The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON THURSDAY EVENING, 'DECEMBER 15, 1859,

LAW iNTELLIGENCE—Dec. 14.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. CommiSsioner Holroyd.)
IN RE AYLWARD.
The bankrupt was a wine merchant of Doctors'-
commons. This was the examination meeting.
His liabilities arc about £2,200, assets returned at

£250.
Mr. H. Harris opposed for the assignees. The
case was only noticeable from the remarkable de-
meanour of a witness, Mr. Peter White Aylward,
a brother of the bankrupt, described in the balance-
sheet as a gentleman of Sunbury. He tendered a
proof against the estate for £998, and gave evidence
in the followino. style :
Mr. Harris—What are you, Mr. Aylward ?
Witness—lndependent of everybody in the world.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Harris—How long have you been indepen-
dent ?
Witness—l shall not give ,you the date, unless
the Commissioner requires it.
Commissioner—You must answer the questions
put to you.
Mr. Harris—flow long have you been indepen-

dent ?
Witness—Upwards of three years.
Mr. Harris—How did you acquire that intlepen
dente?
Witness—That is my business. That is a very
impertinent question. I have £30,000 or £40,000
and it is a very impertinent question how I got it
I came into £1,200 when I came of age:
Mr. Harris—How long is it since you were a clerk
to Mr. Leveridge, wine-merchant ?
Witness—Upwards of three years.
Mr. Harris—And what have you been since you
were his clerk ?
Witness—lndependent of everybody, living as a
gentleman, with plenty of property. You cannot
alter my position. (A laugh.)
His Honour again interfered, and recommended
the witness to demean himself with propriety.
Witness—Am I to answer this man's questions ?
lamof no profession whatever. lam independent
of every man in the world. (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Harris—l must trouble you to explain what
that means ? •
Witness—l mean that I can live without busi-
ness. I am independent of business, and have
plenty to support me.' Am I not right, my lord ?
(Great laughter.)
Mr. Harris—ls it a fact that you married some
elderly lady after you left Mr. Leveridge ?
Witness—l did marrra lady.
Mr. Harris—And her property is settled upon
her, is it not ?
Witness—Not at all. Every farthing of it is in
my possession.
Mr. Harris—l am very sorry to hear it.
(Laughter.)
Witness—l dare say you are. (Great laughter.)
Mr. Harris—Do you keep any books ?
Witness—What is that to you? (Renewed
laughter.)
The Commissioner again interfered.
Witness—Why should I keep books when I am
out of business ? I have the items of the amount
advanced to my brother (producing a sheet of
paper), I swear that those amounts were lent ac-
cording to those dates, and £2OO more than that.
I know lamon my oath. lam speaking the truth.
I would not speak falsely for £50,000.
His Honour again expostulated with the wit-
ness on his unbecoming conduct. •
Witness—l am happy to give you every account
in my power. (If course I was happy to assist my
brother. I would have let him have £lO,OOO with
pleasure.
Mr. Harris—This account, which you produce,
has been torn out of a book ?
Witness—No, it has not.
Mr. Harris-1N hat book has it been torn out of?
Witness—No book at all. It is an old leaf. The
account is there. I swear solemnly that every
farthing has been•advanced, and £2OO beyond that.
Mr, Harris—When did you make out that ac-
count ?
Witness—Some time ago. I could not tell to a
day.
Mr. Harris—lt seems to have been all made out
at one time ?.
Witness— Yes, ,of course. . (Laughter.) All ac-
counts are. (Laughter.) You don't suppose I did
it some on one day and some on another.
(Laughter.) I was not ten minutes in making it
out.
Mr. Harris—Where did you copy it from ?.
Witness—Oh, I can recollect pretty well what
the items were. .
This kind of cross firing was kept up for about
half an hour, the witness displaying the utmost
volubility. He indulged in a variety. of charges
against Mr. Irving, the trade assignee, and ad,
mated that he had swept off the bankrupt's pro-
perty under a judgment obtained some time before.
Mr. Harris—Does the furniture remain in the
house still ?
• ' Witness-1o; certainly not. I have given it
away.
Mr. Harris—To whom have you given it ?
Witness—Oh, that's my business. (Laughter.)
I will take my oath I have not received a farthing
for it, and I shan't tell you to whom I gave it. I
gave it to a person. (Renewed laughter.) It be-
longed to me. I should like to know who has a
greater right to give a thing away than the per-
son to whom it belongs. (Great laughter.)
A second volley of charges against Mr. Irving
ensued.
Mr. Harris—Now after this furniture business,
what was resolved upon ?
Witness—l struck the docket, and I said if it cost
me £lO,OOO I would smash up the affair, because I
would not see a brother of mine fleeced. (Laughter.)
Did you pay £lO stamp duty on filing the peti-
tion ? I shan't tell you. (Renewed laughter.) I've
got nothing out of the affair. I have given the fur-
niture away. I have not received a farthing's bene-
fit. I only did it for my brother's sake.
What were you in 1851 ?—I was then a clerk;
At what salary ?—I won't tell you what salary
I had. I divided my salary in various ways, and I
shan't tell you anything about it. (Laughter.)
His Honour thought the examination was pro-
ceeding unnecessarily into detail.
Mr. Harris explained that. it was necessary to
ascertain the witness's position at so early a date,
because, according to the account he had handed
in, the first advance to his brother of £l5O was
made in 1851, and possibly it might turn out that
he had not such an amount at that time. •
Witness—Well, now, look here ; if you are deter-
mined to go into the matter, I had upwards of
£l,OOO in the Bank of England, sir, at that time—
(laughter)—aye, and in my own name, too; and
that was a long time before I was married. '(Great
laughter.) I never took an I 0 U from my brother,
nor any interest. I only wanted to assist him.
Mr. Harris—Well, but that judgment, you know,
was rather an adverse proceeding. Did you do that
to assist him ? (Laughter.)
Witness—ln 1859 I thought it better to have
security, and my brother offered me either a bill ofsale
or a judgment, and I took the judgment; but I did
not do it because I was afraid of the money. Do
you think I did ? (Laughter.) What do I care for
the money ? , (Renewed laughter.) Why, I don't
care that (snapping his fingers) for it. (Great
laughter.) 'I took the judgment so that I might
come in for my share with. the other creditors.
They have had enough of my money as it is, and I
suppose wanted more. My brother had no money
of his own. My money has paid everything.
!Laughter.) The creditors have done nicely as it
.s—oh ! yes ; they've done capitally. (Laughter.)
After a few mom skirmishes of a similar charac-
;er his Honour admitted the proof, but adjourned
the examination of the bankrupt.

missions that she had been involved in trouble
through keeping bad company, Maloy,,e,n Irish-
man, who had been with Nolan ail night, swore
that Reed stabbed him, but contradicted Martin on
almost every other point. Carnal!, a member of
.the band, proved that it was Nolan that struck
Reed, that it was Rzed that said he should have a
summons. Money, the landlord of the rival public-
house, swore that he saw the prisoner drop a knife
just after the deceased fell; that the prisoner's wife
came out with a candle, and picked up the knife
and threw it away. Considerable doubt, however,
existed as to the instrument of death ; it being sug-
gested at different times that a knife, a dagger, an
oyster knife, and a swordstick had been used ; and
one witness (Knapton) swore that it was only a
walking-stick with which Reed struck Nolan. A
man named Wragg stated that he had come on the
scene of action early in the struggle, and that he
identified Reed immediately afterwards as the man
who had struck the fatal blow.
For the defence, Mr. Price contended that the
'contradictions and inconsistencies in the case made
out by the prosecution were of themselves suf-
ficient to justify him in asking for a verdict of
acquittal ; but he also opened a very different state
of facts. He called 10 witnesses, with the object—
lstly, of directly contradicting Knapton ; 2dly, of
directly contradicting Wragg ; 3dly, of proving
that'at the time Nolan was killed Reed was smok-
ing by his own fireside ; and lastly, that the stab
was really given by the witness Knapton, or " Joe
Neptune, as he was called
,by several witnesses,
who stated that they had seen the transaction.

Mr. Branson, of Sheffield, the solicitor who in-
structed counsel for the defence, was called, and
swore that Knapton had told him that he (Knap-
ton) saw Nolan killed; that he knew who struck
the blow, but that he would not tell who it was, but
that Reed was in the house at the time. This was
corroborated by Mr. Branson's clerk, Mr. G. D.
Smith. Several witnesses were called to swear that
Wragg (whose evidence bore hard on the prisoner)
was i❑ a public-house, called The Sovereign, at
some distance from Reed's tavern, from 11 o'clock
till-after 12 on the night in question, whereas all
the evidence went to show that the whole affair was

over between 20 minutes past 11 and a quarter to
12. They further swore that Wragg was very drunk,
and that on coming to the spot a little after 12
o'clock he asked " What was amiss ?" and appeared
to know nothing of what had occurred. Evidence
was also adduced to show that Reed having found
Nolan on his steps offered him drink ; that on its re-
fusal he pushed Nolan off the causeway, and then
returned to his house; that he sat still by his own
fireside until he went to answer a knock at the door.
This knock was given by. Elizabeth Brammer, whom
Reed admitted. Nolan had then just been stabbed
()aside. The prisoner returned to his hearth, and
stayed there till he was taken away, without offer-
ing any resistance, by the policeman. This was con-
firmed aliunde. There were also several witnesses,
who swore they saw Nolan strike a woman named
Cartwright for saying abusive things about the Irish;
that Knapton then came to Mrs. Cartwright's res-
cue, and was himself attacked by Nolan, Maloy,
and another. Knapton fought his way to the entry,
retreating into it. Nolan charged up the entry after
Knapton, and immediately staggered back, crying
out in a chocked voice, " Oh, I'm stabbed !" Blood
spouted from his mouth and nostrils, and from the
wound in the chest. He ran across the road and fell
into the gutter. Knapton afterwards was dragged
away, and went flourishing his open knife up the
street, and threatening, in coarse language, to stab
others of the Irish.
Mr. Maule replied at considerable length. He
pointed out the inconsistencies in the statements of
the witnesses for the defence. He urged that their
account of what took place was evidently a garbled
report of another occurrence, and that, though
Knapton and Nolan might have had a fight (as,
indeed, there were many fights going on in different
places), yet that the fatal blow was given by Reed
at another time.
His Lordship summed up very carefully, and the
jury, after retiring for a few. minutes, Acquitted
the prisoner.

LIVERPOOL, DEC. 13.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
Edward Tattersall was indicted for a burglary in
the house of Edward Logan, and stealing therein a
cap, waistcoat, and shirt.
Mr. Albany Fonblanque was for the prosecution ;
Mr. Charles Hopwood for the defence.
The facts were very simple but singular. It
,appeared the prisoner had been a sailor on board
her Majesty's ship Hastings, now lying in the
Mersey, and. had been arrested a week before (by
the same constable who took him on this charge)
as a deserter, and conveyed back to the ship, He,
however, escaped from his guard, and returned to
Manchester. The constable again saw him in the
street, and laid plans for capturing him. He went
at 2 o'clock in the morning of the 24th of August
to the prisoner's lodgings, who, disturbed by the
coming of the officer, left his bed and escaped on to
the roof in his shirt, trousers, and stockings, but
without clogs, cap, or coat. The policeman remained
on the watch, but the prisoner escaped from the
roof, and got into the prosecutor's house, where he
took the articles in question, as he said, to disguise
himself, and aid his escape from the police.
The prosecutor said he had not desired to prose-
cute the man.
Mr. Hopwood put it to. the jury that if they be-
lieved the prisoners account of. the matter, it was
no stealing.
Mr. Baron Martin thought it a very clear case
that it was stealing, even though his only purpose
was, as he said, to disguise himself. It was a taking
Ittcri causa.
-Arr. Hopwood submitted that here the prisoner
sought only a benefit and not a gain.
The learned Judge did not thirik there was any
distinction between the two.
The learned counsel concluded his address to the
jury, insisting on the absence of any felonious intent
and also contending that the evidence of the fasten-
ing up of the house was so doubtful as not to be re-
lied on.
The Judge summed up in accordance with the
ruling he.had intimated he should give,
The jury considered some time, and then said not
guilty of a felonious intent.
The Judge again addressed them, when
A juror said he did not agree with that verdict.
Mr: Baron Martin went into the matter again,
asking what doubt the jury had. The breaking and
entering was to his mind proved. Then, if they be-
lieved he took the things, it was clearly a stealing.
The jury then found the prisoner guilty.,
The Judge declined to reserve the case for further
consideration by the judges. He asked if the autho-
rities would take back the prisoner as a sailor
He had no doubt himself the things were taken to
assist the prisoner in his escape. Inquiry, must be
made at the ship.
A petty officer in the afternoon arrived from the
ship Hastings, and announced the readiness of the
authorities to receive the prisoner back.
The JUdge then addressed the prisoner, requiring
him to enter into his own recognisances in £5O to
appear if callel upon to receive judgment; but told
him if he remained with the ship he would hear
,nothing more of it.
• He was then given up to his officer.
Susan Trotter was indicted 'for the murder of her
husband.
Mr. Aspinall prosecuted, and Mr. Pope defended
the prisoner.
This was a melancholy case of quarrels between
husband and wife. Threats and violence had been.
used towards her by her husband, who, as well as
she, was intoxicated at the time of the fatal occur-
rence. She had stabbed him with a table knife in
the neck, and in so doing had divided the artery
to the arm, and so caused his death. Her contri-
tion afterwards was most touching.
The jury found her Guilty of manslaughter.
The learned Judge most feelingly addressed the
prisoner, commenting upon this sad result of in-
temperance, which had made her by her own act 'a
widow, and deprived her of the support of a man,
for whom it appeared, though too late, she had a
strong affection. He sentenced her to three months'
imprisonment.

woke, and on finding she had taken it asked about
it, anti .was told by her that if he wanted a weapon.
he must. get a fresh one. About ten minutes after
this Elijah Taylor and a militiaman named Pacey
came in. The prisoner, who was then eating his
supper, and had a knife in his hand, rose and asked
" Who brought him there ?" meaning Pacey;
Elijah answered " I did." Upon this the prisoner
struck twice at his brother's breast with his knife,
and upon his retreating and turning round stabbed
him in the back, inflicting a wound an inch and a
half deep. Elijah Taylor fell; he was too drunk ,
himself to remember anything more, and he was
' picked up by Jordan and was conveyed to the
hospital.
It was elicited from the witnesses for the prose-
cution that Elijah Taylor had several times at-
tacked and beaten the prisoner.
The learned Judge having summed. up tne evi-
dence, the jury convicted the prisoner of stabbing
with intent to do grievouS bodily harm, recommend-
ing him to mercy on account of great provocation.
He was sentenced to four years'.penal servitude.
In the case of Sarah Ann Bellamy, committed
on a charge of wilful murder of her infant chili,
the grand jury ignored the bill for murder, and
found one against her for disposing of the body to
conceal the birth. On this she is yet to he tried.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Dec. 14.

BOW-STIIEET.—A young man, under 20 years
of age, named Henry Garner, in the service of his
brother-in-law, Mr. Martin, a lamp maker, was
placed at the bar before Mr. Henry, on a charge of
assault preferred by Mr. Cook, a solicitor.
Mr. Cook deposed--I am solicitor to Mr. Clark,,
a lamp-maker, in the Strand. Yesterday I at-
tended on his behalf at the stables, No.'2l,_Mil-

ford-lane, to see whether certain property belong-
ing to him was there. I was accompanied by
Mr. Roberts, solicitor to Mr, Stroud, of Bir-
mingham, claimant of that property.. Mr. Roberts.
rang the bell, and somebody looked out of an upper
window. Defendant then opened a wicket in the
stable-door. I entered, saying, "Mr. Garner, we
have come: to see you 'again." He answered, "Then
you cannot come in." I disregarded this observa-
tion, and went in, followed by Mr. Clark and Mr.
Roberts, who said, " I have come to see if the horse
and cart are here. I claim them on behalf of Mr.

Stroud, of Birmingham." Defendant said, "I am

in possession of the horse and cart for Mr. Martin.
I have the lease. You have no business here, and

if you do not instantly leave, I will shoot you." He
presented a pistol at me, and the lock clicked,
as if he had drawn the trigger. He looked
at the pistol, and said, "It is loaded. If
you are not off at once I will shoot you." I,
however, remained. I sent for a policeman, to
whom I wished to give the defendant into custody.
Defendant, standing within the open door, said to
the policeman, " You have no business here; keep
outside." The policeman hesitated to take the
charge, observing that he was young in the service.
He seemed to be intimidated by the defendant's
violence.

Mr. Henry—Or probably he perceived that there
was a dispute about the title.

Inspect-or Monaghan—He was a young constable,
your worship.
Mr. Henry—lle was perfectly right, however.
Mr. Cook proceeded—l sent for a second police-
man, and he attempted to take the pistol from the
defendant, who resisted, escaped from his hold, and
handed the pistol to his wife. • She ran upstairs
with it, the defendant holding the constable by the
skirt of his coat to prevent him from following her.
Mr. Henry—Do you mean to say that the po-
liceman attempted to go upstairs ?
Mr. Cook—Yes, he wanted to take the pistol
from the defendant's wife. The pistol is now pro-
duced, having been found on the stairs.
Mr. Henry—The charge on the sheet is one of
a common assault.
Mr. Burnaby (the chief clerk)—Ho is charged
with being drunk and assaulting the complainant
in Milford-lane.

Mr. Henry—But the constable saw no assau

Has there been a dispute about the premises?
Mr. Cook—No. Only about the horse and cart.
Mr. Henry—Then you admit that Mr. Martin is
the tenant ? •
Mr. Cookj---I belieie he admits that Mr. Clark is
the tenant.
Mr. Henry—Then Mr. Martin must be exa-
mined. Yoa, as a solicitor, ought to know that the
'statute known as the Assaults Act, precludes me
from determining anfcharge of assault arising from
a dispute of the title to possession of any premises.
I told you so a few days ago, when you made an
application to me to send some policemen to pre-
vent a breach of the peace,. as you were removing
'some goods from the premises in the Strand. I
told you the police could not interfere. •
Mr. Cook—But the subject matter was wholly
different.
Mr. Henry—The question of title would arise in
either case. Is there an interpleadcr ?
Mr. Roberts, solicitor tollr. Stroud, explained
.that his client claimed, under a bill of sale, signed
by Mr. Clark, certain property, including the horse
and cart in question. Mr. Martin, who held pos-
session of the horse and cart, appeared to be igno-
rant of the existence of that bill of sale. .
Mr. Martin being called,. stated that he. was the
occupier, both of the premises in the Strand and
also of those in Milford-lane, and that Mr. Clark
was his manager and servant. In proof of this he
put in a copy of au agreement, by which he engaged
Mr. Clark in that capacity, at a stated salary.
Being cross-examined. by. Mr. Cook, he acknow-
ledged that he had let both premises to Mr. Clark,
but alleged that this was a mere matter of form in-
tended for the protection of creditors, for whose
benefit the property was to be sold. He had autho-
rised the defendant to prevent the admission of Mr.
Clark, or any person on his behalf, or the removal
.of the horse and cart by them. But he did not
authorise defendant to.use firearms, which he ought
,not to have done. •
. Mr. Henry said the defendant had acted very im-
properly in that inspect. All the parties had acted
illegally, and the •policeman equally so in taking
the charge.
Mr.. Cook said defendant should be taught not to
.meet business men with fire-arins.
Mr. Henry—But business men should not use
force to ..ariter premises when excluded. That is
not the stay to try a question of title.
IN/ r. Cook—l assure you I used no force.
Mr. Hen' —He said you should not enter, and
you did. That is whiii I mean by "force." •
. Mr. Roberts said it was a dangerous doctrine that
defendant was justified in using fire-arms.
Mr. Henry—l •do not say that. He is liable to be
indicted. lam ready to commit him, and bind you
all . over to appear at the sessions ;'but as there
is so much litigation,. Mr. Cook may probably not
wish to take that course.
• Mr. Roberts would. recommend. Mr. Cook to do
so, as defendant's conduct was such as to lead to the
inference that the pistol,vvits loaded: In point of
fa-et it was not, but it was not the less an assault in
a legal sense. •
• Mr. Cook was prepared to prosecute, unless de-
feudant would apologise, and promise never again
to commit such an act against any person whatever.
flefendant promptly offered the required apology
and promise ; but observed that if he had not
thought the complainant wanted to take the horse
and cart away, he should not have refused to let
him see them.
Mr. Cook being satisfied with the apology,
The defenilant. Was discharged, and the parties
left the court.

CLERKENWELL.— GROSS CASE.—Edward
Page, a master butcher, carrying on business at No.
76, Provost-street, Holton, was summoned before
Mr. Corrie by Ellen Lipyeat, of. No. 56, St. John-
street, Clerkenwell, to shoW cause why he, should
not be adjudged the father of a bastard child, of
which the complainant alleged him to be the father.
Mr. Humphreys, jun., attended for. the corn-
'plainant, and Mr. Lewis, jun., for the defendant.
The case for the complainant Was this :—The de-
fendant, for some time before the complainant's
confinement, used to walk out with her every oven-
ingy gave her money, and was recognised as her
lover. On Nov. 27 the complainant was confined,
and the defendant, on the same day, was waited
upon, when he sent her some money and some baby
clothes. He also called upon her, told her to make
'herself comfortable, and gave the nurse 2s. 6d*, and
`left a Prayer-book for the child. For a long time
afterwards the defendant paid 2s. 6d. per week for
' the child,•but; failing in his payments, the present
sammonsf Was taken out.
• The case for the defendant was, that the com-
plainant was a prostitute, and that on- the same
day as the defendant gave her, the money and the
'clothes for the child a pencil-maker; Of the name of
Jackson, also sent money and clothes for the child,
-and suggested that the defendant had better be
waited upon, as if he gave any money he could
then be made the father, and be summoned for it.
Jackson also sent wine and other things during the
complainant's illness, and was very attentive to her.
Joseph Jackson, a pencil-maker, of St. John-
street, was called, and stated.. that he did not
know the c'mnp:ainant ; he might have seen her,
but nothing... More, Tie never had any inter-
course with her. He had never sent her any
money, clothes, wine, or provisions durinc, her con-
finement. It was .quite untrue that he had ever
slept with the complainant...
• X female of the name of Symonds said she nursed
flu) complainant, and on the day of her confinement,
at her request, she went to the witness Jackson and
asked him for some money. He said he was like

a madman, for when he slept with her at a coffee- 1
shop, the night before, he was afraid she would then
he confine 4 as she was very unwell. Iu the after-
noon she again saw Jackson, when he gave
her 95., three little shirts, and two baby
caps, for the complainant. At Jackson's request,
she went to the defendant's on the same day, and
Jackson went with her. She told the complainant
that Jackson said he was very fond of her, and that
he had no doubt he should have a large family by
her. On five or six times Jackson gave her ss. and
10s. at a time for the complainant, and sent her
fowls, bottles of port wine, fried soles, and other
refreshments. . .

Mrs. Campbell, at whose house the complainant
was confined, said she had received several things
from a boy for the complainant, who stated that
they were sent by Mr. Jackson, of Wilderness-row.
The complainant had also told her that she went
to see Jackson.
Jackson said he had seen the witness Symonds
pass his shop several tribes, bat what she had
stated was all false.

A number of witnesses were called on both sides,
whose evidence was of a very contradictory cha-
racter. _ _

Mr. Corrie said the case for the defendant had
broken down, and he could not pay attention to the
evidence of Symonds, but he could not say that
Jackson had given his evidence in the best possible
manner. He should, therefore, make an order for
2s. 6d. per week with costs.

MARLBOROUGH - STREET. THE CASE
AGAINST MRS. TWRWHITT.—Jane Tyrwhitt, other-
wise 'Jane Tyrwhitt Jones, remanded from last
week on, the charge, among others, of obtaining
goods from Mr. Thomas Brandon, orist, 139, Ox-
ford-street, by fraudulent pretences, was brought
before Mr. Beadon for re-examination.

The facts of the case above particularised, and
that of attempting, by similar means, to obtain
goods from Messrs. Lewis and Allenby, of 195,
Regent-street. mercers and drapers, have been
already fully given, and need not be repeated.
The prisoner, who was brought to the court in a
cab from the House of Detention, in the care of one
of the female warders, was, as on the last occasion,
carried into the dock by Walsh and Bendall, the
gaoler:, in the same listless or unconscious condi-
tion as on the two previous hearings of the case.
Mr. Charles Dod, the solicitor for the London
Association for the Protection of Trade, attended
on the part of the prosecution, and Mr. Lewis, sen.,
of Ely-place; for the defence.
Mr. Lewis said he would .suggest that, as his
client remained in the same deplorable condition
she had been in all along, the prosecutors should
state what cases they meant to proceed against
her in, and that she should not be dragged about
from court to prison and prison to, court week after
week in this manner. It was quite certain that
her brain was affected, and that she was unaware of
what was going on.
Mr. Beadon said he could not try the question as
to whether a person brought before him was a lunatic
or idiot. In the case of such a person charged be-
fore him for murder, he should, it evidence justified,
commit for trial, and leave for the superior Court
to decide on the state mentally of the prisoner ; and
so in the present case, he should hear the evidence
ready to-day, remand, and upon the cases already
completed, and others if necessary, commit the pri-
soner for trial to the Central Criminal Court Ses-
sions commencing the 2d of January.
Mr. Dod, before introducing a fresh case, would
observe that it was to him pretty clear that the pri-
soner was assuming great indisposition and uncon-
sciousness, in order to excite sympathy, and wear
out, as she thought possible, proceedings against
her ; but, if that was her object, she would find
herself mistaken..

Mr. Robertshaw, hosier, of Oxford-street—l am
acquainted with the prisoner's handwriting, and
identify the letters produced as in her writing.
Detective officer
.C. Cole, 317 A—On the 29th
November I went to the prisoner's house, Rose
Cottage, Petersham, and 'after apprehending her I
found in her box three black hats, such as worn by
ladies. I went to Windsor and made inquiries if
any such person was known at Windsor as the pri-
soner, and did this from information I had received.
No such place as Clare House was known, or such
person as Mrs. Vernon, near the railway terminus;
nor had there been for some years.
Mr. Dod observed that this would be evidence

in a case of obtaining threc, fancy hats, of the value
of about £5, on the 16th October last, from Mr.
Robert Heath, hatter to her Majesty, 18, St.
George's-place, Hyde-park, upon a forged request.
He .was not in a position to-day to prove the sup-
ply of the goods, but would be on a future occasion.
The letter, the handwriting of which had been
sworn to, was the order for the goods in question ;
and •the goods were forwarded by Mrs. Heath,
in the box spoken of by the officer, on which
1 the name, " the Hon: Mrs. Vernon," was found
written, and the direction, " to be left at the South-
Western Railway Station till called for." Though
he was not prepared to go through with this par.
titular case now, he was in many others where
goods had been fraudulently obtained. He could
show that the prisoner had used for these purposes
the names, besides those of the Hon. Mrs. Stuart
and Hon. Mrs. Vernon, of Wilmot, Paul, Bathurst,
Turner, Thomas, Hon. Mrs. Masecy, and Lady
M.'Donald.
Mr. Beadon said he would remand the case till
next Wednesday, and it might save much trouble
and unnecessary attendance" of tradesmen, if he now
stated his intention of committing upon the cases
already completed, and on the next examination
hearing the finishing evidence of the fresh one gone
into to-day, and one entrusted to Mr. Edward
Lewis against the prisoner, if brought forward, and
no others.
The depositions having been read over by Mr.
Leadley, chief clerk, the case was again remanded,
and the prisoner directly taken in a cab, in the same
care of the female warder, and custody of Walsh,
the gaoler, to the House of Detention.
POT-STEALING.—WiIIiam Read, 40, was charged
with pewter pot stealing.
William Godwin, servant, Blenheim-yard, Bond-
street, said. he saw the prisoner, who had with him
a basket, go up to a stable door in' Hayes mews,
take the quart pot produced from the door-step,
and popping it quickly in his basket, walk briskly
away, upon which: he directly went and gave in-
formation to the publican close by, who pursued and
stopped the prisoner with the pot in his possession.
It was the property of Mr. Baldwin, of the Coach
and Horses publichouse, who at the court identified
the property.
Prisoner, who had nothing to say, was sentenced
to two months' imprisonment.

THAMES.—A NUISANCE.—HONV THE POOR
IRISH RXIST.—Dr. Ellison, one of the medical
officers of the Board of Works for the Poplar dis-
trict, and Mr. Edward Pulcher, sanatory inspector
and inspector of nuisances to the board, attended
before Mr. Selfe to prosecute a summons against
George Russell, of 21, William-street, Poplar, under
the Nuisances Removal Act

The case disclosed a frightful nuisance, which was
brought to light by Mr. Fulcher, a most useful and
intelligent sanatory officer, by whose exertions great
improvements have been effected in the parishes of
All Saints', Poplar; Bromley St. Leonard, and
Bow, since the passing of the Local Management
Act.

Mr. Fuleher stated that he had to complain of
the condition of the houses, Nos. 3,4, 5,6, 7,8, 9,
and 10, White Hart-place, Robin Hood-lane, Poplar:
There were three rooms in each house, one above the
other. Each room measured 12 feet by 11 and 8
feet high, and contained 1,054 cubic feet, allowing
only 300 feet cube for each person. This might not
be overcrowded for four persons in each room, but
there was a sad want of ventilation. The rooms in
most cases were let separately, some at ls. per
week, others at ls. 3d. per week. Some of the
rooms were inhabited by only two persons, others
by four, and one ground-room, where the poisonous
atmostphere was intolerable, by a family of six
persons, and it was their parlour, bedroom, kitchen,
and all, with a very few articles of furnitnre in
it. The whole of the inhabitants were poor Irish,
amongst whom great destitution existed. He made
an inspection of each room on Tuesday, excepting
the rooms in No. 4, a wretched and dilapidated
building, called an "Irish freehold," where an
Irish labourer in possession said he had lived 40
years and paid no rent. In the whole course of his
experience he never witnessed a. more filthy and
dist,raceful nuisance. He was surprised how human
beings mild exist in such a place. The walls and
ceilings of the tenements were blackened with
smoke and dirt which had been accumulating for
many years, and were like the interior of a large
chimney shaft. There were no grates in the fire-
places, but a few bricks were a substitute. The
floors were rotten, defective, and dangerous. The
"flank walls" at the back of each house were de-
fective, and caused them to be very damp. There
were no back yards, and the court or alley called
White Hart-place was a narrow and dirty thorough-
fare, 10 feet 9 inches wide.
Mr. Selfe—How many persons are living in these
miserable houses ?
Mr. Pulcher—Sixty-nine persons are now living
in the houscv, some half naked. There is no water
supply, the 'ashes and refuse of the houses are
thrown into the street, and there are only three
retiring• places in the place, common to all
the inhabitants. A new sewer has been con-
structed near White Hart-place, and such is the
neglect of the owner that the night-soil percolates
through the adjoining premises, and renders them
untenantable, although the owner of those premises
adjoining--a Mr. Brownjohn—had been at consi-

derable expense in carrying out the sanatory M
sures directed by the Poplar Board of Works.
Mr. Selfe—What do you wish me to do,
Mr.
Fulcher ?
Mr. Fulcher—l have respectfully to request that
your worship will please to make an order, stating
that the houses are not fit for human habitations,
and prohibit the using of them for that purpose
until they are rendered fit.
Mr. Selfe said he had no hesitation in making an
order [that the tenements were unfit for human
habitations, and to prohibit the using thereof for
that purpose, until they were put in a proper state
of repair, retiring places erected, and all the dilapi-
dations made good. If the houses were not cleansed
and repaired within 14 days a heavy fine would be
inflicted. It was necessary for the safety and health
of the poor inmates that the requirements of the
act should be complied with ; and it was fearful -to
contemplate the mortality which might happen if
cholera or fever were to break out in such a dread-
ful place. He should allow the costs of the prosecu-
tion, which was a very proper one.