The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-25 00:00:00

the notes taken by a short-hand writer on a trial at
the Old Bailey, in April last.
Mr. Norton—What case was that ?
Mr. Lewis—The trial of an indictment preferred
by Stowell, the informer, against a Mr. Haynes and
others, for conspiring with the Bennetts to obtain
money, and which indictment had been preferred
without any previous inquiry. On that trial the
prisoner Edwards was called as a witness and said:
—" I live at 28, North-street, Limehouse. I was
in the employment of Messrs. Bennett Brothers, of
32, Spring-gardens. They carried on the business
of chemists. I know the defendant Haynes. I have
seen him frequently at 32, Spring-gardens. I was
assistant to compound the medicine, and gave it to
the patients. I know the composition of the me-
dicine perfectly well. There were five composi-
tions—ear drops, embrocation, injection, fumiga-
tion, and tincture. This bottle contains the em-

brocation, and this the injection. This is urine ;
they are all the same, differently coloured. The
fumigation has no oil in it, the others have oil. This
one is train oil, what they call cabbage oil, and
urine. This red mixture is a solution of cochineal
,and urine, the urine extracts the colour from the
cochineal. This one is drops for the ear. Two or
three of these went together, and they were charged
from ls. to £2, £3, and £4, it depended on the pa-
tients. We had a great many patients, I should
think 20 or 30 a-day. I kept the books and made
entries. I have not the books with me. The profit
was at least £2,000 for each of the two brothers
Bennett." Your worship has in this testimony a
tolerable specimen of the prisoner Edwards, who,
according to his own account, had been in the habit
of making up such abominable filth, and disposing
of it to his afflicted but unfortunate dupes. Ishall

now call before you a witness or two, who will con.
nett the prisoners more particulrrly with the Spring
Gardens establishment, and a medical gentleman to
speak to the character of the medicine supplied,
and its probable effects on the patients, and having
done this I shall call upon your worship to commit
the prisoners to take their trial on the charge of
conspiring together to obtain money from the dif-

ferent witnesses by gross fraud. -
The first witness called was
Mr. Joshua Woolrich, of 14, South-street, Gros-
venor-square, who deposed, that in consequence of
an advertisement which he had seen in one of the
morning papers he called at No. 32, Spring-gardens,
and there observed a plate with -the words " British
and Foreigd Infirmary for the Cure of the Diseases
of the Ear and Eye," onthe door, and also the name
of " Dr. Watters." He was shown into a room by a

ivery servant and saw the prisoner Edwards, whom
he addressed, saying he came for the cure of deaf-
ness, and asked for Dr. Watters. Edwards replied
that he was Dr. Watters, commenced examining
his ears, and said he was quite confident he could
cure him in a fortnight for £2 2s. or £2 35., that it
was mere nervousness, and that the remedies were
to be applied to the ear. He then left the room
for a short time, and Came back with 'a large and a
small bottle, said he was to use the large one
with a syringe to his ears, and the small one was
to rub outside the ears. e said the charge was £2
ss. 6d., and he (witness) paid it. He used the "stuff"
as directed, but said that instead of doing him any
good it made him ill, and in consequence he went
the following week, when he again saw Edwards,
whom he told he had received no benefit, but suf-
fered great pain by the use of the medicine he gave
him. He (Edwards) said the case was worse than
he at first thought it to be, and he required a fur-
ther sum of £2 10s. for a vapour bath, which would
cure him, and produced the lamp and tube he here
produced. The witness here exhibited a small in-
strument, which stood about five inches high, which
resembled a small lamp with a small tube on the
top like a blow-pipe, and its appearance created
much laughter. The prisoner, he said, on giving
him this instrument, told him he was to purchase
some tincture of myrrh, soak it in some wool; burn
it in the lamp, and while it was so burning to place
the end of the tube into his ear, so that the vapour
might pass in. He paid him the £2 10s., and re-
ceived the receipt produced from Edwards in his
own handwriting, but which he signed " Sm. W.
Watters." The witness used the vapour bath, and
in doing so suffered excruciating pain in the head,
and after applying it for seven or eght times be-
came so ill that he was obliged to keep his bed.
On the following week he went again to Spring-
gardens, and saw a young man, who said he was
the brother of Dr. Watters, that Dr. Watters was
not at home, and that he (witness) was to keep on
the same remedies until the following week. He
did so, and on the following week called again,
when he saw the prisoner Watters, who repre-
sented himself to be merely a friend of the doctor's,
and always attended his patients in his absence.
Witness told him he had been under his treatment
for three weeks, and received nc benefit ; but, on
the contrary, had suffered great pain. The pri-
soner replied, "He had no doubt he should cure
him in a short time ; that he did not think he
(witness) had been treated properly by Dr. Wat-
ters, but that he should attend to him himself, and
had no doubt of effecting a cure." The prisoner
further said, he (witness) required some more medi-
cine, left the room, and he saw no more of him.
The young man he (witness) at first saw, came into
the room with a bottle of medicine, for which he
demanded 17s. 6d., but witness told him he could
not pay it. The young man said he could not have
it without paying something on account, and he
half-a-crown, promising to give him the remainder
when he next came. He subsequently summoned
the party to the Westminster County Court to re-
cover his money, as the stuff he received was not of
the least use to him, but they never appeared to the
summons, and he lost his money.
In cross-examination he (witness) acknowledged
that he had never given any money to the prisoner
Watters.
The Chief Clerk here read over the testimony
given on a former examination by Mr. E. D. Rogers,
the medical analyist, respecting the medicine, or
rather that which they called medicine, suppliedby
the prisoners to their unfortunate patients. That
gentleman said—" The three bottles produced were
delivered to me in a parcel, sealed up. I have exa-
mined the lead-coloured liquid in one of the small
bottles. It contains a small quantity of sulphate of
zinc and a quantity of compound spirit of lavender,
and a little iron deposit, as if some iron oxide had
been put in. The medicine is not of the slightest use
in deafness, neither the ingredients nor the propor-
tions. The large bottle contains a small quantity of
the sulphate of lead, deposited, and zinc in solution,
no doubt the result of a mixture of sulphate of
zinc and acetate of lead mixed with water ; and it
is not at all useful in curing deafness. The small
bottle contains either rancid olive oil or rape oil,
and a little oil of elder, with a little soap, appa-
rently made by the addition of an alkali. That
medicine would not cure deafness. I should not
like to put it into my ear, it would irritate it."
Mr. Samuel Evans Smith, surgeon to the Na-
tional Ear Institution, in Pall-mall East, said—l
have heard a description of the contents of the
bottles that were produced, and, with the ex-
ception of the soap, not one of the articles men•
tioned would be of any service in the case of
deafness. Most of the articles mentioned would
be injurious, and in some cases highly dangerous,
and what I would not use myself on any condition.
Acetate of lead, if used by a person, the membrane
of whose ear was perforated, might prove highly
dangerous, and it might go so far as to be fatal.
Further evidence was given of the fact of the
prisoner assuming the name of Dr. Locock, after
which both were fully, committed for trial, and Mr.
Norton refused to give any order respecting the
.Eg or £7 found on them when taken into custody.
At the termination of the case Mr. Norton com-
plimented Mr. Jones, the prosecutor, for his per-
severing conduct in bringing the prisoners to
justice, and told him the public were very much
indebted to him for breaking up such gross im
postors.

WOOLWICH.—ABDUCTION AND PERJURY.—
Thomas Bailey, aged 30, a labourer, employed at
Woolwich Arsenal, was placed at the bar, before
Mr. Traill, on remanded charges of abducting and
decoying from her home Ann Green, aged 15 years,
and committing perjury by making a false declara-
tion, in order to obtain a marriage certificate.
The father of the girl, Samuel Green, a ship-
wright employed at the Dockyard, and residing at
19, Joseph-street, Woolwich, deposed—the *prisoner
had lodged at his house for 14 months, and during
that period he had never observed any familiarity
between the prisoner and his daughter ; but on the
9th instant he had heard that they, had been
married at the Roman Catholic church. On ascer-
tainink this fact he ejected .the prisoner from his
house, but his daughter remained.H
e had not
authorised the marriage, and knew nothing of
it
until informed by his neighbours.
The Rev. Charles Morgan, Roman Catholic
chaplain to the forces at Woolwich, deposed that,
on the 26th of May last, Thomas Bailey and Ann
Green were by him married, at the Roman Catho-
' lie church, Woolwich, in the presence of the regis-
trar, and in accordance with, the rites of the Roman
Catholic religion. A legal certificate was produced,
in which Ann Green was described as being 17
years of age.
Mr. Traill—But did it not strike you, from the
appearance of the girl, that she was fad too young
to contract inatrimoniat tics? I should certainly
have Had that thought.
Witness replied—He did not pay particular at-
tention to the parties, hut relied on the registrar's
certificate? which descfird thi female as 17 years
: of age.
Mr. W. Jackson, registrar for Wodlit ich district,
proved being present at the marriage, and Mr.
saw, superintending registrar, produced the dem-