The Sun.
London, England, 1851-10-28 00:00:00

EMIGRANT'S FLOUR MILL.

The ordinary notion entertained of an emigrant, we
believe to be, that he is a man with a wife and four or
five children, setting out for a distant part of the world
where he can get land for next to nothing, be lord of all
he surveys within the range of a hundred acree, more
or less, cut down the trees that grow upon his domain
in order to build a house, grub up the roots for firewood
and sow corn in their place. Few, however, but those
who actually intend to emigrate trouble themselves to
consider what is to be done with the crop of corn when
it comes. The first impression would be—to eat it—but
then arises the question, in what form? Its conversion
into flour will be a neesseary preliminary; but not a
very easy one to accomplish, unless he and those who
accompany him as fellow-adventurers, take the machinery
for grinding it with them. They will find no facilities
f)r sending it to the parish mill, among the red Indians
in the back settlements of America, or the flesh-loving
natives of the South Sea Islands. The only course
appears to be to take a mill with them; and the selec-
tion of one must, we apprehend, be a very important
matter with the emigrant. Of course we are speaking of
a hand-mill. The chief points to be kept in view in
purchasing one will necessarily be simplicity of ma-
chinery, so thatit may be easily kept in order, and that
it may act with the least expenditure of power. The
latter point seems to have received much attention by
Messrs. Huxhams and Brown, founders and engineers,
at Exeter; who have registered a mill which is kept in
action by a lateral motion, similar to that of a rower in
a boat, and not by the old laborious rotatory motion
whichinvolves so great a waste of power. In the de-
scription given of this mill by its inventors it is stated
that "a bushel of wheat may be ground by it in an hour,
to make fine flour; that the corn can be ground and
dressed at the same time, or separately; and that the
mill is not liable to get out of repair."—Kentish Mercury

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

Alexander Gordon John Bishop, a young man of
gentlemanly appearance, surrendered to take his trial
upon a charge of misdemeanour.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Robinson appeared for the
prosecution. Mr. Parry was counsel for the de-
fendant.

Mr. CLARKSON, in opening the case, said that the
defendant, who, he understood, was a clergyman of
the Church of England, was charged with a misde-
meanour under the Pawnbrokers' Act, and another
statute having reference to the same object, in having
un?awfully made a false declaration before a magis-
trate, upon the subject of some property that had been
pledged by him at the shop of Messrs. Vaughan and
Cotterell, pawnbrokers in the Strand, the declaration
implying that he had lost the original duplicate re-
lativg to the property. The prosecution was insti-
tuted by a person named Cupett, who, it appeared,
had been on intimate terms with the defendant, and
who bad advanced him two different sums of money
upon the security of the duplicates in question, and
these duplicates were in his possession at the time the
defendant made the declaration, which was alleged to
be false. The effect of the declaration made by the
defendant was to enable him to obtain the property
from the pawnbrokers, and the present charge was
under those circumstances preferred by the prosecutor
against him.
Mr. H. P. Cupett deposed that he carried on the
business of an oilmantiat Hoxton, and he had for some
time been acquainted with the defendant, who, he
believed was a clergyman, and they had money trans-
actions together. I❑ August and September, 1850,
he received from the prisoner two duplicates, one re-
ferring to a pistol and case, and the other to two guns
and a case, all of which articles had been pledged at
the shop of Messrs. Vaughan and Cotterell, and at the
request of the prisoner he lent him money to the
amount of five or six pounds upon the security of
these duplicates, which it was understood he was to
retain in his possession until the money he had ad-
vanced was repaid to him. At the time the prisoner
made the declarations to the pawnbroker the dupli-
cates were still in his possession, and the defendant
must have been aware of the fact.

The prosecutor was subjected to a very severe
eross-examination by Mr. Parry, and in the course
of it he said that he bad received other duplicates
from the prisoner as security for money he advanced
him, and among them were some that related to pic-
tures. He redeemed one of those pictures, and sold it
for 181, but the prisoner now charged him with
having done so improperly, and without his autho-
rity. He believed the prisoner was very respectably
connected, and that he expected to come into posses-
sion of a considerable fortune. He had been to races
twice with the prisoner, hut he did, not remember in-
troducing him to " Mr. Broome" at Ascot. He had
been to Mr. Broome's public-house, but he knew no-
thing about him. When they were at Ascot the pri-
soner gave an I. 0. U. for 2001. to a person named
Foster, and he gave him one also for the same amount.
He believed that this money was lost in betting upon
the odd and even numbers on the race-cards, and it
had nothing whatever to do with the horses. Foster
had asked him whether Bishop was "worth anything,"
and he told him he believed that be expected some
property. They were both very much intoxicated
and did not know how the money was lost. Foster
came for the money for the I. 0. U. the next morn-
ing, and the prisoner gave him a bill of exchange for
his _T. 0. U. This bill afterwards got into the pos•
session of Mr. Broome, who sued the prisoner upon
it. Witness was subpoenaed as a witness for the de-
fendant, to prove the circumstances under which the
bill was given, but the matter was arranged, and the
defendant consented to the verdict passing against
him.

The RECORDER inquired who Broome was ? The
prosecutor said he was a publican.
Mr. PARRY asked if he was not something else also ?
The prosecutor said he did not know.
In answer to further questions put to him, he said
he had been twice indicted for keeping a brothel, but
was acquitted on both occasions ; and he said that
the first time he was indicted no evidence was offered
against him, and he was told that he had been very
ill used. He admitted that he had paid the rent and
taxes when a distress was put in to one of the houses
he was charged with keeping, and that he told the
broker the house belonged to him ; but he said he
only did so to oblige a lady whom he had met at
Jersey, and who in reality was the keeper of the
house. He also said that he had opposed the prisoner
in the Bankruptcy Court, and that a person named
Alfred Mortimer Job, who was a money-lender, was
also a creditor, and made a large claim against the
prisoner's estate, which the prisoner resisted o❑ the
ground that it was a fraudulent claim. He denied
that this person was the real prosecutor of the present
indictment, or that he had ever said that if Bishop
was convicted of perjury Job would get the whole of
his claim allowed. He had no recollection of having
said so, but would not swear positively that he
had not.

A letter was then put in, in which the prisoner
applied to the prosecutor for the duplicates, stating
that he wanted particularly to have them. Nu
answer, it appeared, was sent to this letter for three
weeks, and the prosecutor then told the prisoner that
he had left out the tickets for him, and he could have
them when he chose to call for them.

James Hitchcock, the shopman to Messrs.
Vaughan and Co., proved that the prisoner obtained
the declarations from him, and that he signed them
in his presence.
In answer to a question put by Mr. Parry, the
witness said he would not undertake to say that the
prisoner did not tell him, in addition to the usual
statement that the duplicates had been lost or mislaid,
that they were fraudulently detained from him.
Mr. CLARKSON was about to.call further evidence,
when

The RECORDER interposed, and said it appeared to
him that there was no proof that the defendant had
wilfully stated what was false in declaring that the
duplicates were lost or mislaid. The evidence upon
that point rested entirely upon the testimony of the
prosecutor, and he thought the jury would hardly
like to rely upon the evidence of such a person as he
had represented himself to be.
_ _

Mr.-CLAnKsoN said that he felt the difficulty sug-
gested by his Lordship. He had some other witnesses
to call, but he did not think their evidence would alter
the aspect of the case.
The RECORDER said that if the jury wished to heaa
more of the case they might do so, but it was clear,
that unless they could place reliance upon the testi-
mony of the prosecutor, the prisoner ought not to be
convicted.

vV
The jury said they were of opinion that they could
not place reliance upon the prosecutor's evidence.
Mr. PARRY begged to be allowed to state on behalf
of the defendant, that he never intended to make any
false statement with regard to the matter. He as-
serted that the duplicates were fraudulently withheld
from him by the prosecutor, and it was upon this
ground that he felt himself justified in making the
declarations in order that he might regain possession
of his property.
A verdict of Not Guilty was then taken, and the
sf FaErsneogcl hdi
wlna-oostneisnif,d'oti
chrteset eclrp
f,roo2rpses
prisoner was ordered to be at once discharged.
Binia\hrviraien, ,
2a di
noels. cpßank
of Erglend notes, the property of Will Len Peter
.Tuurdun, in the :t et aya 1
dwelling-house of Thomas Quarter-
maine.

Mr. Parry prosecuted.
The prisoner, Who is unable to speak English,
would have been without any professional assistance
but for the kind interference of the sheriffs, at whose
instance Mr. Wollett watched the case on his behalf.
The facts of this case have been given very recently
in the police reports. The prosecutor, who is a mer-
chant, and a native of Oldenburg, was staying at
the Tork Hotel, Bridge-street, Blackfriars, kept by
jr,Qurlermaine, and the prisoner was also an in.

mate of the hotel at the same time. It appeared that
the prisoner met M. Jourdon at the Argyll Rooms on
the night of the 27th September, and he intro-
duced himself to him as staying at the same hotel,
and ascertained from him the number of his room,
and the prisoner soon afterwards "rent away. The
prosecutor did not return to the hotel until the
following morning, and he then found, upon examin-
ing a box in his bedroom, that three 20/. notes, part
of a large sum of money that he had placed there
the day before, had been stolen. The evidence clearly
established the fact of the prisoner being the guilty
party, as it was proved that he went to Anderton's
Hotel, in Fleet-street, immediately after the robbery
must have been committed, and there changed one of
the stolen notes, and made a representation that he
was going away by the South-Eastern Railway ; it
appeared that instead of doing so, he took up his
abode at Dubourg's Hotel in the Haymarket, where
he was apprehended by Weale, the officer.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The Court was informed that there was very good
ground for believing that the prisoner had been car-
rying on a regular system of plundering guests at
hotels in different parts of the country, and the Re-
corder therefore deferred passi❑g sentence, in order
that further i❑quiries might be made respecting the
prisoner and his pursuits.
No trial of any interest took place in the New
Court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

John Tlogan was charged with having violently as-
saulted his wife.
The complainant, who had not very long lost an
excellent husband, described the treatment she received
from the defendant as likely, if continued a little
longer, to make her follow the former to the grave ;
and a policeman who witnessed the outrage and took
the assailant into custody, not only confirmed her
testimony, but proved an assault upon himself, in-
flicted no doubt because he interfered to save her from
still greater violence.
The LORD MAYOR sentenced the defendant to im-
prisonment for seven days ; and soon afterwards the
fellow was brought again before his Lordship, charged
with having knocked his wife down when she went
to speak to him upon his departure from the cell in
which he had been confined at the Mansion-house.
The LORD MAYOI directed that the complainant
should at the end of the imprisonment of her husband,
appear against him, and stated that the defendant
must, at that time, give bail for his good conduct for
three months.
A young man named William Collins was charged
with having attempted to destroy himself.
A policeman raid—l saw the defendant sitting on
one of the seats on London-bridge for some time, and
asked him why he did not go home. He said it was
his intention to sit there until midnight, when all
would be quiet, and he would then take a turn over
the bridge into the water. I spoke to him about the
folly of such a thing, but he said there was no use in
talking to him, as he was determined to fling himself
into the water. I then took him to the station-house,
on our way he said he had robbed his master and been
deserted by his friends, and had no chance of getting
into any place in this world.
Another policeman said, the defendant had been
taken before the magistrate at Worship-street, charged
with having endeavoured to cut his throat.
The LORD MAYOR---ADd what story did he tell
there ? Policeman—He said just the same thing, and
the magistrate discharged him, believing he would
not attempt anything of the kind again.
The Loan MAYOR—Then we have every reason to
believe that his object is to excite sympathy. A
great many persons are in the habit of visiting the re-
cesses of London-bridge for the purpose of moving
compassion, and with the view to check the practice
I shall commit the defendant if he do not produce
bail to keep the peace for three months.—Committed,

ILARIBOROUGH-STREET.
Charles Palmer, a lad in the employ of Messrs.
Burgoyne, solicitors, Oxford street, was charged with
having stolen a sovereign belonging to his
_masters.
Mr. Burgoyne said the prisoner had been in his
service for about 18 months. He had frequently
missed money from a drawer in the office, but for a
length of time was unable to find out the thief. The
robbery was the more mysterious from the fact of the
drawer being furnished with one of Chubb's patent
detector locks; and though it was evident the drawer
must have been opened in order to get at the money,
yet the lock presented no appearance of having been
tampered with. On missing the sovereign an in-
spection of the drawer took place, and the discovery
was made of a small crack on one side, which enabled
a person, by the application of strong pressure, to
release the bolt of the lock from the hasp, and then
to shut in the bolt again so as to leave all in proper
order. _ _ _

_____
The lad, when given into custody, at first denied
his guilt, but afterwards admitted he had made the
discovery of the way in which the drawer could
be opened, and had availed himself of it more than
once.

The prisoner was fully committed.
CLEI?KEN WELL.

John Tay, the driver of a fly carriage, was charged
with being drunk and furiously driving over Mary
Ann Harris, a middle-aged woman, by which her life
is in danger.
It appeared that on Sunday night, at twenty
minutes past ten o'clock, the injured woman was car-
rying her child in her arms and crossing the road in
Pratt-street, Somers-town, with her nephew, when
she was knocked down by the prisoner's vehicle, and
the wheels passed over her, by which she was seriously
injured and her life placed in danger.
The prisoner's defence was that he was driving a
spirited horse and he endeavoured to pull up,.but
could not prevent the accident.
Sergeant Wilkes said the prisoner was very drunk.
A surgeon's certificate was produced, which stated
the precarious condition of the injured woman.
Mr. Comus remanded the case for a week, when
the fate of the woman will be made known.
SOUTHWARK.

Susan Martin, the wife_ of a tradesman residing in
Broad-wall, was charged with attempting to commit
suicide.

A policeman stated that the prisoner was
found on Saturday evening on the step of a door in
the street,
apparently in a dying state, and when
questioned she admitted that she had taken poison.
He therefore lost no time in conveying her to a sur-
geon in the neighbourhood, who pronounced that she
had swallowed a quantity of laudanum, and the sto-
mach-pump being brought into requisition she reco-
vered from the effects of the dose she had taken. It
appeared that she had procured the laudanum by pur-
chasing small quantities at different chemists' shops,
until she got enough, she supposed, to answer her
purpose, and then swallowed the whole.
The husband was then called, and the first thing
he did was to produce a bundle of pawnbrokers' du-
that she had nearly ruined him owing
plicates, saying
to her propensity for liquor. He was compelled to
leave her some time ago, and allowed her it. a week
to live upon, besides giving her furniture to furnish
a room.

Mr. ATECSETT said that the husband of such a
woman was to be pitied. He should remand her for a
week, and in the meantime the husband would have
an opportunity of consulting with his friends, and
making some arrangement as to her future disposal in
the event of her being discharged.
In the course of the day Mrs. Johnson, a lady who
has interested herself in a very benevolent manner on
behalf of the two poor women named Suban, relative
to whom an application was made a few days since,
attended for the purpose of explaining some circum-
stances in allusion to their case, and to a letter which
appeared in the newspapers from Lord Lansdowne on
the subject.
The applicant stated that, having seen the Marquis
of Lansdowne's letter in the newspapers, she considerd
it only an act of justice on the behalf of the two sisters
Suban to attend before Mr. A'Beckett to explain some
inaccuracies which appeared in the former report of
their application at that court. She then proceeded
to describe that the father of the two women did not
live as butler in Lord Lansdowne's family, but served
in that capacity to Dr. Taylor, of Kenmare, and that
after their parents' death they lived in a cabin on his
Lordship's estate in the county of Kerry ; that they
inhabited the cabin up to the time of their quitting
Ireland about two months ago, and that it was
under the advice of Mr. Townsend, Lord Lans-
downe's agent, that they left their native place, Ken-
mare, and embarked at Cork to come over to this
country under the supposition that they would be
enabled to make out a livelihood here; that Mr.
Townsend paid their passage for them ; and that they
had documents to prove that, and also a letter from
the Rev. Mr. Godfrey, the rector of Kenmare, re-
commending them as decent, well-conduoted women,
and entitled to the sympathy of the benevolent. She
(the applicant) had made the most strict inquiries into
the characters of both the sisters, and had ascertained
beyond doubt that they were not impostors, but were
the persons they represented themselves to be, and
that their parents as well as themselves had lived for
many years on the estate of the Marquis of Lans-
downe, in the county of Kerry. The applicant added,
that the two poor women had since left for Ireland,
and that her object in making the present application
was for the purpose of acquainting his Lordship of
the real circumstances, and disabusing his mind as to
the unfortunate women being impostors, such an im-
putation upon their characters being sufficient to de-
st:oy their future prospects in life if left uncon-
tradicted.
Mr. A'BECKETT said that Lord Lansdowne in his
(the magistrate),
,
note had:contradicted the assertions as to a man named
Suban ever having been in his service as butler, or of
such a person ever living on his estates in the county
of Cork; his Lordship disclaimed ever having pos-
sessed an estate in that county. H©
from the manner of the two women when before him,