The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-17 00:00:00

excited by what she had taken,.or she would not
have driven. She was not drunk, however. She
did not drive fast at first, but when near the turn-
pike she whipped the horse, and drove through the
turnpike-gate galloping. She turned on the high
road towards Cambridge, but then turned back
and drove through the Newmarket-gate towards
Bottisham. (These gates are in close proximity.)
She then went quietly some distance, and then
would whip the horse again and urged. him on to
the gallop, and the latter continued galloping up
to the time of the accident_ I several times begged
her not to go so fast, as I said I could harldy hold on.
I told her I was sure there would be an accident if
she did not give up the reins; but she would not.
The gentleman next her attempted to take the reins
from her, but she snatched them away. There
,was
a cart close to our trap in front, but whether she
ran against it or not lam not able to say. I felt a
jerk and was thrown out instantaneously. The
gentlemen gave her no permission to drive, but
wished her not several times. She said, " I can
drive. I know how."
William Everett reside near the scene of
the accident. I have worked en the road 27 years.
I saw the road after the accident, the marks of the
wheel, the place where the nave of the wheel had
struck, and the deceased lying On the ground. The
place where the accident took place is in the parish
of Fen Ditton. When I got up 1 found the horse
and trap nine or ten yards from the body and on
the opposite side of the road.
Lambert being recalled, said that the near wheel
of his vehicle bore no perceptible mark of having
come into collision with anything else.
The coroner having summed up, the jury returned
a verdict of " Accidental Death," the foreman add-
ing that they were of opinion the death of the de-
ceased was attributable to herself alone.

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING,

own, and that she had received it as rent for two
cottages, but where the cottag es were situate, or
from whom she received the me 'ney, she declined to
say. When she was taken to the House of Deten-
tion she appeared hale and hear ty, but she had since
simulated a complete prostratio; aof the system, and
compelled the officers to carry her to and from the
van, and from cell to dock. The se rgeon had seen her
daily, and was so satisfied that it was all sham that
he ordered her nothing beyond the ordinary diet.
She now pretended to be so ill as to be scarcely able
to speak, but what she did say g reatly aggravated
her offence, for she threw out imputations of the
worst character against the poor old woman whom
she had so cruelly robbed, which were completely
refuted. A scent bottle, which was kept in the
same box as the money was also found upon the
prisoner. She was found guilty and sentenced to
six months' hard labour.
Two boys, named William Brown and Thomas
Jones were indicted for stealing a handkerchief
from the person of a man whose name was un-
known.
Mr. J. P. Doyle prosecuted; Mr. Metcalfe was
for the defence.
The case rested upon the evidence of police-con-
stable 114 H, who stated that on the afternoon of
Oct. 24, he was on duty in Commercial-street,
Spitalfields, when he saw Yonesfollow a gentleman,
put his hand in his pocket and take out a hand-
kerchief, red and white spots, -.which .he passed to
Brown, and they both ran away. He pursued
them, but was stopped by a mob, and they got clear
off, but knowing them he took them into custody
subsequently. He swore he saw the handkerchief
taken.
Mr. Metcalfe cross-examined the witness, and in
his address to the jury commented upon the manner
in which he answered the questions put to him. It
was a case, he urged, in which an acquital would
be a most proper result.
The jury found the prisoners not guilty.