The Sun.
London, England, 1867-11-16 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. JARVIS.

In this case Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., applied to
have the conviction quashed in the case of a man
named Jarvis, on the ground that a certain con-
fession which he had made was inadmissible. It
will be remembered that the man Jarvis, with two
other men, was tried at the Old Bailey, charged
with being concerned in the extensive silk
robbery, at Messrs. Leaf's, in the City•
The portion of the case in which this alleged
confession occurred was in the evidence of
one of the Messrs. Leaf, who stated, in his exami-
nation in chief, that the prisoner had been called
into his room, and had said, "I think it right to tell
you that beside my brother and myself there are
two police officers, so you had better speak the
truth." He then showed the prisoner a letter which
had been written by him. The prisoner denied he
had written it, and he (Mr. Leaf) said, " You had
better mind what you say, as we know more than
you are aware of," but he did not think he had told
him to speak the truth again. From this point in
;he evidence the remainder of Mr. Leaf's statement
he (the learned counsel) contended was inadmis-
sible, and he cited a number of cases in support of
his argument.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Right lion. Sir J. P. Wilde.)
PEARSE V. PEARSE AND SONS.

:This case was resumed this morning.
Mrs. Pearse, the plaintiff in this action, and the
wife of the testator, was examined by Dr. Deane,
Q.C., and stated that whenever she went to her
father's she always came home directly her husband
liked. There were two separations between her
husband and herself, one in 1849, and another in
1850. One was caused through the child being
taken to Brighton. This was done because
testator Raid witness was too fond of it.
It was about six weeks old when it was
taken away, and they then went on the con-
tinent, and subsequently brought it back from
Brighton in October. Witness was not asked to go
to the christening of the' child. The child was
brought to her at her father's by the nurse for a
week. Mr. Pearse did not see her till the end of the
week, then he took the child back. Witness
was very ill then, and that was why the
child was allowed to see her. Testator took apart-
ments at Brighton for his nurse, and child. He did
not ask her to go. After this, at the end of July,
they went abroad. They were reconciled a week
before. They came back in October. Mr. Pearse
at this time did not advance any money
to his father and sisters. He never redeemed any
plate for them. They came back to Eceleston-
terrace, and her sister Louisa came to see her, and
was constantly with her. They used to dine with
Mr. Pearse at her father's. Sometimes he would
not be there, and then he said it was either bu,i-
nets, or that he had been to the theatre. He never
asked her to go to a theatre. She went on
two occasions. Her husband said it was too
expensive. Witness never desired to dine any-
where else than with him. She had n.nrer refused
except when he ran after her with a table knife.
She never refused to go to church with him except
when she was too ill to go. Never refused to walk
out with him. In 1851 she went to Paris. She was
promised £lOO a year, but after the first month it was
withdrawn, and stated that it was to pay for friends
and parasites. When in Paris she had not a penny
given her. The plaintiff then narrated many in-
stances of cruelty which had taken place during the
remaining portion of the period intervening be-
tween that and their final separation, especially
what occurred during their visit to Brussels, and
the fact of leaving her without money and telling
the tradesmen not to give her any credit.
On one occasion he went abroad, and never let
her know where he was. She only heard of him
when she went one day to church, and was told that
the pew was no longer hers, that Mr. Pearse had
written from Switzerland, giving up the pew. He
threw her off the couch on one occasion, and said
she was only like a piece of his furniture. lie fre-
quently beat her, &c. This was because he said the
dinner was too expensive. The witness then de-
tailed a great many similar acts of cruelty.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

MARLBOROUGII-STREET.

ROBBERY AT AN AUCTION-Roo3l.—John Talbot,
a lad, was charged before Mr. Knox with stealing a
small oil painting, the property of Messrs. Jones
and Bonham, auctioneers, No. 410, Oxford-street.
Mr. William Bonham said that on the proviou4
evening he saw the prisoner in the auction-room,
and, suspecting him, he watched, and saw him take
an oil-painting (produced) from a glass and put it
in his coat pocket, and afterwards remove it to his
breast pocket, and then gradually leave the room.
He went after the prisoner, and coming up with
him at the corner of Charles-street, Oxford-street,
asked him what he had in his pocket. '['ho prisoner
said he had not got anything, but on opening his
coat ho found the painting, and he took him to the
Marlborough-mews Police-station, and while on the
way there he said that he had done it because he
had no lodgings. . .

Blowitt, 126 C, said he had made inquiries, and
found that the prisoner had been a pot-boy in St.
Martin's-lane, but discharged six mouths ago for
insolence, and that ho had been discharged from
other situations for robbing his fellow servants.
Mr. Bonham said that the prisoner had been seve-
ral times at his rooms, and mostly asked, as an
excuse for coming, for a catalogue for a person
named Richards, who, ho had since ascertained, had
not sent the prisoner for them. A great many
things had been taken from the room, and suspicion
had been thrown on some of the men employ ed at
the rooms. _

The prisoner pleaded guilty, and Mr. Knox com-
mitted him for three months with hard labour.

WESTMIN STE R.

BURGLARY AT A JEWELLER'S.—John Doyle and
'William Hall, alias Page, were fiLally examined,
charged with burglariously breaking and entering
the premises of Mr. Starr, jeweller and watchmaker,
Park-side, Knightsbridge.
Mr. IV. D. Smith, solicitor of Rochester-row,
defended the prisoner Hall.
It appeared that Dlr. Starr, jun., and his brother
slept on the premises, and at about 1.15 on Satur-
day morning last Mr. Starr was aroused by a noise
on the roof, and saw a man trying to make a hole by
the skylight. The hole was gradually widened, and
Mr. Starr sent his brother fora policeman ; and
Peter Smith, IG3 B, with Mr. Starr, lay under the
counter and watched the operations going on above.
Presently the hole was .sufficiently large to admit .a
man's hand, and Doyle then struck some matches
and took observations of the interior of the shop.
He then set to work again, and the hole being suf-
ficiently large to admit the body of a man, and
having taken further observations with the lucifer
matches, dropped into the shop. Smith immediately
seized him by the neck, and struck him on the arm

and shoulder with his staff, whereupon the prison 01
surrendered and was taken to the station. 0 73
searching him a knife and lucifer matches We Ce
found on him.

The manner in which the prisoner Dall was co ['-
fleeted with Doyle was this. Constable Log' An,
335 B, went round into Hyde-park, and Kollild !Jail
secreted in an urinal, by climbing up which aemsg
had teen obtained to Mr. Starr's premises, and
where he had hidden himself was afterwards sound
a formidable crowbar about 22 inches long. Ser-
geant Parches, 10 B, who was on duty at the
station when Doyle was brought in, said he was
sat down. Shortly afterwards Hall was brought
in, and before one word vas said about the chawe
Doyle turned round and said, " I don't know this
man ; don% bring an innocent man into it." HP 11
was a cripple.

Doyle disclaimed all knowledge of the other, ailti
offered to plead guilty.
Mr. Smyth contended that there Wa3 no east
against Hall. lie was benighted in the park, and
slept in the urinal.

Peter Smith said they were Half-brotherri by the
same mother, but failed to prove it.

They were fully committed for trial, reserving
their defence.