The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-16 00:00:00

enzit sil ,';',E6NIIION, THURSDA -fEVENING, 11110- U 13141.6, 1800.

I

one, have had silver bugles presented to them by
the ladies of Hull, and about three weeks ago the
whole of the men were reviewed at Hesslewood.

SUMMER ASSIZES.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—BRISTOL, Aug. 15.
(Before Mr. Justice Keating.)
JACKSON BY NEXT FRIEND V. WILLIAMSON.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Coleridge were for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Carter and Mr. Cole for the defence.
Mr. Coleridge opened the pleadings. The action
was for a breach of promise of marriage. The de-
fendant pleaded first, that he did not promise ' • and
second, that the plaintiff had been guilty of lewd
and unchaste conduct, whereby he was released.
Mr. Collier, in stating the case, said the plaintiff
was a young girl of only seventeen years of age.
Her father was a respectable man—a master car-
penter, living in Holborn; he had several chil-
dren, and had brought them up respectably. He
and his wife were both very honest persons, al-
' though in a humble sphere of life. The defendant,
Mr. Williamson, was a victualler, and in 1856 he
was occupying a house called the Sugar Loaf, in
King-street, Drury-lane, London. That house
was burnt down, and the plaintiff's father
being employed upon the rebuilding of it, he
formed an acquaintance with the defendant, who
at that time was a married man. They visited and
drank tea together. At that time the plaintiff was
only 13 years old. In 1857 Mr. -Williamson's wife
died, and he went out of business for a time ; but
early in 1858 he went into business again at a
tavern called the Three Tuns, New-street, Fetter-
lane. At this time the plaintiff was about 15 years
of age, and the defendant proposed to her parents
that she should come and live with him as a sort
of upper servant or barmaid. The parents had a
good deal of objection to this; they did not like to
part with so young a girl, nor did they exactly ap-
prove of her going to live at a public-house. How-
ever, defendant said he would take the same care
of her as if she was his own child, and would be a
father to her, and yielding to those importunities,
her parents unfortunately allowed her to go into
his service. That proved the plaintiff's ruin. In
a very short time the defendant seduced her under
a promise of marriage. The poor girl for a long
time contrived to conceal her shame, and it was
not until she had been enciente several months
that her mother discovered the condition in which
she was. Her parents had all along relied on the
defendant's promise to behave to her as a father,
and when they discovered what had happened they
were of course greatly distressed. The mother
called upon the defendant to upbraid him with his
gross conduct, and he said, " Oh, don't think any-
this-1g of it. I always intended to marry your
daughter, and shall do so now." Upon hearing
that, the good woman's grief was a good deal
moderated. Subsequently, however, the father
went to him, when he renewed the promise, and
said the marriage should take place almost imme-
diately. Believing in his promises, the poor girl
made preparations for her wedding. The defen-
dant did not get the ring or publish the banns,
as he had promised, and the poor girl was
confined. After that he began to make excuses,
and when the father called on him after her
confinement, and asked him to fulfil his promise,
he said, " Oh, she is too young." He visited
her several times after this, and repeated his
promise to marry. As he did not , keep his
promise, the girl wrote to ask him to give her
a character, to enable her to get a situation if
ho did not intend to make her his wife. He (Mr.
Collier) would now read the defendant's answer.
It was in these words—" This is to certify that
Elizabeth Jackson lived with me as barmaid, and I
found her strictly sober, honest, and industrious.
Grove-house, Kennington." The learned counsel
then proceeded to comment severely on the line of
defence adopted, which was adding insult to the
injury he had inflicted, end was without foundation.
The plaintiff's case having closed,
Mr. Carter said he had to ask his lordship to
postpone the cause. He was instructed that Vincent,
who had been brought down from London as a
witness for the defence, had been threatened by the
plaintiff's party, and had been effectually got out
of the way. ,
Mr. Collier said he could believe that Vincent
would not appear, but not for the reason stated.
Mr. Carter said the witness had been brought
down to prove the plea on the record, As he was
instructed, he had been threatened by the plaintiff's
attorney.
The attorney, Mr. Hutchins, indignantly denied
that he had seen the man.
Mr. Justice Keating—Don't let us have a scene.
It is right that I should state that I am not yielding
to Mr. Carter's application, because no proof has
been offered of what is suggested, and I am sure
the jury, until it is proved by evidence, will dismiss
the imputation from their minds. It is about the
time, however, at which I proposed to rise, and we
will see what the morning will produce.
Mr. Carter said he hoped to find the witness by
the morning, and the court then rose.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LIVERPOOL, Aug. 15.
Mr. Baron Martin took his seat on the bench in
the Crown Court this morning at 9 o'clock.
EMBEZZLEMENT AT LIVERPOOL.
Robert Brew Anderson, a person of gentlemanly
appearance, in the 68th year of his age, formerly
the manager of the Northern Hospital, Liverpool,
pleaded guilty to having forged and uttered several
receipts • for money, with intent to defraud the
trustees of that institution. There ere two other
true bills found against the prisoner for similar
offences, to each of which he also pleaded guilty.
Mr. Bolton, for the prisoner, begged to direct the
attention of his lordship to one or two points in the
case. The prisoner had, it was true, pleaded guilty
to forging and uttering; but it would be seen that
the offence was more a case of embezzlement than
forgery ; indeed, it was forgery to cover embezzle-
ments. The prisoner, at the time he committed
this offence, was the general manager of the Northern
Hospital ; and as such had the sole control of al:
the funds. He had received several sums and had
not accounted for them.
His Lordship—l know all the facts of this case
from the depositions.
Mr. Bolton—lt will be seen that since the charge
was made against the prisoner he has made every
restitution• he could. It was true he had committed
forgery for the purpose of covering his embezzle-
ments, and not for the purpose of fraud. The pri-
soner had returned in the first instance £lOO, thus
giving up all he had. There were large sums pass-
ing through his hands, and from the great benefit
that the institution had gained from the prisoner's
services and exertions, he (Mr. Bolton) was sure
that the trustees were more than compensated for
the sums (about £900) he was deficient. The pri-
soner was a man with a family, having a sick wife,
and had only a salary of £lOO. This was not suf-
ficient to enable him to associate with persons from
whom benefit might arise to the infirmary; and it
was to be regretted that the trustees had not remu-
nerated his services better. But the prisoner had
pleaded guilty, and he (Mr. Bolton), in his name,
begged the court to look mercifully upon him. The
prisoner entirely threw himself on his lordship's
mercy.
His lordship, in passing sentence upon the pri-
soner, said there was one observation made by the
learned counsel in which he perfectly agreed, namely,
that the crime to which he had. pleaded guilty was
more like embezzlement than forgery, but it was
embezzlement of the worst kind. He hardly knew
of a case with worse features than that of a person,
while professing to be engaged in the collection
of money foe a charitable institution, to ap-
propriate such moneys to his own purposes. It
could not be permitted for a person to go about
collecting moneys, sometimes from poor persons
who wished to dd charitable acts, to appropriate
them to his own use, and to cover his own defalca-
tions. This was as bad a case as it was possible to
conceive, and there was no doubt but that it would
carry with it its own punishment in a certain de-
gree ; but it could not be allowed to go unpunished
by the law. His lordship then sentenced the pri-
soner to 1:5 months' imprisonment, with hard
labour.
The prisoner was then removed from the dock.
THE BRICKMAKERS' STRIKE AT OLDHAM.—CHARGE

kicked about the head and face, and received such
injuries that he died on the 10th of July of lock-
jaw from the effects of the wounds he had received.
The lad (Kershaw) swore on the present occasion
that it was the prisoner M'lntyre whohad knocked
the deceased down, and that the other prisoner
(Brett) had kicked him about the head and face
while he was on the ground, but in cross-examina-

tion the witness admitted that on a previous oc-
casion, when before the magistrates, he had sworn
that he did not know who had struck the deceased.

The jury retired, and after being in consultation
for three-quarters of an hour returned a verdict of
not guilty against each pritoner.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-Aug. 15.

OLD COURT.
Elizabeth Weekstead, 30 was charged with
feloniously attempting to drown her child, Mary
Ann Weekstead, with intent to murder her.

Mr. Lilley conducted the prosecution.
This case was one of a very dreadful character.
It appeared that the prisoner was an Irishwoman,
and that she was a soldier's widow, and

received a pension, and that the child in ques-
tion was an illegitimate one, five months old. On
the sth of July the prisoner received her pension,
and she came home to her residence in Hooper-
street, Westminster-road, in a mad state of
drunkenness, and behaved very violently to several
people who were in the house, and also threw the
child about in her own room. After this the child

got into the yard at the back of the house, and it
began to cry, and the prisoner exclaimed " You
-- bastard, I'll do for you," and jumped out of a
window into the yard, and took up the child and
threw it with great violence upon the ground. A
young man, named Patrick Wall, who lived next
door ran up and picked up the child. Before she
threw it down the prisoner struck the child a blow
with her clenched fist on the head, and when Wall

had taken the infant from her she asked him to give
it to her, and said she would take it indoors. He
gave her the child, and the moment the prisoner
had possession of it she ran to the water-butt that
was in the yard, and in which there was about
three feet in depth of water, and threw the child in
head-foremost and walked away. The child was
rescued immediately by the witness Wall, and the
prisoner exclaimed, " Bring the young -- in; I
will do for it on the quiet." The prisoner then fas-
tened herself in her own room, and it was broken
open by, a female neighbour, who found her lying
on the ground with her hair all about her face, and
upon her inquiring what she had been doing to the
poor child, the prisoner rushed at her and stabbed
her in the face with a knife.

Evidence was also given that when the prisoner
was delivered of this unfortunate child she said that
she only wished it was dead, and she appeared to be
afraid that her having the child would be the
means of causing her to lose her pension. The in-
fant, it appeared, had not suffered any material in-
jury from the brutal conduct of the prisoner, and
it was stated that it was thriving and doing well.
The witnesses for the prosecution admitted, in
answer to questions put by the prisoner, that they
had not seen her in any way illuse the child before
this occurrence, and that she generally treated it
kindly.
The officer who apprehended the prisoner said
that she acted very violently, appeared like a mad
woman. He.took the child to Mr. Wagstaffe, a
surgeon, and observed that there was a lump on its
head as large as a hen's egg.
The prisoner, when before the magistrate, made
a statement to the effect that she did not know
what she was about on the day in question, and she
now put in a written paper in her defence, in which
she stated that she was the widow of a soldier who
lost his life in the Crimea, and that she received a
pension froni Government as his widow. The child
in question, she said, belonged to another soldier,
who had promised to marry her, and would have
done so if his regiment had not been ordered
to India. With regard to the offence of which she
was accused, she said that she went with some
other soldiers' widows to get her pension, and they
induced her to drink some spirits, to which she was
unaccustomed, and she became mad drunk and did
not know what she did.
Mr. Justice Williams summed up, and
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but re-
commended the prisoner to mercy on account of
her previous kind treatment of the child.
The learned Judge, in passing sentence, said
that it was a most melancholy case. The prisoner
appeared by drink to have transformed herself
from a kind mother to a wild beast, and notwith-
standing• the recommendation to mercy of the jury
he felt compelled to pass upon her a severe sen-
tence, and to direct that she should be kept in
penal servitude for the space of three years.
The prisoner, when the sentence was pronounced,
commenced screaming and howling, and wanted to
know whether her ‘g dear child" would be allowed
to be with her, and she was forced out of the dock
by the gaolers in attendance.
Mary Allen, 40, , was charged with unlawfully
and maliciously assaulting Caroline Lefevre. In
other counts of the indictment the prisoner was
charged with assaulting the prosecutrix and causing
her bodily ham
Mr. cinducted the prosecution, and in
opening
Litiy
the
eeasi
to the jury said the facts he should
ily excite the sympathy of every one
who heard them, and he, therefore, requested them
not to allow their feelings to prevail unfairly against
the prisoner, but
that they would look calmly at
the evidence
"Aich will be laid before them, and
give their vereact uninfluenced by the prejudice
that must naturally
be created by some of the facts
that would be deposed to.
The circumstances of this case have been very
fully laid before the public. The
recently and very
prisoner was
schoolmistress in Redcross-street,
ft.
audit appeared that about three years
ago, Caroline Lefevre, the prosecutrix, a child nine
ySeoatirtshwoladrk
,;he d
lughter of a labourer in the service
and Co., was sent to the pri-
of Messrs. Barclay
soner's school, and after being there about two years,
she expressed a desire that the child should not any
~tier as a scholar, but that she should
longer come to
be with her as acompanion. From this time there
Ingo doubt that the prisoner had
appeared to be
child with the greatest possible
treatedcruelty, thethat
po
she
was in the habit of beating her
with a cane and a thick stick, which she actually
broke while asstulting her', and which stick was
found in the primer's house with blood upon it, and
upon one occasion, for some trifling fault, sloe burnt
her on the hand and the neck with a hot iron. When
she was taken away she was in a most dreadful
state, her body
and wounds, on of the latter at the back of the
and arms being covered with bruises
head being of a eery extensive character. .
Caroline Lefei,re, the poor child whose treatment
was the subject isS inquiry, deposed to the various
acts of cruelty she had received from the prisoner,
and she also said that one day the prisoner made
her fetch the pap that was in the school-room, and
was in it, and placed a small quantity in her mouth.
sheshe insisted
sp a t
t out,uPou her eating some of the filth that
and the prisoner then told her that
she did not swallow some, she would poke it down
her throat with
fa stick, and in consequence of this
threat she did swallow some. (This statement, as
may naturally be imagined, caused considerable sen-
sation in the court.) She also stated that the pri-
soner not only struck her with the cane and the
stick, but that she had also struck her with a poker
and a fire shovel.
The prisoner inquired of the witness how she
came by the injury at the back of her head.
The child in a most artless manner replied,
You did it, governess." She then burst into tears,
and evidently entertained a strong feeling of terror
of the prisoner.
Mr. Justice Williams (to the prosecutrix)--Why
how you was treated P
not tell your father when you went home
knew I had to go back to my governess.
plied--I was afraid to do so, because I
did
ss
heyu
veo
err
ae
l neighbours of the prisoner were examined,
and they proved that upon many occasions they
had seen her beat the poor child in a most brutal
manner, and that when she bled, from the injuries
she received, the prisoner told her to go and wash
herself at the water-tap.
One of the witnesses was asked by the .yarned
judge why she did not apply to the authorities, or
give some information as to the conduct of the
prisoner towards the child, and she replied that the
neighbours used to talk upon the subject, but they
appeared to think that if they interfered they would
only be told to mind their own business.
The prisoner, when called upon for her defence,
put in a written paper, in which she asserted that
the prosecutrix was a very naughty child, and
addicted to thieving and other bad habits, and that
she punished i)er in order to cure her of her bad
propensities, lint only did so moderately.- She did
explained that the reason for her
not appear to deny that she had forced the child to
eat the filth, but
doing so was that the child had put some into
(prisoner'6) plate while her back was turned one
day for a shot period at dinner time, and that she
thought she Niouid serve her the same. She also
admitted that the child was burned one day, but
said that she vas ironing at the time, and the child
*persisted in pulling the mat upon which she rubbed
.the iron away from her, and she was accidentally
burned while doing so.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of the whole
charge contained in the indictment.
The learned judge, in passing sentence upon the
prisoner, said. that in all his experience he did not
remember any case where one human being ap-
peared to have acted with so much cruelty to
another as she appeared to have. acted towards this

poor child. He, therefore felt himself called upon
'to inflict the full punishment fixed by the law for
such an offence, which was, that she be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for three years.

POLR,T INTELLIGENCE-Aug. 15.

GUILDHALL-ROBBERY OF £2OO BY A BOY.

—James Daniel O'Connell, about 15 years of age,
in the employ of Messrs. Ridsdale and Co., solici-
tors, of 5, Gray's Inn-square, was charged before
Alderman Abbiss with absconding with £2OO be-
longing to his masters.
Mr: Francis J. Ridsdale, said—The prisoner has

been in our employ rather more than a year and a
half. On Friday last I gave him, between four and
five o'clock in the afternoon, the sum of £3OO in
Bank of England notes to pay into Messrs. Childs'

bank, at Temple-bar, to our account. There were
seven notes in all, consisting of one for £lOO, No.
94,226; one for £5O, No. 34,526; one for £5O, No.
34,787 ; one for £5O, No. 34,600 ; one for £2O, No.
19,449; one for £2O, No. 58,561; and one for £lO,

No. 34,446. I also gave him a cheque for £24 6s
10d., making in all £324, 16s. 10(1'. He never re

.
turned, and I have not seen him since until this
morning. I gave him our bankers' pass-book at
the same time with the money.
Mr. Josiah Butler, clerk to Messrs. Child and Co.,
the bankers, said the prisoner came to our bank on
Friday afternoon last, a little before five o'clock,
and handed me the pass-book produced. He also
gave me a Bank of England note for £5O, No.
34,526; two of £2O each, Nos. 19,449 aad.58,561 ;
one for £lO, No. 94,446 ; and a cheque for £24 16s.
10d. The amount of the notes he gave was entered
on the back of the cheque, and, with the latter,
made up the sum of £124 16s. 10d., which he paid
into our bank to Messrs. Ridsdale's account. I

entered the amount in the pass-book, and he then
desired me to give him change for three bank notes,
one for £lOO, No. 94,226 ; one for £5O, No. 34,600 ;
and one for £5O, No. 34,787. I asked him how he
would have it, and he said he would take £lOO in
£lO notes, £5O in £5 notes, and £5O in sovereigns.
I told him it was usual for customers to write
their names on the back of the notes when they
required change, and asked him why he had not
done it, and he replied that it was all right, as they •
wanted change in the office. Before giving the.
change I referred to our senior clerk, who directed
me to pay the prisoner if I knew him as coming
from Messrs. Ridsdale's, and knowing the prisoner
was in the habit of paying in money on account of
Messrs. Ridsdale's firm, I gave him the change as
he wished, consisting of ten £lO notes, Nos. 84,138
to 84,147, both inclusive ; ten £5 notes, Nos. 79,338
to 79,347, both inclusive ; and £5O in gold. He
counted the notes, and remarked that there were
only nine £lO notes. I told him he could not see,
upon which he said he had something in his eye,
and upon counting them a second time, he found
them correct.
A fashionably-attired young man, whe declined
the usual oath, on the plea that he was a member
of the Society of Friends, declared in the prescribed
form, and " solemnly and sincerely affirmed" that
his name was Bowden, and said, the prisoner came
to my father's shop on Friday afternoon, and pur-
chased some hosiery goods, which he desired might
be packed in a black leather bag. He asked per-
mission to change his shirt, for which purpose I
took him up stairs to a room on the second floor.
He gave me three sovereigns to pay for the articles
he had bought, . and when he came down stairs I
gave him the change, which was 14s. 3d. I did not
go into the room again until I received a letter from
him on Monday last, dated from the Station Hotel,
Hull, stating that he had leftbehind him a banker's
pass-book, containing £5O in bank-notes, and re-
questing me to forward it to him without delay, as
he had to pay the money away. He said in the.let-
ter that he remembered hearing something drop,
which he believed must have been the pass-book,
which he said I would find under the looking-glass
stand. I looked as he directed, and found the pass-
, book, already produced, and in the pocket of it I
found ten £5 notes, Nos. 79,338 to 79,347 inclusive.
The prisoner also left behind him the things which
he took off while changing his clothes, and ho told
he would send for them. I asked him his name,
and, after some hesitation, he said it was Smith.
Soon after I received the letter Hann, the officer,
called, and
.I showed it to him.
James Hat/n, a City officer, said—On receiving
infcrmation of the robbery, I made inquiries, and
ascertained that the prisoner was seen entering Mr
Bowden's shop about five o'clock on Friday after-
noon, and on going there on Monday morning I
saw the letter received from the prisoner. I imme-
diately telegraphed to Hull, directing the police
there to apprehend the priSoner, and I went down
the same night and found the prisoner in custody.
Mr. Ridsdale, jun., went down with me, and when
he charged the prisoner with stealing £2OO, the
latter said he was very sorry, but that he had no
intention of stealing them when Mr. Ridsdale en-
trusted the notes to him. He said it never occurred
to him to steal the notes until he got to the end
of Chancery-lane. He then added that he paid in
£lOO in notes and a cheque for £24 odd, and re-
ceived the change for the other notes as already
described. He was searched by the Hull police,
and seven £lO notes, £3B 4s. 6d. in money, a silver
watch (Frodsham's make), and a gold guard, a gold
and cameo pin, a set of three gold and cameo studs,
a meerschaum pipe, tobacco pouch portemonnaie,
and pocket-book were found upon him, all of which
he said were purchased with the proceeds of the
robbery.
This being the whole of the evidence,
- Alderman Abbiss cautioned the prisoner, who
had declined to cross-examine the witnesses, and
asked him if he wished to say anything in answer
to the charge ?
The prisoner said he was very sorry. He had
nothing to say but that he was guilty, and he hoped
the things he had bought with the money he had
stolen would be given up to the prosecutor.
The prisoner was then fully committed for trial.
CAUTION TO PAWNBitOKERS.—Misses Ann and.
Barbara Reeve, who carry on the business of pawn-
brokers in Redcross-street, were summoned for not
complying with the Act of ,Parliamcnt which re-
quires that the name and 'address of every person
pledging property shall be legibly written upon the
ticket referring to such property.
Mr. Robert Beech said his object in laying the
present complaint was not to recover the goods in
pledge, or for any other purpose tam the public
good. The Act of Parliament had expressly pro-
vided that the address of every person pledging
property should appear on the ticket, and that was
the only check, or means of tracing in cases where
the property had been stolen the parties pawning it.
In the present instance his housekeeper had been
robbing him to a considerable extent, and although
he had about a dozen tickets relating to property
belonging to him which his housekeeper had
pledged at the shop of the defendants, not one of
those tickets had any written address upon it. At
the earnest solicitation of the housekeeper he had
been induced to forego prosecuting her but his duty to
the public rendered it necessary that he should bring
the matter under the notice of the magistrates, in
order that the very wholesome provisions of the
aot of Parliament might be enforced.
The foreman to the defendants said that the
omission complained of was the result of careless-
ness on the part of the young man who had taken
in the pledges. He had been repeatedly cautioned
about it, and was now about to be discharged in
consequence.
Alderman Abbiss said—lf it had occurred in a
single ticket only, he should have considered it
was merely an accidental omission ; but, from the
tickets produced, it appeared to him to be rather
the rule than the exception. It was most important
that the act of Parliament should be strictly en-
forded, otherwise there would be no check at all in
the disposal of stolen property, or clue whereby to
trace the persons pledging it. He therefore fined
the defendants 40s. and costs, which was imme-
diately paid.

HAMMERSMITH.—DOINGS IN THE KITCHEN.
—Sarah Hogsfiesh, a middle-aged woman, described
as a cook, was placed in the dock before Mr. Ing-
ham, char,ged with robbing her master, Capt. Wm.
Thomas Hall, of No. 5, Stanley crescent, Notting-
hill, under the following singular circumstances:--
Mr. Martin defended the prisoner,

Abrahan Goldsmith, footman in the service of
Capt. Hall, stated that the prisoner had been cook
in the same family for the last 12 months, and he
had seen her take things, such as bread and meat,
out of the house. Her son had been in the habit of
coming to the house to dinner. The last time was
on Sunday week, and he then sat down to the
table with the rest of the servants. The cook carved
for him and also for the rest. He had seen him
there before, as many as a dozen times or more.
Witness believed the prisoner did not inform her
master or mistress of her son dining with them id
the kitchen. The fond he had seen her take out
was sufficient for a reasonable person's dinner. He
had seen her take it away once within the last fort-
night, and on two or three occasions before. He
first told his master on Tuesday. He had had no
quarrel with the cook.

- In cross-examination, the witness said on Tues.
day he was called to reveal all he knew of the pro-
ceedings in the kitchen. He had heard that the
prisoner gave warning to leave on Monday week.
The last time he saw her take food from the house
was either on Thursday or Friday in last week
since she had. given warning.
William Scott, coachman to Capt. Hall, said he
had seen the son dining in the kitchen frequently.
It was pretty nearly every Sunday for some months
past, :11c, made a communication to his master on