The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-03 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.—William J. Corderoy, a very
respectably attired man, was charged with being drunk and
disorderly, and assaulting a police-constable in the discharge
of his duty.
It appeared that on Saturday evening the prisoner was
found in the street in a state of intoxication and creating a
disturbance, which made it necessary to remove him, but
upon an officer approaching him for that purpose he became
very violent, so as to make it necessary to secure additional
assistance. Even then he succeeded in kicking the first
officer in a dangerous place, and threw another officer to
the ground no fewer than four times before they succeeded
in lodging him at the station.
The prisoner said he was drunk at the time, and that was
all he recollected. He remembered nothing about the as-
sault, and was very sorry he had so conducted himself.
The Lord Mayor said he was very sorry too; but the
offence was of too serious a nature to be lightly passed over.
He was determined to do his utmost to protect the police in
the discharge of their daty; and, in all cases where an assault
upon the police was proved before him, he should deal se-
verely with the offender, whether he was drunk or sober at
the time. _ _

Ills lordship then sentenced the prisoner, who seemed
rather astounded at such a result, to 21 days' imprisonment,
with hard labour.

James Allen and John
. Murray were charged with hav-
ing been concerned, with another man not in custody, in
stealing a watch and chain, value £7, from the person of
Thomas Millard. _

The prosecutor said—On Saturday afternoon I was going
through Tower-street with a friend, when our attention was
attracted to an Italian who was exhibiting a monkey there.
At the same time, standing close by, were three men, of
whom the prisoners were two, and Murray, who was close
to me, dropped some halfpence on the ground, which he
stooped to pick up, and after giving something to the Ita-
lian, he went away with his two companions. Shortly
afterwards I missed my watch and chain, and upon mention-
ing my loss, and my suspicion that the prisoners had robbed
me, a gentleman who was there said they bad gone up to-
wards Tower-bill, and upon proceeding in that direction
we came up with the prisoners there, the other man having
got away. The watch has not been found, and I sun told
that before we caught them they had offered it for sale on
Tower-bill.
The prisoners denied all knowledge of the robbery, and
asserted that they were honest costerniongers, who had
never been in trouble before ; but, unfortunately for their
veracity, an officer in court identified Murray as having
been to his own knowledge summarily convicted three
times, and Allen twice, while Allen was also identified as
having been already convicted at this court.
They were then remanded to give time for an attempt to
trace the watch.

GUILDHALL.—Henry Bunbury, the son of the late
Major-Gen. Bunbury, was placed at the bar before Alder-
man Cubitt, charged with passing and uttering three
bills of -exchange for £lOO, £5O, and £4O, with intent t
defraud Mr. Hobson, a tailor, of 4. Finsbury-place South.
Mr. Armstrong appeared for the prosecution.
Mr. Henry Hobson said—l have known the prisoner about
three years. I had some business transactions with the pri-
soner and several other parties for whom Mr. Parkin, a soli-
citor, was concerned, bat they terminated in 1856. On Ist
June last he called upon me at my place of business, and
said that since he had seen me his father, Major-Gen. Bun-
bury, had died, and that his affairs were then in the hands
of Mr. Parkin. He asked me to advance him some money,
and I let him have £lO, the amount he asked for. He had
goods of me also at the same time. He brought a letter,
purporting to come from Mr. Parkin, and addressed to the
prisoner. On the sth of June he brought another letter,
which he showed me, and represented he received it from
and apparently accep
Mr. Parkin. He wanted ,f 5, which I lent him. On the
Bth of June he came again. When he came he usually
brought letters purporting to come from Mr. Parkin. On
the 26th of June he brought a bill of exchange for £4O,
dated June 19, 1858,ted by Mr. Parkin. I remarked that
drawn and endorsed by the prisoner,
it was rather singular that a solicitor should give his accep-
tance, and he replied, not at all, as solicitors never made
advances until they had the needful in hand. He then
asked for an advance of £lO upon the bill produced for
£4O ; and upon the faith of the genuineness of that bill I let
him have £lO. On the Bth July he called again with another
letter purporting to be written by Mr. Parkin, and at his re-
quest I advanced him £7. I knew be was entitled to a large
property, being of a verhh family, and that his property
amounted to about £14,000. On the 17th of July he
brought another letter, which he read to me, in which the
writer represented that the prisoner's affairs were all
brought to a termination and appointed the following
Monday for a settlement. 'I then let him have £l5, and he
ordered some goods, which were made up, but not delivered.
lie also wanted a bat, and I gave him an order upon my
hatter for one. On the following Monday I received a note
from Mm, dated Islewortb, appointing the following Wed-

nesday to call upon me ; and on that day I received another
letter from him from Portsmouth ' • but in the meantime I
called on Mr. Parkin. I did not see the prisoner again
until Saturday last, when he came and inquired if the
things he had ordered a fortnight previously were ready. I
said they were, and invited him into the show-room, and
while he was trying on the things he produced two bills of
exchange for £lOO and £5O, which he gave to me, and said
he was going to Cherbourg and should want £5O. Both bills
were drawn and endorsed by the prisoner, and pur-
ported to be the acceptances of Mr. Parkin. They were
both dated July 30, 1858. I then said he must have been
aware that the bill of exchange for £4O bearing Mr. Par-
kin's name as the acceptor was a forgery, and he said it was.
I then asked him if the other two bills were also forgeries,
and he said they were. I then called up my foreman, and
in his presence interrogated the prisoner again, when he
repeated that the bills were forgeries. I called in a police-
man and gave him into custody.
Mr. Wtn. Parkin said—l am a solicitor, and live at 29,
Argyll-street. The acceptances to the bills produced are
not in my handwriting, neither have they been written with
my authority. The signature is not very like mine. I know
the prisoner's handwriting. Tile bodies of the bills, as well
as the forms of the acceptances, appear to have been written
by him, but the signature is in a disguised hand. I have
written to the prisoner several times, but not about Mr
Hobson. I was concerned two years ago in purchasing of
Mr. Hobson a mortgage which he held upon the prisoner's
reversionary property. _

Cross-examined by prisoner-4 am the attorney to Major
Adair and others, holding the estate on your behalf.
Alderman Cubitt, after reading the usual caution pre-
scribed by law in such cases, asked the prisoner if he wished
to say anything in answer to the charge ?
The prisoner said—l wish to state, relative to Mr. Parkin
and Mr. Hobson, that I have a claim upon this property,
and that I hold Mr. Parkin's acknowledgment in his own
handwriting of his not having paid me the sums agreed to,
and that the letters I showed Mr. Hobson were not forgeries,
but bond fide letters. That every party belonging to the
family, solicitors and all, have received notice from me
that I have never received the sums stipulated to be paid
to me, and for that very reason I claimed a share in the
estate' although Mr. Parkin and his clients did all they
could to shut me out. I also wish to state that at Crane-
court, Fleet-street, at the Scottish Hospital, of which Major
Adair is the secretary, I signed various mortgages to the
amount of £6,000 and upwards, and at the end of each
mortgage there was a receipt drawn out acknowledging
that I had received a fair proportion of the property for that
mortgage, whereas all that I received was £245. I was to
have had £250, but they kept back £5 because they.got
me £5O a-day earlier than agreed upon. They then pur-
chased my equity of redemption for £5O, which I sold on
their promise to keep good faith with me, which
they did not. Upen the death of my father, knowing
they had not a leg to stand upon, and that I
was in want of money, they got me to sign a
deed of confirmation of the past, fbr which they were
to have given me £250 then and to leave the rest until a
future day, when the estate came to be wound up. I re-
ceived part of that money when I signed the deed; and with
regard to the rest, Mr. Parkin wrote to say it should be
forwarded on my making application for it. I did make
repeated application, and got a few pounds in dribs and
drabs, but the balance I never got. To prove how they got
my property into their hands, I wish to say that the firm of
Messrs. Gaston, Aguilar, and Baker, cement manufacturers,
got mortgages from me for goods which they contracted
debts for, and never paid, leaving me liable, and one mort-
gage alone, for £1,500, Mr. Parkin bought on behalf of
his clients for £250, showing how little they thought of the
validity of the mortgage.
Alderman Cubitt—This is no answer to the charge. Do
you wish the whole of this statement to be returned with
the depositions ?

Pris'oner—That is what I desire, sir.
The prisoner was then committed for trial.

BOW-STREET.

William Roble, a costermonger, was charged with in-
decently exposing himself to the servant-maids in Gordon-
square and the neighbourhood, and with addressing filthy
language to them.
It was proved by the evidence of several witnesses that
the disgusting conduct complained of had been going en for
some months past, although the prisoner, had always man-
aged to avoid apprehension until Saturday, when he was
pursued by a fishmonger's assistant and given into custody,
exhausted almost by his endeavouring to escape. He at
first denied the charge, and Mr. Lewis, his solicitor, cross-
examined the witnesses, in the hope of establishing a case of
mistaken identity, adding that the prisoner bore an excel-
lent character, and was a married man, his wife's confine-
ment being hourly expected. Eventually, however, to
avoid the risk of still greater punishment at the sessions,
the prisoner pleaded guilty, and begged the magistrate to
dispose of the case by summary conviction.
The servant-maids having also begged the Court to spare
them the pain of appearing again,
Mr. Henry committed the prisoner to three months' hard
labour, remarking that he deserved a much heavier punish-
ment, and doubtless would have received it if the case had
gone for trial.

Mr. Henry has received a donation of ss. in postage
stamps from " H. C.," who requested that it might be given
to the young man at the brothel in George-street, for hav-
ing very properly refused to allow the cabman, Knight, to
remain in the room with the servant girl, Mary Barry,
whose case was reported on Saturday.

WESTMINSTER; CRUEL ROBBERY OF A PARENT.
—Harriet Hardiman and Anne Hawker, two young
women, were placed at the bar before Mr. Paynter, charged
with the following heartless robbery :
The prosecutor was John Hardiman, father of the first-
named prisoner, a poor, hard-working smith, a widower, in
bad health, with five children to maintain. On Saturday
night he went to bed, with his week's wages, amounting to
135., in his pocket, and on awaking in the morning found it
had all gone. The door of his humble abode had been left
as usual unlocked, a circumstance of which his daughter
availed herself to enter in the night and rifle his pockets
of their contents. The other prisoner had been seen with
her at the door of her father's house, and was found in her
company when she was apprehended, shortly afterwards,
with similar coins to those stolen in her possession.
In reply to the magistrate prosecutor said that his daugh-
ter, who might have been of great service to him, had
absented herself from his house three months ago, and had
taken to evil courses and companions,
The prisoners, the former of whom admitted the robbery,
were committed for trial.

SERIOUS AND UNPROVOKED CASE OF WOUNDING.—
Elizabeth Saunders, a woman of dissipated appearance,
was charged with assaulting Miss Margaret Gibson.
The prosecutrix, a very genteelly-dressed young woman,
residing at 23, Paradise-walk, Chelsea, said that the defen-
dant lodged in her mother's house, and on Saturday night
was intoxicated and created a great disturbance. Some
boys followed her home, and complainant was standing in
the passage of the house when she was suddenly struck by
defendant on the head and fell.
Mr. Paynter inquired the extent of the injury ?
Complainant, 'who wore a linen bandage round her head,
said it was a very deep cut, and pained her very much.
She had had it dressed at the hospital. She gave defendant
no provocation of any description.
Isabella Martin said she was present at the time of the
assault. The wound was inflicted with a china image,
which defendant deliberately threw at the complainant.
Complainant screamed and fell. She was insensible for
some minutes, and bled copiously from the wound. It was
at first thought that she was killed.
Defendant, who made no reply to the charge, was re-
manded for a week.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—AssAuIas ON WOMEN.
—Charles Cattle, 119, Jermyn-street, was brought before
Mr. Long, charged with ill-using his wife, Mrs. Martha
Cattle.
The complainant said her husband came home yesterday
morning about two o'clock drunk, and began beating her
with his fists, and he then threw her down on the floor,
jumped on her repeatedly, and kicked her all over the body.
She had been married ten years, and this was not the first
time her husband had ill-used her.
The prisoner, in defence, said his wife did not speak the
truth.
Police-constable Turvey, 200 C, said he was called in,
and be found the complainant nearly naked and exhausted,
and shamefully beaten. The prisoner resisted violently,
and struck him several times.
Police-constable Robinson, C division, said the prisoner,
when at the station-house, assaulted him and bit his hand.
Mr. Long sent the prisoner to hard labour for three
months for assaulting his wife, one month in addition for
assaulting the constable, and to find bail for six months at
the expiration of the terms of imprisonment.
William Murphy was charged with a violent assault on
Elizabeth Hallows.

The complainant said she was in Piccadilly on the night
of the 26th July, when the prisoner came up and indecently
assaulted her. She asked him what he meant by such con-
duct. He replied, " I'll show you," and then struck her
several blows with his fist on the face. The prisoner put
his hand into his pocket, pulled out something heavy, threw
it in her face and stunned her.
Mr. Long sent the prisoner to hard labour for two months.

John Beal was charged with beating Mary Beal, his wife.
The wife, who had her head bandaged, said her husband
was about to break the furniture when she interposed. Her
husband laid hold of her, lifted her up, and threw her vio-
lently on the floor, cutting her head open. Her husband
was constantly in the habit of beating her, and did nothing
towards the support of his family.
The son confirmed his mother's evidence.
The father in defence said his wife took up the poker.
The son said this was true.

Mr. Long said that being the case be would let him off
this time, and would only order him to enter into his own
recognisance to keep the peace.

OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES.--Henry
Summerley and Samuel Owen were charged with obtain-
ing ten decanters from Mr. John Hobson, 19, St. James's-
street, by fraudulent pretences.
Charles Smith was in the employ of Mr. Hobson. About
one o'clock that day Summerley came to the shop and
ordered ten decanters in the name of a gentleman named
Halford, No. 9, Rutland-gate. The prisoner was told to
call in half an hour. He did so, and took away the de-
canters in a cab. The prisoner wal followed, and witness
saw the other prisoner Owen help him to take the decanters
from the cab.

There being nn evidence against Owen, he was discharged.
The prisoner Summerley was then charged with obtaining
goods from Messrs. Miller and Son, Piccadilly, by false
pretences.

Evidence was given that the prisoner obtained Sib. of
candles and a quantity of oil from the firm in the name of
Halfora.

As it was suspected there were other cases of the same
description the prisoner was remanded for a week.

WORSHIP-STREET.—A —MARRIAGE NOT A-LA-MODE.
—A very youthful couple, still in their teens, although
bound in wedlock, made their reluctant appearance before
the magistrate, accompanied by their respective parents,
who sought for advice under very embarrassing circum-
stances. The bridegroom's father, who appeared to be a
respectable tradesman stated in effect that having two
places of business be had entrusted the management of one
to his son, who had not long been home from school, and
was satisfied with his conduct until Tuesday, when he
absented himself from business, and after his return the
astounding fact was elicited from him that he had in the
meantime contracted marriage with a girl younger than
himself. For a time he refused to disclose the whereabouts
of his young wife, who, however, was now in court with her
mother—(a timid-looking girl was in fact now observed
crouching and occasionally peeping from behind her parent).
The magistrate said it certainly was a strange story, and
asked the father if he thought his son was out of his mind.
The father replied that he bad never had reason to think so
before this occurrence.
The girl's mother now cameforw ard and said that the young
man first saw her daughter at a Christmas party, and after-
wards became such a passionate suitor that his conduct was
quite alarming to the object of it, who had on one occasion
even resorted to the expedient of hiding herself under a bed to
avoid an interview with her admirer. The day before this

inauspicious wedding, however, he came and pleaded sot
earnestly that he was permitted to see the girl tete-a-tete,
and she afterwards said that he had threatened to stab her
to the heart if she rejected him. The next day she disap-
peared from home, and returning after a long absence con-
fessed that she had been married in the interval, and that
her husband had already deserted her. The girl herself
being now questioned said the statement of facts was cor-
rect. Her husband, having .induced her to meet him, took
her to the City, where the marriage was solemnised at.a
church, and afterwards consummated, but her husband then
confessed that he had married her in spite, because she had
preferred to him another young man, who, however, would
have nothing further to say to her after what had occurred.
The magistrate observed that it was the most strange case
that had ever come before him. The parties being both
under age, and the bride acting apparently under coercion,
the marriage would, he supposed, readily be set aside by the
proper court, but in the meantime the man aught to con-
tribute to the support of his girl-wife. _
The parties then left the court.
CHARGE OF STEALING A HORSE AN D CART.-William
Eddington, a jobber, was placed at the bar before Mr.
Hammill and charged with stealing a horse and cart and
harness belonging to Charles Jones, a coal merchant, in
Shaftesbury-street, Hoxton, who stated that on Friday
afternoon he left the prisoner with his lad in the care of his
horse and cart while he went to take tea, but upon his re-
turn in half an hour the whole had disappeared, and after a
vast deal of trouble he traced them to Gray's-inn-road,
where he found the prisoner in the very act of receiving six
sovereigns from a man, to whom he had agreed to sell the
horse for that amount. The value of the whole was about
£l7, but the cart was a hired one.
William Craig, aged 16, said that as soon as the prosecutor
left them the prisoner walked the horse up and down for a
short time, and then suddenly asking witness if he knew
Gray's-inn-lane, drove off to it, and desired witness to wait
for him at a public-house there. In about three hours he
brought two other men, one of whom offered to give him £5
10s. for the horse, and a gratuity of ss. for himself. The pri-
soner refused to take that, but agreed to accept £6, and was
just receiving the money when the prosecutor came in with a
police-constable. The prisoner then asserted that the pro-
secutor had authorised him to sell the horse for six guineas ;
but the prosecutor utterly denied it and gave him into
custody.

Mr.-Bliss, landlord of the Havelock Arms, said that the
prisoner, whom be knew before, came with the horse and
cart, intimating that he had to sell them, and witness en-
tertained no suspicion, as the prosecutor had in fact offered
last week to sell him the horse for £6 ss. He therefore re-
commended the prisoner to a person named Duffy, as a
likely man to buy it, and they were about completing the
bargain when the prosecutor came in in a terrible fluster,
having, as he said, spent 15s. in cab-hire in search of them.
The witness said he did not believe the prisoner meant to
steal the horse. The prosecutor admitted that he had offered
last week to sell the horse for £lO, the prisoner being with
him at the time, but he never authorised the prisoner to
sell it, and merely left hint with the lad in care of it.
Mr. Hammill remanded the case for a week for further
inquiry.