The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-09 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—June 8.

CLERKEN WELL. THE DEFALCATIONS AT
ISLINGTON.—Ebenezer Ward. aged 40, late a col-
lector for the parish of Islington, residing at
Alwyne-road, Canonbury, was charged, on remand,
before Mr. Tyrwhitt, charged with feloniously em-
bezzling the sum of £707 14s. 11d., received b
him for and on account of the vestry of the parish
of St. Mary, Islington, his masters, &c.
Mr. Layton, vestry clerk, attended for the prose-
cution,and Mr. Depree for the defence.
Mr. Depree asked for an adjournment, and he
said he understood that the other side had no ob-
jection. He also trusted that the amount of bail
might be reduced.
Mr. Layton would leave the matter in the hands
of the Court. He might state that the amount of
the prisoner's defalcations, beyond the bond, would
be about £4OO. He was sure that the prisoner was
not the sort of man to run away.
Mr. Tyrwhitt would reduce fhe amount of bail
from two sureties in the sum of £5OO each, and the
prisoner himself in £l,OOO to two sureties in ,E 2,50
each, and the prisoner in £5OO.

The prisoner was then removed.
EXTENSIVE ROBBERY OF VALUABLE LINEN.—
Catherin e Williams, aged 32, a dirty-looking woman,
described as a charwoman of no home, was placed
at the bar before Mr. Corrie, charged with stealing
a quantity of linen, of the value of Rl5, the pro-
perty of Mr. L. Crowley, of St. john's-park, Hollo-
way.
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. W. Garrett,
the landlord of the Mulberry-tree Tavern, Upper
Holloway, that on Monday, about 12 o'clock, the
prisoner came to his house and left a large bundle
of linen, stating that she would call for it in half
an hour. She, however, did not call for it until
yesterday, when, from her manner, Mr. Garrett's
suspicions were aroused, and he watched her some
distance, when he saw her take a sheet from the
bundle and tear what he supposed was the name
pff. She then took .the bundle to a baker's, where
she left it, and the sheet off which she had torn the
name she took to a pawnbroker's and offered it in
pledge, but Mr. Garrett having communicated with
the pawnbroker, the pledge was refused. The pri-
soner then left and went to fetch the bundle, which
was previously stopped by Mr. Garrett, when
Asplen. 444 S, was called and the prisoner was
given into custody. The prisoner obtained posses-
sion of the clothes by representing that she had
been sent for them by the laundress.
Sergeant Aylett, 15 S, having taken the charge,
made inquiries and ascertained from whence the
clothes had been obtained. The prisoner it was
stated had previously washed for the person whom
she alleged had gent her for the clothes.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and wished the
magistrate to deal with the case at once.
Mr. Corrie said great praise was due toill,lr.
Garrett for the trouble he had taken in the mffter.
He then sentenced the prisoner to four calendar
months' hard labour in the House of Correction.

LAMBETH.—CITARGE OF CONSPIRACY.—John
Nichol Wafters, alias Doctor Wafters, and Claude
Edwards, were placed before the Hon. G. C. Norton
on a charge of conspiring with another person, not
in custody, to defraud Mr. Thomas Jones of one
guinea.

Ely-place,thessie g th
oaa attended
the charge
- Mr. G. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis and Lewis,
magistrate,
ato for,
he prosecution,
appeared
to and,a d
support-
oeafinst the prisoners, as entered in the
in custody, in eonspiring with another person, not
police shet,
defrauding his client of 21s. ; but as
the accusedparties were without professional as-
sistance, while
charge had not theybeen mh needed it, and as the
taken until after two o'clock
on that day, it was not hiseean(stNelerth.
aLnewtitsa'ts)ofinptelonotiinoon
to proceed further iisiutffilicei
was the person before his worship vidence to justify a
remand. One of the prisoners,he should be able
e homeshort calling himself
show,whos
a ntimeh. since had
become so familiar to the public b
with the notorious
D distinctly
i- . lV a tt ctros ,
quacks, the Beynneitst:onnection
who,and the
Ear Infirmary in Spring-gardens, and
mistook not, was wanted at some other place, iff he
whence he managul to escape from justice. from
other prisoner, who gave the name of Edwards,wase
also one of the Spring-gardens gang, and from' th
documents found at their residence, and their cone
duct in the transactions with his client, he (Mr
Lewis) had no doubt of ultimately establishing a
clear case of conspiracy and fraud against both, and
also a third party, not yet in custody.
The prosecutor, Alr, Thomas Jones, was here
sworn, itnd deposed that he was a retired trades-
man, and resided at No. 75, Mount-street, Grosve-
I nor-square, that he was much afflicted with deaf-

ness and noises in his head, and that in consequence
of the printed circular produced, being given to him
by an acquaintance, he, on the 11th or 12th of last
month, went to the house No. 28, Mount-gardens,
Westminster-road, from whence the circular was
addressed. He then saw a young man, who subse-
quently said his name was Allen ; and on his
describing the nature of his complaint, he said he
was assistant to Dr. Watters, that he had attended
a thousand such cases forthe doctor, and cured all,
and that in his (witness's) case he should effect a
perfect cure in a week. He then gave him three
bottles of "stuff," andthe slovenly manner in which
they were made up, as well as the careless manner
in which the directions for use were gives, led him
first to suspect all was not right.
Mr. Norton—How were you to ue the stuff, as
you call it ? _

- Witness—l was to syringe the back of my head,
neck, and ears with it; but it was nasty stuff,
though he wanted me to pay a guinea for it, but I
refused to give him more than 55., which he took.
I called again on the 25th of May, when I saw the
younger prisoner, Edwards, who represented him-
self to be Dr. Waters, and I consulted him on the
nature of my complaint. He gave me three more
bottles of stuff, for which he charged me 16s. I
paid a third visit to the house to-day, when I saw
Dr. Watters (the elder prisoner) for the first time,
and after asking me the nature of my complaint,
examined my ears, and was about to syringe them,
when I said I preferred doing so myself.
Mr. Norton—Well, what took place after that ?
Witness—They gave me this large bottle of stuff,
which they wanted me to pay for, but I refused to
do so, observing that the undertaking in the first
instance was to cure me in a week for a guinea, and
that sum I had already paid. The officer then
came in, and I gave both pris'oners into his charge
for defrauding me.
Mr. Norton—Has any of . this medicine, or, stuff
as the prosecutor calls it, been analysed ?
Mr. Jones—No, your worship, I have not had
time to get it done.
Dr. Watters—The medicine is right enough, and
I am properly qualified to dispense it.
Mr. Norton—When the prosecutor made an ap-
plication to me, he represented the stuff to be prin-
I cipally urine.
Dr. Watters—Yes, that was the stuff dispensed
at Spring-gardens by the Bennetts, but my little
concern was always opposed to them, and the whole
of this is the result of a conspiracy against me,
because I opposed and exposed them as a gross con-
spiracy against me.
Mr. Lewis—Well, if such be the fact, you will
have ample opportunity of proving it, and having
justice done to you.
Inspector Young, of the L division of police, said
he accompanied the prosecutor to the house, 28,
Mount-gardens, Lambeth, on the door of which
was the name f " Locock," on a brass plate. Mr.
Jones went in, and in a short time came out and
beckoned to him, when he accompanied him into
the house, and received the prisoner in custody on
the charges before mentioned. He asked Edwards
howle came to sign the two papers he produced as
Dr. Waters, but he refused to give any explanation,
when Dr. Wafters said, " Whatevr he has done he
has done under my directions." There was a num-
ber of printed bills, such as those circulated by
quack doctors, about the place, and amongst them
was a printed circular, such as that given to the
prosecutor in-the first instance, and which led to his
going to the house of the prisoner.
In reply to the questions of the magistrate, Mr.
Young said that the prisoners took possession ofthe
house in Mount-gardens about the time they had
been rooted from Spring-gardens; and he had no
doubt, when sufficient time was given to him to
examine the various documents found in the house
of the prisoners, he should be able to supply other
and more important evidence against them.
The prisoner Wafters again complained of not
having been fairly treated ; said he did not consider
it any offence to put a name on a door for advertising
purposes : that he had his diploma from the Apo-
thecaries' Hall on the 30th January, 1830, and also
his diploma from the Royal College of Surgeons on
the 31st March, 1843, and was therefore amply
qualified to dispense medicine.
Mr. Norton was of opinion that the case was one
which required fuller investigation, and in order to
afford time'to make the requisite inquiries he must
remand the prisoners, However, he had no objection
to accept good bail for their appearance on a future
day, and if Dr. Watters, as he called himself, was
the respectable person he represented himself to be
he could have no difficulty in finding the necessary
sureties.

Mr. Lewis said he had no objection whatever to
good bail, and thd prisoners were remanded.

WESTMINSTER.—AFFILIATION DITRAORDI-
NARY.-Mr. Robert Freer, a clerk in the Customs,
appeared to a summons, to show cause why he
should not be adjudged the father of a bastard child,
to which Miss Mary Bullmore, understood to be
the daughter of a medical gentleman at Truro, had
given birth.
Mr. Smythe, from the office of Mr. De la Mere,
solicitor, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Lewis,
jun., the defence.
Complainant, a fashionably attired, but rather
plain-looking woman, about 30 years of age, said
she lived at 124, Tachbrook-street. In August last
she lived at 122, under the name of Baring, as a
widow. Defendant was in the habit of coming there
to visit a relation. The intimacy which gave rise
to the birth of the child, which was born on the
10th ult. commenced in August, and continued up
to the 14th of December ; and on the defendant's,
return from Boulogne in September she told him
she thought she was enciente.
Cross-examined—Had had a child before, which
was two years and three months old. Was kept up
to the present time by a gentleman named Williams;
he was a man of some station, and she had lived
with him from 1853 to 1857 without having a child.
He did not know of the birth of the last child to
her knowledge. Gentlemen had visited her lodg-
ings, among whom was a person named " Ned, '
about 18 or 20 ; he had been in her bed room seve-
ral times playing with her baby, he was very poor,
and sometimes she would give him food. Knew a
man named Raymond ; he came to see her sister, to
whom he was engaged, and was so still, she be-
lieved ; he had not seen complainant since the 22d
of July ;he had been in her bed room once. Knew
a person named Kitto, but lie had never been in
her bed room. Defendant's four brothers had seen
her; they had never been in her bed room. Knew
defendant first in August ; was intimate with him
on his second visit to her in the house she was
living at. Her sister waited outside for her
while she was intimate with defendant. Her
sister did not live with her till September.
Had been to Cremorne with defendant ; that
was in October. He promised to marry her, and
she told her " pa" so, when she acquainted him
with the fact of her being enciente.

Re•examined—He promised to marry her in
August. Having ascertained she had some pro-
perty and money he made that promise; but after
he found he could not touch anything belonging to
her he said he would not marry her.
By Mr. Paynter—The first time she saw defen-
dant he asked her whether she was open to an offer
of marriage; she made no reply, and the second
time he saw her he said he would marry her. He
knew she had a child by Mr. Williams.
By Mr. Smythe.—Had not seen Mr. Williams
for 15 or 18 months.

By Mr. Paynter—Had known Mr. Williams
from her infancy; he was a man of some standing,
and lived next door to her " pa's" house at Truro.
Mr. Lewis here read a letter from complainant,
addressed to the defendant on the 14th December,
in which occurred these words " Have I not
struggled hard and long to prevent the gratifica-
tion of your depraved propensities ?"
Mr. Pay'iter wished to know how she reconciled
these words with the testimony she now gave that
she had unresistingly been intimate with the de-
fendant the second time she saw him.

Complainant could make no reply.
Mr. Lewis then read another letter, which, like
the former one, said not a word about a broach of
promise, but complained that defendant had been
very cross aboZt her knowing two gentlemen whose
names she would not mention.

Mrs; Mary Ann Davis, 122, Tachbrook-street,
said that about July defendant came to her house
to see his grandmother, and frequently
.afterwards
to take tea and supper with complainant, who
seemed to be on excellent terms with the defendant,
and there was every' appearance that the affair
would end in matrimony.
Cross-examined—Miss Bullmore was intimate
with the lodgers in the house, and was in the habit
of entertaining them with tea and supper. She had
seen Mr. Raymond there frequently. " Ned" was
18 last March or April. An elderly man about 70
came to see complainant ; she had formerly lodged
with him witness believed. Two persons, father and
son, named Ditto, had also visited her. Mr. Wil-
liams, an elderly gentleman, who was the father of
her first child, c one to see complainant about May,
1858. Complainant came to lodge with witness on
April 5, 1858, and Mr. Williams came and gave
her money for the doctor's bill about six weeks after
she came to live there.

By Mr. Poynter—Complainant's sister, Miss
Caroline Bullmore, was living with her about
August. She slept in the same bed with her. The
person whom they all called " Ned" nursed corn-
plainant'o: child, which would cry if he were not
near it.
Mary Metcalfe said she had lived as servant with
Mrs. Davis, at 122, Tachbrook-street, in October
last. Once she heard complainant and defendant
in couveysatioh. She was crying, and said, " Will

you ?" to which he-replied, " Yes, I will marry you."
Cross-examined—Defendant was quite deaf, and
could not hear a word complainant said to him.
This being the case for the prosecution,
Mr. Lewis, after commenting at great length
upon the facts of the case, urged that complainant
was an instance of the infidelity of some women, as
whilst enjoying a most liberal and generous allow-
ance from Mr. Williams, for whom, at a sufficient
age to know right from wrong, she had left a good
home, and with whom she had been cohabiting for
some years, she had conducted herself with great
profligacy to every one who came in her way. She
had sworn most positively that she had not been
on friendly terms with Mr. Williams for 15 or 18
months, whereas, on the other hand, Mrs. Davis,
who had apparently given her evidence in a truth-
ful manner, said that Mr. Williams gave complainant
money for her doctor, about May or June ; there-
fore, there was nothing to show that Mr. Williams
was not the father of the second child. He then
called

Defendant, who is completely deaf, and whose
examination was conducted in writing. He said
that on his return from lea7e, in October last, he
wrote to the complainant, whom he had seen when
he went on one occasion to visit his grandmother.,
She replied to his letter that her sister was living
and sleeping with her, and therefore she could not
see him yet. The first intimacy took place returning
from Cremorne, in October. He had never promised
her marriage. It was not likely he would disgrace
his family by marrying a kept person with a bastard
child.

Cross-examined—Remembered that the first in-
timacy took place in October, because, he had just
returned from leave of absence. Saw complainant
in August, but not alone.
Mr. Poynter said after the liberal treatment of
Williams towards complainant, it was not reason-
able to suppose that if this child was his she would
avow her infidelity to him by attempting to swear
it to another man. He could not place reliance upon
the testimony of complainant ; and, looking at the
whole of the circumstances of the case, he gave cre-
dence to the evidence of defendant, which was in
part confirmed by the expression made use of in
complainant's letter—that she had struggled long
to resist his passion—and he sould accordingly dis-
miss the summons.

GREENWICH.— -PRIESTLY INTOLERANCE.—
After the disposal of the usual night charges, a
respectably. dressed young woman, who gave the
name of Frances Mary Thorpe, applied to th sitting
magistrate under the following circumstances :
The applicant stated she had been recommended
to apply to that court for a letter which would ad-
mit her to the benefits of the Hospital for Consump-
tion at Brompton, she being unable to get a letter
she had received from another source renewed after
the time for which it was granted had expired.
Mr. Boustred (the chief clerk)—For what reason
are you unable to get your former letter renewed ?
The Applicant—lt was a letter given to me by a
Roman Catholic priest at Brompton, who asked me
at that time no questions as to my religious princi-
ples ; but when I went to him to get it renewed, he
asked me of what religion I was. I told him I was
a Protestant, and he then told me if I thought the
Protestant religion the true religion, which he said
it was not, he could not renew my ticket. I have
been brought up a Protestant, and not thinking it
right to change my religion, I came away without
the letter.

Mr. Traill—And who was the Christian man who
told you this ? _

Applicant—lt was one of the Fathers at Brompton.
Mr. Boustred having taken the name and address
of the applicant,
Mr. Train directed a letter for the hospital to be
given to her, part of the funds contributed during
the year for the poor-box being applied to the pro-
curing of tickets for the treatment of patients at the
above invaluable institution.
Applicant, having thanked his worship, left the
court.

WANDSWORTH.—THE FISH IN THE THAMES.
—A boy named William Lawrence appeared before
Mr. Ingham, to answer a summons charging him
with unlawfully using a hoop-net in a certain back-
water, called the River Wandle, for the purpose of
stopping and catching fish from going into the
Thames.
The defendant pleaded guilty. The net was pro-
duced, and from its size it was calculated to catch a
large quantity of fish. The net consisted of a long
pole and iron hoop, to which the net was fastened.
Mr. Farnell, the secretary of the Thames Angling
Prevention Society, attended to prosecute.
George Howard, one of the water bailiffs, deposed
that between nine and ten o'clock on the morning
of Thursday, the 26th ult., he saw the defendant
with his net down in the Wandle near Mr. Wat-
ney's mill. There was a small roach and another
fish in the net, but as he drew it out they fell into
the water.

Mr. Ingham asked if the fish would have any
chance of living if they got into the Thames ?
The witness replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Ingham, with surprise, again inquired if the
fish in the Thames at that point were not all
poisoned.
Mr. Taylor, the chief clerk, said there were no
steamboats now to wash up the filth to poison the
fish.

The witness said there were a few dace " turned
up" a few days ago.
Mr. Ingham wished to be informed of the mean-
ing of " turned up."
The witness said they were poisoned with the
" stuff " washed out of the drains during the late
heavy storms.
Mr. Ingham said he was aware that the River
Wandle used to be a celebrated place for fish, but
he wished to know whether upon their getting out-
side into that horrid puddle they were not imme-
diately poisoned. , Could the fish be preseeved in
tha Thames at that point ?
Mr. Parnell said he thought they could. The
fishing this year was very good, and he expected
an excellent season. There were no steamboats,
and he understood the authorities were about to
remove all the swans, as they destroyed a good
deal of spawn.
The defendant, in answer to the summons, said
he did not know he was doing wrong. He was
only fishing for " tittle-bats."
Mr. Ingham said if the Thames was a pure limpid
stream, then he should have looked upon the case as
a very serious one, but in its present state it was
another thing. However, the defendant must not
be allowed to break the law, and he therefore
should fine him 55., and 2s. costs, with a recom-
mendation to fish ituture with a rod and line, and
not with a net of that description.
Mr. Farnell said the rod and line fishing was
allowed after the Ist of June. •

Upon the application of Mr. Farnell the net was
confiscated.

TERRIFIC THUNDERSTORM.

On Monday night one of the most terrific thun-
derstorms ever known in the neighbourhood broke
over Bradford. The day throughout had been
sultry, and about five o'clock the thunder began to
growl, and continued till six, when the sky assumed
a copper hue, the rain fell in heavy, continuous,
plashing torrents, mingled with hail, many of the
balls being little short of half an inch in diameter,
which did no slight damage to exposed glass in the
neighbourhood. The thunder not only continued
to roll over the town intensely loud, but for nearly
one hour and a half the peals were almost inter-
mitting ; and yet, amid the heaviest rush of rain
and hail, the sun shone out with singular brilliancy,
as if hiding in fact amid the storm between the
clouds and the earth, and diffusing a strange and
unnatural glare through all. At the same time, it
was felt certain that if the rain, which resembled
more the bursting upon the town of a succession of
waterspouts than anything else, continued long,
the lower parts of the. town would be inundated,
and this was actually the case. All the streets,
especially those having an incline towards the cen-
tre of the town, became as it were the channels of
rivers, pouring rapidly along, at some places plough-
ing up the road, and pouring into not a few cellar
dwellings of the poor. In Well-street, and opposite
the Bowling-green, and through Millbank, and the
whole of that locality, it was perhaps deepest,
washing the bottoms a the cabs which were driven
through it, and 1-caching the bottoms of carriers'
waggons. But from Leeds-road, through all the
streets striking off from Peel-place, and for the
whole length of Market-street, the flood rose with
fearful rapidity, and poured into the cellars of
shops of both grocers and others, and into many of
the shops themselves on a level with the street or
with a step down. One or two persons narrowly
..
escaped from accidentally plunging headlong into
the flood in their endeavours to find a passage
along Well-street. The destruction and damage to
property
will be immense, as many manufacturers'
piece-
looms, and cellars of warehouses were flooded,
and many of their owners not in the town to fescue
them. So far, we have heard of no damage to life
by the electric fluid. It was only last summer that
a similar flood swept down, with similar rapidity,
doing much damage. For the present it has ceased
here, and seems to have rolled off in the vicinity of
Leeds. 8.35 p.m.—At present the Lancashire and
Yorkshire Railway, which, though lying high, was
flooded for some length along the line,
is yet far
from being clear.—M aiichester Examiner.

---
The late William Fagan, Esq., M.P. for Cork, has
left an estate of £2,000 a-year, and £51,000, to his second
son. His eldest son is attached to a convent on the Conti-
nent. He did not leaVe any bequests to the clergy of Cork,
as expected,