The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-28 00:00:00

parry, and the prisoner was remanded in order that
a witness might be called to identify the balls of

opium.
esterday Mr. F. Royle called, and said—l am
a doctor'of medicine, and am in the employment of
Ole East India Company, who refer raw and other
prOducts from India to me for my opinion respect-
ing t`tem. I have for many years made opium my
study. Opium for the English market is brought
almost: entirely from Turkey. The ball produced
by the officer Bassett is a specimen of Bengal opium.
As far as I know, Bengal opium is not imported into
this country for general purposes of trade, but is
made up for the China market. I have seen balls
of opium similar to the one produced at the India-
house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wontner—l have never
missed any balls of opium. I have all that were
sent to me.

Mr. Maule asked for a committal.

Mr. Wontner submitted that there was no proof
that the opium had ever been in the possession of
the East India Uompany.
The Lord Mayor sail he considered it a case for
a jury, but would accept bail for the prisoner's
appearance—two sureties in 401. each, and the
prisoner himself in 801.

The required bail was forthwith put in, and the
prisoner released from custody.

GIIILDHA.LL—Francis Foley, a glass-blower,
of diminutive stature and repulsive appearance,
was charged with the following brutal outrage upon
his wife :

Caroline Foley said she had been married to the
prisoner about nine year, and had four children
now alive. The prisoner was constantly in the
habit of getting drunk and assaulting her. She had
to work hard for a living for herself and children,
as the prisoner gave her no money, and his ♦iolence
was so intolerable that she had several times been
induced to separate from him. On the present
occasion the prisoner had returned to her after a
month's imprisonment he had undergone for beat-
ing her in a most unmerciful manner, and although
he had been back about three weeks, the whole of
that time had been spent by him in one continual
round of drunkenness, which reached its climax on
the 21st inst., when, during a violent attack upon
her, he struck her from 20 to 30 blows upon diffe-
rent parts of her head, face, and body, inflicting a
serious wound upon her nose, and leaving her with
two frightful black oyes and her body a mass of
bruiseq. He also knocked her down upon the land-
ing outside her room, and while on the ground he
seized her by the hair, and, as the complainant de-
scribed it, "hammered her head repeatedly upon
the stairs."

Sir F. G. Moon said in the whole of his experi-
ence he never had a case before him in which the
brutality approached so near to murder as the pre-
sent one. He committed the prisoner to the House
of Correction for the full term of six months, with
hard labour, and further required him to enter
into his own recognisances in 201. to keep the peace
towards his wife and all her Majesty's subjects for
12 months.

BOW-STREET.—A charge of cruelty to a horse
was preferred by Love, the chief constable of the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
against James Eyden, a beershop-keeper at Top
Locks, Norwood.

On Saturday a carter named George Howe was
brought to this court by Seaman and Rutherford,
two of the society's officers, for driving the horse in
question in an unfit condition. The man referred
to his master, the present defendant, who,
in addition to his business as a retailer of beer,
ac's as a " haggle carter," keeping a horse and
cart to carry goods for his neighbours as they may
require his services. Howe stated that the horse
had been bad about a fortnight, and also that he
had remonstrated with his master, who, however,
insisted upon his taking the horse out. He was
obliged to submit, but protested against it, and
gave notice to leave his situation, as he was deter-
mined he would not drive the horse again. He
WAS taken in Covent-garden market, after discharg-
ing a load of green stuff, which he had brought
from Norwood. Upon this statement Mr. Jardine
issued a summons against the master, and bound
the man over to appear as a witness.
The description of the wretched animal given by
the officers was most distressing. It had a " quitter"
on one foot and a sore on the other, and ou its
back two wounds of five or six inches in length,
cut to the bone, one as large as a man's palm, and
two as large as half-crowns. The saddle was press-
ing into the larger wounds ; altogether the animal.
was wholly unfit fur use.

Mr. Jardine expressed great indignation at the
barbarous manner in which the animal had been
treated, and. suggested that it ought to be killed.
Defendant murmured something about the loss
it would put him to.
Mr. Jardine said the defendant did not seem to
view the case in a proper light, or to be conscious
of the gravity of the offence be had committed.
Unless the horse was immediately killed he would
inflict a severe penalty, but if that were done with-
out delay he should merely order him to pay the
costs of the summons and the expenses of the green-
yard.

Defendant expressed his willingness to obey the
magistrate's injunction, to afford time for which
the case was adjourned for a few days.

SOUTHWARK.--CASE OF ALLEGED PERJURY.
Mr. James Bingham, an attorney, of the
Kennington-road, and Mr. William Watson, of the
Newington Arms Tavern, King-street, Walla orth,
were summoned before Mr. Combe, for that they
did falsely, wilfully, wickedly, and maliciously
commit wilful and corrupt perjury, in the testimony
given by them on oath upon the trial of Thomas
Stowell, for fraud, at the adjourned sessions for the
county of Surrey, on the 17th of November, 1856.
Mr. Solomon attended on behalf of Mr. Watson,
and Mr. Bingham attended personally to answer
the charges,
It may be recollected that rather more than 12
months ago Stowell was tried at the Surrey Ses-
sions for unlawfully obtaining a certain sum of
money from Mrs. Harriett Penny, the then land-
lady of the Newington Arms public-house, under
the pretence of obtaining for her at the October
Sessions for the county of Surrey, in 1856, a music
licence, which he failed to do, and after a trial
before Mr. Puckle, on the 17th of. Nov., 1856, he
was convicted and sentenced to 12 months im-
prisonment in Wandsworth House of Correction,
which expired on Monday week. As soon as he
was liberated Stowell attended before Mr. Combo,
and having stated he bad been unjustly convicted,
he obtained summonses against the defendants for
perjury ; Stowell alleging that he did serve the
notices by and with the consent of the defendant
Bingham, whose clerk he was at that time.
Toe case being called on, Stowell said that he
wished the charge against Mr. Bingham to be taken
first, as'ithat was the most important ; he having
sworn that he (Stowell) was not his clerk when the
licence business was carried on.

Mr. Combe asked hial-;1;t his specific charge
was. When he granted the summonses against the
defendants he uoderstood they were for perjury.
Stowell replied that such was the case. He had
been most cruelly and badly treated, and he now
came for justice.

Mr. Combe told him he also understood him to
say that it was sworn at the sessions that he was
not clerk to Mr. Bingham. Had he got a copy of
the indictment against him
Stowell replied that he had not.
Mr. Solomon here said that he had the original
trauscipt at his office, and ho would immediately
send for it.

Shortly afterwards the document it question was
brought in and handed to his worship, who, at the
request of Stowell, read the different counts. The
first for having undertaken to obtain a music license
for Mrs. Penny, of the Newington Arms, Kiwi--
stt eet, Walworth. The second by stating that he
had ar ranged it with the clerk of the peace ; and
the third for obtaining the sum of 3/, from Mrs.
Penny, or her servant ' • whereas he had not in any
way proceeded for the license.
Stowell said the whole of these allegationswere
false. He was at the time clerk to Mr. Bingham,
the solicitor, and he drew up the required notices.
Mr. Bingham 11,re denied that Stowell had ever
been his clerk, and he never saw the notices.

Stowell, in great warmth, said that what Mr.
Bingh tat had stated was false. He knew that he
was his clerk, and be served the notices. Iu fact,
he had his handwriting to prove that. Stowell was
about to read some written evidence, when—
Mr. Bingham objected to him reading that. He
must have proper evidence from such a person.
Stowell told his worship that he wished for a
summons against Mr. Puckle, the jud_ e who tried
him, to produce his notes of the trial, but Mr.
Burcham, who sat at the time, objected to grant
them unless in the course of tin hearing of the case
they might be required.
Mr. Uombe sai.l, that as objection had been made
to Stowell's reading the evidence, the case had
better be adjourned to procure fur her proof.
Mr. Solomon objected to any adjournment. He
was there on the part of Mr. Watson to answer any
charge Stowell might be able to trump up against
him, and he did not consider his worship ought to
adjourn the case.
Mr. Comba said that Stowell wanted to read evi-
dence at his trial, to show that he was unjustly
convicted. He says that ho was at the time clerk
to Mr. Bingham.
Mr. Bingham—He never was my clerk, sir, and
I swore that at the sessions.

Stowell—You area lying vagabond. You, were
told by the chairman to stand down.
Mr. Combo thought it 'would be better for al