The Sun.
London, England, 1861-09-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 27, 1861.

tacking force to change the direction of their rout
which was very cleverly done upon the central point
of the first line, the right being thrown forward.
The second brigade then advanced a few paces and
deployed, thus relieving the third, who had hitherto
borne the brunt of the mimic battle. The third in
a very orderly manner retired by fours to the rear.
Line was soon afterwards formed, and the officers
took post in review order. The bugle next sounded
the " Advance" in quick time to a general salute, a
movement which was splendidly performed, and
which astonished all who could appreciate the dif-
ficulty of performing it with anything like precision.
The reviewing officer then expressed his infinite
satisfaction at what he had witnessed, and the re-
view terminated.

SHOTDEFLECTION v. SHOT-RES7S-

TANCE.

" As to the mode of construction of which they had heard
as the sloping sides, that form had been carefully tried, both
as to the power of the guns and the quality of the metal.
He had yesterday an opportunity of seeing some expert-
ments made, and had gone carefully over the results with,
the persons who had conducted those experiments, and he'
must say, as to the sloping sides, that they did not appear
to have any great advantage against Armstrong guns."—
Speech of the Duke of Somerset.

in which, however, it is now to be hoped that by
the impulse given by these two meritorious gentle-
men the forms of future Warriors will exhibit a
higher appreciation than hitherto of the value of
shot-deflection. _

May I trespass these few lines further in order to
support the favourable view expressed by your cor-
respondent of the merits of the 1Z- inch iron strips
by which Mr. Jones so effectually supported the
jcint edges of his plates ? Throughout the trials on
the Trusty every shot striking within 6 inches of
an sage seriously fractured the plate in the direction
of that edge; and, in like manner, the 6th and 10th
shots on the 18th inst., which fell within a few
inches of the unsupported edges of a 41 inch plate,
broke away pieces 18 inches in diameter and 24
inches by 17 in the two cases respectively ; whereas
no less than six shots struck on the supported edges
of both thick and thin plates on the two days in no
case producing more injury than when striking a
centre. Even when three shot fell on the same spot
of the same edge on the 21st ult., removing a portion
of the plate itself, the strip beneath it was only bent
and cracked.

On the other hand, Mr. Jones has confirmed that
entire failure of armour-plate fastening by screws
which had been so signally exhibited before in a re-
cent Shoebury experiment. The 10th shot on the
21st ult. struck a screw head fair without injury,
but the same shot broke two other distant screws
of the same plate, and one of those in the next
plate to it, thus showing the inability of these fast-
enings to withstand a transverse strain or jar. As
in the Shoebury experiments, the two plates de-
tached on the 18th inst. fell because all their screws
broke about the first thread, the diameter being 17,
inch. That the side of the ship proper represented
by Mr. Jones's target should be as perfect at this
moment as when first made—except a slight pro-
jection of one of the backing bolts—after sustaining
67 shots from the heaviest known rifled and smooth
bored ordnance, stands as a great fact in the great
strife of armour versus guns, notwithstanding the
replacing of the plates this year, and suggests that
flatheaded shot only will be at all effective against
well studied forms for deflection. Even if the boasted
300-pounder should ever become a practical reality
will it be more successful in penetrating a side of
angled or curvilinear form than the 100-pounder
was against the vertical plates on the 18th inst.,
when two Tin. diameters were separated by only lin.,
with only the above slight effect on a backing bolt?
Apologising for the length of this communication
by the hope that its contents may be publicly use-
ful, I beg to remain your obedient servant,
E. P. HALSTED, Captain R.N.

POLICE IN7ELLIG EN CE, crept. 26.

BOW-STREET.—Edm-ond Wm. Pullen, aged
19, was brought up for further examination,
charged with stealing nearly 1,500 letters, several
of them containing bills and notes to a large
amount, at the General Post-office.

Mr. Peacock, solicitor, conducted the prosecution.
A solicitor's clerk, who said he knew the prisoner
personally, stated that he was authorised to defend
the prisoner.
William T. Riches, clerk to Messrs. Harvey and
Co., bankers, of Thetford, deposed that on the 12th
of September he made np a remittance, by direction
of his employers, for their town agents, Messrs.
Hankey and Co., the amount being £253 10s. in
one bill, and sundry bank-notes, including the two
notes now produced by Smee, the Post-office con-
stable. He enclosed them in an envelope, addressed
to "Messrs. Ilankey and Co., London, ' the address
being printed. He also placed in the same envelope
a printed form, filled up with the particulars of the
remittance, and sealed the envelope with wax. He
posted the letter the same evening, at about 9 or
half-past 9 o'clock, and had not seen it since.
William H. Miller, a clerk at Messrs. Hankey's
bank, in Fenchurch-street, deposed that the letter
and remittance did not come to hand.
Cross-examined—lt could not have been taken
in by any other clerk. Arthur Huggins, letter-
carrier on the Fenchurch-street walk, delivered all
the letters addressed to Messrs. Hankey and Co. on
the 13th of September.
George Adolphus Styland, one of the inspectors
of letter carriers, stated that a letter posted at the
time mentioned by Mr. Riches, at the Post-office at
Thetford, would in due course be received at the
General Post office the next morning in time for
the first delivery. The prisoner was on the Lom-
bard-street walk, which was the next adjoing the
Fenchurch-street one. The letter might have been
sorted to him, as the name of the street was omitted
from the direction. It would be his duty on dis-
covering the error to return it as having been mis-
sorted. It would then be re sorted to Huggins.
That would be done by an experienced sorter, who
would know that Messrs. Hankey's was in Fen-
church-street. If the letter had been fully directed
it would be sorted to Huggins in the first instance.
Mr. Henry said that letters ought always to be
fully directed. Though Messrs. Hankey's firm was
welt known, yet the omission of the street gave
much unnecessary trouble at the Post.office, and
delayed the letter till the next delivery. In the
present instance if the letter bad been properly
directed it would not have been lost, but would
have been delivered in due course.

Smee, the Post-office constable deposed that on
Monday last he saw the prisoner in the assistants'
room at the General Post-office. He found on him
35 letters of various dates, and a purse containg two
£5 notes, £1 93. in gold and silver, and a passport
made out in the name of "Miss Isabella Gray."
The prisoner gave up to him (Smee) the key of his
closet, in which were found two coats, one official
and one private. In the pockets of the coats, and in
a basket found in the closet, were several bundles
of letters. They were counted, and were found to
be between 1,400 and 1,500.
Mr. Hyland said that he received the key from
Smea and opended the closet. He assisted in count-
ing the letters. They were of various dates, from
March last till within a few days. Witness had
heard the prisoner say it was his cubpoard. There
were between 1,400 andl,soo letters in the bundles.
He took them up to Mr. Peacock's office, with the
two coats also found in the closet.

The prisoner, on being asked if he had any an-
swer to the charge, said, " I have nothing to say."
Mr. Peacock said he had now to prefer a charge
against the prisoner of having stolen an ivory-
ticket belonging to a subscriber of the Horticul-
tural Society. at South Kensington,
Miss Caroline Legrew, 1, •Ladbroke-place, Not•
ting•hill, deposed that she was a subscriber to the
Royal Horticultural Society, and the ivory ticket
produced entitled two persuns to admission to the
gardens. On the 26th of July she enclosed the
ticket in a letter to Mr. Watkins, Pelican Life-
office, Lombard-street, and posted it herself in
Ladbroke-grove, at the branch office, kept by Miss
Underwood. Witness had not seen it since, until
produced by the officer.
Mr. Henry observed that it was undesirable to
send such tickets through the post-office, as they
might be broken to pieces in the process of stamp-
ing the letters.

It was proved that the prisoner was on duty at
the office on the 27th of July, when this letter
would arrive there.

Mr. Charles Watkins, 3, Belgrave-road, St.
John's-wood, of the Pelican Life-office, deposed that
he never received the ivory ticket which Miss
Legrew sent to him by post.
Smee proved that he found the ivory ticket in
the prisoner's waistcoat pocket when he was
searched at the office on Monday. Witness asked
him how he came to be possessed of it, and he re-
plied, " It was given me by a gentleman in Lom-
bard-street. I do not know his name or address."

The prisoner having stated that he had nothing
to say in answer to the accusations against him,
was then fully committed for trial on both charges-

MARYLEBONE.—Henry Formeson was placed
at the bar, charged with robbery.
It appeared from the evidence that on the same
afternoon Mrs. Moseley, a lady residing at No. 30,
Berners-street, Oxford-street, was walking along
Wimpole-street, accompanied by her daughter,
when the prisoner, in passing her, snatched from
her hand a silver card-case with which he
made off ; a cry of " Stop thief!" was raised, and
the prisoner was captured by Boyle, the Marylebone
beadle, who chanced to be near at hand. As he ran
he threw the case into the road.

The property was produced and identified, and
the prisoner, who pleaded Guilty, was sent to hard
labour in the House of Correction for six months.

WESTMINSTER.—The Rev. Henry Holloway,
charged with numberless railway robberies, under•
went another examination.
Mr. Arnold said that considerable inconvenience
existed at that moment in transacting the business
of the court, owing to both the clerks having been
called away as witnesses. He thought the only
course left open to him was to remand the prisoner.
Mr. Saunders, who appeared for the prosecution,
requested that the evidence of a gentleman named
Busby, a coroner for Derbyshire, who had come to
town expressly as a witness, should be taken.
Mr. Charles Stanhope Burke Busby, residing at
Chesterfield, Derbyshire, said he arrived on Monday
the 19th of August at the Waterloo-station and went
on the platform at half-past 6 or a quarter to 7 in
the evening. He had with him three packets—a
portmanteau, a bag, and a roll of coat's. Inserted
under the straps of the latter was an umbrella. He
placed his things upon a truck on the platform and
went into the refreshment mom, where he remained
nearly three-cuarters of an hour. On his return to
the platform all the luggage was there except the
umbrella, which was gone. He subsequently went
to France and Jersey, and on his return found a
letter from Superintendent Carpenter, of the
Brighton police, upon the subject of the missing
umbrella.

In reply to an inquiry from the magistrate, Mr.
Busby explained that he had come from Derby to
King's-cross, and thence proceeded to the Waterloo-
station with his luggage on the 19th.
Cross-examined by Mr. Whalen for the prisoner.
—He did not notice any one particularly at the
Waterloo-station on the ocaasion in question. There
were several persons sitting down, some not unlike
the prisoner; but witness was not prepared to say
that he was one of them. He did not notice two or
three people sitting in the waiting-room.
Allan Gilmore, police constable of the South-
Western Railway, said he was on duty at the
Waterloo terminus on the 19th of August, when a
complaint was made to him of the loss of a dressing
case, as well as of the umbrella. The prisoner was
at the station that night. The witness saw Mr.
Begbie, the gentlemen to whom the dressing-case
belonged, put it on the table in the first-class
waiting-room; it was one just like that he now
held in his hand. There was only another person
there at the time. _ _

Cross-examined by Mr. Whiffen—The witness
was certain the prisoner was there that night. He
was sitting at the table writing with a pen and ink.
He wore very small spectacles then.
Mr. Saunders requested a summons to compel the
attendance of Mr. Begbie. A raz-o strop which
had been in the dressing case was found in the pri-
soner's possession.

Mr. Arnold inquired were the dressing case pro-
duced had been discovered.
Mr. Saunders said it was found in the Green-
park, and lie thought he should be able to prove
that the prisoner put it down. A lady and gentle-
man were sating there, when the prisoner, or a
person answering his description, laid the dressing-
case—which resembles a leathern box—down, and
eft it. Every means would be used, by advertise-
ment anri otherwise, to find the persons who had
seen it left as described.
Mr. Whiffen objected to this statement being
made against his client.
Mr. Arnold observed that it would not affect
him, as it was not being taken down.
Inspector Bent, of the South Western Railway,
said that the dressing case had been identified by
Mr. Begbie.
Application having been made to save Mr. Busby
the inconvenience of another journey to London
before the prisoner's trial,
Mr. Arnold had his deposition formally prepared,
and bound him over to prosecute for the theft of
the umbrella.
The prisoner was not called upon to say anything,

but voluntarily observed that the witness had the
look of truth in his face. As he did not want to
give trouble he admitted having the umbrella in his
possession, but should be able to show that he was a
long way off the Waterloo Station when it was lost.
He was then further remanded for a week.

WORSHIP-STREET.—A respectable looking
youth was charged with various robberies.
On the 27th of August last the prisoner engaged
lodgings at the house of Mr. Wilson, in Bond-
street, Stepney, but the very next morning left and
never returned. Shortly afterwards a coat of the
value of £2 was missed. On the 28th the prisoner
took apartments at the house of Mr. Chas. Lowe,
of York-street, Hackney, under precisely similar
circumstances. He left early the following day.
There, again, a coat of like value was subsequently
missed. On the 30th ho called upon a widow
named Lord, in Thomas-street, Hackney-road, and
induced her to let him have accommodation for a
night. Unable to find a coat at this residence, he
took a shirt and two cravats belonging to the land-
lady's son. On the 7th inst. he presented himself
at the shop of a tradesman named Lovelace, in
White-street, Bethnal-green, and engaged an apart-
ment. He decamped with a coat on the Bth. He
was met, however, on the 30th by Mr. Lovelace, not
far from his own shop, and given into custody.
When asked his name, the prisoner replied, " Ed-
ward Ellis, a labourer." This was manifestly, so
far as the occupation went, a falsehood, but his
address could not be ascertained.
He was fully committed for trial.

GREENWICH.—ANNOYING PASSENGERS IN
RATLWAY TRAINS—TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS.
Mr. Edward Wm. Cannon, an auctioneer, carrying
on business at Croydon, was summoned at the in-
stance of the authorities of the Lon don and Brighton
Railway Company, charged with actingly inde-
cently towards Jane Humphreys, and also annoying
Francis Coster, they being passengers travelling on
the above line of railway.
Mr. Inspector Richards attended to watch the
case on behalf of the company, and Mr. Parry, so-
licitor, attended for the defendant.
The complaints in both cases were fixed to come
off at this court on the 19th inst., but when called
on it was intimated to his worship that the com-
plainant in the more serious offence had not arrived
and pending whose attendance the second charge
was proceeded with.
Francis Coster, a young man, residing at Sutton,
Suvrey, said he was a passenger by the 10.15 p.m.
train from London-bridge, on Monday the 9th inst.
He was seated in a third class carriage, there being
two females in the same compartment, and also the
defendant. The defendant commenced talking to
one of the females, who seemed inclined to keep
him away. He did not hear her say anything, but
afterwards seeing him put his hands in an improper
manner to the bottom part of her dress, he (witness)
asked hbr if she would change seats with him ; and
she replied that would be very much obliged to him
if he would do so. They changed seats, and on the
train arriving at Forest-hill Station witness asked
the young woman if she would wish to get into
another carriage. She replied that she should, and
they got out and complainedof defendant's conduct,
the other female getting out and saying she would
not stop in the carriage.
In answer to Mr. Parry, the witness said there
was no light in the carriage, but he distinctly saw
defendant's hand, and the young woman's dress
removed.

Mr. Traill—And in consequence of which you
were also annoyed as a passenger ?
The Witness—Yes.

Francis Shaw, guard of the train, said be was
called by the head-porter at the Forest-hill Station
to the carriage in which the last witness and a
young woman had been seated. The young woman
complained of haying been indecently assaulted by
the defendant, who got out of the carriage and mut-
tered something unintelligible. Knowing who the
defendant was, be put the last witness and the
female into another carriage, and the train pro.
ceeded. •

The company's bye laws were here handed to
the magistrate, one of which renders any person
liable to a penalty of 40s. for interfering with the
comfort, or annoying any passenger travelling on
their line of railway.
Mr. Parry, for the defendant, said the complaints
preferred were ill-founded, the fact beiag that some
joking had been going on between the defendant
and the young woman during the journey, and that
the witness Coster had unnecessarily interfered.
Mr. Traill said the female complainant bad, by
some means with which he was not acquainted,
kept away from the inquiry, but it had been already
proved to him that defendant had, by his conduct,
occasioned annoyance to another passenger (the
witness Coster), and for which he should order him
to pay the full penalty of 40s. and costs.
Jane Humphreys, the complainant in the first
ease, was now examined, and said she was house-
maid in the service of Mr. Rogers, a gentleman
residing at Shaftesbury Cottage, Lansdowne-road,
Croydon. She had intended to be present at the
court to prefer her complaint on Thursday morning
last, but a Miss Cannon, the defendant's sister,
called upon her mistress, and, stating that defen-
dant's wife was very ill, asked her mistress to
allow her (complainant) to accompany her to defen-
dant's solicitor, to see if there was any necessity.to
attend that court. She went with Miss Cannon,
who told her she was about taking her to a solici-
tor's office, ten minutes' walk distant, instead of
which she took her two miles and a half away from
the staticn, by a by-road to a road-side inn. Miss
Cannon entered the inn, and on coming out said
the solicitor and defendant were busy that day, and
there would be no necessity to attend the court.
She afterwards got back to the railway station at
Croydon, and left by the 2.15 p.m. train, but on
arriving at New-cross she found she was too late,
as the court had closed.

Mr. Traill inquired if no other inducement had
been held out to her to keep away, than being
taken to a solicitor's ?

The complainant replied in the negative, adding
that it was her intention to have started by the
10.15 a.m. train.

Mr. Trail] said, this being the case, she could be
sworn.

Mr. Parry said, before the complainant was
sworn, he wished to hand in a written apology
made by the defendant to the complainant, nio
had signed it. _ _

Mr. Traill read the apology in question, in which
the complainant was made to express herself satis-
fied with the apology offered, and also her intention
of-not intending to press any complaint against him
before the.police magistrate.
The complainant, in answer to the magistrate,
said the signature to the document was her own.
She had signed it at the request of Miss Cannon,
who did not read it to her, nor could she read it
herself. It was handed to her to sign as necessary,
but no mention was made of its being an apology.
Mr. Traill said he should keep the document in
question, and then directed the case to proceed.
The complainant was accordingly sworn, and said
she was a third-class passenger by the 10.15 p.m.
train from London on the oth inst., the defendant
and another male and female passenger being in the
same compartment. The female passenger got out
at New cross, where defendant muttered to her
(complainant), but in consequence of the noise of
the train she could not hear what he said. She
moved away from him, and he moved as she moved.
He said something about the ill-convenience of
travelling in third-class carriages, and on getting
to New-cross he said, " Are you not going to get
out here, Miss ? " She told him she was not, but
was going as far as Croydon. The defendant re-
plied, "'That is just as far as the train will carry
us, and I shall be able to see you home, shall I
not P" He repeated this several times, but she
made him no answer. He then leant forward
towards her, and she told him to keep his seat.
Defendant then told her she was sitting in a draught,
and she had better sit on the opposite side. She
made him no answer to this, and he then put his
arm around her waist, and wished to insist upon
her changing her seat, and, after sitting a second
or two, he lifted her clothes with both hands, and
behaved in a most indecent manner towards her.
She immediately got up, and the other gentleman,
who was in the same compartment, changed seats
with her, and on arriving at Forest-hill Station she
made a complaint and was put into another carriage.
By Mr. Parry—The defendant did not appear
to be at all intoxicated. Had been a year and eight
months in her present situation, and, on the day
in question, had been on a visit to her sister in
London. Did not see defendant before he got
into the carriage. Defendant did not kiss her, but
he attempted to do so, and she pushed him when
he leant forward towards her. There was no other
female in the carriage at the time of the train ar-
riving at Fofest-hill, and if witness Coster had said
there was he must have made a mistake. She told
her master and mistress what had occurrred imme-
diately she got home.

Mr: Traill said the complaint, as affecting rail-
way passengers. was one of public importance, and
as it had been preferred at the instance of the rail-
way authorities, he should not dispose of the case,
which subjected the defendant to severe punish-
ment, until they were afforded the opportunity of
expressing their desire or not that the case should
be sent to the sessions for trial. lie should, there-
fore, adjourn the case for that purpose, and should
likewise require defendant to put in- bail to the
amount of £5O, and himself in the same amount, for
his future appearance.

The .required bail having been tendered and
accepted, the defendant left the court.

LONDON : Printed and Published by 1111IRDO YOUNG, of
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tim SUN Office, No. 112,Strand,
in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the 0;1-Linty of Middlesex,
Friday, September 27,1801,