The Sun.
London, England, 1834-09-03 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

Yesterday a remarkably handsome young female, dressed
in the first style of fashion, and supporting herself upon
crutches, came before the Rev. Mr. THunsav, who sat in
the absence of Sir F. ROE, and requested that a warrant
might be issued against her husband, whom she represented
to be a chemist in a lucrative way of business in Clerken-
well, for refusing to support her, and leaving her chargeable
to the parish.

Mr. THURSBY asked the applicant what infirmity she la-
boured under that she was compelled to use crutches ?
The applicant had lost a leg, under very extraordinary
circumstances. She was passing along Piccadilly several
months ago, when she was knocked down by one of the
numerous vehicles passing, and had one of her thighs broken
in two places, each a compound fracture. She was taken
to an hospital, and it was deemed necessary to amputate
the leg. This was done, and afterwards she was removed
to her friends in the country. While there the remaining
portion of the leg became violently inflamed, and a second
operation with th amputating knife was considered indis-
pensable. When she had sufficiently recovered she came
to London, and was much astonished and hurt at being re-
fused support by her husband. When a reason was de-
manded for such an extraordinary course of conduct, he said
he would make her no allowance of any kind until she pro-
duced a certificate that the amputation of her leg was abso-
lutely necessary.
Mr. THuasPY said this was really a most extraordinary
reason for refusing to support a wife, and asked if there
might not have been some other cause, either fancied or
real ?

The fair applicant, whose statement excited more than
ordinary interest, assured his Worship that there was no
other cause than that which she had mentioned.

Mr. THURSBY said it appeared almost incredible ; but the
manner of the applicant was sufficient to convince him that
she was telling the truth. One thing was unfortunately
too certain, namely, that she had lost her leg, and it could
not be supposed that amputation would be practised upon
such a subject merely for the sake of experiment.
After some further conversation the Rev. Magistrate
said that immediate communication should be had with the
parish authorities, and in all probability an amicable arrange-
ment could be brought about. If not, the law must of
course be put in operation against the husband.

John Lichford, the proprietor of a coffee and chop-house,
in High-street, Bloomsbury, was summoned before Sir F. A.
RoE, by Digby, the informer, charged with selling spirits
without a licence.

John Rickman appeared as the informer's witness, and de-
posed that on Tuesday last, between five and six o'clock, he
went into the defendant's coffee-house, and called for a cup
of coffee. It was brought him by a female, who upon his
saying he never took sugar in coffee, said, " You had better
have some rum in it then ;" he agreed, when she brought a
glass of rum, for which he afterwards paid 2d.
The defendant denied the charge, and called Ann Jessop,
who being sworn, stated that on Tuesday she was waitress
in the defendant's lower coffee-room. Two men came in in
the evening, and one of them (Digby) said he never took
sugar in his coffee, and asked her to bring him some rum.
She told him she must have the money for it, as she had to
fetch it from the next door, which was a public-house. He
gave her a shilling, when she went next door from the rum,
and took him back his change. Soon after his witness, who
was sitting at another table, said he also would like some
spirits, for which purpose she got 2d. from him, and went to
Mr. Williams's for it. She positively swore that the spirits
were brought from next door, and that she got the money from
the parties before she went out. She remembered the circum-
stance so well, because it was the first time she had ever been
asked for spirits in the house.
James Jessop, a brother of the last witness, was waiter to
the defendant, and was in the bar at the time in question.
He saw his sister go out twice for rum, and one of the times
had a shilling in ber hand, on the other occasion saw some
coppers with which she paid for it.
In answer to questions from the informer, he said the house
was much used by exiled Poles, who used rum in their tea and
coffee, but they never used the room, they (the informers)
were served in.

Sir F. Ros decided that even if they did that was beside
the case then before him.

The housemaid also corroborated Miss Jessop, when Sir
FREDERICK, with the concurrence of the Rev. M. TIIURSBY,
who sat • with him, dismissed the case, and awarded the
defendant Bs. 6d. for his costs, which was paid very reluctantly
by Mr. Digby.
There was another summons against the defendant, but
Digby withdrew it.
James Cherry was brought up by police constable F. 52
charged with being very drunk last night, and upon suspicion
of stealing a very handsome greyhound. The policeman saw
him in Shire-lane leading the dog with a string, on being asked
how he came by the dog, he gave two or three different ac.
counts of it. In answer to the Magistrate he now said that he
was a painter and glazier ; about a week ago he was down at
Hampton visiting his brother, when he saw the servants of the
people who lived next door to the Post-office going to drown
the dog, he begged it of them and they gave it him, he did not
know the name of the gentleman.
Sir FREDERICK remanded him till Friday ; but afterwards
sent the policeman down to Hampton to make inquiries, and
with orders to be back by the evening sitting.