The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-07 00:00:00

MINTER V. WELLS.

This was an action of considerable interest to the mecha-
nical world, arising out of the alleged infringement of apatent.
Mr. F. Pollock stated that it was an action brought by Mr.
Minter, a chair manufacturer, to recover damages for the in-
fringement of a patent granted for the construction of a re-
clining chair. The defence was that an individual named
Sutton, late of Dean-street, who was the plaintiff's journey-
man, was the real inventor. The defendant's witnesses did
not make out this case, and the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, Is.

OLD BAILEY SESSIONS-JULY 5.

(Before Mr. Sergeant ARABIN and a Middlesex Jury.)

• ,
Charles Honeywood Newman, the individual whose name
has been recently before the public, in consequence of a charge
preferred by the Messrs. Lloyd, Bankers, Birmingham, was
indicted for bigamy. The case excited great interest in court.
The prisoner is a genteel-looking man, and was dressed in the
most fashionable manner. His large mustachios and swarthy
countenance give him much the appearance of a foreigner.
The first witness examined was Henry Montague—ls con-
stable of St. Mary's church, Bryanston-square, St. Maryle-
bone. Was present at the marriage of the prisoner on the
24th of May, 1828. The prisoner was then married to Mary
Ann Cook.

Mr. Auounts, who, along with Mr. Plimurs, appeared
for the prisoner, asked witness whether he knew by what
name the prisoner was married except from the information
derived frora the church book ?—I do not know it from any
other source.

Mr. ADOLPHUS—Did you not ask him whether he was not
Mr. Waller ? I did not ask him that question, but I did ad-
dress him as Mr. Waller—( A laugh)—in consequence of infor-
mation I had received that such was his name.

Mary Montague examined—ls the wife of last witness.
Attended the marriage of the prisoner at St. Mary's Church.
When shown the prisoner, said that she had seen him before.
To the best of her recollection she had seen him married at St.
Mary's Church. Gibbons called on her and told her she must
give evidence. Could not say of her own knowledge that it
was the prisoner who had been married to Mary Ann Cook.
She knew of the marriage only by the church book.
Mr. PHILLIPS—Did you not make the observation when
the prisoner was examined at Marlborough-street Office that
if he was the same person he was very much altered did
make that observation, Sir.
Joseph Langdon examined—ls clerk of St. Mary's Church,
Marylebone.—( The original register of the marriage was here
produced. )—That is the original register of the marriage.
The entry was made in the following terms :—" Henry Alfred
Waller, bachelor, of the district of the rectory of St. Mary,
and Mary Ann Cook, spinster, of the parish of Marylebone,
married at this church on the 24th of May, 1828."
James Gibbons examined—ls a commercial agent. Knows
the prisoner at the bar. He goes by the name of Charles
Honeywood Newman, but believed that Newman was his real
name. Had a daughter married to the prisoner. The mar-
riage took place on the 17th December, 1831, in St. Mary's,
Lambeth, county of Surrey. The prisoner was married in
the name of Charles Newman. Was present at the marriage,
and was one of the subscribing witnesses. Witness's daugh-
ter and prisoner lived together as man and wife. They conti-
nued together probably about three months. At the time he
believed the prisoner lived on the property he received with
witness's daughter. He supposed the property was worth from
70/. to 801. They had no children. Could give no reason
for the separation, but supposed it was because all the money
which the prisoner got by his wife was gone. Had not seen
the prisoner for the last two years and a half until given into
custody. Witness's daughter married prisoner under the
name of Carrington, and as a widow.
The jury, after a few moments' deliberation, returned a ver-
dict of Not Guilty.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

At the evening sitting on Saturday James Sharpe Thorn-
ton, and Frederick Charles Green, men of respectable appear-
ance, the latter of whom described himself as a solicitor resid-
ing at Kensington, attended on a warrant to answer a charge
of assault preferred against them by Mrs. Elizabeth Thorn-
ton, the wife of the former defendant.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, in stating the case on the part of the com-
plainant, said that the lady was the sister of the defendant
Green, and the daughter of Mr. Green, the proprietor of
Green's Hotel, Lincoln's Inn-fields. On the 29th of October,
1831, she was married to the other defendant, and after re-
siding with him for a fortnight only, left him in consequence
of his being arrested for debt. She had then lived apart from
him, and latterly under a regular deed of separation signed
by both parties. The defendant Green had also married
the sister of Thornton. The learned counsel now proceeded
to call .

Mrs. G. Thornton, the complainant, who stated that on the
preceding day, about twelve o'clock, she was in Brewer-street,
Golden-square, in an open carriage, in company with her
sister and a gentleman named Fielder ; they stopped at a
printer's house, when the two defendant's came up ; Green
took the horse's head, and Thornton came to her, and' ,seizing
her by the arm, dragged her from the carriage. She regained
her seat, and, taking the reins, drove off. She shortly after
returned and took up Mr. Fielder, who had previously
alighted, and then again went on. After driving about for
some time they returned to the same spot, when witness left
the carriage, and entered the shop, in company with Mr.
Fielder. On her return she was about to re-enter the phaeton,
when Thornton again came up, Green as before taking the
horse's head, and seizing her by the cloak, attempted to pull
her back. She, however, once more escaped from his grasp,
and immediately drove home. The defendant, when pulling
her, declared that he would take her away, and was urged to
do so by Green. A mob was collected in consequence of their
violence.
The defendant Green proceeded to cross-examine this wit-
when he put some questions to her which the Magis-
neb., declared to be irrelevant to the case.
"'en requested to withdraw by Mr. ADOL-
trates at oh._
make a statement, insinuating
The witness was - ',nen adultery, and at-
PHus, and Green proceeden • "
defendant,
that his sister was at that time living
tempted to justify his conduct,
and thatsof his fees, by citing a case where
a wife had been seized by h-er