The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-11 00:00:00

court was well filled with spectators. The appear-
ance of the poor girl, who is only about 17 years of
age, and who for many weeks past has been under
the care of the parish authorities of St. Mary,
Islington, was still very bad, and she seemed weak
and feeble. The defendant was not placed in the
box, but was accommodated with a seat at the soli-
citor's table.

Mr. Sparling, solicitor to the trustees of St.
Mary, Islington, attended for the prosecut'on ; and
Mr. Lewis for the defence.
Mr. Mould, the chief clerk, then read the deposi-
tions, which were taken before Mr. Tyrwbitt, at
the Islington Workhouse, on the 30th Dee. last,
and which were as follows :
Susan Dean—l was servant to Mrs. Laigh, now
present. I received some injuries while in her
service. The last blow I received on the head was on
last Monday week (Dec. 21) from Mrs. Laigh with a
poker. The day before (Dec. 20) Mrs. Laigh struck
me in the eye with her hand. On the Saturday
night before she struck me with a chopper on the
lower part of my body behind for upsetting the
broth. On the Thursday before (Dec. 7) she hit me
on the head with the poker. She hit me on the arm
with the poker, but I cannot recollect the day. •
She used to hit me twice at once, sometimes with
the hair brush and sometimes with the hearth
broom. I have been used thus nearly all the time
I have been there. No one except my mistress
struck me I was in her service. My mistress
made all the cuts on my bead.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wakeling—My fellow-
servant's name is Ellen Morgan. I never quar-
relled with her. She never struck me with any-
thing, and she never took anything out of the
copper and struck me. I never fought with her.
I never told Mr. Hicks that my fellow-servant
struck me, nor that she struck me with something
from the copper, nor that she gave ms a black eye.
I never complained to any one of being struck with
the poker. I and Ellen did not talk of going to
prison, nor did we agree to say it was Mrs. Laigh
who had struck me. I did not tslt them I was
kept in the kitchen. Ellen and my mistress waited
on the lodaers. I saw Mr. Hicks 80011 after i gut •
there. He called to see Ellen, and I did not tell
him.

Re examined—When Mr. Hicks called I ha►d •
back eye. He inquired how it came. I did not
tell him. My, mistress told him Ellen and I
been fighting. That was not true. I did not hear
Ellen tell M. cks that she gave me the black
eye.

Several witnesses were examined, both for the
prosecution and the defence, and ultimately the
magistrate decided that it wai a case for a jury.
Mr. Lewis applied that bail might be taken.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he would accept of the same
bail as on the previous occ is;oa for her appearance
at the Middlesex Sessions.

Tile necessary bail having been put in, the de-
fendant left the court, followed by a number of
persode.

MARYLEBONE.—TLIE LATE ALLEGED FBAITD
BY A SOLICITOR. —Jonathan Whitley Cooper, soli-
tor, was charged, before M. Broughton (on re-
mand), with havingt obtained 161. 10s. from Mr.
Daniel Costello, Lancaster-mews, Primrose-hill,
by false pretences.
The particulars of what previously transpired
have already appeared, and it will be remembered
that prosecutor alleged that he had paid the money
in question to the prisoner to take certain proceed-
ings in reference to an action in which he was
plaintiff. In the course of the inquiry, it was.
shown that the prisoner had, in his legal capacity,
done some business relating to the cause, and that
as the matter was' looked on as one for which. he
(prisoner) had not rendered himself amenable to a
criminal prosecution, the wag's' rate liberated him
upon his own recognisances to appear yesterday.
Mr. Lewis, Marlborough-street, 'attended as be-
fore for Mr. Costello, and Mr. Taylor, a barrister
(instructed by Mr. ilandley), for the prisoner.
Mr. Taylor, after some preliminary observations
from Mr. Lewis, said that his client was ready to
deliver up the pap, rs appertaining to the action,
and to refund any balance which could be shown
t) be properly due ; he was of opinion that nothing
more could las required.
Mr. Lewis said that he had consulted with Mr.
Handley, and that they had mutually agreed is
adopt the course alluded to.
The prisoner was then discharged, and when
leaving the court a man named William Bush
applied to have him detained, on the ground
that he had a charge to prefer against him ; he
was then again placed at the bar.
The ststetnent of Bush was, that he bad paid
through his friends sums amounting in the whole
to upwards of 3601., to carry on the action for
the recovery of property which had been left to
him, under the will of his grandfather ; in tne
instance the prisoner had from him 501. at a
single paymenr, but the promised services had
not hoen p(rformo I.
Mrs.Bartlect,2,Kenton-street,Brunswick-square,
stated that her husband gave the whole of the
money to the prisoner to prosecute the claim to
Birsh's property.
Mr. Handley said he could prove that as much
as 20u1. had been paid for proctors' fees alone.
It was ultimately arranged that the papers
should be delivered in due course, on application
being made for them at the residence of Mr.
Munday, 4, Upper Seymour-street West, Hyde-
park.
The case thus ended.