The Sun.
London, England, 1851-09-24 00:00:00

IN RE EDWARD RICHARDS.

This insolvent wai opposed by Mr. James, a tailor,
who stated that the insolvent ordered a suit of clothes
of him in June last, to be sent to Anderson-street,
Chelsea, an address that was not mentioned in the de-
scription.
The insolvent said he had not resided in Anderson-
street, but had his letters and parcels addressed to
that place. He resided at that period at Battersea.
Mr. NicuoLs, who supported, submitted that as
the insolvent's real residence was mentioned i❑ the
description the Court would not require a re-adver-
tisement.

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER, however, decided that
the decription was insufficient, and adjourned the
case for the insolvent to advertise himself as of An-
derson-street.

IN RE JOSEPH BELL.

Mr. Coosa applied in this case for a dismissal of
the petition filed under the protection statutes, and
for leave to file one under the Ist and 2d Victoria, c.
110. The insolvent was in custody upon an attach-
ment from the Court of Chancery for non-payment
of a sum of money as a contributory to the North of
England Banking Company, and as he, therefore,
was a partner in that company he was liable to the
bankrupt laws, and could not petition under the Pro-
tection Acts, his debts exceeding 3001.
The COMMISSONER granted the application.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Sept. 23.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge, and
a Bench of Magistrates, at the Guildhall, West-
minster.)

Harried M'auseley, aged 19, was indicted for
having stolen a pair of stays and other articles of
the value of 11s., and the sum of sd, the property of
W. Austin, under the following circumstances :
It appeared that the prosecutor is a private in the
Sd battalion of Grenadier Guards, and that whilst he
was on duty, in the month of July last, at Spring-
gardens-gate, St. James's-park, he observed the pri-
soner wandering about as though in a state of all but
starvation, and in a very dilapidated condition in re-
spect to health. He spoke to her, and finding her to
be in the weakly state which her external appearance
had indicated, he told her to go to his home, No. 13,
Lower Crown-street, Westminster, where she would
find his wife, who would give her something to eat
upon her stating that he had sent her. Accordingly,
the prisoner went, when the prosecutor's wife gave her
some coffee and bread and butter, and also allowed
her the use of water, soap, and towel, with which to
wash herself. Upon the prosecutor's return home he
told her that as it was night she might sleep there.
appeared to be most
For h
thankful,
t i baouodn h thee
accordinglyprisoner
desired his wife to
make up a bed for her on the floor. Here she slept
that night. In the course of conversation the prisoner
was a stranger in London,
her home at Chichester,
and
dd
hthade prarousec awayuto r that
ra t she
whereupon, as the girl appeared to lament the step
she had adopted, the prosecutor offered to put himself
in communication with her father, with a view to her
being restored to her home. On the following morn-
ing the prosecutor and his wife went out for a short
time, and during their absence the prisoner had made
up a bundle of some of his wife's clothes, and walked
off with it. Nothing more was heard of the girl until
the 3d of the present month, when she was met by the
prosecutor, having on at the time the bonnet and
shawl of his wife. Of course he at once gave her into
custody.
The prisoner now made no defence.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evi-
dence,
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE then said that the conduct of
the prosecutor in this matter was in the highest degree
creditable to him, not only as a soldier, but as an Eng-
lishman. The Court deemed it necessary to say
that much, for whenever a soldier was convicted
before him of an offence against the criminal law,
he never spared censure of the severest kind. Upon
all occasions, therefore, when the opportunity
offered, it afforded him much gratification to be able
to commend the conduct of a British soldier. It was
by such men as this prosecutor that the real honour
and integrity of the British army were supported.
With respect to the prisoner, her conduct had been
marked by the blackest ingratitude. The sentence
upon her—she was well known, it appeared, to the
officers—was imprisonment and hard labour for six
months.

Charles llancoch, aged 25, was indicted for having
stolen a carpet and other articles of the value of 31.,
the property of Newby Hutchinson.
The prisoner, it appeared, had been in the service
of the prosecutor, an upholsterer, in Oxford -street, for
a short time, but was discharged some time in the
month of June.

The principal witness against the prisoner was a
young woman of the name of Eliza May, the wife of
John May, of No. 6, Queen-street, Golden-square,
who had lived in adultery with the prisoner for nearly
two years. The evidence of this witness went to
show that during the time the prisoner had been
in the service of the prosecutor he had been in the
habit of bringing various articles home, of which
those now charged in the indictment as having been
stolen were a part. Some of the things, at thein-
stigation of the prisoner, she had pawned at Chap-
man's, in London-street, Tottenham-court-road.
Eventually a quarrel arose between her and the pri-
soner, and upon her expressing her determination to