The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-31 00:00:00

mous charges made for the "mockery of woe;' by
persons whose business was—

" Letting out their bodies by the hour,
To mimic sorrow when the heart's not sad."
And after adverting in detail to the items of the
bill, he said he should call witnesses to show that
the £75 paid into court, was more than sufficient
to remunerate the plaintiff.
The defendant stated that when he first saw the
plaintiff he told him that the funeral was to take
place near Gloucester, and the plaintiff said the
expenses would be about £6O ; £3O for his charges,
and £3O for the expenses in the country.
Evidence was then given by several persons in
the trade, to the effect that the £75 was more than
enough for what had been done.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—May 30.

MANSION-HOUSE,—Henry Wilson, a man
who has been under remand since the 14th of May,
was brought before the Lord Mayor for final ex-
amination, upon a charge of misdemeanour under
Lord Campbell's Act.
Mr. Wontner appeared for the defendant.
The main facts of the case have already been given.
On the night of the 13th of May a metropolitan
police-constable, named Davies, who was on duty
near the Minories, in consequence of information he
received, got upon the roof of a stable in a mews at
the back of the Crescent, and he there found the
prisoner without his shoes, and upon searching him
he ascertained that in his pockets were two screw-
drivers, a skeleton key, a gimblet, and some lucifer
matches, and it turned out that the key opened a
back door opening to the mews in question, which
was connected with the premises of Mr. Trapp, a
merchant, residing at 5, in the Crescent, Minories.
The prisoner, when laid hold of, declared that he
was a very respectable man, but he gave no ex-
planation of the season for his being without his
shoes, and he also declined to state where he lived.
He was originally examined before Mr. Alderman
Mechi, who was not quite satisfied with the pri-
soner's explanation, and he was remanded in order
that the necessary inquiries might be made.
Mr. Trapp was now in attendance, and he stated
that in January, 1859, some thieves entered his
premises by the door above-mentioned, and several
coats were stolen. He said he knew nothing of the
prisoner, and he had no businessto be where he was
found.

Mr. Wontner put some questions to the consta-
ble Davies with reference to the key that was found
upon the defendant, and he stated in reply that he
would not swear that the key in question was a
skeleton key.

Mr. Goodman (to the constable):—Does it appear
that the wards of the key have been filed or altered ?
The Constable said—Certainly they have, sir.
Mr. Goodman—Then that, in definition of law, is
a skeleton key.
Mr. Wontner then addressed the Lord Mayor,
and endeavoured, with a good deal of ingenuity, to
argue that the articles found on the person of the
prisoner were not housebreaking implements within
the meaning of the statute, and he also pressed upon
his lordship the suggestion that a summary con-
viction would meet the justice of the case.
The Lord Mayor asked the defendant whether he
himself wished to say anything, as he had made up
his mind to send the case for trial.

The defendant in reply said—No, I have nothing
to say. It is no use saying anything. I went up
to the top of the stable to look after a young female
I was in the habit of keeping company with. (A
laugh.)
The Lord Mayor said he had no doubt whatever
that the intention of the defendant was to commit
a burglary, and although the chisels found upon
him were undoubtedly tools that might be used for
honest purposes, still they were very strong, and
might be used for a very different object; and,
under all the circumstances, he felt bound to com-
mit him to take his trial for the misdemeanour of
being found at night in the possession of house-
breaking implements, and with the intent to com-
mit felony.
It may be as well to explain that, as the law
formerly stood, the utmost punishment that could
be inflicted for an offence of this description was
three months' imprisonment, but by a recent very
useful statute, and one materially tending to pre-
vent crime, introduced by Lord Campbell, the
offence is made a misdemeanour, and subjects any
person convicted of it to two years' imprisonment,
with or without hard labour, as the Court may
direct.

CLERKENWELL.--UTTERING FORGED NOTES.
—Henry Smith, a baker, was placed at the bar on
remand, charged with obtaining the sum of £lO
from Mr. William Fysh, the landlord of the'Tra-
falgar public-house, Southgate-road, De Beauvoir
Town, by means of false pretences.
The prisoner went to the prosecutor, and saying
that he was sent by a neighbour, asked for change
of a £lO note, at the same time producing a note
for that amount which had been issued by the
Windsor and Eton Bank. The change was given
him, and the next day it was ascertained that no
such firm was now in existence. A gentleman from
the Marylebone Police Court examined the note at
this court, and stated that the Windsor and Eton
Bank had failed more than 40 years ago, and the
partners had not as yet resumed payment. When
the prisoner was apprehended by a police-con-
stable, 463 N, the whole of the £lO was
found, and the constable also ascertained that
the prisoner only a day or two before had asked
a fellow-workman to lend him 10s. for the purpose
of purchasing a flash note. The prisoner when
asked to state how he became possessed of the note,
said he had received it in payment for some bets
that he had won, and afterwards gave a different
account of it.

The prisoner, in defence, said that he was inno-
cent of uttering the note knowing that it was false.
He had received the note for having rode a horse
in a match.

Mr. Mould (the chief clerk)—Perhaps you can
tell us the owner of the horse, and the place where
you rode the race ?
Prisoner—Well, I don't know the man's name,
and the place over which I rode the race was a soft
piece of ground on the other side of Edgeware-road.
(A laugh.)
Mr. Mould—You had better tell us the name of
the place, so that inquiry can be made for you.
Prisoner—lt is somewhere on the other side of
Oxford-street, but I cannot tell the name of the
place.
The prisoner was then fully committed for trial.

LAMBETH.—A MORAL MAID• OF-ALL-WORK.
—Charles Henry Russell, a beardless youth of 19,
residing at Rosemary-place, in the city of Here-
ford, appeared to a summons to show cause why
an order of affiliation should not be made against
him for the support of a female child, to which
Jane Jones had given birth, and of which he was
alleged to be the father.
Mr. Codd, the barrister, attended on behalf of
the defendant.
Jane Jones, a young woman of diminutive size,
deposed that in the early part of the year 1857 she
went to live as " maid-of-all-work" to Mrs. Cowie,
a widow lady, residing in Rosemary-place, in the
city of Hereford, and shortly after an intimacy
took place between her and Mr. Russell, which led
to the birth of her child.

In cross-examination the witness said that Mr.
Russell was a lodger at the house of her mistress,
and that another young gentleman, named -IN atson,
also lodged there, and acknowledged that Watson
as well as Mr. Russell, and also the two sons of her
mistress, had had connexion with her. She de-
clared, however, that from January, 1859, to June
in the same year, none but Master Russell had
" annoyed" her, and, therefore, her child having
been born in the November following, must be his.
In reply to the magistrate, the witness said she
had received money on three occasions from the
defendant, the last being 325. on leaving her place.
The only corroborating testimony were the
letters of the defendant, which were read by the
magistrate.
Mr. Codd said that, as his worship had decided
that the corroborative testimony was sufficient, he
should call three witnesses and the defendant him-
self into the witness-box, and their joint testimony
would, he felt certain, satisfy his worship that the
case was not one in which he cotild make an order
on his client.

The learned gentleman here called as witnesses,
Thomas Houghton Cowie and Arthur Frederick
Cowie, the sons of complainant's landlady, and
Mr. William Watson, a young gentleman lodger,
and all swore that their connexion with the com-
plainant commenced shortly a.fter she had entered
her service in 1857, and continued up to the time
of her leaving in June, 1859. They further swore
that it did not cease from January to June, 1859,
as represented by the complainant, but was con-
tinued, and the money Oxon to the young woman
had been subscribed by all four equally, as they
were all aware of her indiscriminate connexion.
The defendant was called into the witness box,
and gave similar evidence.
Mr. Elliott observed that, according to the testi-
mony of all the witnesses, the case disclosed a
scene of the most shameless profligacy, and was one
in which he should make no order, but should dis-
miss the summons.

WOOLWICH.— ATROCITY ON BOARD AN
AMERICAN SlllP.—Robert Williams, a seaman on
board the Arneric,ful ship Gem of the Ocean, wa,
placed at the bar before Mr. Traill on a remanded
oliarge of cutting 04 wounding ITLyoy?