The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-08 00:00:00

cuted, the -parish would be content with the de-
fendant entering into his own recognisance, with
two sureties, to come up for judgment when called
upon. It must be understood that in any other
prosecution this course would not be taken, punish-
ment would be pressed for, as it was fully deter-
mined to put these places down.
Mr. Metcalfe appeared for the defendant, who,
having entered into a recognisance with two
substantial sureties, was discharged.
Richard Reynolds, a tall, determined-looking
man, was indicted for unlawfully cutting, stabbing
and wounding Caroline Smith.
The prosecutrix stated that she was a prostitute,
and lived at 10, Bedford•street, Stepney, and
on the morning of Christmas-day, hearing a
disturbance between the prisoner and a woman
in the street, she got up to see what it was
about. The prisoner called her names which she
forebore to repeat, and struck her two blows on the
face. She then went upstairs and locked herself in
her own room, but the prisoner rushed up after her,
broke open the door, and struck her near the eye
with some sharp instrument—she could not say
what it was—and the blood flowed down her face

in a stream. Her eye was seriously injured, and
she was taken to the London Hospital, where she
remained some days, and could see but very im-
perfectly with the injured eye. This statement
was corroborated by another prostitute.
The prisoner, in his defence, said he certainly
struck the prosecutrix, but it was under great pro-
vocation at certain filthy names she applied to him.
However, he never struck her with any weapon ;
it was his bare hand; and" Carry" had sworn
falsely, to put him away. He appealed to " Carry"
to tell the truth and exonerate him.
The prosecutrix said what she had stated was
true. He did strike her with an instrument.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding.
The Assistant-Judge said, even if the prisoner
had received provocation, and though the prosecu-
trix was a prostitute, and the assault took place at
a brothel, he had committed a gross outrage, and
the woman was none the less to be protected because
she was an unfortunate. The Court sentenced the
prisoner to hard labour for eight calendar months.
Samuel Charles Ellis, a well-dressed intelligent-
looking youth, was indicted for stealing a coat, the
property of John Robert Ellis, his father.
This was a very painful case. It appeared that
the prosecutor, a brush-maker in Brick-lane, St.
Luke's, had had a good deal of trouble with the
prisoner, who had been convicted three times, and,
as a last resource to enforce reformation, he had
him bound apprentice to him, so as to be able to
exercise the double authority of father and master
over him. On the 2d instant the prisoner ab •
sconded with a great coat which his father had
bought for him to wear, stopped out all night, pawned
the coat next day, and spent the proceeds in
the company of prostitutes. He was given into
custody for stealing the coat, the property of his
father, but he declared it was his own, his father
having bought it for him. He now said he had
dealt with it as his own, and had not stolen it. The
father said he certainly bought it for his use, but
he merely lent it to him, and he had no right to
take it away and dispose of it without his consent.
The Assistant-Judge said the question was, not
the extent of misconduct the prisoner had been
guilty of to his father formerly, and it appeared to
have been a good deal, but whether he had in this
instance been guilty of the felony charged against
him. A youth of his age, 17, could legally hold
property, and if he pawned this coat under the be-
lief that it was his own, he could not be convicted.
His own opinion was that the evidence did not
make out the charge.
The jury acquitted the prisoner.
Hannah Gibbons, 24, was convicted of a robbery
upon John Smith. She was a prostitute, and had
been repeatedly convicted and imprisoned.
The Court sentenced her to three years' penal
servitude.
No sooner had she heard the sentence than she
threw herself down on the floor of the dock, and
for some minutes resisted the efforts of four officers
to remove her without resorting to actual main
force. She got hold of a policeman's hair, and
nearly pulled out a handful. At last she was got
out and taken to the cells, screaming and swearing
dreadfully. Such a scene has rarely been witnessed.
John Thompson, alias Dick Doughty, 25, was
brought up to be dealt with as an incorrigible rogue
and vagabond, under a commitment by a magistrate.
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Lawrence appeared for the
prosecution ; Mr. Metcalfe for the prisoner.
The prisoner was taken into custody with a man
named Lindsay, on the 28th of September, •for
being found by night in possession of house-
breaking implements. The prisoner managed to
escape from the police court at Marlborough-
street, during the momentary absence of the
gaoler, and was not taken into custody again until
the 21st of December, when he was found by
Sergeant Chown, 5 E, and other officers, in com-
pany with a gang of burglars, garotte robbers, and
thieves of all grades, at a house in Union-court,
Holborn-hill. He had been tried for a garotte
robbery but acquitted, and he had nine months for
coining. For about ten years he had been the
associate of the worst thieves of London, many of
whom had been transported or sentenced to penal
servitude. Lindsay was sentenced by this Court
to one year's hard labour a session or two back, and
the Assistant-Judge, deeming the case proved
against this prisoner, ordered him to be kept to hard
labour for the same period, which is the full period
authorised by the statute.
George Allwright, the captain of a barge navi-
gating the Grand Junction Canal, surrendered to
take his trial on a charge of having stolen a small
quantity of coal, the property of Mr. Benbow, of
Hillingdon, to whose wharf he was employed to
take coal from London. The prisoner had been in
one employment sixteen years and more, and after
the evidence had been given, and the prisoner's
counsel had addressed the jury, a verdict of not
guilty was returned.
Mr. T. Salter
_prosecuted, Mr. Sleigh defended
the prisoner.
On the application of Mr. Ribton, a ease of
assault against a person named Jennings was post-
poned until the next sessions at Westminster.
EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—John Jones, 49, a re-
spectable-looking man, whose real name was stated
to be Thomas or James Marshall, was indicted for
having stolen from the person of Mary, the wife of
Edward Charles Jennings, a purse, containing a
diamond and pearl ring, and some papers, his
property.
Mrs. Jennings, the wife of the prosecutor, a
butcher, in New Quebec-street, Marylebone, stated
that on the 4th of November, in the evening, about
half-past eight o'clock, she was crossing Portman-
street, Portman-square, when she saw the prisoner
by the lamp-post. He wore a macintosh, like
one he had on now, and she was sure he was
the man, not only from that, but by his features
and personal appearance. He remarked that
it was a nice evening, and asked to be directed to
a street near Manchester-square. He said he
was a servant in a gentleman's family, which was
abroad, and he had come out for a stroll, and had
left the housekeeper alone. While he was saying
this he got close to her side, and put his hand on
her's, and said she looked like a servant in a gen-
tleman's family, and he should be glad to see her,
upon which she said he had received his answer to
the question he had asked about the street, and she
had nothing further to say to him, and passed on.
She then heard him running. She got home in
about two minutes, and then missed her purse,
which she could swear was safe in her pocket when
the prisoner spoke to her. It contained a valuable
diamond ring and some papers. She gave informa-
tion to the police. On the evening of the 17th
of December she saw the prisoner standing in Cum-
berland-street, opposite Lady M'Lean's house, lis-
tening to a street band, and when he went away
she followed him for about half an hoar, intend-
ing to give him into custody when she saw a
policeman. The prisoner then was following a
lady. She gave him in charge in Baker-
street. When she told him what she charged him
with, he said he knew nothing of her, and never
saw her before. She could swear he was the man,
if she were in her dying hour.
The prisoner solemnly asserted that he was inno-
cent. He never saw the lady in his life, and she
was mistaken as to his identity. Six weeks had
elapsed from the time of the alleged robbery, no
ring had been traced to him, and no jury could
convict a man on such evidence.
The policeman who took the prisoner into cus-
tody said he refused to give any name or address
when at the station-house, and he (witness) had not
been able to trace out anything about him.
The prisoner said this was no evidence against
him.
Policeman—There is more evidence, your lord-
ship.
The Assistant-Judge—ls there ? It is not on
the depositions then. What is it ?
Policeman 14 D—We have found the ring.
tanTthe evidence.ssi t t tvuhdegre--e
dild'hyaotu cfienrtdaiitnl7 is imper-
mcoymlmortlitied,laVne
df oi
nu xi(
so
bu
ot
flooudngdi n
tghs e after he was
committed, and in his box I found the ring—here
Policeman—ln a box at the prisoner's lodgings,
it is (producing it).
The prisoner on hearing this gave a low whistle,
and said—" My lord, I may as well put an end to
this job .at . once now, and I'm done for. I must
suffer for somebody else. That ring I bought of a
man in the street for a crown, and the man said he
was hard • up. I don't know who he was, and I
did not know it was a diamond ring."
Mrs". Jennings (to the Court)--This is my ring,