The Sun.
London, England, 1858-01-15 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGEIVCE—Java. 14.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Thos. Pleydell, confectioner,
of No. 25, Bishopsgate-street Without, was summon©d
before the Lord Mayor, for having attempted to kiss
Mrs. Elizabeth Aiken, the wife of a hairdresser who
resides in the neighbourhood.

The complainant said—On Sunday morning I went to
the defendant's house, a little before 12 o'clock, to take
home a razor which he had left with my husband. He
opened the door and asked me if I had the razor, and I
said "yea." He then asked ma to go into the bakehouse
whilst he went upstairs to get the key to pay the money.
In about five minutes he came down and asked me if I
would have a mincepie. I refused, and he said " do,"
and he put a mincepie in a paper bag and handed it to
me. He then asked me if I had change for sixpence, and
I gave him a penny and a threepenny piece, as the razor
came to twopence. When I put my hand out to receive
the sixpence from him he tried to kiss me, and he
said he would not let me go till I kissed him. He
then struggled very hard, with all his might, to
kiss me, and he pulled me 'about in a very disor-
derly manner, and bent my bonnet. I got to the door,
and then he tried three times more to kiss me.

The defendant (who is a very serious-looking charac
ter) here said—My Lord, I never thought of kissing
her, and I am ready to take my oath that I never
made any attempt of the kind.
The Lord Mayor—The shop was not open, I suppose ?
The defendant (shaking his head) —Oh no, my Lord,
❑ever open my shop on Sunday. (Laughter.)
The Lord Mayor—What did you give her the mince-
pie for ? I suppose that was to pay for the kiss you
wanted to take ? (A laugh.)
The defendant—l gave her the pie for her civility
in coming with the razor. I didn't want any kissing,
not at all. She has not told the truth.

The complainant—My Lord, I was quite ill with the
exertions I made to get away from him. I consider
his conduct most scandalous.

Mr. Aiken, the complainant's husband—My Lord, I
never knew my wife, to tell a lie in her life. When she
came home from the defendant's house I knew that
something disagreeable had occurred at once, for she
appeared to be greatly agitated and burst into tears.
She lay quite prostrate for some time, and more like a
dead than a living person. I wish your lordship to
understand that I do not seek any advantage from this
complaint. I merely come here to expose the circum-
stances of the case for the sake of public justice.
Mrs. Pleydell (the wife of the defendant)—My Lord,'
I believe what my husband says. I am sure he never
attempted to take any liberty with her at all, and that
all the woman has said is false.

_ .
Mr. Aiken—l solemnly declare to your lordship that
Mrs. Pleydoll told me when she was spoken to on the
subject that she believed every word my wife had uttered
was perfectly true. (Laughter.)
The Lord Mayor—And I believe so too. There is not
the slightest doubt about the matter, and yet the defen-
dant has the audacity to say that be is ready to take his
oath to the contrary. I fine bins 404. and costs, and
he wi 1 not easily forget that the mere attempt to kiss
cost him a couple of guineas.
Patrick Leary, a porter in the employment of Messrs.
Adams, of Pudding-lane, fruit merchants, was committed
to prison for having stolen 28 oranges, the property of
his masters. .

Mr. Oakley, who superintends the workmen on the
premi,es, stated upon the occasion that it was scarcely
to be credited to what extent this plunder of fruit chests
was carried on, and

The Lord Mayor intimated that he would deal
rigorously wi' h every case of the kind.
Thomas Henry White, conductor of an omnibus, was
charged with having been intoxicated while performing
his &iv.

The iiroekeeper of the General Omnibus Company
stated that having been informed that the defenciatt was
tipsy in Mansion-house-street, he took him into custody.
No douLt the man was intoxicated, but he was exceed-
ingly civil, and made nu resistance whatever.

The manager of the cempat,y said the defendant waq
a respectable man, who conducted himself well in per-
forming his duty. The offence of intoxication was, how-
ever, one which would not be excused, and the direc-
tors bad issued orders that any one of the servants who
should be guilty of it should be at once committed to
the custody of the police.
The defendant said he had abstained from strong
drinks altogether for 14 weeks, but having wet an old
friend he happened to take one drop too much, which
gave him the.appearance of being drunk, but be would
have been able to go through his business, if he had not
been interfered with. Nevertheless, he was thankful
to the officer who took him into custody.
The Lord Mayor—l trust that the directors of the
company will not discharge him, for it appears to tee
that he very much regrets the offence he has committed.
Toe manager said he would state his lordship's impres-
sion upon the subject to the directors, and as the defend-
ant was respectable, he hoped they would not discharge

The Lord Mayor (to the defendant)—Now follow my
advice and stop this horrible habit, which, if it gain upon
you, will lead to your destruction inevitably. I bad a
poor fellow before roe yesterday, charged with begging,
who had served 14 years in India, and whose only fault
was, I really believe, his love of drink, which led him to
beggary, and which, if you continue to indulge in it, will
put you in a similar condition. You are now discharged.
The defendant dec!ared that no power on earth should
prevail on him to drink, and appeared to be very
grateful.

WORSHIP-STREET.— A swarthy, well-tiressda
young man, who gave the name of George Miler, and
said he was a cigar maker, living in 0, chard-street,
Peckham. was charged before Mr. Hammill with steal
ing a valuable watch.

Mr. William Pedder, a master mariner, residing in
Savage gardens, Tower hill, accompanied by a friend,
went the previous evening to the Standard Theatre,
and while mixed with tne crowd, gradualy approach-
ing the " pay box" was annoyed by the prisoner
pressing forcibly against his left side, as though desirous
of " going a-head," which, however, when an oppor-
tunity offered, he declined doing, but fell back to
"*item." Prosecutor shortly afterwards, while in the'
act of taking his box ticket fur himself and friend, heard
a sudden " click," and directly finding that his watch,
which had been evpeuded in his waistcoat pocket, had
been snapped from the chain and stolen, he seized pri-
soner by the throat, accusing him of being the thief.
" ludeed, indead, sir, you are wrong: Had I got it I
would telt you so," replied the prisoner. The officers of
the theatre at teis jaueture coming up directed, the
accuser and accueed to wait the arrival of a police con-
stable at the box-;!airs It was there that I observed
three ladies standing near us, said the prosecutor, and
the prisoner said to rue, 'You want your watch without
further trouble." " The less the better," I replied.
" Then," raid he, "it is hi your coat pocket tail."
There I felt and Lund it, one of the " ladies " having,
no doubt, stowed it away. I put it ia my trousers
pocket for safety ; and shortly after ward's prisoner asked
—" You don't want 'anything more now that you have
it all right, do your I replied, "I am not sure that it
is ad right ; you may have stolen it again ;" but I found
it wrs still in my pocket, and I gave the prisoner into
custedy. •
Ilaucet, 102 G, stated that prisoner offered him Sl.
to " try and make it all right," and prisoner was re-
manded.

WE3TMINSTER.—Aaron Cullen, a respectable
looking, middle-aged man, was charged under the fol-
lowing circumstances :
Mrs. Constance Lucy Matthews, treasurer of the
School of Discipline, a reformatory for young females,
Queen's-read West, Chelsea, stated that on the previous
morning the defendant came to the house, and refused to
leave unless his daughter, who was confined in the school
under commitment, was given up to him. A policeman
was sent for to remove him, and as ho would not go,
witness gave him into custody.
In answer to questions from Mr. Arnold, witness said
that the school was registered, and produced a condi-
tiorial pardon from the Crown, under which the defen-
dant's daughter had been placed there.
Defendant wished to explain his reasons for claiming
his daughter. She got into bad company two years ago,
when about 15 years of age, and was prosecuted at the
Westminster sessions, and sentenced to 12 months' irn-
prisonxnent, for stealing a watch from the house of her
employer. lle told the assistant judge that he was most
desirous steps should be taken to reclaim her, when the
judge informed him that he would see what he could do,
but did not mention anything about a reformatory. She
stopped in the prison till May, when she was removed
to the School of Discipline at Chelsea. He visited her
there, and finding just before. Christmas that she looked
very ill, he questioned her, when she said she had been
very ill, but had not seen any doctor, and being desirous
of taking her home and procuring a situation for her, he
had demanded her, as he conceived, rightly. He bad hit
her remain in the institution so long as he had be-
cause he thought it would be beneficisl to her. He could
not see that she ought in justice to be kept contrary to
her wishes,

Mr. Arnold observed that the pardon before him,
.which bore her Majesty's signature, was given upon con-
dition that she should be subject to 'the roles of the
institution in which ehe had been placed, and that she
should remain there until duly discharged.
Defendant inquired who was to discharge her ?
Mrs. Matthews replied Sir G. Grey, and begged to call
the attention of the magistrate to the terms of the con-
ditional pardon, " that she should be subject to the
rules," one of which Ras that agirl could not be received
into the school to remain less than two years.
Defendant, whoappeared to havecommitted the offence
with which he was charged in order to raise the question
of whether his daughter was not entitled to her dis-
charge, argued that as her original sentence was only
twelve months' imprisonment, her liberty should not be
restrained any longer.
Mr. Arnold was of a contrary opinion. She had bee❑
removed from the prison to which she bad been sent
after undergoing a portion of her punishment upon cer-
tain conditions offered, and if she accepted them, she
was bound by them. The magistrate then cited the act
of Pa►liameut to show that if any inmate of a registered
reformatory absconded therefrom, or was disobedient to
1 the rules of the its itution, he or she might bo brought
before a magistrate and committed for three calendar'
months, in ►addition to the former sentence, and unless
considered obj-cts of the royal clemency, might also be

remitted back to gaol to serve the remainder the
original sentence.

Djfendant, who appeared satisfied with this exposi-
tion of the law, was then ordered to enter into his own
recognisances to keep the peace.
Caries Crow, a private in the Guards, was finally
examined, charged with stealing two watches.
The circumstances were somewhat singular. The pri-
soner went on the 6th inst. to Mr. Berry's, in Parlia-
ment-street, where the unfortunate man Casse was recently
murdered, and having at his request been shown some
watcher, dashed out of the shop with one and escaped.
On the following night he, singularly enough, went to
Mr. Berry's other shop, Stafford-row, and played a simi-
lar trick, but was pursued and captured with the watch
in his hand. The other watch was pawned by the pri-
soner directly after Le had pOssessed himself of it.
Committed for trial.

SOUTHWARK.—Mr. Edwin, solicitor, Dover-road,
attended before Mr. Combe to obtain an order under the
New Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act for the-pro-
tection of some property belonging to a married female,
carrying on business in the Old Kent-road. She had
Ism deserted by her husband several times, and on each
occasion he had plundered her of her money, and left her
largely in debt. She was extremely industrious, and
without any assistance from her husband was able to
maintain herself and five children. He presimed that
his worship could make the required order for protec-
tion under the 21st clause of the act.
Mr. Combe—When did the husband desert her last t

Mr. Edwin—About five weeks ago. He then took
away 401., leaving her to pay three quarters' rent and a
number of bills, and told her she might go to the work-
house if she could not pay.
Mr. Combo—l don't think your application comes
within the meaning of the act. He has only left her five
weeks, and may return, and there is nothing to prevent
the landlord coining in and seizing the goods for the rent
due by her husband.
Mr. Edwin—But my client has been assisted in main •
taining her business by her relatives. The husband never
assisted her.

Mr. Combe—You say the husband has returned seve•
ral times, and only five weeks ago he deserted her. He
may return again to-morrow. I cannot consider that a
desertion within the meaning of the act.
Mr. Edwin—Cannot you make an order for the pro•
tection of the goods by which she now gains her liveli-
hood 1

Mr. Combe—Has she acquired any property by her
own earnings since her husband left her ?

Mr. cannot say that exactly ; but her
husband never rendered her any assistance, and it would
be a hard case for her to be plundered by him (again.
Her landlord is willing to wait for the rent, and het
friends will assist her if she can get protection.
Combe—Under the circuntstances which you.
represent I cannot interfere. It does not come within
the meaning of the act of Parliament.
_ _

Mr. Edwin— .Ye shall have to come before you again
shortly, as it does not appear likely that the husband
will return again in a hurry.

Mr. Comb C-1 should be most happy to grant you
the order, and as soon as you can bring your application
within the meaning of the act you can have it.
The parties then left the court.

LAMBETH —Yesterday, on the Hon. C. Norton
taking his seat on the bench, a respectably-dressed
middle-aged female entered the witness box and re-
quested his advice and assistance under the following
somewhat singular clrcumetances :—She stated that
about eight mouths ago, after a widowhood of about two*
year a, she married the brother of her former husband,
thinking at the time that he would make as good *
husband as his brother, but he turned out quite the
contrary and treated her with the greatest cruelty and
indifference.

Mr. Norton—What is the particular treatment of
which you complain !

Applicant—He keeps me in a room by myself, without
a bit of fire; and on dry bread—in fact, he nearly starves
me, though at the time I matried him I had 2001. of zn
own, which I gave him, and on which he commenced
business.
Mr. Norton—What is your husband ?
Applicant—He's a baker, sir—a master baker.
Mr. Norton—Then what do you want me to do for you I
Applicant—My husband tells me he's no husband of
mine —that our marriage is not legal ; and I want to
know if I am not entitled to the good house of furniture
which I had when I got married.

Mr. Norton—lfuni'ortunatelyis so that your marriage
is not legal ; and I don't know what to say about
your furniture. I shall send an officer to your husband,
to hear what he has to say on the subject ; that is aI.V•
can do at present.
WANDSWORTII.—WiIIiam Wait, a toll collector
on the Wandsworth-road Trust, was summoned before
Mr. Ingham, charged with using abusive language in sb
public thoroughfare, under the following singular eir•
cutnstances

The summons was taken out by Mr. John Brooks,. of
Acre Cottage as the language used referred to him, The
defendant was only fined at this court a short time since
in two penalties of 40s. and costs, for abusing Yr'
Brooks on another occas'on, and also a storekeeper
named Wood, near to the toll-bar.
Sergeant Aybrook, of the V divibion, stated that 011
Tuesday afternoon, the sth inst., he was passing along
the Wanclswor,b-road, when he saw the defendant WI;
ing out of his box, and he said " Who stole the ducks
Witness turned round and laughed, as he at first though‘
the observation was meant for him. The defendant
without taking any notice, answered his own quelstioll
by saying "Johnny Brooks." The defendant then con'
tinued : "To whom did they belong a Mr. PlailliP°
down the road,"

Mr. Ingham wished to know if these words were
spoken out loudly, or were they merely a confidential
soliloquy with himself ?
The sergeant said he was on the opposite side of the
road, and he heard him as he passed. It was said is
half talking and half singing manner.
Mr. Wood was called and corroborated the statement
of the sergeant.

The defendant used very violent language in the coal
against both Mr. Brooks and Mr. Wood, and declared
that complainant did steal the ducks.
Mr. Brooks explained that he was returning home one
night with a neighbour, when he saw three ducks ran•
ning loose in the road. He took them home, and 00
next day he made inquiries as to whom they belonged,
and upon finding that they were the property of gr•
Phillips, in the Wandsworth•road, he sent them to his
house, and Mr. Phillips gave his man a shilling Of
bringing them home.

Air. Ingham fined t►he defendant 403. and 2e. costs, of
21 day:;' imprisonment,

_ .
The defendant then had to answer another surarnoog
for violently assaulting William Ilosman, a machiMA
at her Majesty's Theatre.
It appeared that the complainant in this case was
stranger to any of the parties, and on the evening of ar,
same day ho was passing the bar, when he saw a crow°.
of Nrsens round the defendant's box. Some gentleman
was complaining that the defendant had thrasked a bco
and Wait was using most disgusting language, ilosulal/
remarked that he was not a fit man to be a toll-colleot,°,l
to use such language, when the defendant attacked
and afterwards struck him several violent blows on the
face, and cut his mouth. It also appeared that the de'
fendamt was drunk, and when in that state be vil°
exceedingly violent.
Mr. lughatu having remarked upon the abominabin
assault committed by the defendant, fined him or °ea
slum th.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Du Barry's delicious Revalenta Arabic',
Food invariably restores health, without medicine,
i
inconve-
nience, ,or expense, as it saves fifty times its cost n
other remedies, and removes indigestion (dyspepsia),
flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious, and liver com-
plaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and debility.
Wo extract a few out of 50,000 testimonials of cures,
which had resisted all medicines. Cure No. 4,208.-:-Eight
years' dyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with cramps, spasms,
and nausea, have been effectually removed by Du Belli .°
delicious food in a very short time.—Rev. John W. navel!,
Ridlington Rectory, Norfolk. From the Dowager Countess
of Castiestuart.—Cure 52,612.7-Rosstrevor, County of Down,
Ireland, 9th December, 1854.—The Dowager Countess of
Castlestuart feels induced, in the interest of suffering huff
pity, to state that Du Barry'sexcellent RevalentaArabien Fo
has cured her, after all medicines had failed, of indigestion,
bile, great nervousnessand irritability of many years' standing'
Tiiis food deserves the confidence of all sufferers, and. may I,"g
considered a'blessing. Inquiries will be cheerfully anowereL
gupported by testimonials from the celebrated Professors °:
Chemistry, Dr. A udrew 17re ; Dr. Shorland ; Dr.
Dr. Campbell ; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wurzer ; Dr. Ingrwl.'
Lord Stuart de Decies ; the Dowager Countess of CastuTe
ituaat ; Major-Gen. Thomas King, and many other respectar
pore:Ala, whose health has been restored by it, after all nth
moans of cure had failed. Suitably packed with fall „111,
structions. In canisters, 11b, 2s. 9d. ; 21b, 4s. 6d. ;
lls ; 121 b, 225. The 121 b canisters aro sent carriage
on receipt of Post-Office order.—Barry Du Barry, & 'ft:9
77, Regent-street, London. IMPORTANT CAUTION against
fearful dangers of spurious imitations :—The Vice-Chanel.
lor , Sir William Page Wood, granted an Injunction on
10th March, 1854, against Alfred Hooper Nevill, for imitate
‘,l Da Barry's Revalenta A.rabies. Food.