The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-28 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Nov. 27.

WESTMINSTER.—A DESPERATE WomaN.—Martha
ll'acher was charged with creating a disturbance and
threatening to break the windows at the house of Mr. Ken-
nett, Hoop and Grapes, Broadway, Westminster.
Complainant said that this was the fourth time he had
had occasion to bring the defendant to this court for pun-
ishment. On the last occasion she was committed for a
month, and on receiving her sentence stated, that when
she obtained her release she would revisit his house and
smash his windows. She had only been out of custody a
few days, since which she had been to the house no less
than three times, evidently with the intention to carry her
threat into execution, but had been prevented by the ex-
ercise of considerable vigilance. On Wednesday night, at
ten o'clock she came and created a disturbance, swearing
that she would break all the windows ; and on a previous
occasion since her release from prison, she had torn the
clothes off the waiter's back, and made a kick at Mrs.
Kennett. _ .

Defendant, in reply to the charge, said that he came
and pulled her out of the house as though he was engaged
with a man.
Mr. Kennett said he had forbidden her the house for a
long time past, and had refused to serve:her. On the pre-
sent occasion she did not enter the premises, but made fur
the windows outside. . . .

Mr. Arnold said she could have no right to go there, as
she had been again and again forbidden the house. He
should now require her to find bail to keep the peace for
the next three months.

The defendant was committed in default, and as she was
being removed, exclaimed, " I can do that on my--
head. I'll give it the-- - when I come out."

WORSHIP-STREET.

ROBBING A FATIIEL—William Neale, a wretched-look-
ing child, about 12 years of age, was brought up on remand
before Mr. D'Eyncourt, upon a charge of robbing hls
father, a cabinet-maker, in William-street, Shoreditch.
At the former examination it was stated by the father
that the prisoner for seven years past had exhibited an
incorrigible pilfering propensity, and that about a fort-
night since he broke open his money box, and absconded
with the whole of its contents. After considerable diffi-
culty he was traced by the police to a low lodging house
in Whitechapel, where he was found in bed with another
boy of depraved character, and at once given into custody.
Mr. D'Eynconrt —ls it your determined intention to
prosecute your son for this offence ?
The Father—Yes, sir. I certainly mean to do so, un-
less I can get him into some reformatory asylum.
Mr.' D'Eyncourt—ls the mother of the boy in attend.
ance?

A respectably-dressed young woman, who described her-
self as tho wife of the prosecutor, immediately stepped
forward and expressed her entire concurrence in the wish
of her husband to obtain the admission of their child
into some penitentiary, which would be the only means
of saving him from utter ruin.
The prisoner here clasped his hands together in an an-
guished manner, and exclaimed, " That woman is not my
mother, but she wants to got rid of me, as she is living with
father, who has turned my poor mother out of doors."
The prisoner and his alleged wife Were recalled by the
magistrate, in answer to which questions they reluctantly
admitted that they were cohabiting together, and that the
statement of the prisoner with regard to the fact of his
mother being still alive was perfectly correct.
Mr. D'Eyncourt strongly animadverted upon the scan-
dalous conduct of the prisoner's father and the woman
whom he had falsely represented to be his wife, and
directed the officer to use his best efforts to procure the
attendance of the boy's mother at the next examination.
On the case being now called on the prisoner's wife, a care-
worn-looking woman, entered the witness box and informed
the magistrate that, in consequence of the constant brutality
of her husband, she had been compelled to leave him about
six years ago, and, after an unsuccessful efibrt to support
herself by shoe binding, she had since lived under the pro-
tection of another man. _ _ _

Mr. D'Eyncourt said that it was a very shocking case ;
and as it was perfectly manifest that the sole object of the
prosecutor was to relieve himself from the burden of main-
taining his unfortunate child, he should remand the pri-
soner for a week with the view of obtaining his admission
into the reformatory asylum at Redhill, where the father
would be compelled, under the provisions of a recent act of
Parliament, to contribute a weekly sum, according to his
means, for his instruction and maintenance.

THAMES.—A TALE OF MISERY.—As Mr. Yardley was
about to leave the bench, a poor woman, with an infant in
her arms, and who appeared to be half starved, tremblingly
entered the witness-box, and said her husband and son
were both lying dead, and she had not the means of bury-
ing them.
Mr. Yardley—How is that, my good woman ?

The applicant said that her husband had been long suf-
fering from consumption, and, after a lingering illness, died
on Thursday last. A few weeks since her son, 13 years of
ago, met with an accident. Ho fell while ho was carrying
two pails of water for his employer, and received very
severe injuries, from the effects of which he died on Satur-
day last. During the illness of her husband and son she
parted with all her furniture to obtain food and medicine
for them, and she was now left with six young children,
and without the means of obtaining bread for them ; but
what afflicted her most was that she was unable to bury
the remains of her husband and son

Mr. Yardley—lt is a very sad case. What is your name?
The Applicant—My nawe is Louisa Davison, and my
late husband's name was Joseph Davison. He was a brick-
layer.
Mr. Yardley—Where do you live':
Applicant—At No. 1, Clare Hall gardens, near Stepney
Church. Here are the certificates relating to the death of
my husband and boy.
Mr. Yardley —Does any one know the story related by
this poor woman to be true ?
Denny, an officer of the court, said it was too true. The
poor widow and her children were in a state of destitution.
Mr. Yardley, who was much affected at the recital, or-
dered that a sovereign should be given to the applicant
from the poor-box fund, and, amidst tears and sobs, she
thanked the magistrate and left the court.

MARL BOROUGII-STREET. —CHARGE OF UNLAWFUL
POSSESSION OF A BANK NOTE.—.Tamer Afaaey, the land-
lord of the Crown public-house, Cranbourne-passage, was
summoned before Mr. Bingham, for having unlawful poa•
session of antolen 51. Bank of England note. Mary Massey,
his wife, was also included in the summons.
It appeared from the evidence on Saturday last, that the
note had been stolen from a cash-box in the chambers of
Mr. David Gibbons, barrister, New-court, Temple, on Oct.
28, and on the day after the robbery the note had been paid
to the clerk of a pork-pie merchant, named Watling, by
Mrs. Massey. The explanation of the accused, who stated
they were unable to recollect the party from whom they
received the note, was not considered sufficiently satisfac-
tory by the magistrate, who adjourned the case until yes-
terday, with an admonition to the accused to brush up
their recollection and to search their books to ascertain
whether any clue existed to the person from whom the note
was taken.
Yesterday all parties being in attendance, Mr. Bingham
inquired whether the accused were prepared with any.in-
formation about the note.
Mrs. Massey said she had been unable to recollect any-
thing more about the note, as the transaction had occurred
nearly a month ago.
Evidence having been given of the receipt of the note
from Mrs. Massey in the presence of her husband,
Mr. Bingham said he had done all in his power to assist
the complainant in his proceedings to come at the parties
who had commttted the robbery. The present was not a
case in which the note in question was suspected to be a
stolen note, but it was a clear case of robbery, it having
been fully established that the note was stolen on the IlSth
or 29th of October, and that on the 30th it was in the
possession of the parties summoned before him. Here war
proof of recent possession, and judging from the conflict-
ing and incompatible accounts of this recent possession,
given by Mrs. Massey, it might become a question whether
there was not sufficient reason to place her, without inclad-
ing her husband, at the bar for feloniously receiving the
note, well knowing it to have been stolen. The language of
the act had reference to the possession of property presumed
to have been recently stolen, and imposed a penalty of .
for that offence. But thispenalty obviously applied to lead
and such things, of which the possessor could not give
satisfactory account of the possession. But where
of
property was property recently stolen, there was an end
suspicion, and persons having possession of suchb property
were were placed in the situation of being liable to
trial. It would be for the prosecutor to say
steps he would take, but as far as the present summons
was concerned, it must be discharged. whaetsfurther
Mr. Massey thanked the magistrate, and declared he
would take good care to change no Si. notes in future ex-
cept for parties whom he could recollect and identity.