The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-04 00:00:00

_MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—Oct. 3.

The Michaelmas General Quarter Sessions of the
Peace for the county of Middlesex commenced yes-
terday morning at the Guildhall, Westminster, be-
fore Mr. Bodkin, Assistant-Judge ; Mr. Payne, de-
puty ; and the following bench of magistrates :
Colonel Elsey, Mr, H. H. Harwood, Mr. Parbury,
Mr. Dunnington Fletcher, Mr. Charman, Mr Baylis,
Mr. Bashford, Mr. Cox, Mr. Hogarth, Mr. White,
Mr. Bird, and Mr. Arthur Ballantine.
The calendar contains the names of 45 prisoners,
42 charged with felony, and three with misdemeanor.
The learned Assistant-Judge, in his charge to the
grand jury, adverted in general terms to the state of
the calendar, and said there was a case which would
be brought before them to which lie thought it
would be right to call their particular attention,
but in consequence of the late delivery of the depo-
sitions, he was not altogether informed of the exact
circumstances. However, it seemed that a person
of the name of Peterson had been charged before a
magistrate with having disturbed, or been concerned
in disturbing, the service of two places of public
worship—a charge arising out of the lamentable
dissensions which for some time unfortanately had
prevailed in a parish in the eastern district of the
metropolis. The charge would probably be founded
upon a statute passed in the reign of William and
Mary, and generally known as the Toleration Act,
the 18th section of which provides " That if any
person or persons shall wilfully and of purpose ma-
liciously or contemptuously come into any cathedral
or parish church, chapel, or other congregation per-
mitted by this act, and disquiet or disturb the same,
or incense any preacher or teacher, such person or
persons, upon proof thereof before a justice of the
peace, by two or more sufficient witnesses, shall find
two sureties to be bound by recognisance in the
penal sum of £5O, and in default of such sureties
shall be committed to prison, there toremain till the
next General or Quarter Sessions, and upon con vie
tion of the said offence at the said General or Quar-
ter Sessions shall suffer the pain and penalty of
£2O, to the use of the king." Further provisions of
a similar character were made by a subsequent sta-
tute, 52 Geo. 111., c. 155, by which the penalty on
conviction was increased to £4O. Whether the in-
dictment or indictments which might be submitted
to their consideration were framed either upon the
one statute or the other, they would at once per-
ceive that their duty was so plain and simple that
he should hardly have conceived it necessary to ad-
vert to the matter at all did not every day's expe-
rience prove that the best amongst us are sometimes
drawn aside by prejudices, and especially in refer-
ence to subjects such as that out of which this pro-
secution arose. It was his duty to caution them
against any impression but that which was created
by the evidence laid before them, and if that evi-
deuce established a prima facie case against the
person accused, they ought not to hesitate in find-
ing a true bill, and so place the matter in a proper
train for further investigation. They all might la-
ment the want of some appropriate authority by
which the proceedings which have given rise to
these miserable dissensions might be regulated and
controlled, but it could not be permitted, in a coun-
try governed by law, that violent abuse or indecent
clamour should be heard in churches or places set
apart for the celebration of divine worship. If they
found that defendant, by whatever motives he had
been actuated, had so conducted himself as to have
maliciously or contemptuously disquieted or dis-
turbed the performance of divine worship on the oc-
casions to which the evidence applied, no private
opinion or feeling or prepossession whatever ought
for a moment to interfere with the impartial exer-
cise of their judgment, or prevent the vindication
of the law and the strict administration of justice,
one of the chief objects of which was to take care
that the peace of society should not be disturbed
with impunity.
The grand jury then retired to their room. The
traverse jury having been called, the court proceeded
to receive the jury lists from the constables of the
petty sessional divisions of the county. Complaint
was made in the course of the morning of the negli-
gence and imperfect manner in which the lists were
made out. The names of some persons who had
been dead for years were retained on the lists, as
also these of persons who years and years ago had
given notice that they were exempt by reason of
being over 60 years of age. Persons are summoned
who have left the premises for which they were
rated more than a year before the making up of
the list, and it was stated that it was a common
thing for the jury papers to be left at houses and
never applied for. The result of this is that on the
average, out of 80 jurors summoned, scarcely 60
are liable to serve, and that number is reduced by
excuses. The fault does not rest with the summon-
ing officer, who acts under the authority of the
sheriff. The names are taken from the list as
furnished by the overseers, but it should be borne
in mind that the lists are exposed on the church
doors, and all persons exempt should see that their
names are expunged.
John Laurence, alias Henry Williams, 48, was
indicted twice for stealing pewter pots from public-
houses.
lie pleaded guilty to the charges, and also to
having been convicted of the same sort of offence
on two former occasions.
The Assistant Judge said the prisoner, it was
evident, was a person who lived by this sort of
plunder, than which none could be more mischie-
vous. The sentence he felt it to be necessary to
pass might seem a severe one to some persons, but
it was the duty of the Court to protect licensed vic-
tuallers by making a severe example of those who
committed these offences. It was not the mere
value of the pots that was to be considered. Regu-
lar pot-stealers were in league with the makers of
counterfeit coin. The metal was used in the menu-
faetuie of bad money, which another portion of the
fraternity got into circulation, and thus the public
suffered and the loss principally fell upon the poor,
and thus a double fraud was practised. The sen-
tence upon the prisoner was three years' penal ser-
vitude.

Robert Nichols, seamani second mate, pleaded
guilty to an indictment for stealing £32, a watch,
and other articles, from a Chinaman, who went by
the name of John Sidney.
The prosecutor, an intelligent young Chinaman,
who spoke English fluently, was called into the
box, and it appeared, from answers to questions put
by the learned judge, that he was a ship's steward,
and had formed an acquaintance with the prisoner
at Sydney. He arrived in London on the 28th of
August, and fell in with the prisoner in St. Katha-
rine's Dock. The prisoner said he would take care
of him, and took him and his things to a lodging-
house. When he was paid off he had £36 17s. 6d.,
of which sum he put £32 in the savings bank. The
prisoner induced him to withdraw it, saying he
would place it in the hands of the Bishop of Lon-
don, who was a very good and kind man, and would
send it to him by remittances when he went back
to Australia again. The prisoner said he would
show him over London, and took him to places of
amusement—to Gravesend, Southend, and Sheer-
ness, all expenses being paid out of his (the China-
man's) money. At the last mentioned place he
abandoned him withont a penny, and having
got the key of his carpet-bag and chest,
he came up to London by the next train,
went to his lodgings, and by representing to
the landlady that the Chinaman had got a beauti
fal ship and wanted his things, got possession of
them all, and so left Chinaman destitute and penni-
less. The case was left in the hands of Hugh
Andrews 62 IT, -who traced the prisoner to No. 2,
Woodville-place, Gravesend, where in a box he
found money to the amount of £2l odd, and some
of the things which were in the chest when it was
taken, and the prosecutor's watch was found at a
pawnshop. The prisoner said the money found
there was not the prosecutor's though he at once
admitted the theft, but that it belonged to Catherine
Minchin, a young woman he was courting, who
lived in the same house at Gravesend, and who had
given it to him to take care of.

- The Chinaman said his money was in notes and
gold ; of the money found in the box £7 10s. was
in silver.

The Assistant-Judge said it was a most cruel
robbery, and he doubted whether he ought not to
sentence him to penal servitude.
The prisoner said he was very sorry, though that
waF small reparation ; but he was led away by
temptation. It was his first, so it would be his last
offence.

•
The Assistant-Judge sentenced him to hard la-
bour for a year, and ordered the money and articles
found to be given up to the Chinaman.
A young woman, deeply dressed in black, and
who seemed n.uch affected, applied to the court for
the money to be given up to her. She said her
narne was Catherine Minchin, arid the prisoner,
who ca ne home with one of her brothers from Ma-
nilla, paid his addresses to her, and they had agreed
to be married. Placing every confidence in the pri-
soner, and having no other friend to entrust, she
gaVe him this money to take care of. It was left
to,her by her mother, who died on the 17th of
August, and she placed it in his hands. as she did
not wish it to be known that she had it through
fear. She produced her mother's will, by which
everything was left to her, and if she was deprived
of this money she should be thrown penniless •on
the world.

The prisoner 'Said this was perfectly true. It
was the girl's money, and he would not touch it.
The policeman said it was found in the China-
man's box, and the applicant's mother had been re-
ceiving parish relief.
Applicant—Not for three years, and this was
what she had saved up. When the prisoner brought
the Chinaman's box he put my money in it for

safety. I never dreamt of such a thing that he
could rob.

The Assistant-Judge—Well, but what has be,
come of the Chinaman's money ? How was that
got rid of?

Prisoner—lt all went, my lord, in wanton ex-
travagance.
The Assistant-Judge said, under these circum
stances he should direct the money to be retained
by the police, and leave the young woman to bring
her action in the County Court to try the question
of right, and she had better have the advice of some
respectable solicitor.

Two tall, powerful men, named Collins and Fos-
ter, were indicted for having committed an assault
upon police-constable 151 K. This perhaps was
one of the very worst cases of assaulting a police-
man that ever came before the court. The prisoner
Foster was inciting Collins and another man to
fight, when the prosecutor, at the request of
the landlord, went into the house, but was advised
by him not to interfere alone, as they were such
desperate roughs that murder might be the result.
Another policeman came up, and they asked them
to be quiet and go away. Foster gave the prosecu-
tor a knock down blow, and while he was prostrate
gave him three kicks—one in the eye, which it
greatly disfigured, and two under the ear, from the
effects of which the blood oozed out of his eyes, ears,
and nostrils. The other prisoner also struck the
constables. They were found guilty, and the learned
judge sentenced Foster to two years hard labour
and Collins to one year.
George Spires, 21, journeyman baker, was in-
dicted for embezzling monies received by him for
and on account of John Cuok, his master. The jury
found him guilty, and it was then proved that he
had been convicted of a like offence with a former
employer, although he got this situation with a
" good" character. Sentenced to three years penal
servitude.

Ribton was for the prosecution.
'l'l►e Assistant Judge said the 31st instant had
been fixed fcr hearing the rate appeals standing
over, and Mr. Phipson would sit for him, and take
those cases which he (the Assistant Judge) had
been engaged in as counsel,
(Before Mr. Payne.)
Adolphe Bouin, 40, upholsterer, was indicted for
stealing a purse and other articles, value £3, the
properly of Robert Vigny.
Both parties in this case were Frenchmen, and
the evidence was communicated through M. Albert,
the interpreter.

It appeared that the prosecutor is a lodging-
houe keeper, residing in Rupert-street, and on the
12th of September he engaged the prisoner to make
up two mattresses for him. When he finished his
work he paid him Gs. and he went away. On the
Thursday following, the 15th of September, the pro-
secutor went into te room on the third floor where
the prisoners had been at work, and from a tin
box in the room, which had been forced open, he
missed a purse, twelve yaids of lace, a book and
some pictures, which were all safe in it before the
prisoner came. On Saturday night he met the pri-
soner at a public-house, and gave him into custody on
the charge. It further transpired that about half-
past six on the evening the prisoner had been at
work for Mr. Vigny he met a young woman named
Margaret Moske, to whom he presented a purse,
which the prosecutor recognised as his property.
The prisoner before the magistrate said he had had
the purse in his possession six months, and that he
had purchased it of a person in Crown-court, near
where he lived. Accordingly the magistrate
ordered a constable and M. Albert, the interpreter,
to accompany the prisoner to the place he stated,
and if he could do so make him point out the per-
son from whom he purchased the purse. They
accordingly went, and the prisoner pointed to a
man who was standing at the door of a broker's
shop, and said he was the man from whom he
bought it. The man said he knew the prisoner,
but denied that he had ever sold him a purse, or ho
should most certainly have remembered it. The
prisoner, in broken English, reiterated that he had
sold him the purse; and that he had given eighteen-
pence for it, which the broker denied. The pri-
soner afterwards said that he had picked up the
purse in the bedroom, put it in his pocket, and had
forgotten all about it.

Two witnesses were called on behalf of the pri-
soner, each stating that they had known him for
about three years, and during that time he had al-
ways borne a good character for honesty.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recom-
mended him to mercy, on account of his previous
good character.
Mr. Payne said but for the recommendation of
the jury he should have passed a heavy sentence.
He was sentenced to six months' hard labour.