The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-20 00:00:00

the Count made in the paper on the 12th October.
He contended that the terms employed were offen
sive in the highest degree, and as for the conclusion
of it he submitted that a more monstrous, more
hideous attack was never penned against any man.
The man who wrote that attack was one who would
insult a woman or strike a priest. The Count de
Maricourt was one whom the town of Newcastle
should have been delighted to honour. His name
had been mentioned in the highest terms of corn-
mendativ by Lord Palmerston and M. Guizot for
his conduct whilst at Messina, where the Count had
been the means of saving hundreds of lives from the
soldiers of the King of Naples ; and yet this was
the man who had been chosen now as the ohj ect of
one of the vilest attacks that was ever penned
against any man. The hands of the Count were
tied by his diplomatic position, and the bench would
take into account the feelings under which the
young man, his son, was labouring. They would
observe that his father had been deeply insulted—
and he himself was a soldier bred up in all the
notions of a French soldier, and without the cool-
ness which could calmly look on the offence which
had been committed. He (Mr. Glynn) would ask
what would have been the feelings of the son
of any gentleman on the bench under such circum-
stances ? He would ask what would have been
the feelings of any magistrate now before him had
his son acted as M. de Maricourt did? He admitted
that the young man had made a mistake in taking
a pistol instead of a whip or stick ; but had the cir-
cumstances been changed, and had any gentleman
on the bench been placed in the position of the
Count de Maricourt, he would venture to say that
while as a magistrate he would have condemned the
proceedings, yet as a father he would have pardoned
it. This young viscount, he must observe, belonged
to the old nobility of France; his ancestors had
fought in the Holy Land, and their name had never
been disgraced. This young man had entered the
French army, in the 31st Regiment of the Line, as
a private soldier, and in the Crimea he first made
acquaintance with our own soldiers in sharing his
crust of black bread with starving English com-
rades on the banks of the Tchernaya. With regard
to the circumstances of the assault, he was satisfied
that it would be impossible to get a correct de-
scription from the terrified editor. He was instructed
to say that the terms used by M. de Maricourt
were, " Unless you come to my father I-will do so
and so ;" and there was every probability that this
version was the correct one. With regard to the
pistol, the evidence of Mr. Pape was conclusive on
that point. Mr. Pape said he would not have chosen
such a weapon if he wanted to take a man's life.
The viscount had arms in the house kept in good
condition; and was it likely that he would take
these things—playthings for children which had
not been used for months—if he had any serious
intentions? His purpose was purely to excite a
salutary fear in the editor, and bring him to an ex-
planation and apology, which he could not other-
wise have obtained. The whole affair was a bur-
lesque. Instead of getting the pistols cleaned be-
forehand defendant took them in their foul condi-
tion, when they were pretty sure to hang fire if
they were used, and then he got them cleaned after
the deed was done. Mr. Glynn then adverted to the
case of M. de Pene, to which the editor had subse-
quently referred, and, after very humorously draw-
ing a distinction between that affair and the pre-
sent, he concluded an able address.

The magistrates then retired, and after an absence
of about a quarter of an hour, they returned and
sat down, when the excitement of the audience im-
mediately calmed down into silence.
The Mayor then gave judgment. He said the
bench considered the assault proved, and fined the
defendant L 5 and costs.

On the young Viscount coming out of court he
was greeted with cheers, which were not stilled
until he had reached the High-level-bridge. He
acknowledged these congratulations by moving his
hat.

Mr. Arthur Pring thanked the magistrates, at
the instance of the Viscount, for tho patient hear-
ing which they had accorded to him.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

(Before Mr. Pashley, Q.C., Assistant-Judge, at
Westminster).

Alexander Muir, 20, labourer, was indicted for a
misdemeanour, under the 88th sect. of the Mutiny
Act, in having unlawfully attempted to procure and
persuade John Burnell, a soldier belonging to the
Royal Horse Artillery, to desert from her Majesty's
service.

Mr. T. Atkinson conducted the prosecution, which
he said had been instituted by direction of the au-
thorities
at the War-office, and it was not an unim-
portant one, the charge being that the prisoner had
endeavoured to procure the means, for a rider of
the Royal Horse Artillery, to desert for the pur-
pose of enlisting into the East India Company's
service, for the sake of the extra bounty. This was
not an isolated instance ; the same thing had been
systematically carried on, and of course, when de-
!tection took place, it was but the duty of the au-
thorities to bring the offenders to punishment. _

John Burnell stated that he was a rider in the
•Royal Horse Artillery, and on Sept./7th he left
Woolwich with a forged pass, intending to desert,
. nd on the followirr, day he met the prisoner in
'Charles-street, Westminster. He asked witness if
he was on leave, and he replied that he was. They
were together some time, and at night he slept at
a coffee-house. On the following morning he again
saw the prisoner, who told him that he was a dis-
charged soldier of the Coldstream Guards, and had.
his discharge. Witness then told him he wanted to
desert, and prisoner said he would take him to a
place in Petticoat-lane with his (prisoner's) dis-
charge, where he could change his uniform for plain
clothes. Witness told him that his pass was a forged
one. The prisoner then took him to a place near
Tower-hill, to a dealer in clothes, who referred
them to another place. A policeman came up and
took him into custody, on suspicion of attempting
to desert. (The witness was in military custody in
court.)
Policeman Storer, 56 H, stated that he noticed
the prisoner and the artilleryman together on Tower-
hill, and having some suspicion that the latter
meant to desert, from the dirty slovenly condition
of his uniform, the appearance of the prisoner, and
their looking about for a clothes dealer, he watched
them. They went to a shop, and on leaving he
made some inquiry, and then went after them. The
prisoner said the man had. his discharge from the
Guards with him, which statement was false, az he
knew that the soldier wore the Artillery and. not a
Guardsman's uniform, and he took him into cus-
tody for attempting to desert, and the present
charge was made against the prisoner.
The prisoner said nothing in his defence.
The jury found him guilty.
Mr. Atkinson said it was quite a system for sol-
diers to desert from the line and to enlist in the
East India service, for the sake of the bounty. Such
had been the intention in this instance.

The Assistant-Judge deferred the sentence.
John Oxley, 47, was indicted for stealing 45
flannel shirts, 30 pairs of trowsers, and other
articles, of the value of £6O, the property of Chas.
Russell Harrison, his master. He pleaded guilty.
Mr. F. H. Lewis stated that the prisoner, for
whom he appeared, had been 23 years in the army,
but forfeited 20 years of that service for being
absent without leave for 21 days. He served in the
Crimea, and had the medal and clasps for Alma,
Balaklava, Inkermann, and the siege of Sebastopol.
He was servant to Pakenham, and after his death
to Sir Charles Russell. Subsequently he was dis-
charged from disabilities, without being entitled to
any pension. He then entered the service of the
prosecutor, a fencing-master in the Haymarket, at
a salary of 12s. a-week. No doubt he had pledged
property of his employers, but the whole of it could
be redeemed for. £lO. The prisoner had a family
to support.
The prosecutor stated that the value of the pro-
perty was £6O, although only £lO had been raised
upon it. The prisoner had been in his service
about 18 months, and by his pay and gratuities he
made about 18s. per week. The pledgings com-
menced in January last.
Sentence was deferred.
Edward Williams, 18, was indicted for stealing a
parcel of fancy Coburg dresses, value £3, the pro-
perty of Messrs. J. Milligan and Co., of, Gutter-
lane.

Mr. Cooper prosecuted.
It appeared that prosecutor's traveller left his
phaeton at a draper's door, when, notwithstanding
it was being watched by a boy, the prisoner managed
to get behind unobserved, and to steal a bundle of
coburgs. He was stopped with it by a policeman,
whom he told he was going to take it to his master's
as he had picked it up in the street. He was taken
to the station, and information was afterwards re-
ceived of the theft. The traveller did not miss the
parcel until he had gone some distance from the
shop.
The prisoner was found guilty, and it was then
proved that after several previous convictions, he
was sentenced on Sept. 11,1854, to four years' penal
servitude, which expired on the 10th ult., and he
was discharged from Parkhurst on that day. While
in Parkhurst, he behaved very ill, and aided some
of the prisoners to escape. When his sentence was
up, he was under punishment for insubordination.
The Court sentenced him to seven years' penal
servitude, and hoped he would be sent to Western
Australia.
Richard Bowleg, 31, was convicted of stealing a
piece of bacon. He had been four
vefonetaimrse,streaonnsvittretad,.
taino dn h a
Itd ba epepne
as
re
en
dt e
tnhc
ae
td
hteo
hsaed foryabout 11 months