The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-26 00:00:00

M'CARTHY.

From the reports that have already appeared in
The Sun, it will be recollected that a writ of habeas
corpus had been issued against Mr. Roberts, a Roman
Catholic clergyman, and Mary M'Carthy, a school-
mistress In W estminster, calling upon them to produce
a child named Mary M'Donnell, aged 12 years, the daughter
of James M'Donnell, who had been induced to go to a
Roman Catholic school, of which Mary M'Carthy was the
schoolmistress, against the express wish of the father. A
return was made to the writ, but Mr. Justice Erle was of
opinion that it was insufficient, and that the writ had not.
been obeyed, as it was clear that the parties knew where
the child was, and could have produced her in obedience to
the writ. The fact stated in the affidavit that the child
herself had elected to be educated in the Roman Catholic
faith was insufficient, and on that ground the writ of habeas
had not been complied with, but the execution of the writ
for contempt was postponed until to-day in order that the
cause might be heard before the full court.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Cook Evans appeared in sup-
port of the writ; and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Archbold
appeared for the Rev. Mr. Roberts and Mary M'Carthy.
Shortly before ,12 Mr. Lush, Q.C., rose to open the case,
praying the Court to pass Adgment on the Rev. Mr.
Roberts for contempt.
Lord Campbell—Call Roberts into court.
The officer proceeded to call upon Mr. Roberts to appear,
but the rov. gentleman did not answer the summons.

Mr. Lush—The defendant is under recognisances to ap-
pear, and I believe he has been in court this morning.
Mr. Archbold—l am with my learned friend Mr. Ser-
geant Shoe, and he is not yet in court.
Lord Campbell—l hope he will be in court before he is
called upon to speak.
Mr. Archbold—lle has been sent for, my lord. I have
under the circumstances to ask the court for a short ad-
journment of the case.

Mr. Lush—l have no objection to the case standing over
for a short time, but I am very anxious it should be dis-
posed of as speedily as possible.
Lord Campbell—Let the proceedings then stand over
until one o'clock.

At that hour, all parties being present,
Mr. Lush rose and prayed the judgment of the court
upon the Rev. Mr. Roberts, for contempt.
Mr. Sergeant Shee said the return Mr. Roberts had
made to the writ of habeas corpus was a just, clear, and
good return.
Lord Campbell—Does the affidavits say they don't know
where the child is at present

Sergeant Shee—No, my lord, they do not.
Lord Campbell—Then you must show that the return
made to the habeas is bona fide.
After some further argument,

Lord Campbell said he was of opinion that an attachment
ought to issue against Mr. Roberts, the effect of which
would be that ho would have to enter into recognisances
to answer certain interrogatories, and upon those answers
the punishment to be awarded would depend.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(TRIS DAY.)

GUILDHALL.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.—James
Charles and Terence M'Clean, trading under the firm of
M'Clean and Co., wholesale wine and spirit merchants, of
Sloane-street and Skinner-street, again appeared upon a
summons, remanded from Monday last, to answer a charge
of conspiring to defraud Mr. Bigg of a5O.
Mr. Humphreys, jun., appeared for the complainant, and
Mr. Wontner for the defendants.

William Hasley said—l am the registrar of one of the
Courts of Bankruptcy, and I produce the proceedings in re
J. C. and T. M'Clean The adjudication was on the sth
February, 1859, and the day appointed for the hearing was
the 19th July. They surrendered on the sth. The date
of the last examination was the 4th May, and then the
bankrupts passed. The certificate meeting was on the 2d
June. The certificate was suspended for six months,
and then to be of the third class. It waA
suspended from the sth March, with protection. The cer-
tificate was handed to them on the 13th Sept. Amongst
the proceedings I have no bill for £250, dated on or about
November, at one month. It would not be here under any
circumstances.
Cross-examined—We don't file bills, the official assignee
would have them. I only see a promissory note in the
proceedings for £2.50.
Mr. Wontner complained that a great deal of time had
been wasted over this case in nonsense.
Mr. Hasley said that complainant proved on the estate
for £254 18s., and exhibited a promissory note as collateral
security, drawn by Ann Southgate.
James Fulton said he lived at 30, Wharf-road, City-
road. He was manager of the Grand Junction Land Com-
.pany. He knew the defendants. Mr. Terence M'Clean
once spoke to him in reference to a promissory note for
£250 given by Mrs. Southgate to Mr. Bigg. It was about
the time Mr. Bigg was seeking to recover by action. He
spoke to witness about it on several occasions. He remem-
bered relating to Mr. Bigg something of one of those con
versations. He could not recollect the date. In alluding
to the proceedings (the action) he said that he thought Mr.
Bigg was very badly advised. Witness said he did not
quite understand Mr. M'Clean. He replied, " The result
of the action will show." Witness asked if Mrs. Southgate
had not signed the acceptance. He answered, " I got the
acceptance from my brother and gave it to Mr. Bigg."
Witness then inquired why it had been given to Mr.
Bigg. He replied, "To quiet or satisfy him." Witness
remembered nothing else.
Mr. Terence told witness a great deal. Witness had
known both defendants and Mr. Bigg a very long time, and
whenever they met this was generally the subject of con-
versation. Witness never saw James 111‘Clean. upon this
subject. I mentioned the matter to Mr. Bigg, because
I assumed that Terence M'Clean intended Mr. Bigg to
hear it.

Mr. Wontner objected to the witness giving any reasons,
and contended that assumptions could not be entered on the
depositions.
By Alderman Mechi—Witness thought that Terence
meant Mr. Bigg was badly advised by his solicitors. lie
gave no reasons for saying so.
Mr. Wontner wished to know if the defendants had not
offered to pay this debt by instalments.

Witness—Terence told me frequently they were desirous
of paying this debt, and had made an offer of £5O per annum.
I asked him if Mrs. Southgate had signed the note, and he
replied, " I got the note from my brother." He did not say
he knew whether she had signed it or not. He expressed
no doubt as to the note being genuine. Witness would not
swear that Terence M'Lean said " Mr. Bigg
booby to go on with the proceedings, as Mrs. Southgate was
not aware she had signed the note;" or, "he was a great
fool for going to all these legal expenses, as 3lrs. Southgate
was not aware she had given such a note." was a great
Philip Brian Jones was managing common law clerk to
Mr. Digenham. He remeiaered the defence to the action

against Mrs. Southgate. He remembered the affidavit (pro-
duced) being made. [Witness refused to answer a question
put by Mr. Humphreys, on the ground that it was a privi-
leged communication that had been made by one of the de-
fendants.]

Mr. Humphreys insisted that ho was entitled to an
answer.

Witness would not admit that defendants were agents to
Mrs. Southgate; but any communication witness mayhave
had with them was as agent for Mrs. Southgate. Witness
could not swear positively that he had seen Mrs. Southgate
in reference to this action. He had often seen Mr. South-
gate.

The witness objected generally to answer many questions
put by Mr. Humphreys.

Mr. Martin said the witness's mouth was closed.

Mr. Wontner said, this case was very extraordinary, from
the manner in which it had been brought before the public.
He was quite sure there must be some hidden motive of
doing this just after the defendants had recovered from their
bankruptcy. The suit against Mrs. Southgate was stopped
by that lady's death, and it was not until September, 1858,
that any statements injurious to the defendants were
made. Why was it that these criminal proceed-
ings should not take place till this month (May);
The chance of recovering from the lady is now
very remote, as she was dead, and the criminal
screw was put on to get the money from the survivors. As
to the statement that Mrs. Southgate thought she was
signing a receipt why the note bore the stamp " Bill
Stamp, 35."
Alderman—Recollect she was bed-ridden.

Mr. Wontner observed that she might have been bed-
ridden and yet have been in possession of her mental facul-
ties, and his worship would remember that she must have
been very much better than the description given of her
by one of the witnesses, as she went to the south of France.
No one ever heard of such a conspiracy as this.
Alderman—Had it not been for this note plaintiff might
have proceeded before the bankruptcy.
Mr. WontnerThe periods are almost coeval. The wit-
nesses had to be very much prompted upon many points be-
fore material evidence had been elicited. Before committing
these defendants his worship must be convinced that the
deceased lady did not know she was signing a promissory
note.

Sir Peter Laurie, who came in, said he was sure the pre-
siding alderman had made up his mind, and ➢ir. Wontner
might talk for ever without effect.

Mr. Wontner was sure that such was not the case, and
insisted that on the face of tho evidence taken in this case
his worship would discharge the defendants, as the whole
matter might have been inquired into in the Bankruptcy
Court.

The Alderman said be should adjourn the case for deci-
sion till to-morrow, and after the evidence adduced he
should require the defendants to put in sureties for their
appearance.

The necessary sureties entered into the required bail, and
the very crowded court was cleared.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET

ROBBING, 'WITH VIOLENCE.—A STRANGE CASE.—Mar-
garet Keefe and Ann Askey, two dissipated •looking females,
were charged with stealing £.5 in gold and a quantity of
silver from Martha Best, servant to Mrs. Edwards, milliner,
of 4, Newington-causeway, under the following circum-
stances :

The prosecutrix said that on the previous morning, about
eight o'clock, while on her 'way to a county court to pay
some money for her mistress, she called in at a publichouse
near the end of Oxford-street to have some porter, and
there saw the two prisoners, who asked her to treat them
with something to drink, which request she complied with,
taking for the purpose a shilling from her mistress's money,
which she had tied up in the corner of her pocket handker-
chief for safety, and intending afterwards to replace
it. She shortly after left the house, the prisoners
following her, and just as she had got outside
the door Keefe gave her a violent blow in the face,
causing her to fall, and at the same time seizing the hand..
kerchief, in which was upwards of £5 in gold and silver,
and starting off with it, and before she (prosecutrix) could
follow her the other prisoner struck her another severe
blow and also made off. They left her witheut any money,
and she had, from fear of facing her mistress, not been
back since, and had been obliged to part with her shawl.
In answer to Mr. Bingham, the prosecutrix said the
prisoners were entire strangers to her, but they said they
were very badly off, and she treated them. She afterwards
saw the prisoner Askey on Seven-dials, and gave her into
custody, and the other prisoner was found by the police.
Mrs. Edwards, Best's sister, attended, and expressed a
wish that she might be detained, under the circumstances ;
but Mr. Bingham refused, and remanded the prisoners.

TIIIS DAY'S MARKETS.