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

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 10th '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
RAILWAY 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 London andß righton
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,
Surrey, said he was a passenger by the 10.15 p.m.
train from London-bridge, on Monday the 9th inst.
lie 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 her 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 P
The Witness—Yes.
Francis Shaw, guard of the train, said he 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 having been indecently assaulted by
the defendant, who got out of the carriage and mut-
tered something unintelligible. Knowing who the
defendant was, he 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 tlie defendant, said the complaints
preferred were ill-founded, the fact being 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 had, 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 statical, 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. Traill 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, who
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 9th 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 the 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 ?" 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 tow irds 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 Forest-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. He 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.