The Sun.
London, England, 1833-09-14 00:00:00

The overseer remarked, that if the girl even
stopped here after her confinement, the probability
was, that she would abandon her offspring to the
clue of the parish, as the case was not uncommon
among the labouring Irish.
Mr. CHAMBERS recommended him to take steps
for her immediate removal.
A stout fat Irishwoman in the prime of life next
applied for a pass to Ireland. She had come over
here with her husband and family a very short time
ago, and, as she said, her husband had left her and
taken the children with him back to Ireland, and
she was anxions to get a pass to rejoin them.
Mr. CHAMBERS said it was a shame to appropriate
the funds to the purpose of passing such applicants.
There were nearly 30,000 Irish on the road back-
wards and forwards from Liverpool to London, most,
if not all, of them in a state of pauperism. Ireland
ought to support its own poor, and a fact ought to
be generally known throughout Ireland, that in
January next an Act of Parliament would come
into operation which would put an end to the pre-
sent system of Irish passes. There would be no
more passes given.
The women were then ordered to be passed back
to Ireland.
It may be stated that the expense of transmission
to Liverpool for each Irish pauper is somewhere
between 4/ and 51.
ORSHIP.STREE 7'.
PIG SHOOTING.—A Mr. Samuel Furness, a nur-
sery man in the Hackney-road, was yesterday
charged before the sitting magistrate (Mr. Twyford)
with shooting a pig, the property of his neighbour,
Mr. William Ingram.
Mr. TWYFORD—What are you, nQr. Ingram ?
Complainant—l keep a farm-house for the poor.
On the sth of August the defendant thought proper
to shoot one of my pigs.
James Hopkins, a servant of the complainant, de-
posed to hearing, on the day mentioned, the report
of a gun near his master's premises, and the next
moment seeing his master's pig running towards
him bleeding, and in a few moments after it " ex-
pired."

Mr. TWYFORD—Now, Mr. Furness, what have
you to say for yourself? Why did you shoot this
gentleman's pig ? Defendant—Because she has de-
stroyed and eaten up all my crops. Sometimes I
have no less than from seven to twelve of his pigs
in my garden at one time. I have lost above 10/.
by his pigs walking in my gardens.
Mr. TWYFORD—What is your pig worth, Mr.
Ingram ? Complainant—Fifty shillings.
Mr. TWYFORD—Then Mr. Furness you must pay
the 50s. You have no right to shoot his pig. (To
the complainant)—Was it a large pig ? Cam.
plainant—She weighed seven stone. Your Wor-
ship I should not have taken notice of the affair, but
he has since shot another of my pigs, which weighed
16 stone.
Mr. TWYFORD—Did you see him shoot it P—No.
Defendmt—He says his pig is worth 50s. Now,
my butcher values her at only 255.
Complainant—Why my butcher said that she was
worth 50s. after she was dead, if she had been taken
up and killed.—(A laugh.)
Mr. TwvFoup—Let the value of the pig be as-
certained, and bring the case before me on Monday,
unless you can arrange matters between yourselves
in the meanwhile.
Here the parties left the office.
QUEEN-SQUARE.

CAUTION TO THE PROPRIETORS OF OYSTER-
ROOMS,— Yesterday Mr. Thomas Knight,a shell-fish
dealer at Charing-cross, appeared before Mr. WHITE,
to answer an information laid against him by the
New Police, for serving his customers at an impro-
per hour in the morning, contrary to the Act of
Parliament, whereby he had incurred a penalty of
any sum not exceeding 101.
By a clause in the Act of Parliament, all oyster-
rooms must be closed at one o'clock in the morning,
and not opened before five the same morning, under
the above-mentioned penalty.
A police constable of the A division went to the
defendant's house at half-past two o'clock in the
morning, and saw several persons being served in
the oyster-rooms.
In answer to a question by the Magivrate, the
constable did not see any improper characters there.
The defendant was convicted at this office a short
time ago for a similar offence, and fined forty shil-
lings; and he had, since that time, been repeatedly
cautioned to close his house at a proper time.
Mr. Knight, in reply, complained of the pro-
ceedings instituted against him since he had been
convicted. Byers the informer had laid four infor-
mations against him at Bow-street for keeping his
house open. He was certainly convicted upon
them, but Sir Frederick Roe only fined him 2s. 6d.
as he considered the offence so trivial, and told him
that he might keep open all night if he did not har-
bour bad characters.
Mr. WHITE-Mr. Knight, Sir Frederick Roe
may dispense with the laws altogether, if he thinks
proper; but I will not do so. It has been clearly
proved that your house was open at half-past two
o'clock in the morning, arid you cannot plead igno-
rance of the law. You will therefore pay a penalty
of 5/. this time, and had it been proved that any bad
characters had been in your rooms, I should have
'nflicted the full penalty of 101.
The defendant paid the fine.
LAMBETH-STREET.

AN UNWELCOM GUEsT.—Yesterday Thomas
Hooper, the conductor of one of Haycion's omni-
buses, was brought before the magistrates on a war-
rant charging him with assaulting George Smithers,
a caffeeshop-keeper, in Essex-place, Mile End-road.
The complainant on the afternoon of that day
week went to Bartholomew Fair, and promised his
wife that he should be home by eleven o'clock ;
but, in consequence of some delays, which he had
met with, he did not reach his residence before
twelve, when he knocked repeatedly for admittance
but could make no person hear him. After knock.
ing for a length of time he succeeded in getting into
the back yard, and from thence into the house, and
finding no person there, and that his wife and sister-
in-law had left the house during his absence, he was
determined to ascertain their reason, and with this
view he secreted himself under the bed, and re-
mained there until they came home, between three
and four o'clock in the morning. At that hour the
defendant entered the bed-room with his wife, and
on his questioning him as to his business there and
ordering him out, he became most impertinent, and
gave him a violent blow on the face.
The defendant, in reply to the charge, had ac-
companied Mrs. Smithers and her sister to Bartho-
lomew-fair at their invitation, and after remaining
there for some time and enjoying the fun, he re.
turned with them to their residence. On entering
the house Mrs. Smithers struck a light and pro-
ceeded up stairs to ►ee that all was right. She was
scarcely a minute absent when he heard her scream
out " murder," and not knowing what was the
matter, be proceeded to the bed-room, when he saw
the compainant getting from under the bed with a
red handkerchief on his head. On getting on his
legs he rushed towards a sharp-pointed knife that
lay on the table, and knowing that he had on a
previous occasion threatened to cut his wife's throat
he caught a hold of him, but was subsequently ob-
liged to run away and leave his hat behind him.
In conclusion he said that the wife and sister-in-law
of the complainant were in attendanee, and ready to
confirm what he had stated.
The complainant said that on the same evening
he had intreated his wife to accompany him to the
fair, but she peremptorily refused to do so, though
she subsequently went there with the defendant,
and acted in the manner he had described; and,
beskes, he had no doubt, from a conversation which
he had heard between his wife and her sister, while
he was under the bed, that it was the intention of
the former to give a part of her bed to the defen-
dant, for the night.
The wife, a very goodly-looking and smartly-
dressed young woman, was then called, and admitted
going to the fair, as had been stated, and returning
with the defendant and her sister.

Mr. NORTON—If you were disposed to go to the
Fair, why not, as a prudent woman, have accompa-