The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-19 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Nov. 18

The Court sat to-day at Westminster to hear an
apprCAtice appeal. Mr. POUnall presided, and Mr.
Simpson, Mr. H. Wyatt, and Mr. H. Maude were
on the bench.

In the Second Court, before Mr. Payne, on Wed-
nesday, Alfred Robert Baddeley surrendered,: and
was tried on' a charge of assaulting Thos. Morgan.
Mr. Sleigh; and Mr. F. H. Lewis were for the
prosecution; Mr. Horry for the defendant.
This case arose out of a distraint. The prosecutor
was the, agent of a Mr. Gower, and distrained upon
one Walsh, who lived in Rotherfield-street, New
North-road. The defendant, it was alleged, went
to the house on the 30th Sept., with three or four
men hired for the purpose, to take possession, but
the men were induced to leave. Subsequently the
defendant returned with more men, entered the
house, and turned out the prosecutor and the broker.
A great crowd assembled, and while theprosecutor
was standing outside his own door, 14, Rotherfield-
street, the defendant caught him round the neck,
kicked him about the legs and other parts of the
body, declaring he would strangle him. A police-
sergeant, 11 N, who was there, on seeing this, di-
rected. two constables to take the defendant, who
was the worse for liquor, into custody. Witnesses
were called for the defence, to show that the assault
complained of occurred while the defendant was
being turned out.
Ultimately the jury found the defendant guilty
of an assault, and he was ordered to enter into a re-
cognisance to appear next sessions.
Catherine Lynch, 28, was indicted for unlawfully
and maliciously cutting and wounding, Catherine
Lynch the elder and Kate Lynch, with intent to do
them grievous bodily harm.
Kate Lynch deposed—l live at 22, New-end,
Hampstead, and am a dressmaker. The prisoner
lives in the same house. She is my sister-in-law.
On the 6th inst. I went up to her room, on the first
floor, and asked her for a petticoat of mine, which..
I thought she had taken, and she gave me no an-
swer, and seeing a dress on the bed, I took that,
and said I would keep it until she gave me my pet-
ticoat. Henrietta Donnelly was in the room, and
she struggled with me for the dress, and while that
was going on the prisoner came up to me and hit
me on the head with a hammer. She struck me
three times so _violently that the blood spirted to
the bottom of my dress. I bled a good deal, and
went,to a doctor and had my head dressed. I then
gave the prisoner into custody.
Catherine Lynch, prisoner's mother-in-law—l am
the wife of John Lynch, coaldealer, 22, New-end,
Hampstead. On the 6th I was downstairs, and
hearing ray daughter upstairs asking the prisoner
for her petticoat, I went up and found my daughter
and Mrs. Donnelly struggling for the gown. I said.
it should not be taken out of the room. The pri-
soner took up a hammer and struck my daughter
on the head with it, and she then struck me with
it, also on the head. I bled a good deal.
R. Lynch, son of last witness—l was standing
outside the room, and saw the struggle for the
gown. I saw prisoner go'to a cupboard and pick up
a hammer, with which she struck my sister three
times on the head. My sister ran out of the room
covered with blood. I followed her down stairs a
little way and went back, when I saw my mother
come out of the room bleeding from thelead.
The policeman stated that after the prisoner was
sent to the station he looked for the hammer, and
found it in the cupboard. The head of it was
smeared with blood.
The defence was, that Kate Lynch and her
mother were the aggressors, and were very violent,
and illused the prisoner a good deal. The dress
which Kate Lynch took off the bed was Mrs. Don-
nelly's, who fought for her own property, and had
her head struck with such violence that she was
" u:nser, se I." Prisoner said she was beaten very much
on the Wednesday before ; and on Saturday night
Kate came into the room and called her some "fine
names," which a decent and a modest woman would
not like to be called, and said she would have her
petticoat. She took Mrs. Donnelly's gown, and
said she would keep it until her petticoat was given
up. Mrs. Donnelly struggled for it, and both heir
mother-in-law and sister-in-law took hold of her
(the prisoner) by the hair of the head, and dragged
her about and ill-used her. She denied having used
the hammer, and declared she did not know how
the bloodshed was caused.
The jury found her guilty of a common assault,
and recommended her to mercy.
Mr. Payne told the prisoner that thongh she
denied having used the hammer with such perti-
nacity, it was quite clear that she did so. For that
he should sentence her to be imprisoned for one
month. Had she
,not used the hammer the case
would probably have ended very differently. They
were all of a family, and had better endeavour to
live in peace and quietness.
Prisoner's husband (clapping his hands)—Thank
you, sir, for your leniency ; it was not her fault.
Thos. Edwards, 20, and Joseph Percival, 18, were
convicted of robbing Daniel Stammens of a watch
in the Strand, as the procession was passing on
Lord Mayor's-day. Edwards took the watch and
passed it to Percival. They were both known.
The Court sentenced each of them to 15 months'
hard labour.

POLICE INT.ELLIGENCE.—Noc. 18.

GUILDHALL—Two men named Howse and
Payne were charged with disorderly conduct in
Bride-lane, Fleet-street.

Police-constable 335 said—Abont half-past 2 yes-
terday afternoon I saw a mob of from 30 to 40
betting men in Bride-lane, and among them were
the two prisoners, fighting. I did not see them
strike each other, but Payne's nose was bleeding.
As soon as Howse saw me he dropped his hands,
and would not have any more of it, but Payne
wished to continue the fight, as he did not see me.
Mr. Martin (chief clerk)—Have you seen these
men before ?

Officer—Oh, yes, sir ; they are there every day.
Mr. Cooke, a freeholder and inhabitant of Bride-
lane, said,—l appear here, sir, not to punish these
men in particular, but to complain of the nuisance
which arises from the congregation of betting men
in such a narrow thoroughfare. Bride-lane is only.
about 15ft. wide and for the last 12 months the in-
habitants have been annoyed by the street rows
got up by these betting men. As long as they
merely walked up and down we thought it hardly
worth while to take notice of it, particularly as the
magistrates have decided upon permitting it.
Mr. Jewell, one. of the churchwardens, made a
similar complaint. " This morning," Rie said, " I
counted as many as 105 men in Bride-lane, which
will give you some idea of the extent of the annoy-
ance."

Alderman Lawrence—lt is fortunate, prisoners,
for you that the -charge is not pressed against you.
sh,lll rcquiro you to enter into your own recoo-
ni in Llu to keep the peace.

CLERKENWELL.—John H. Jones, of Brewer's-
yard, Islington, the owner of the new Bunhill-fields
Burial-ground, Church-street, Islington ; Edward
Freesdale, a, -master carman, and William Chinnery-,
a driver in hiS employ, were summoned by Mr. Jos.
Warr, the sanitary inspector for . and on behalf of
the vestry of St. Marv, Islington, " for that they
did at the New Bunhill-fields Burial-ground'
Church-Street, St. Mary's, Islington; unlawfully and
injuriously commit a 'public annoyance within the
said parish by placing, or causing or allowing to be
placed, a quantity of rubbish in the said burial-
ground," •
_ Mr. Layton, the vestry clerk of Islington, at-
tended for the prosecution.
The defendant Jones did not appear ; the others
pleaded guilty, and one of them stated that Jones
had called upon him and asked him not to attend,
as he said it was his own ground and he should do
as he plot- s Al with it.
Mr. Layton said the present summonses were taken
out under the provisions of the sth Geo. IV., cap.
125, sec. 105, a local Act, for causing an annoyance.
The burial-ground in question, which was better
known as Jones's Burial-ground was, he was certain,
very familiar to the parties at this court, as if •
owner had been summoned here for causing a nuis
_ante in removing the bodies, and the scenes that
then occurred were the cause of much excitement
in the public mind. The owner of the ground had
mortgaged it, and the mortgagees had foreclosed.
The mortgagees were a public body, and he was
surpri ed at their allowing such disgraceful scenes
to be carried on, but, although they had been re-
monstrated with, they took
.no notice, but said the
parish could have the ground by payino, the exor-
bitant sum of £2,000. By an order in Council it
was directed that' the burial-ground should be
closed, and that it should be covei ed with two feet
of ground and with vegetation, or sown with grass
seed, except that portion which was intended for
walks, which portion it was directed should be
covered with asphalte. Instead of doing this, the
grave-Stones had been taken up and sold, and the
fsrround covered with rubbish of every kind; in
fact, mado a scavenger's yard .of. Scenes of the
most disgraceful nature had - been carried on there,
but it was not the wish of the parish to punish the
workpeople, although it was supposed that all
should be acquainted with the provisions of an Act
of Parliament, but only to lot them know they,
were doing wrong, and thus prevent their. doing so
for the future, . Pirt had been heaped up as high,
as the houses round.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—Upon whom do you say the order
in Council is made imperative ?
Mr. Lay On—l take it to be the owner or tenant.
He then called

Mr, Joseph Warr, who said he was sanitary in

was at

spector to the vestry of Islington. He
Jones's Burial-ground (the Now Bunhill-fielda
Burial-ground, Church-street) on the 10th of this
month. He saw the defendant Chinnery there
with a horse and cart and a load of rubbish, which
he shot there. He (witness) knew the ground in
question well. It was about 60 yards square, and
there were from 6,000 to 10,000 loads of rubbish on
it, and it was still being deposited on it.
Mr. W. H. Butterfield, registrar of births and
deaths, said he was much inconvenienced by the
carts continually passing to and fro. It was a
great nuisance, for the carts stood in front of his
house, and the carters made use of disgusting
language, and often fought. He was greatly in-
convenienced by it, and stones were being con-
tinually thrown.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—The heaping up of this stuff there
can be no doubt is an annoyance.
Mr. Layton—There, are loads upon loads of
stones and pieces of bottles, and the filth and dirt
are much higher than the surrounding houses.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—l can hardly say that this is a
public nuisance.
Mr. Layton—l take it under the word " annoy-
ance."

Mr. Tyrwhitt—The word "annoyance" is much
larger than the word " nuisance." It seems to me,
strictly speaking, that in point of law the defendants
present have, not been guilty of a public nuisance.
Mr. Layton—We do not complain of " taking"
up, but of " covering" up. He thought in the case
of the defendants present, if they were fined ls.
and paid the costs, that would meet the justice of
the case. He should take out another summons
against Mr Jones, who always gave a great deal of

”-
Mr. Tyrwhitt said it was very fair of the parish
to act in the matter as they had done, and fined the
defendants ls. and costs.