The Sun.
London, England, 1834-09-02 00:00:00

BO IV-STREET.

James Quick, a man who has been employed for a long
time as porter to Mr. Mason, the bookseller, of 444, Strand,
was brought before Sir FREDERICK A. Roe, charged upon sus-
picion with stealing a large quantity -of books from his mas-
ter's shop.
Mr. Mason said on Saturday he was told that some of the
books which he published were being sold at a great deal lower
price by a man over in the New Cut, Lambeth. He went
over, and certainly did find that such was the fact, for he
bought for 1/. ss. books which he, at the wholesale prices,
would have charged 4/. for. He knew them at once to be his
property, and that some of them must have been taken away
within three weeks. As there Were many of them that could
not have been taken except from the back warehouse,
suspicion naturally fell upon the porter, who was the only
person who had access to that place to their knowledge. They
had a boy, a young brother of the prisoner's, also in their em-
ployment, and the result of the inquiries which they had in-
stituted since they found it out, was that they were inclined
to' believe the prisoner was not the guilty party. His brother
had told them, that he had allowed an old servant of theirs to
loiter about the premises in a morning, before his brother (the
prisoner) came. He used to come under the pretence of
asking for the prisoner, and they were now inclined, from the
description given of the person who sold the books to the
party in the New-cut, to think that it was their old porter.
His name was Welch, and they wished to have a warrant for
his apprehension.
Sir F. ROE said then then he must discharge the prisoner. It
was not at all necessary that they should have a warrant ; a
Constable would be perfectly justified in taking him into custody
upon the suspicion of felony. He wondered the person who
had bought the books did not appear. He ought to have de-
scribed the person from whom he purchased them.
Mr. Mason said his name was Munting, and he said he had
dealt with the same person for two years, but did not know
either his address or name.

The prisoner vas then discharged, and the Magistrate ad-
vised the prosecutor to use every exertion to probe the matter
to the bottom.

Wrn. Hall was charged by ---- a lumper, with stealing
four tons of grease under the following circumstances The complainant makes his living by purchasing such stuff
from captains of ships. On Saturday week last he bought five
tons of it in the London Docks ; he there saw the prisoner,
with whom he bargained about it; he sold it him for 31. los.,
the money to be paid before a particle of it was taken away.
The money was to be paid on Friday, but on that day the pri-
soner said he could not before Monday complete the contract.
The stuff was in a barge and hauled alongside of a wharf in the
Borough. On the Saturday prisoner and his wife hired a cart
and went to Lbn: tellinz him they had paid for it
and were to get it; he believed them, and allowed them to get
at it ; they removed four tons of it without paying a shilling or
having his leave.
The Magistrate sent the case over to be disposed of at the
Union-hall-office, as the offence was committed in that district.

UNION-HALL.
Yesterday Henry Higgins, a respectable-looking young
man, was charged with unlawfully disposing of several
prints, principally on scriptural subjects, entrusted to him
by a Mr. Newman, for the purpose of circulating amongst
some branches of the Nobility and other persons interested
in the welfare of the Porteusian Bible Society.
The complainant entrusted the prisoner with between
250 and 300 prints to deliver to various individuals, in-
cluding several of the Nobility, an employment which was
readily accepted by the accused, who was to have been
paid according to the time and trouble expended in the de-
livery, but there was no specific agreement as to the precise
payment he was to have had. Soon after he had under-
taken the employment complainant ascertained that he had
not delivered the prints according to the agreement, and he
(complainant) was furnished with letters from Noblemen
and Gentlemen in reply to his, stating that they had not re-
ceived the prints, although the accused told him that he had
either forvvatcled them, or left them with the parties himself.-
In reply to Mr. WEDGWOOD, the complainant stated that.
the prisoner Was directed by him to leave a print with Mr.
Waithman, and he said that he had delivered it. In an in-
terview complainant subsequently had with that gentleman
he said that nothing of the kind ever came to hand, and
when the .prisoner was questioned on the subject he then
admitted the truth, namely, that no print had been left with
Mr. Waithman, neither had it been returned to him.
Mr. WEDGWOOD asked the accused what he had to say
to this lattei charge ? The prisoner entrusted the print for
Mr. Waithman to a friend of his to deliver, but that friend,
it appeared, did not keep his word, and when he was ap-
prised of the facthe offered to remunerate the complainant
for the loss he sustained.
Mr. NEWUAN said that if it was only a solitary instance
he should not haVe taken any steps agalnst the accused, but
there were still nearly 100 prints which were delivered to

PRICE 7D.

him to circulate, but he neglected doing so, and had never
returned them.
In reply to Mr. TRAILL •the complainant got up the
prints at his own cost to circulate amongst- those interested
in the welfare ofthe Porteusian Bible Society ; that although
there was no claim of payment to be made upon those to
whom the prints were distributed, yet of course it was not
intended by him to reject any remuneration which they fairly
entitled him to.

Mr. TRAILL then asked the complainant whether he was
in a situation to prove that the accused had been paid by him
for the disposing of any of the prints which he afterwards
had not delivered ; then a charge of obtaining money under
false pretences might be made against him.
The complainant had paid the prisoner for the de-
livery of some of the prints, but he could not select
any particular case, having given him so large a
number ,to distribute. He was prepared, however,
with letters from several high personages, and amongst
them the Marquis of Exeter and Lord Palmerston, notify-
ing to him that the prints had not been received, although
the prisoner assured him that they had been delivered to
those noblemen.

Mr. Wedgwood said that it might be easily conceived
that the prints were left at the residences of these No-
blemen, but yet they might not have come into their hands.
It was not improbable that they might have fallen into the
hands of some of the servants, who, seeing they were co-
loured prints, converted them to their own use. At all
events none of the
.parties from whom complainant had re-
ceived letters were in „ittAndance to bear out his testimony.

.... .
The accused had not been paid by the complainant ac-
cording to the original statement, and eonidered it a hard
case that he should have been brought up on such a charge.
The complainant had no vindictive feelings against the
accused, who had hitherto put him at defiance, and boasted
that the law could not 'reach him, being under age. It
was for the purpose of showing him that he had acted ex-
tremely improper, to say the least of it, that he was given
into custody on the charge. The complainant then added
that he had lost upwards of 100/. by the publication of the
.prints, and that it was, attributable in a great measure to
the prisoner's conduct, as he (complainant) had En idea
that they were unworthy of notice in consequence of not
having received acknowledgments from those individuals to
whom the accused asserted that he had delivered them.
The MAGISTRATES consulted for a short time, and then
said that they should discharge the accused, as it was im-
possible to come to any satisfactory con"sion on the subject.
A little girl, named Love, only seven years of age, was
charged with stealing a shawl, the property of a female
named Freeman. _ _

The complainant lived in the same house with the girl
Love, who happened to be standing at the door, and seeing
the.former leave the house for the purpose of going to mar-
ket, slipped into her room and took a shawl, which she af-
terwards pledged at a pawnbroker's shop.
The prisoner, although so young, evinced a degree of
cunning and hardihood not to be often met with in those
her seniors by many years. She denied having ever seen
the article which she was charged with having stolen, and
argued the impossibility of her being the thief when at -a
distance from the house when the robbery was effected.
When asked by the Magistrate whether he intended to
deny that she had pawned the shawl at a pawnbroker's,
she said that she did deny it, and persisted that there was
not one word of truth in what had been alleged against her.
The pawnbroker with whom the article was pledged was
sent for, and he immediately identified the prisoner as the
girl from whom he had taken it in.

" Now'," said the Magistrate to the prisoner, " what
have you to say?" " Why, that I. am innocent," was the
reply. She was committed for trial.

CORONERS' INQUESTS.

Yesterday Mr. Stirling and a Jury sat at the Duke of
York, near the West Middlesex Waterworks, on view of
the body of Joseph Newman, aged 55, turncock to the
West Middlesex Water Company, who was killed by fall-
ing into a valve-hole at their reservoir at Kensington. The
Jury viewed the body, which lay in an outhouse attached
to the deceased's cottage by the reservoir. The head pre-
sented a shocking spectacle, the skull being dissevered from
the top of the nose to the posterior part of the head, as if
cut open by a cleaver. The Jury afterwards examined the
valve-hole, which was a few yards from the cottage where
the deceased lived, and which lay at the foot of the hill
which forms the reservoir. At the bottom of the hole runs
a large pipe, which has several ledges and nuts that form a
valve, which gives the name to the hole. The hole is eight
and a half feet deep at one end, and at bottom about six
feet in length, the width being about three or four feet at
the top. Verdict—" That the deceased died in conse-
quence of injuries received from accidentally falling into a
valve-hole, and the 'Jury recommend to 'the Commissioners
of the Waterworks Company that the places which are
dangerous about the reservoir should be properly secured."
Yesterday afternoon an inquest was taken before Mr.
Higgs, at the workhouse, Poland-street, Oxford-street, on
the body of John Stevens, shopman to Mr. King, gm-maker,
of No. 37, Pall-mall, who destroyed himself by hanging.
Ann Skinner, servant to Mr. King, of 37, Pall-mall, stated
that the deceased was in the same employ, and was twenty-
nine years old. He was of sound mind when sober, but
too fond of drink. He had very often of late been intoxi--
cated, but as they had all known him from childhood they
had endeavoured to screen him, and Mr. King passed over
many of his errors. The deceased was so good when sober
that they all loved him ; but when tipsy he was violent and
they were afraid he would do some desperate act. He had
a wife and family living at Palmer's-village, whom he was
in the practice of visiting after shop hours, but returned to
sleep on the premises. On Friday afternoon Mr. King
gave him permission to leave at seven o'clock for the pur-
pose of seeing his pig killed. He was then in good spirits.
She never saw him afterwards alive. The following morn-
ing, at about half-past eight o'clock, finding the shop re-
mained closed, she thought the deceased, who slept there,
might not have waked, and went in to call him, and found
him hanging by his handkerchief behind a doorway. She
cut him down with her scissors, and instantly raised an
alarm. Verdict—" That the deceased destroyed himself
during a fit of insanity brought on by excessive drinking."

THE COURTMARTIAL ON PRIVATE JOHN

HUTCHINSON.

The report of the proceedings of a Courtmartial held at
St. George's Barracks, Charing-cross, on private John
Hutchinson, of Lieutenant-Colonel Blane's company of the

Ist battalion of the Scots Fusileer Guards, who was
brought to trial by order of Colonel Bowater, the officer
commanding that regiment, upon the following charges :-
Ist. For being drunk and quitting his post, when picket
sentry at the Canteen door, at St. George's Barracks, at or
about half-past two o'clock p.m., on the 24th of June, 1834.
2d. For making use of abusive and threatening language,
and offering to strike Sergeant Donald TSPKechnie, of Lien-
icnant-Culiniel Frendergast's company (sergeant of the
barrack guard), at St. George's Barracks, at or about half-
past two o'clock, p.m., the 24th of June, 1834, when in the
execution of his duty.

The Court was composed of the following members,
viz.:—Colonel Digby, President ; Captain Moncrief, Cap-
tain Ebrington, Captain Rooke, Captain Walker, Captain
Taubman, Lieutenant Rushbrooke, and Lieutenant Wellan.
The charges having been read over by the-Court, the
prisoner pleaded not guilty.
Sergeant Miles deposed, that he was sergeant of the
picket, upon which guard the prisoner was placed at the
time alleged in the charge. Witness was ordered by Drill
Serjeant M'Cleery to inquire into the state -in which the
prisoner was, it having been reported that he was intoxi-
cated. He found him to be unsteady from liquor, and
took him to the guard-room and confined him there.
Cross-examined by the priSoner—Did you hear me make
use of any abusive or threatening language to 'Serjeant
M`Kechnie, or did you see me offer to strike him ? Wit-
ness—No, I did not. •
Corporal Hamson, of the same battalion, upon being
sworn, gave a similar statement to that of Serjeant Miles.
Serjeant M‘Kechnie, the serjeant of the barrack-guard,
sworn. In consequence of •the report he_ had received it
becathe his duty to order the prisoner into the dry-room (a
kind of black-hole) ; lie found the prisoner on a bench in-
side the guard-room ; when he went in witness said, " Why
the devil don't you take that man to the dry-room ?" The
prisoner rose up .and said that he wished to see the serjeant-
major before he was confined, at the same time lifting up
his arm as if about to make a blow ; he parried the blow,
and knocked the prisoner over the bench which Ile had been
sitting upon. The prisoner called him a -- scoundrel,
and said that he would knock his timing out. He then
ordered two men to move the prisoner to the dry-room,
and he went quietly.
By the prisoner—Did you not shove me over the bench
with violence previous to my offering to strike you, as you
have stated ? Serjeant M'Kechnie—ln consequence of
your getting up to strike me I was compelled to parry.your
blow-, by which you-were knocked over the bench.
corporal
Corporal Chambers sworn and examined—Was

By the prisoner—Did not Serjeant M'Kechnie shove me
over the bench with violence ? Witness--To prevent a
blow from you, he parried it by shoving you away with his arm.
Prisoner—Was it not one of the men that I used the
offensive expression to ? Witness—No ; either one Ser-
jeant or the other.

Private Valentine sworn and examined by the Court—
Was on the barrack guard on the day named.
Prisoner—Did you see me attempt to strike Serjeant
Al' Kechnie ? 'Witness—No ; I did not.
Prisoner—Did you hear me make use of threatening. or
abusive language to Serjeant M'Kechnie or any one else
there ? Witness—l did not.
Private Henderson sworn and examined.—His testimony
was precisely to the same effect as that of the last witness.
Private Greig gave similar evidence.
Private Fitzpatrick gave similar testimony. -
Private Shillinglew sworn, and examined by the prisoner.
Prisoner—Were you a built man (a man confined to
barracks, and prohibited from entering the Canteen) at
the time I was on sentry at the Canteen, on the 24th June ?
Witness—No.
Prisoner—When I came out of the Canteen on that day,
did I not immediately return to my post, when I was satis-
fied that you were not built up at that time ? Witness—
Yes, you did.

There beini, no more witnesses, the prisoner was called
upon for his defence.

The prisoner denied that he was drunk, or incapable of
doing his duty. He was placed as picket sentry at tho
Canteen, on the day named. It.wfts his orders to prevent
any man confined to barrack:l:lmm: nattering the Canteen ;
nd he considered himself leaving his post for a
,oment, because he thought.* „seen a built man IL,
i to the Canteen against orders. V.'ith regard to the second
:71',trge he said, that in raising his hand, as it was alleged,
against the serjeant, it was only to prevent himself from
being struck down.
The Court wets now cleared, and after a short delibera-
tion broke lip, and the prisoner was taken to his place of
confinement. On Tuesday, the 15th of July, .he was brought
out-before the battalion, 'commanded by Colonel Bowater,
and the minutes having been read over, the Court found
him guilty of both charges, and sentenced him to receive
300 lashes on his bare back, which was immediately car-
ried into execution, the particulars of which have already
appeared, and need not be repeated. It took twenty-eight
days to cure the unfortunate man's back after this horrible
punishment, and his constitution is most severely injured.