The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-26 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—May 24.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
.(Before Mr. Commissioner Phillips.)
IN THE MATTER OF JAMES IRVING SCOTT. lt
This insolvent, the proprietor and editor of two ne
ad
papers called the Reportcr and a penny newspaper c..md,
the London Evening Yews, whose case was before rep,'"
was further heard.
Mr. Fisher now appeared as counsel for Mr. TAYIO4k
printer; and Mr. Macrae supported.
The point raised was a vexatious defence to Mr Teiloidi
action, but the necessary evidence was not produced'ol
another adjournment was opposed. It was remarks
the insolvent had been four months in prison. ,
Mr. Commissioner Phillips declined to grant a 01,4
adjournment, and ordered the insolvent to be dischl'o
He was accordingly discharged.

AN EXCILLENT DETERMINATION.
His Hozpur intimated his determination to rise at
.0,
o'clock, and in the midst of a CASe, when that hour 1411
adjourn the court. It is to be hoped that the learn
pp
missioner will not relax the resolution he has adopted
the present occasion.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—May 24'

-
P' CLERKENWELL.—SHOCKING, CASE OF GROS F,
rack JURY.—THE LATE ROMANTIC AFFAIR AT LA.t.-- ao.
James Mullett, a master baker, carrying on business e'.
t
7, Clarence-place, Clapham-road. appeared befeno
Corrie, in answer to a summons taken out by till
Beckett to show cause why he should not contributeplo
support of an illegitimate child of which he was as
be the father.
Mr. Lewis, jun., appeared for the complainant, all-
Pelham for the defendant. b 0
Mr. Lewis, in opening the case, said that the mattee,ol
been before the magistrate at Worship-street, but cal;fes
occasion the complainant failed to establish her case.
days afterwards the complainant took the child to th's,,es
fendant's shop, and having placed it on the counter, 1170te
away. On that occasion she was followed and given
eet
custody for deserting her chili, but when the case de
heard before the Hon. Mr. Norton he dismissed it, 17011
number of respectable parties in the court having ess,
the magistrate that she had been most unjustly treatell
that even the complainant's wife had at Worshiriwor
declared she sincerely felt for her, Mr. Norton Ile
mended her to take out a fresh summons against
That course had been adopted, and he (Mr. Leese)
satisfied that, from the fresh evidence he should :wok
before his worship, an order would be made on the def
ant for the support of his child.
Sophia Beckett was then sworn and deposed as fb.11010:
—I am a single woman, and reside with try mother e: tlO
Brewer-street, Somers-town. In May, 1855, I was 1100
service of the defendant. I had a male bastard child, di
on the 16th of March last. It is now alive, and the I
fendant Mullett is the father of it, and no one ebniii
never knew a man either before or after him. I was
service in October twelvemonth, and continued thetP
to the middle of last year. After I had been in his 0 orri
six weeks he offered me money to seduce me.
occasion of his connection with me was in June last. 2.
mistress sent me upstairs to get some "London Jou,oi
and while I was in my bed-room the defendant came per`"''
me in his shirt and drawers, put me on the bed aeue,tioll
thered me over. I screamed out, but he had cone' is%
with me. My mistress came upstairs and met him aletli
out of my room. She began abusing him. I rap
stairs and claimed the assistance of a carpenter, 1% ,
0
there. My dress was loose and my hair down my shoed
I remained there. some days after that, and then 10'7000
made me very ill ; my head ached and nose bled fer;olf
months on and off. I did not know I was in the Ivo
way until my sister accused me of it. That vise
months after the connection. . or
Cross-examined—I do swear that defendant had to
course with me. My mistress took in the "London,' de
nals," and gave them to me to lock up. That afterneao
sent me upstairs for them. I screamed, and my mistrese pee
up. It was all against my will. My mistress said tOO fo,r
" Has your master succeeded ?" and I replied " No 'Nis;
being no scholar, I did not know what she meant. ,'"01
was at the Worship-street police-court I did not se,
thing about the carpenter. 010
Re-examined—lt was done in my bedroom. MY 6° 0
were not much tumbled. The bed was. It 191a0ef
rumpled, as if it had not been made: My mistreesoof
me putting it straight. She said she was sure my Ins et
had been with me. My screams brought my mistret
He pulled the bed clothes down and put them ofe'oe.
head. My hair was rumpled when the carpenter sslf, • 1
My nose bled, and my mistress sent for a wired':
fainted away the same night.
John Walling said---I am a carpenter, and reside !'nia.
Everett-street, Great Russell-square. In the sPrz.oilg.
1835 I was engaged at defendant's house, doing some ; the
I remember the complainant being servant there I" jot
time. On a Monday afternoon in May I remenlieed
coming to me in the kitchen, with her hair in a disc, per
state, and her dross the same. She complained 0,04'
master having abused her upstairs. I heard the de'fol
ant's wife upstairs just after call him a black villain
a rogue. Since then the defendant has been to ref, 41
about this case, and said if I would attend he wont,'
me for my trouble. He said he wanted me to ape'l'gyl
truth, and that all he wanted me for was to prove te°ool
wrong in the dates. I told him that I saw the girl ado
down into the kitchen with her hair and dress in clisarbol
when he said he was not aware that I knew anything! „of
it. He also said that they wanted to bring i
him fetPe
the child, and that I was to state nothing but the tt(
the month I was working there. I told him that be
he had had connexion with the girl. cede
0
Cross-examined—Mrs. Mullett was upstairs..Tsy_
plainant's brother has asked me to come here. Reef'
promised to pay me.
Eliza Harwood said she was lately servant to the &O
ant, and had charge of one of his shops at Stool: O
Sue was examined at Worship-street, but after that es
defendant discharged her because she, stated all she n4o
about tho matter. Both Mr. and Mrs. Mullett had •
to her about the complainant. On one occasion the defeat
ant said he had " bested" Sophia, but that it would nee,
have happened if it had not been for his wife's curserir
lousy. es
Mrs. Mary Huggins sworn—l am married and lif,_°;•
Union-street. Complainant is my sister. At about t%l
months after she left ber place I and some other P roi
went to the defendant's house. I had previously found:
my sister was very ill. She kept getting worse, and atd
she told me she was in the family way. When we en:01
the defendant's shop we saw Mrs. Mullett there, and
her Sophia was in the family way. She said he was %et
lain. The defendant then came into the shop, and NIS
being told of their errand, he said, " Well, you Ito
your best and do your worst. I will do nothing until 00
law compels me, and then it will have to find me.
oid,
then left the shop, when his wife called him back and 'or
" Come and answer for yourself. I remember the eirtj,
stance well, and it is black against us." I told the de, j
ant that he had ruined my sister, when he replied,
dare say she was bad before I knew her.:' n the
vh
James Beckett and Matilda Beckett stated that 'er
r
complainant and the defendaht were at the Stockwell 4
lice-station, they heard Mullett say that if the girl Poi
come to him in a quiet way, ho would not have re°
paying the half-crown a week.
Other witnesses having been called, who proved the
In
suit of the interview at thedefendant's shop, and his ue
the words, " I dare say she watt bad before i knew her,stel
Mr. Pelham proceeded to remark on the evidence,
ete
contended that the expression " Iknew her" might refVbf
her getting into his service. The case had been heervt jet
Mr. Hammill, who, after adjourningit, and giving 14 it
best consideration, dismissed it; and he thouge bl
was only to annoy his client that he had been brfgoitsli
here. That such was the case there could be no bi
and, to show the animus of the parties, it might 41)
mentioned that simile the complainant was at Lare'fr
a petition had been got up, headed, "To the ben' d
lent public, and particularly to the inhabitants
.00
Brixton. Stockwell, and the vicinity." He should Inbe
the defendant in the box, and ho would state that . 0,
whole of the complainant's story was an entire fabricl4;f•
The defendant was then called and sworn. He illeete
was in court and heard complainant swear that I Ilse"'
nection with her on the bed. I swear that is not trtk
never had connection with her then, norat any time whet
ever. I admit I was up-stairs, as was my custom, t(): ,01
some rest in the afternoon. My wife did come up 0,,1ft
just as I came to the door with nothing one but ml 11"01
and drawers. The girl was up-stairs at thb time, an" or
wife, who is of a very jealous disposition, taxed her le
o' 0
having been with me. Complainant went away beo j
she was ill. I suppose her mistress gave her notick.r,
swear most positively that I never had connection with rio
Cross-examined—All that the complainant has stet
false. false. The carpenter has told a lie, and I will indict hi
for perjury. In fact all the witnesses are liars, and At."'io
prove it. My wife has been jealous of me hefore, per%o
not without cause, because I was seen to kiss a prev
lo
Mr. Conic, said that the case was one of some diffiells
the more so that he sat in review of a brother magistreoo
decision. He thought that Mr. Hamtnill had relied uP°,O
the medical evidence when he dismissed the case, for
saw that the surgeon, in answer to the question wlethli
"Supposing au intercourse took place at menstruation,
0,
is likely conception would take place ?" the answer 'ef!„jg
"It is possible, but not probable. It would if it tui'o
place immediately after." There were dome parts of ,•
evidence in which both sides agreed, and that was in ',,"os
wife's going up-stairs, and having a suspicion of vi'o.
had occurred. The girl's story was, in his opinion, o°
firmed by the evidence of the carpenter, who, he must leg
had given his' evidence very fairly. It was a very pain.re
case, for one or the other had committed perjury. Te°,o
were several matters which the defendant had failed
meet, and he should, therefore, believing the girl and be*
witnesses, make the usual order with oosts.
Mr. Pelham at once gave notice of appeal.

BIRTHS.
OR A BON.

On the 22d inst., at Hodnet Rectory, Shropshire, bfrli.
Cholmondely.
On the 22d inst., at 53, High-street, Camden-01413s
the wife of John Scott, Esq.

ON A DAUGHTER,
g
On the 23(1Nowarke, inst., at the Leicester, the tame
Sir 3lylles Cave Browne Cave, Bart.
at Ito
On the 22d inst., at 8, ocester-gardenn, Hyde-1)
the wife of Lieut. Stopford, R.E.
MARRIED.
On the 22d inst., at St. Mary's, Bryanston4o,l7.
David, son of Charles Chapman, Esq., formerly of 19 0
ham, Surrey, to Jane, eldest daughter of the late 01° •
Oakley Curling, Esq., of the Isle of Thanet, gent.
On the 22d inst., at Southborough, Kent, Henry 0114
ley, Esq., of Tunbridge-wells, to Martha, widow of the
late Francis Gadd, Esq., of Southborough.

XAD,

t!..(ItES
qe'l"4'
LOIa •
ib, "'d art
tlo, led at 1
11111' Tickets
r 4 hay
to
adon to
Pletcl
teilerboroi
Valllgha
°llrerhat

Cloh
1.4 0 lc
Ilskpe€lC
bettE \Vri
,ittlOPS
17:1Votral I 04
10.tieketsh
ana,7,

8a
o°4
erttai,ai

Gen`_
S,lsi

piNcies el
3111.4t4g to
%l'p Prem
ror tl
adtLally pt
n to
Prnoi
44 jo7ata
spectra
un. or
001 e
-4111A.c

11t
4‘atiatrat
Of Zra.ll
444:4(1
urea
ke,;ll,t