The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1835.

He said it had been surveyed, and was found competent to
sustain that number. —.--.-
Sir PETER LAURIE thought that before-licenses were
granted to new houses, care should be taken that the per-
formances were not delayed beyond midnight, a practice
destructive to the morals of youth, and injurious to health.
He held in his hand a German play-bill, which statedthat
the theatre opened at seven and closed at nine. • "1"--"'s
On the question being put the application was ,rejected.
Mr. BALLANTINE moved, in consequence of the lateness
of the hour (near six o'clock), and the number of applica-
tions still remaining, that the Court adjourn till to-morrow,
at ten o'clock. The question of adjournment was carried.

LONDON ADJOURNED /SESSIONS.

ASSAULT ON THE POLlCE.—Joseph .1111Kenzie was in-
dicted for assaulting John Carlile and Charles Goode, po-
licemen of the city of London, when in• the execution of
their duty, on the 23d of September last.
The prisoner was convicted, and sentenced to be kept to
hard labour in the House of Correction for one year.
Francis Edwards, George Barnett, William Chaplin,
and Thomas Rawbone were indicted for assaulting George
Wilmot on the 14th of September last.
Mr. DOANE stated the case for the proseCution.
George Wilmot is a broker, and on the 14th of Septem-
ber last in that capacity received a warrant to distrain on
the goods of Mr. Edwards, one of the defendants.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS (for the defence)—Yes, it was a Mid-
dlesex warrant, and you put it in execution in the city of
Londqn.
Thi witness proceeded to state that he went to Mr. Ed-
wards's shop, in Newgate-street, and asked him for 2/. rent
due to Mr. Appleton. I told him I had a warrant of dis-
tress for 21., but he said he would not pay me. I said I
should distrain, and he said, "If you touch anything I'll
knock you down." There was a van-load of goods at the
door, and I laid my hands on a box, and said, I seize this
in the name of Mr. Appleton for the sum of 21." Edwards
then struck me in the face, and my coat and waistcoat were
torn. Barnett took hold of my leg, and I was thrown
down in a minute after Edwards had struck me. Barnett
kicked me seriously when I was down. Rawbone and
Chaplin did not do anything until they assisted in throwing
me into the street, after which I went in again.
RECORDER—You had no.business to go in.
Witness—l had a right. I had a warrant.
RECORDER—Mr. Doane, you have not shown that there
was any right to seize these goods. It by no means as-
pears that the goods were removed by fraud.
Mr. Doane—My Lord, I saw the difficulty at first ; but
I do not rely upon the validity of the warrant. The ques-
tion is as to the assault.
RECORDER—The question is whether it was a warrant.
Mr. Doane—Putting the warrant out of the question,
the goods were fraudulently and clandestinely carried away,
within the meaning of the statute, and sufficient was not left
to pay the rent.
The RECORDER, on referring to the Act, said, that in
cases where a house was broken the landlord must call in
the aid of a constable or headborougb ; and in ordinary cases
goods fraudulently or clandestinely removed might be fol-
lowed for thirty days to any part of England and the town
of Berwick-upon-Tweed. The question, therefore, was,
whether they could not be followed into the city of Lon-
don ; but it must be clearly proved that the goods were
fraudulently and clandestinely removed, and no such fact
had been proved.
Mr. PlituArs addressed the Jury on behalf of the de.
fendants. ,
The RECORDER summed up the case at considerable
length, as he viewed it as one of great public importance.
With regard to the distress warrant, a question had ariseir
as to Whether it had been legally executed. Supposing
that the warrant were a good one, then if the property were
not fraudulently and clandestinely removed, Wilmot, the
prosecutor, was yet a trespasser. At the same time the law
did not allow a man to commit unnecessary violence in re-
moving such a person from his premises. The question for
the Jury to consider, was whether the defendants, or any
of them, had committed any excess in removing this man
from the premises of which the defendant Edwards was the
proprietor, or whether more violence had been used than
the law permitted. This, rather than the validity of the
warrant, was the question of which the Jury was to judge.
The Jury consulted for nearly half an hour, during which
they- put several questions to the Bench, and at length, re-
quested leave to retire, as they were not all agreed.
After being absent from the Court forty minutes, they
returned with a verdict of Acquittal in favour of all the
defendants.
The case excited intense interest throughout.

it was:decided that the divorce was not legal, and Lolly
was transported. Again, while Lord Brougham; was
Chancellor he held that the Courts of Denmark could
not dissolve an English marriage ; and, again, in 1832, in
the matter of Colway and Beasley, Dr. Lushington decided
that an English marriage could not be declared void by a
foreign Court. Mr. Laing, upon perusing these and other
similar decisions, yielded to the solicitation of Mr. Barber
to have the prisoner committed to the Old Bailey on the
charge of bigamy, when the question could be finally settled
by the Judges. Yesterday he underwent his final exami-
nation on that suit.
Mr. Flower, of the firm of Alderman Harmer and
Co., attended for the prosecution. The Office was ex-
cessively crowded.
The marriage of the prisoner to Miss Donovan was
proved by Mr. Mills, an accountant, at Dartmouth. It
took place on the 19th of March, 1826. The defendant
became acquainted with her by calling at her father's house
(an Hotel in Dartmouth, as before stated) to see a Portu-
guese General, who had just arrived from the Brazils.
Miss Donovan, being a very accomplished lady, under-
standing the French, and other languages, was called upon
to interpret the necessaries required by the General and
the defendant, neither of them being able to speak a word
of English, to a servant of the establishment. An intimacy
thus sprung, up between Miss Donovan and the prisoner,
which finally led to her marriage. After this Mr. Dono-
van fitted the prisoner and his wife to Brazil, at a consi-
derable expense, and afterwards purchased an estate for
them in Sweden for 1,3001., which at the end of two years
and a half he found going so rapidly into decay, that
he was necessitated to sell it again, and take the defendant
and his wife under his care.. Mr. Donovan, who attended
the disposal of the property in Sweden, afterwards, on his
arrival in England, furnished the prisoner with the means
of obtaining a livelihood ; but, notwithstanding this, he
(Mr. Donovan), in 1831, was obliged to open his doors to
Mrs. De Bruce and her three children, who from that time
heard no tidings of her husband, until he cited her by pro-
cess from the Swedish Ecclesiastical Court at Stockholm,
for the restitution of conjugal'rights. She did not answer
the citation, he having neglected to provide her with the
means to do so, it being a great distance, and a divorce as
prayed by the prisoner was granted.
The marriage of Miss Barber was proved to have been
solemnized with the prisoner on the 17th of last month at
St. Clement Danes.
The prisoner having heard the evidence, was told by
Mr. LAIN.. he was fully committed for trial.
Prisoner shook his head.

QUEEN-SQUARE.
Yesterday Richard Nedash, a young man well known to
the police, was brought up in custody, charged with passing
counterfeit coin at the shop of Mr. Whisson, wine vaults,
of the Broadway, Westminster.
The prisoner was remanded for further examination, as
other cases will be brought aga;nst him, and for the attend-
ance of Mr. Powell, Solicitor to the Mint.