The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-26 00:00:00

with symptoms of cholera, and notwithstanding the aid of
medical advice, died on Friday. Mr. Robinson became
alarmed at the infection spreading in his establishment, and
among the members of his own family, and immediately
took the precaution of adopting measures for the removal
of the body, in furtherance of which object the corpse was
removed at a late hour on Friday night, by an undertaker,
named Symonds, residing at Kensington ; a few hours
afterwards, however, two of Mr. Robinson's daughters were
taken ill, and the same medical gentleman, Mr. Hora, of
Notting-hill, who had attended the deceased, was called in to
the young ladies. Mr. Symonds, the undertaker, removed
the body of the deceased to his own premises in Church-
court, Kensington, and very imprudently kept it above
ground until Sunday, although Mr. Hora, the surgeon, who
attended her, pronounced that her case was one of decided
cholera. On Sunday the corpse was removed in a shell to
Kensington churchyard. The name of the deceased was
not on the coffin, nor bad any clothes been taken from her
person. Macklin, the beadle of Kensington parish, being
apprised of the circumstance of the deceased's death, and
her mysterious removal from the house of Mr. Robinson,
interfered in the burial of the body, and apprised Mr. Len-
don, the curate, of the nature of the case, and who was at
the time officiating at some funerals in the churchyard.
That gentleman caused information to be given to Mr. Bar-
low, a magistrate of Kensington, who immediately attended
on the spot, and ordered the removal of the body to the
bone-house. At the same time the parochial authorities
interfered, and gave information to Mr. Stirling, the coroner,
and yesterday afternoon an inquest, which lasted some
hours, was held at the Crown, High-street, Kensington, on
the body of the deceased, Ellen Lawrence, whose age was
stated to be 18.

The Jury, which was very respectable, suggested whether
it was essential to the inquiry that the body of the deceased
should be viewed, particularly as she had been dead some
days.

The Coroner said certainly ; it was the most important
part of their duty. This being performed, the evidence
was taken, and was as follows :

• Mr. George Smith Robinson, of Notting-hill, examined.—
Mrs. Robinson has an establishment for young ladies. The
deceased was my servant, although treated as one of the
family on account of the respectability of her friends. On
Friday morning last, the deceased was taken ill, and I sent
for Mr. Hora, a surgeon of Notting-hill, who pronounced
her to be labouring under a decided case of cholera. I
_ _

afterwards sent for Mrs. Lawrence, mother of the deceased,
who resided at Hammersmith. The deceased died between
7 and 8 o'clock in the evening. I wished to remove the
body from the house as soon as possible, as I have a large
family of children. I applied to Mr. Hora, who recom-
mended me to Mr. Coulston, an undertaker, to whom I
went ; but was informed by that person that he could not
provide a coffin that night. I then applied to Mr. Symonds,
parish undertaker, who brought a coffin to my house about
12 o'clock at night, accompanied by six men as his assis-
tants, and the body was removed from the house.
By the Jury.—l cannot account for the deceased's name
being given as Mary Wheedon. I did not tell Mr. Symonds,
the undertaker, that her name was Mary Wheedon. My
only motive for removing the body so soon was to prevent
infection. The undertaker did not produce any certificate
from a clergyman for the burial of the body. After the
death of the deceased, two of my daughters were taken dan-
gerously ill of the same complaint the deceased died of, and
are at present under the attendance of Mr. Hora.
Mrs. Charlotte Lawrence, mother of the deceased,
sworn.—On Friday last Mr. Robinson sent for me at Ham-
mersmith, my daughter, who resided at his house, having
been taken ill suddenly. I immediately went and attended
upon my child until her death, which took place about 8
o'clock the same evening. According to the directions of
Mr. Horn, the surgeon, I applied hot blankets to her body,
as also hot bottles to her feet. Every attention was paid
the deceased.

By the Jury—The clothes of the deceased were not re-
moved off her person. There was much alarm in Mr.
Robinson's family respecting the death of the deceased.
Mr. Robinson wished her to be removed from the house,
but Mr. Hora, the surgeon, objected to that as a dangerous
expedient..
Mr. James Hora, surgeon, of Notting-bill, said—l at-
tended the deceased on Friday last ; her case was one of
decided cholera ; I had no hope of her surviving from the
beginning. She died about 8 o'clock on Friday evening.
By the Jury—Mr. Robinson suggested the necessity of
removing the deceased from the house when I was first
called in, but I objected to such, on account of the danger
that would attend such a removal.

Mary Slade, a matron of Kensington workhouse, said
that she had examined the body of the deceased, and there
were no marks of violence on it.

Mr. Symonds, the undertaker, said that he had acted
under the directions of Mr. Robinson, and had no intention
of privately burying the body.
The CORONER observed, that the whole case arose from
the wish of Mr. Robinson in removing the body of the
deceased out of his own house for the prevention of infec-
tion, and to save his family from illness.
The Jury, under all the circumstances, returned a verdict,
" That the deceased died by the visitation of God."
The inquest was not over until half-past 10 o'clock.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, AUG. 25.

(Concluded from our Paper of yesterday.)

After the Learned Gentleman, Mr. ADOLPHUS, had
stated the nature of the indictment, the following witnesses
were examined :

William Hingston, auctioneer and appraiser, carrying
on business in Pratt-street, Camden-town, deposed that the
defendant rented a house of him in College-street, West.
The neighbourhood complained of the conduct of the de-
fendant, and of the unwholesome vapours which were
emitted from the house. Hingston had six houses in that
street, and he had lost tenants and lodgers on account of
the nuisance. The defendant through the night made
noises as if he was beating the wall with a heavy metal in-
strument ; the sounds were at times like a pestle and mor-
tar, and at others like a gong. Witness had received more
than one notice, one from Mr. Starling, an attorney's clerk.
Witness had brought an action of ejectment against the de-
fendant, but it failed in consequence of informality.
Mr. PAYNE cross-examined the witness, to show that the
defendant had offered to leave the premises and make good
any dilapidation. The prosecutor stated, that when impri-
soned on a former occasion, the defendant had sent for him
to make such an arrangement, but he laughed at witness.
William John Starling, an attorney's clerk, residing next
door to the defendant, stated the nature of the nuisance
committed by the defendant. He lived alone, and in the
day time was generally quiet, but at night he was always at
work, or making a loud noise, as if beating metal ; he also
swore dreadfully, sometimes at his dog and sometimes at
himself. On the night of the 4th of May the wife of wit-
ness was confined ; that was about 10 o'clock, and the
defendant, when his wife groaned from the pain, imitated
her, and so continued and made noises until .5 o'clock the
next morning. The effluvia and stench were excessively
offensive. The defendant occasionally came home in a cab
with a quantity of metal, and refused to pay the driver.
Mobs would often be collected in consequence. Witness
had remonstrated with him, and once or twice he had de-
sisted from continuing the nuisance, but subsequently he had
repeated it with increased violence.
Mr. Stamford, a commissioner under the Local Paving
Act, deposed that he resided in College-street, on the oppo-
site side from the defendant, four houses off. Witness had
been repeatedly awakened by the noises made by the
defendant at midnight.
Mr. Hudson, residing at No. 40 in the same street, con-
firmed the preceding evidence, and added that he saw the
defendant at times " without any back part."
Two policemen (54 and 180), of the division S, stated
that the defendant was an annoyance to the neighbourhood,
and that they had been repeatedly applied to repress the
disturbance. They expostulated with the defendant, but
their remonstrances were useless. On Sunday night, the
4th of May, when Mrs. Starling was confined, the language
of the defendant was most dreadful, and he mocked the
groans of the lady.
Several other neighbours deposed to the same facts.
Mr. PAYNE addressed the jury for the defence, urging
that the defendant had only fairly continued and carried
on a noisy trade. As to the charge that he had mocked
the groans of a lady in labour, he hoped for the sake of
human nature that it was not the fact, and he did think the
witnesses were utterly mistaken on that point. The de-
fendant had carried on business in the neighbourhood for.
14 years. The plain fact was, the prosecution had been
got up, not for the public good, but for the purpose of
ejecting the defendant from the house. That proceeding
was sought to be attained by a criminal charge, instead of
by a civil action.
The CHAIRMAN here suggested to Mr. Payne that it
would be well if the defendant to avoid punishment would
give up the house and cease the nuisance.
Mr. PAYNE said he had advised that course, but it was
rejected.

4The CHAIRMAN summed up, stating the law of the case,
and the jury pronounced a verdict of Guilty.
The CHAIRMAN said he was sorry the prisoner had been
so ill advised as to persist in the course he had taken, for
an offence which by the manner in which it was persisted in
was clearly illegal.
Mr. ADOLPHUS said that the prisoner had been tried at
a former session on a similar charge, and sentenced to im-
prisonment. He had then said he would as soon give up
his life as the house. He was incorrigible.
The CHAIRMAN again advised the prisoner to give up
the house, and not to subject himself to the heavy punish-
ment which would await his obstinacy.
Prisoner—l will not surrender or go out until ejected ,by
legal means, Perhaps, however, you will allow judgment