The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 27, 1859.

each other, in the charge and working of a par-
ticular gun, mounted, so to speak, at their very
door.
" 15. One of their number should be appointed
to act as captain of the gun, to the charge and
working of which their duties would be strictly
limited. They might arrange their own time for
drill and practice, an artilleryman being charged
with.ttie duty of imparting the former, and all that
would ,be required of them would be that they
should be able to prove, on a half yearly inspection
that they had duly profited by the instruction so •
given, and had qualified themselves for the impor-
tant trust reposed in them.
" 16. Always working and practising with the
same gun, they could not but become well acquainted
with its range, and the points to which it would
have chiefly to be directed.
" 17. In the same manner associations may be
formed in many of our commercial ports and open
rivers for manning and working boats or ship's
launches, armed with single guns in the bow, and
which might, on occasion, be even more serviceable
than the stationary shore batteries. Considering
the vast amount of property in vessels, docks, tim-
ber yards, &c., exposed in most of those rivers to
sudden attack from privateers, shipowners and
, others would probably be well disposed, and think
it indeed only a wise precaution on their part, to
place any spare boats in their possession which are
adapted for the above named purposes at the dis-
posal of such associations, and even themselves to
Ipromote their organisation."

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—May 26

LAMBETH.—THE ALLEGED CHILI) MURDER,
AT PECKHAM.—The Hon. G. C. Norton wts
engaged for a considerable time in fin they investi-
gating the charge against Elizabeth Beagin Df
havinc, caused the death of her male illegitimate
infant in the month of October, 1857, and burying
it in lime in the garden of her house in Camden-
square, Peckham, where its remains were found.
When the prisoner was placed at the bar, In-
spector Dann, who has charge of the ease, informed
the magistrate that he had served a summons upon
Mrs. Smith, sister to the prisoner, and who is also
wife to the father of the deceased child, for her
attendance as a witness ; but she was unable from
indisposition, to be present; and he received the
certificate he produced from her medical attendant
stating that she could not be in attendance before a
week. He (Inspector Dann) also served summonses
on a person named Gill and his wife, and both were
in attendance.
James Gill, who stated he resided at No. 6, Gun-
powder-alley, Shoe-lane, Fleet-street, described him-
self as a tailor, and who had formerly belonged to
the City police, was here called, sworn, and exa-
mined at considerable length. He said that about
the time (October, 1857) George Beagin, brother to
the prisoner, called on him and informed him that
an unpleasant occurrence had taken place at his
father's ; that his sister had 'given birth to a child,
of which her own brother-in-law was the father;
that the child was dead; and that the whole thing
had been unknown to the family. He further said
that Mrs. Smith had stated, as he (witness) had
been informed by her brothers, that she would
rather have paid a pound a week than that the
child should have died, and further, that Alfred
Beagin had acknowledged that he dug the hole in
the garden for the burial of the child, but had not
buried it himself. The witness further stated that
he had been consulted by both George and Alfred
Beagin about bringing an action against their
brother-in-law, Mr. Smith, to punish him for his
indiscretion, and also coupling with the act of Se-
ducing their sister, another which took place at
Erith, respecting his (Smith's) wife. Witness, in
consequence of this application, saw Mr. Smith, and
on telling him of the affair at Erith, he offered him
£2O to give up the author of this information. He
led Mr. Smith to believe that he should give up the
author, and several letters passed between them on
the subject. At his first interview with Smith he
gave him £l, and he might altogether have received
as much as .E 5 from him, but certainly not £2O, as
he had promised. When shown a receipt for £lO
received from Smith upon a solemn promise that
the affair of the child should be kept a secret, and
which bore the name of "George Greaves" and asked
whether the signature was not in his handwriting,
the witness fenced in every possible way, and al-
though ultimately admitting the fact, he declared
he had no portion of the £lO.
Mrs. Gill was next called, but her testimony was,
if possible, more unsatisfactory than her husband's.
She, as well as her husband, denied that they had
told the officer, Hall, anything about the death of
the child, the precise place in which it was buried
in the garden, or saying anything whatever about
the canal. _ _

George Hall, 176 P, was then sworn, and said
that both witnesses had informed him that the
prisoner had said that if she had fifty other chil-
dren she would not do so again, for while lyiiW on
the deceased she felt it kick her in the stomach.
They also described the precise spot where the
body was buried in lime, and said that it had been
contemplated to take it up and throw it into the
canal.
Both witnesses affected much surprise at the
officer's statement, which they denied, but in such
a way as to leave no doubt in the minds of all who
heard them that the officer stated the truth ; and,
after a lengthened examination, the prisoner was
again remanded, for the attendance of Mrs. Smith
and other witnesses.

WORSHIP-STREET.—THE RECENT CASE OF
ALLEGED ASSAULT WITH A CRICKET BAT.—
John: Brown, described as a lawyer, is the Temple,
was charged, on remand, before Mr. Hammill,
with violently assaulting Henry Sole and Harriet
Holland on the 11th inst. _

Mr. Beard now attended for the defence, and the
following additional evidence was received :
Harriet Holland, whose testimony was given with
apparent difficulty from prostration, and who was
accommodated with a seat, stated, as the other
complainant had, that the three gentlemen pur-
posely pushed against them while passing ; and
in reference to the assault upon herself, said—
I recollect nothing after defendant struck me
with the cricket bat. I first recovered my senses
when on a stretcher at the station-house, where I
vomited a great quantity of blood, and have done
so every day since. A part of my head beneath
my bonnet is swollen, one of my teeth is broken
cldan off, two are loosened, and two are chipped,
my right eye was quite closed, and I could not
open it until Sunday last. lam still very ill, and
a surgeon has been in attendance upon me daily.
Mr. Hammill—Doubtless. Was any one near
you but the defendant when he struck you ?
Complainant—No, sir, I was about two yards
from the mob.

Mr. Beard—l shall, in the present condition of
this poor woman, forbear putting her under cross-
examination, which I assuredly otherwise should
do, with the view of eliciting evidence of the con-
duct of her pftrty.
Complainant was then assisted from the court,
and the • notes taken at the former hearing read
over.

A witness named Bray, in answer to questions
from Mr. Hrtmmill, said—Not any one was near
the woman at the time she was struck—the bat
descended upon her head. I cannot say whether
defendant held it with one or two hands.
Cross-examined—l do not know whether any of
her party were advancing towards the defendant
as he struck. I did not on the former cross-exami-
nation say they were.
Martha Sole, whose evidence had not previously
been taken, gave the same version of the affair as
the others for the prosecution had done, stating, in
addition, that defendant, as he passed her with her
baby in her arms, forced the cricket-bat against
hh3hd,
ieooe
srtwo•
asnsti id e,
strike
efteoihi
landltodhywwebwe
ebhdiiaefntueng.
pfho hersri
She
still, he,
attack
unths stcebair
caeieknnar
screamed
aeyradnms
lkt;
esl e:h,deake,
Inln`
tdi‘
noh:egel rki
missing
shda
blowt did
ishtini
at
nhim
kat hnoeekr sedishteer, who m
r,
senseless—no
nu atthe
op
one
else mbeoimngennt hi
e,
awch
n
Inspector Webster produced a certificate from Dr.
Wright, of Hackney, stating that the injured
woman was gradually recovering, and out of danger.
Questioned by Mr. Beard, the inspector stated
that defendant at the station saidhe ought to charge
Sole with an assault, and complained of ill-usage,
the marks of which witness had since seen upon his
legs and thighs.
Hopper, the officer in charge of the case, in reply
to questions by the solicitor, said that ten minutes
before the alleged outrage was committed, he saw
the complainants and several others near the Horns,
at the corner of the Hackney-road, greatly miscon-
ducting themselves, and apparently clearing the
pavement before them. Their conduct excited his
suspicion, and he turned his light upom them. One
of the party challenged his right to do so, but was
checked by Sole, who observed, " Come along, or
lou will get ---L-- well screwed up." They were
told to go on quietly, but shortly afterwards he
found them engaged as formerly described with the
defendant. - -
Mr. Beard then observed—l shall now, Sir, call
a witness for the defence, and upon his evidence,
after what has been stated to-day, I think you will
be of opinion that, this is at least a case in which '
the defendant should be admitted to bail—unlimited
and unexceptionable it shall be ; but do not send
him back to prison until the time of trial. Last
week you were told by the husband of this poor
woman that he expected to find his wife dead on
returning home. Doubtless that must have had
influence with you in refusing bail, but to-day a
certificate is put in, showing that the woman is
actually out of danger; and I trust that this happy
intelligence will lice you to comply with my re-
quest. Defendant has from the first protested that
he was set upon by numbers—that it was in self-
defence he struck, and did not conceive a woman
was the formost of the crowd. Most deeply he
regrets the injuries, although accidental, and would
do anything to compensate.
Mr. Matthew Bernard Lucas was then examined,
and said—l am a solicilor, at 11, Adam-street,
Adelphi. I was returning from cricketing in com-
pany, with defendant and his brother at the time in
question. J do not think defendant was exactly
sober. In the Hackney-road we met the com-
plainant and a party of about eight. They occu-
pied so much of the pavement that we, being arm
in arm, jostled them, but not intentionally. We
passed on, they shouted, and we turned. I believe
they uttered bad language, but cannot swear so.
Sole rushed up to defendant and either knocked or
pushed him down. He then rushed at me and the
gentleman next me. Others were advancing at
the moment, and I struck him with my left hand
as hard as I could. His teeth cut my knuckles;
which are still sore. Defendant did not strike him
with the bat. I must have seen him if he had.
After I struck Sole I perceived defendant rise, and
then he first used the bat. The party had by that
time increased ; there were then ten or twelve. A
woman came forward as defendant swuxg the bat
to keep them off, and was struck with it. She fell.
Several persons then got defendant down and
jumped upon him, and nearly strangled him. When
Sole rose from the ground he first seized me, but