The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, AUGUST 20, 1859,

Girardin had their paper. But in England the good
sense of the people renders this impossible. Here
such a paper cannot find readers. A paper which
represents an individual or a section is as destitute
of influence as the newsboy who calls it in the
street. Unhappily this has not been so in France.
The idea of a paper really independent, with views
of its own, and no interest except in its own suc-
cess, and that only based on the public welfare,
never seems to have occurred to a French jour-
nalist. In the days of their freedom they were
all pure partisans and all violent, as speakers and
writers who carry no great authority are apt to
be. Accordingly, when a man whom they had
fiercely opposed rose to power, nothing seemed
more natural than that he should suppress them.
One paper there is which has been to a consider-
able extent an exception to the remarks which in a
spirit of friendly warning we have just made. The
Debats has always been more upon the English
model of a newspaper than any other French jour-
nal. Accordingly, every Government since the
Consulate has respected it, and, although often
speaking under great restraint, it always com-
mands attention and its articles bear a certain in-
trinsic authority. When the days of freedom shall
come again,—and we hope they may be near,—will
the French Press and the French public remember
their past experiences and profit by the lesson ?
Times.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. Aug. 19.

(Before Mr. Creasy, at 'Westminster.)
John Wood surrendered to take his trial on an
indictment for assaulting Robert Lovell, a police-
constable, 137 B, in the execution of his duty in
Onslow-square, Brompton. The prosecutor stated
that as he was passing along on duty the defendant
turned round and struck him. The defence was
that a policeman shoved the defendant off the pave-
ment and then went away ; that subsequently the
defendant saw the prosecutor, and, thinking he was
the officer who pushed him, asked his number, when
the prosecutor struck him and knocked him down.
When he got up there was a struggle, and they
went down together. It was admitted that the
defendant was the worse for liquor.
The jury found the defendant guilty. He was
sentenced to six months' hard labour.
Mr. Cooper was for the prosecution ; Mr. Orridge
for the defendant.
Robert Day was indicted for assaulting Sarah
Smedmore, the wife of an engineer residing at 17,
Old Nichol-street, Shoreditch. This case arose out
of a row between the prosecutrix and a neighbour,
and illustrated, as Mr. Cooper, the defendant's
counsel, said, the well known lines—
" They who in quarrels interpose
May often wipe a bloody nose."
There was no doubt the prisoner did interfere, and
that a blow was received by Mrs. Smedmore which
broke her collar-bone and incapacitated her from
her business as a milliner, her right arm being ren-
dered almost useless. She was in the hospital three
weeks.

The defence, which was supported by evidence,
was that the injury was the result of a blow struck
by the husband of the prosecutrix in a scuffle, but
the jury came to the conclusion that the case for the
prosecution was proved, and found the defendant
guilty.
Mr. Creasy sentenced him to eight months' hard
labour.
The two men, Gillingham and Birkett, convicted
on Tuesday of robbing a retired publican named
C. Schreckenberg of gold and notes to the amount
of £lB3, were brought up for judgment. They
were both known to the officers. They were sen-
tenced each to three years' penal servitude.
(Before Mr. Payne.)
Sophia Dederick, 27, Julia Woolenough, 24, and
Charles Woolenough, 24, were severally indicted—
Dederick for stealing 98 prints, value £2 95., and
70 prints, value £2 as., the property of Louis loch-
ford, her master ; and Julia and Chas. Woolenough
for receiving the said prints, well knowing them to
have been stolen.

Mr. Horry prosecuted; Mr. Orridge appeared for
the prisoners.

It appeared from the evidence of John Harvey,
police sergeant 9 G, that he was engaged to watch
the premises of the prosecutor, who lived at No. 15,
Crown-street, Finsbury, and early on the morning
of the sth inst. he saw Julia Woolenough go to the
prosecutor's door, tap, and was shortly afterwards
admitted. After remaining there for a short time
she left the house, the prisoner Dederick shutting
the door after her. He followed her and asked what
she had in her possession, and she said nothing.
Not feeling satisfied, he lifted her shawl, and under
it found 98 prints. He took her into custody. Ho
then went back to the prosecutor's, and having
questioned Dederick took her also into custody.
He afterwares proceeded to Tenter-street, where
Woolenough lived, and having searched his house
and found 70 prints, which prosecutor identified as
his property, he also took Woolenough into custody.
The prosecutor proved that the prints belonged
to him, and he gave Dederick no authority to dis-
pose of them.

The prosecutor was severely cross-examined by
Mr. Orridge, in which he admitted that he seduced
the prisoner Dederick, who had had two children
by him, and that during his absence from home
in the daytime he authorised her to sell articles,
and to take the money for them. He admitted
that he had been a bankrupt, and that while he was
in prison she carried on his business for him in
conjunction wiah his daughter. Her name was
painted over the door of the house where he then
lived, but afterwards he had put up the name
" Louis and Co." There was no such person as
Louis.

The learned Judge considered there was no evi•
dente to go to the jury against Charles Wool-
enough, _ _ .

Mr. Orridge addressed the jury, and in a most
ale and feeling appeal said that the young woman
Dederick had entered the prosecutor's service in a
state of innocence, for the purpose of taking care of
his children, but the prosecutor had taken advan-
tage of that position to debauch her. She had two
children by him, and, indeed, the relation between
them was such as to lead her to suppose that she was
justified in disposing of these prints. She had no
salary during the latter part of the time. She seemed
almost to be living upon his charity, and might rea-
sonably have thought herself justified in disposing
of the prints to obtain food. Before a case of felony
could be made out the prosecutor must come into
court with clean hands, and, as it was the duty of a
jury at all times to give the prisoner the benefit of
any doubt they might entertain, he felt sure that
this was a case of doubt in which the jury would
have especial pleasure in giving her the benefit of
it, for the conduct of the prosecutor had been such
as every Englishman must blush for.
Mr. Payne summed up the evidence, and
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of simple
larceny against Dederick, and of receiving against
Woolenough. The male prisoner was acquitee.
Dederick was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour;
Woolenough to six months' hard labour.
Mr. 'lorry said, for the prosecutor, that his de-
sire had beers not to punish Dederick, but to detect
those who had induced her to commit the offence.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-Aug. 19.

MANSION-HOUSE.--Daniel Durgett was
charged with stealing four dozen of earved.umbrella
handles, the property of his employer, Mr. G. Cham-
bers, manufacturer, Halfmoon-street, Bishopsgate.
Mr. Beard appeared for the prosecution, and
called several witnesses, from whose evidence it ap-
peared that the prosecutor's foreman and one of his
workmen, while walking along the Bethnal-green-
road, saw lying in a shop-window a quantity of
handles, several of which the workman at once
pronounced to be of his own workmanship; and
that next day another workman, upon being taken
to the same shop, identified others from among the
handles as being of his carving. Upon being ques-
tioned, the shopkeeper stated that he had bought
the whole of the handles from the prisoner, who
was employed by the prosecutor as a turner, and
the prisoner was thereupon given into custody.
Four of Mr. Chambers's workmen now picked out
handles from among 42 produced in court, and
swore to them as being of their own individual
workmanship, while they were unanimous in de-
claring that every workman must know his own
work, and that no carver could exactly imitate the
work of another, the prisoner especially so, as he
was only a turner, and not a carver. Thus, there
being a strap with a buckle on most of the handles,
one wor!iman swore to his work by the peculiar
way in which the tag of the buckle was formed,
while another was equally positive that no
man living could turn the end of the strap through
the buckle as he had done; and on this evidence
(there being otherwise no proof of robbery against
the prisoner) Mr. Beard contended that a good case
"had been made out, and asked that the prisoner
might be committed for trial.
On tha other hand, the prisoner asserted that he
had, although a turner originally, improved his op-
portunities of observation so as to make himself a
good carver, and that he had long been in the habit
of working for himself of an evening in the shop of
his brother, who was in the business ; while his
brother not only corroborated this statement, but
said further that he was himself a man of great ex-
perience in his trade, and that he defied any carter
to swear to his own work, as he had two men work-
ing for him and, when they sent home their work
on Saturdays, no one of the three could pick out his
work from the rest.
iqdudeostiaonno,thbelievinganother
that
anwdhtahteornefeoreelehveerrceafusrveedr
The Lord Mayor himself inclined to this view of
thecou