection
was that there was no averment that the action was one
over which the County Court had jurisdiction. It was
said that it must be shown that the oath was adminis-
tered in a judicial proceeding of which the Court had
cognizance. It was averred that an action was pending
in that court presided over by a judge having authority
to adminster an oath. The oath was administered in the
course of a judicial proceeding. Unless the judge had
cognizance he could not have administered the oath, and
the Court must infer that the judge had jurisdiction.
The plaintiff in error had been convicted and sentenced
by , Lord Campbell to 12 months' imprisonment, and
that sentence must be affirmed.
The Court then sat in error upon cases from the Com-
mon Pleas, before Barons Parke, Alderson, and Martin,
and Justices Patteson, Wightman, and Erle.
Thera was but one case, and that was of so purely
technical a nature that it is not necessary to give a re-
port of it.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and Mr. Baron PLATT
MURDER OF A POLICERAN.
The trial of Patrick Cane, John IJickey, and James
M'Ellicott.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The Learned Counsel for the prisoners then severally
addressed the jury on behalf of their respective clients;
and, with regard to Hickey and Cane, it was stated that
evidence would be adduced to show that the police were
mistaken in 'speaking to the identity of Hickey, and
that Cane was at his own house at the time the offence
was alleged to have been committed. On the part of
M'Ellicott it was contended by Mr. Woollett that the
evidence was totally insufficient to convict him, inasmuch
as it was distinctly proved that he had not struck a blow,
and that at most he could only be held constructively
guilty of the offence of murder by being present at the
time the fatal injury was inflicted by one of his cons-
penions.
A great number of witnesses, all Irish people, were
called on leshalf of Hickey and Cane; and on the part of,
the latter it was Ought to be shown that as he was going,
quietly home on the night in ;'question;; policeman in-,
tertered vvith himand struck him on the head with his,
truncheon, and it was represented:that be went home and;
was-engaged-in washing the wound at the time of the.
affray, and the blood upon big person was accounted;
for by this circumstance. On the part of Hickey an
attempt was made to show that he accompanied a
man named Harrington, and another named Shell' to
the house of the latter, on the night in question, at five:
minutes to one o'clock, and that he remained with them'
until half-past one, when Harrington accompanied him
home. Both these witnesses swore positively to this'
fact, and they also attempted to prove that the prisoner
Hickey bad been mistaken for Clarey, who was repre-':
seated to have absconded; and they represented that as
they were walking towards the lodging of the prisoner
they met Clarey, and that he changed his coat for a
jacket that was worn by Hickey, and it was stated that
this was done in the open street. In addition to the
improbability of the story told by these witnesses, it was
mode clear that a portion of their statement was mani-
festly false, for, although they swore positively that they
were able to speak to the time by looking at the clock
that 'wee in Shas house, upon being asked by the"
`nounsel for the prosecution to tell the time by the clock
'thegtourt, they both, after some hesitation, admitted
'thatifia were unable to do so.
Mr: BYLAND, in his reply upon the whole case, called'
upon the jury to dismiss the evidence that had been ,
behalf of the prisoners entirely from their
"ponsideration, as he said he could not help coming to.
Otn3t 'oalet conclusion than that it had been built up uponz
foul in corrupt perjury.
-Mg:Justice COLERIDGE having summed up the case
vatttagreat care and minuteness,
The jury, without any hesitation, returned a verdict of
Guilt)? of manslaughter against Cane and Hickey, and
Acquitted M'Ellicott.
Cane and Hickey were sentenced to be transported for
5 years.

NEW COURT.
Hilton Bateman, 19, law stationer, was convicted of
stealing from the dwelling-house of Edward Clark, and
sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
Tho case was one of the ordinary character, and would
not be worthy of mention but for the following inci•
dent : _ _

The prisoner called his brother,
a dissipated-looking
man, to give him a character.
The RECORDER asked him what he w as 4 division.
—lle said in
thes
po
el ircien,tpthe d :31
ts division,ren nanat
saidt ehtehdatto the
the
prisonerbut i
had by
sttboenincge
means of a false character got into the police,
discovered that he was a convicted thief he was
turned out.
The RECORDER said the attempt to deceive the Court
was an act of contempt, and ordered him into custody.
James Corbyn, 29, traveller, and Henry Hammond, 43,
labourer, were convicted of a street robbery, with vio-
lence, on George Sheppard, and stealing a watch valued
at 121.
The prosecutor, a sturdy-hnilt man, stated that he was
accosted in Half-moon-street by a woman, and had not
been sirekirqr: to her long when Hammond came up be-
hind and seized him, and said, " What do you do with
my wife." The woman then snatched his watch and made '
Off. prosecutor instantly turned round on his assailant,
and at a blow felled bier, to the ground, fearfully damag-
ing his face. Corbyn then came up and tried to take
prosecutor off from Hammond, when he found himself
also in the iron grip of prosecutor, who held them both
till the police came up.
They were ordered to be transported for ten years,

the RECORDER. stating that he wished it to ba known
that any mia. of the prisoners' class of offenders, if
convicted before bin), would te transported for ten years
at least.
They were both well known tier: r, and Hanniond
was one of the garq,; th:lt ooratnit'A4 the barglary at Mr.
Holford's, in Regent's-park.

TArl IRD COURT.
(lief ,re the COMMON SERGEANT.)
Geriver Barber, 30, shoemaker, was indicted
for obtaing money by false pretences.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty.
Mr. Robinson appeared for the prosecution.
The features of this case were somewhat singular,
and showed a great deal of ingenuity. The system of
fraud had been carried on for some years, the prisoner
having obtained from various persons sums amounting
in the whole to nearly 1,600/. The prosecutors in the
cases brought before this court were James Robertson,
George Evans, and John Regan, from whom he had ob-
tained 321., two of them being persons employed at the
Queen's printing-office; and the prisoner having obtained
an introduction to them, said he was entitled to a large
estate—Stowe-park, Lincolnshire, and upon some papers,
which he said were the deede entitling him to the pro-
perty, ho borrowed the money, and deposited them as
security. From one of the parties (Evans), a beershop-
keeper, he obtained 31., but Evans subsequently having
rouse suspicions made application to the Court
of Chancery, and found • out the fraud that had been
practised. The case was put into the hands of Webb,
the City officer, who traced out the other prosecutors,
and had received letters from many persons in the
country, from whom prisoner had obtained, in several
instances, 501. and even much larger sums, by depositing
copies of the same deeds as those produced in court this
day.
The COURT sentenced him to twelve months' im-
prisonment.
William Carver Crole, 58, traveller, an elderly and
very gentlemanly-attired man, pleaded guilty to em-
bezzling 471. 125., the moneys of William Northen, and
also to stealing, in notes and gold, the sum of 45L, the
property of the same person, his master.
Mr. Robinson prosecuted, and Mr. Hailing Gifford de-
fended.
In answer to the inquiries of the Court, it was stated
that the prosecutor, who is the proprietor of a pottery
at Vauxhall, had the prisoner in his service as town
traveller at a salary of 31. a week and horse and gig, boy
to attend him being allowed and also all extra expenses.
He bad been three years in his service, and had been
otherwise treated with the greatest kindness. On the
25th of April he absconded, having broken open prose-
cutor's desk and stolen in money and notes 451. and a
number of acceptances. It was then found that since
last July he had been embezzling sums of money, and his
defalcations were about 2701.
The COMMON-SERGEANT said it was sad to see a man
of the prisoner's age and apparent respectability in his
situation, and who bad previously enjoyed so good a
character, but that character only made his case worse,
it being themeans of enabling him to commit the offence.
He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
Leonora Weymouth, alias Valladier, alias De Sauverell,
29, married, was indicted for feloniously marrying
Francois Cesar Valladier, her husband being then and
now alive.
Mr. Robinson prosecuted, and Mr. Horry defended.
The prisoner, who appears much older than stated in
the calendar, bore the traces of having been once a pretty
and animated-looking dark woman, but her features
were very careworn; she was neatly but poorly attired,
and wept several times while the case was being pro-
ceeded with. She pleaded not guilty.
Mr. ROBINSON, having stated the case, called
Charlotte Billington, who stated that she lived at 2,
Fair-street, Horselydown, and was present at the mare
riage of Mr. Frederick 'eymouth with the prisoner in
March, 1845. Saw Mr. Weymouth alive on the Gth of
this month.
Cross-examined—l went to the marriage, at the re-
quest of Mr. Weymouth, to be a witness. I have heard
he was a teacher. I did not know either of them; but
being the sexton's wife was asked to be present. Wit-
ness did not state at what place the marriage took place.
Mrs. Mary Frances Bobbett—l am the wife of James
Bobbet, and live in Bryan-street, Caledonian-road. I
got the certificate of the second marriage from the Mi-
nories. I have known M. de Valladier since 1849. He
came to lodge at my house in that year. The prisoner
lived with him as his wife. I knew that she had been
married to Mr. Weymouth. He dined there once. Old
Mr. Weymouth, the father of the husband, lived part of
the time at the house with her. I don't know that
Valladier and the prisoner's husband were friends. It
was Mr. Lewis and Mr. Valladier that came to me to be
a witness.
Fraec ,is Cesar Valladier, the second husband, a gen-
tlemanly looking foreigner, who spoke English somewhat
imperfectly, said,—l am living at 12, Northumberland-
street, Strand. I know the prisoner. I was married to
her in November, 1848, at the church of the Holy Tri-
nity, Minories. I lived with her before we were mar-
ried. She said she had never been married, and that
she was the Countess de Sauverell, and that Viscount
Beresford was her guardian. I have left her 18 or 20
months. I had that letter:from her.
The letter, which was read by the Learned Counsel in
his opening address, ran as follows:--
"August 25, 1847.
" Dear Mr. Valladier,—l have told Frederick to ask
you to come to my lodgings to supper to-night. Pray
come has I always feel happier when you are with me.
Why have you remained away lately so long? You
appear to avoid me; if you avoid me through thinking
me Frederick's wife, I can assure you that lam not.
Frederick says I am not to tell you. I know well why he
does not wish you to know it—he believes you rich, and
he thinks if he could get you to intrigue with me he
should get money from you. Pray be on your guard
against these Weymouths, they are a bad family all of
them—their friendship is to get as much money from
you as they possibly can; but I will yet foil them—l
will watch over you with the greatest care. Yes, Mr.
Valladier, I love you; your quiet and gentle-
manly manners have made that impression upon
me never to be erased. It is so long since I have seen
anything approaching to kindness until I knew you. I
hope you will not be offended at my telling you I love
you. I am soon going into the country; will you ac-
company me? If you will, meet me at eight o'clock,
Sunday evening next, at the end of Camberwell New-
road, by the Green. I will explain all t 9 you, but rest
assured lam not Mr. Frederick Weymouth's wife. I
will prove it to you by taking you to a friend of mine,
who will tell you the same. I hope you will not despise
me for not being his wife. Uncle will leave this at your
lodgings. Do not let Sam or Boy see it. I hope to see
you at supper to-night. Farewell for the present.
"Ever yours faithfully,
"VIOLA DR SAUVERELL."
Cross-examined—l do not know where I first met her.
I first went to a house of accommodation with her. She
drew me into that. That was in July, 1847, or the be-
ginning of August. After a fortnight I came to live
with her. I knew Weymouth in July, 1847; I met him
at his brother's house. At that time I could not speak
a word of English, or understand a word. I have been
to a theatre twice with Mrs. Frederick Weymouth. I
have been in Francs with her; that was in October,
1847. I lived with her at Mrs. obbet's in March, 1849.
Weymouth told me she was his wife a day or two after
I left her at Mrs. Bobbet's. I have left her two or
three times; but she has told me that she was not his
wife. I have come back again, but at last I told her that
she was his wife, and I should not live with her again.
If she had not fullowed me about and run bills in my
name I should not have prosecuted her. I had a letter
while 1 wee in Paris, to say that she had gone into
mourning for me and was going to marry spin.—
(Laughter.) Sergeant Archer said, when ho appre-
hended her,- he asked her where Mr. Weymouth was.
She said she hoped in heaven.
The certificates were not put in. The first marriage
took place at St. James the Great, Bethnal-green, on the
12th of March, 1845, and the prisoner was described as
Leonora Alverazzi; the husband and his father were de-
scribed as gentlemen, and the father of the prisoner as
a Spanish grandee. Oa her second marriage she repre-
sented her father as a general in the Spanish army.
Mr. Holten, for the defence, said the question was
whether she might not have thought her husband dead.
The COMMON-SERGEANT said the affair was discredit-
able to all parties, but if guilt was attached to the second
husband that did not excuse the prisoner.
The jury found her Guilty.
The COMMON-SERGEANT sentenced her to six months
imprisonment.
As the prisoner left the dock she made a graceful
curtsey to the bench.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Samuel Lewis, who was on Thursday charged with
having had in bis possession a gold watch which had boen
stolen from Mr. Vinden, at the races, at Epsom, on the
23d of May, was brought up in the custody of Finnis,
the officer, for final examination; Mr. Parry appeared
for the prisoner.
The additional evidence in this case, which excited
much interest, was as follows:
Mr. J. M. Badollet, of Greek-street, Soho, watch-
maker, said—l sold a gold watch to a Mr. Hughes on
the 4th of March, 1847, for 71., and have an entry of it,
which was made at the time of the sale. It was num-
bered 22,908. There is a slight description of it, stating
that it was engine-turned on the back with an enamelled
face. It was a horizontal movement, and a middle-sized
article, with gold case and seconds' hands, and foreign
(Geneva) made. lam an importer. I believe (looking
at the movement produced by the officer) this movement
to belong to that watch, and the number, which was
made abroad, corresponds with the number of the watch
I so sold, as also do the description and the name.
Cross-examined by Mr. Parry—Geneva articles are
made by different houses. There might be many Ge-
neva watches of the same number. There are six or
seven manufacturers there as high as the manufacturer
of this. They, perhaps, follow up the numbers of the
watches raanufactured from 1 to 100,000. The house by
which this article was manufactured has been manufac-
turing watches for two hundred years. Another watch
of the same number would not have the same name—
that of ~Bedollet"—upan it.
Who put that name upon the watch? Witness—lt
Was put on there (at Geneva). We have a house there.
This is a rotation number.
Mr. William Hughes, of No. 17, High-street, South-
wark, silversmith. I produce the invoice I received with
a watch from Mr. Badollet. I bought the watch num-
bared 22,908 of him on the 4th of March, 1847. I put
it into the stock. I sold a watch to Mr. Vinden, but I
took the number from tha outer case. My -positive iden-
tity of the watch is gone, inasmuch as the number I take
is from the outer case, which is not to be found. It is
usual to put the number on the movement as well ss on
the outer case. I have no watch in my stock of this kind
at the present time. From the entry I made I believe
the watch produced to be the same I gold to Mr. Vinden.