The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-14 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-April 13.

B OW. STREET.—Dennis Coedit!, , a labourer in
the employ of Messrs. Holland and Hannen, con-
tractors, was brought up on remand on the iarge
of having assaulted another labourer named E.
Cunningham.
Mr. G. C. Fletcher, of Arbour square, attended
for the prisoner.
_ _

The compainant, who is an elderly man, appeared
to have suffered considerably, looking exceedingly
pale and ill.
Mr. Catterwood, one of the principal clerks to
Messrs. Holland and Co., entered into a statement
of the circumstances. The firm felt that any fine
which this court could inflict, or any compensation
which the defendant might be induced to pay would
be no punishment to him, as the society was very
powerful, and would readily subscribe the money.
Mr. Henry said that ho was by no means dis-
posed to deal with the case summarily or permit a
compromise. At the first examination he was not
aware that there had been a strike, or that the
occurrence had arisen from defendant having been
so discharged. As the evidence presented itself on
that occasion, the matter wore the aspect of a
private quarrel, in which the allusion to the society
was incidental. If that had been its real character
he should have permitted a compromise, in order
that Cunningham should have that compensation
which he could not get if the case went to trial.
Now, however, the case assumed a much graver
colour. It was evident that this was an act of
violence arising out of the strike, and designed to
intimidate the non-society labourers. He thought
it was the duty of the firm to prosecute, and he
should therefore swear Mr. Catterwood to the facts
he had stated, and bind him over to prosecute.
Mr. J. C. Arnold, house surgeon at Charing-cross
Hospital, described the injury suffered by Cunning-
ham. It was a simple fracture of the jaw-bone.
Being unable to masticate he was living entirely
on fluids, which accounted for his altered apperance.
lie was in a fair way of recovery.
Cunningham repeated his former evidence. In
cross-examination by Mr. Fletcher, he admitted
that his jaw had been broken once before.

Mr. Catterwood said the firm would much regret
the necessity of prosecuting.
Mr. Henry—l think you are bound to do it. The
man is in your service, and you ought to protect
him. You may depend on it that the prosecution
will have more effect than a hundred notices.
Mr. Catterwood—Quite so, sir. Still we regret
it. We are very. sorry for these misguided men,
who are really injuring themselves.
Mr. Fletcher said that, as the magistrate was re-
solved to commit, he should reserve the defence.
The prisoner was then committed.

WESTMINSTER.—INFAMOUS TRANSACTIONS
IN A GENTLEMAN'S HOUSE.—Henry Callaway,
footman, at 55, Grosvenor-place, appeared to a sum-
mons charging him with being the father of a bas-
tard child to which Ann Sibley had given birth.
Complainant said shie lived fellow-servant with
the defendant in his present situation. An improper
intimacy commenced between them in March, 1858,
which resulted in her being delivered of a male
child on the 14th of February last. After the birth
of the child, her mother sent for the defendant, who
said he would pay eighteenpence per week, or £lO
down at once to settle the matter.

In cross-examination by Mr:Horry, who ap-
peared for the defendant, the complainant said that
there were other male and female servants in the
same house ; there was another footman named
Davis. He and the defendant slept in two beds in
the same room, and at half-past six in the morning
another female servant in the same establishment
took her into the footmen's sleeping room, and they
were all there together when the first intimacy took
place between complainant and defendant. The
footmen were in their beds when they went into
the room. Complainant denied most positively
that she had ever been, herself, intimate with Davis.

Complainant's mother stated that, finding the
situation her daughter was in through the improper
intimacy with the defendant (which was repeated,
according to the girl's statement), she sent to him.
He said he was very sorry, and appeared quite
convinced it was his. He said he was in a great
difficulty arising out of the fact that there was
another young woman in the same predicament by
him ; if complainant was the only one he would
not mind. Witness communicated with him di-
rectly after her daughter was confined, when he
said he had promised the other young woman mar-
riage, and offered complainant ls. 6d. per week,
which he said was quite as much as he could afford.
He did not in any way repudiate the child ; he
seemed to think it like him, and was rather proud.
Mr. de la Mare, solicitor, who conducted the com-
plainant's case, here read a letter sent by her
mother to the defendant, in which:the former (evi-
dently a very well informed woman) pointed out
that she had been left a widow some years, and had
struggled hard to bring up her children ; and now
that her daughter (the complainant) was old
enough to get her living, she had been plunged,-
while a child in years compared to him (the one
being 17 and the other about 35), into disgrace and
ruin, and implored him to do what was becoming
under the circumstances. A reply from defendant
was also read, in which he stated that he had
made a fair offer for the child, and if she did not
like to take if she must go without; and if she
came to the house where he lived and, annoyed
him, he would never pay her a penny.
It having been shown that he had sent her a
sovereign by a fellow servant,
Complainant's cousin was called, and proved that
on the occasion of his visit after the child was
born, he said he was glad to see it ; that he
thought it was like him, and that he would do all
he could ; he then proposed an allowance of ls. 6d.
per week.

- Mr. lorry urged that the complainant had been
his client's seducer, and that the offers to maintain
the child, and the other circumstances spoken to
by the -witnesses, which were in some respects
exaggerated, were not strictly in consequence of any
conviction that he was the father of the child, but
from the fears he entertained of the matter obtain-
ing publicity, his dismissal from his situation, and
the ruin of his character. Defendant denied that
he ever said the child was his, or if he said it, it
was only from the reason first stated. He would
call a witness who would put a different complexion
on the matter.

Benjamin Davis, the other footman spoken of,
was now called. He said he had left the situation
where he was fellow servant with defendant, and
now lived in service in Grosvenor-place. He
(witness) had had connexion with the complainant
at 55, Grosvenor-place, from February in last year
more than once.
In cross-examination by Mr. de la Mare, witness
said he could not remember when he was last
intimate with the complainant, but that intimacy
took place in the pantry of their master's house,
and defendant was present and saw it.
Mr. Paynter put a stop to the case by ordering
the witness to stand down. He animadverted upon
the mode in which he had given his evidence, and
upon the whole case in the strongest terms, declaring,
that in his whole experience as a magistrate of 20
years he had never met with anything so thoroughly
disgraceful and infamous. It was lamentable to
find conduct so gloss—a gentleman's house turned
into a brothel by his servalits,_ and he thought it
but right that the proprietor should be informed of
what had taken place. He attached no credit to
the testimony of Davis, and ordered defendant to
pay 2s. 6d. per week, and 40s. costs.
Mr. de la Mare pledged himself to communicate
with the defendant's master.

THAMES.—Maria. Clark, a stern-looking wo-
man, was charged with assaulting her stepson,
William Clark, a diminutive boy, aged 10 years,
who appeared to have been greatly neglected, and
was very poorly clad.
Mr. Stoddart, solicitor, defended the prisoner.
The boy's father was an engineer, and had gone
to Galatz with a steamer. The prisoner in the
absence of her husband had been in the habit of

illusing her stepson, and had not given him proper
sustenance. Hard bread, and that in insufficient
quantities, was his only food for several days. The
prisoner was also in the habit of caning the boy
immoderately, knocking him down with a candle-
stick, and committing other acts of cruelty. The
boy had left his stepmother for seven or eight
weeks, and was sheltered by a poor woman named
Elizabeth Marriott, of No. 175, Newmarket-street
Old Gravel-lane, St. George's in the East, who
treated him very kindly. The stepmother demanded
the boy, and he was given up to her. She
immediately recommenced her career of cruelty,

and was continually caning the boy, dragging him
about the room by the hair of his head, and
committing other acts of tyranny and cruelty, until
he left his home again. Mrs. Marriott had taken
care of the little fellow since Saturday, and had
acted with the greatest kindness towards him.
The following certificate from the boy's school-
master was put in :—" The little boy, William
Clark, when under my care was always a well-
behaved child. I never had occasion to find greater
fault with him than with other children of his age
and position, but I have been much pained at the
evident neglect and ill treatment he has experienced
from his friends at home.—HENRY RowLEY, master
of St. George's Mission School, Old Gravel-lane,
May 13."
The defence set up by Mr. Stoddart was that the
boy was a great liar and thief, and in the practice
of coming home at two and three o'clock in the
morning.
Mr. Selfe said the prisoner was a cruel and
vindictive stepmother, caring nothing for the
comfort and welfare of her husband's child, whom
she was bound to protect and to treat with kindness.
He sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned for two
calendar months without hard labour. His reason
for inflictinr, such a mild sentence was that she was,
afflicted a disease very dangerous to life.
she had been in good health, he would have added
hard labour to the sentence. He ordered 15s. to be
paid to Mrs. Marriott, whose conduct was deserving
of great praise, and he requested her to take care
of the boy, and in a fortnight's time he would again
recompense her from the poor-box fund.