The Sun.
London, England, 1861-08-19 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-Aug. 17.

BOW-STREET—Edward Mortimer was charged
with a violent assault upon Dunbar John Cotner,
barrister-at-law.

The prisoner is already well known to the public
as one of the defendants in a prosecution, which at
the time excited an extraordinary interest, with
respect to the illegal sale of commissions in the
army. He is a stalwart, powerful looking man,
though somewhat advanced in years. He is com-
monly called Captain Mortimer, and it is stated
that he is entitled to that appellation, having for-
merly been a captain in the army. He certainly
has a military appearance. The prosecutor also has
the build and aspect of a powerful man, much
younger than the prisoner, but appeared to be
reduced to a condition of extreme debility, probably
from loss of blood. His head was swathed in ban-
dages and in giving iris evidence he leaned upon the
frent of the witness box, as if unable to stand un-
supported. His features are prominent, and rather
handsome, and his beard, which was unshaven, was
thick, strong, and black.
Mr. Cother being sworn, gave his evidence in so
low a tone of voice as to be scarcely inaudible. When
asked by the magistrate (Mr. Henry) to speak
louder, he replied that he was " not strong enough."
He deposed—l am a barrister, and reside at 27,
Sloane-street. I know the defendant. A few days
since I met him on the steps of the General Post-
office. I asked him for his address, and he refused
to give it to me, at the same time flourishing his
stick.

Mr. Henry—Did he say anything ?
The witness—He said, " I will see you be-
fore I will give it you." This morning I met him
on Hungerford-bridge near the entrance to the
market, as I was coming up from the pier. I ad-
dressed him, saying," Now Mr. Mortimer, I insist
on knowing your address " He pushed me away
from him. I went up to him again to repeat the
request. He stepped backward, raised his walking-
stick in the air, swung it round, and struck me a
violent blow with the butt end'of it an the side of

the head. It was an ordinary oak walking-stick.
I believe it was afterwards taken to the hospital.
I think the blow cut through my hat.
Mr. Henry—Was the effect of the blow to knock
you down ?
The witness—No; I did not fall, but I lost a
great deal of blood. I gave the prisoner into cus
tody. They took me to Charing-cross Hospital,
where my wound was dressed.
The prisoner being asked if he wished to put any
questions to the witness replied in the negative.
The stick was produced. It was a common-
walking-stick of a medium size, rather slight than
otherwise. The handle, described by Mr. Cother as
the " butt end,' ' was formed by the extremity
being bent into a hook. Mr. Cother's hat was also
produced. It was a white hat and had been very
much stained with blood both internally and exter-
nally, but not cut or broken.
Stephen Worthy, a youth of about 18 or 19 years
of age, deposed that he was on the bridge at the
time and heard the prosecutor ask for the address of
the prisoner. Upon the latter refusing to give it,
Mr. Cother said, " I will not let you go till you give
me your address." The prisoner then stepped back
about three feet, and holding the stick by the lower
end struck the prosecutor on the head with the
handle or " crooked end." It was a very severe
blow. The blow was not struck through the hat.
It came upon the side of the head, just below the
brim of the hat. The hat was knocked aside,—up
on the side where the blow was struck, to that it

was pushed a little down on the other side. Wit-
ness was passing close to the prosecutor, and the
blood spurted over his clothes and over his hands.
(The witness here held up his hands, which were
smeared all over with blood.) Witness handed his
pocket handkerchief to the prosecutor to stanch the
blood, and in a few minutes the handkerchief was
" filled full of it." (The witness produced the hand•
kerchief, which was saturated with blood.) It was
about 12 o'clock in the day when this occurred. The
constable on duty on the bridge took the prisoner
into custody, and witness accompanied the prosecu-
tor to the hospital.
Policeman 179 L deposed to the fact that the
prosecutor gave the prisoner in custody to him.
The prosecutor was bleeding profusely.
Mr. Short, acting house-surgeon at Charing-cross
Hospital, deposed that prosecutor came there a little
after 12 o'clock. He had a contused scalp wound
about an inch and a half long. It must have bled
profusely. Some small arteries were severed.
Mr. Mortimer, who had declined to cross-examine
the witnesses, was now asked by the worthy magis-
trate if he wished to make any statement. He re-
plied, in a tremulous voice, and apparently with
much emotion—Yes. I met Mr. Cother on the

bridge. I was just going over. He stopped
me and asked my address, which I refused to
give. He put up his hands and caught hold of
me to stop me and prevent my passing. I
tried to get by, but he would not let me. I
admit that I forgot myself, and I certainly
struck him. But I did not do it intentionally with
malice. It occurred instantaneously. I did not
think of such a thing. I would be the last man to
do it. I would wish to make any arrangement with
Mr. Cother—any arrangement in my power.
Mr. Cother, whose voice was very faint, was un-
derstood to say that he would make no arrangement.
He would leave the matter in the magistrate's hands,
and do whatever the magistrate thought. right. He
had no vindictive feeling, though he had suffered a
severe injury, which might hay.e killed him,

Mr. Henry said the powers which the law gave
him we”e not suffi.cient to enable him to deal with
so violent an assault. He could not commit defen-
dant to prison without the option of a fine, not
exceeding £5, and then only for two months. He
should therefore hold the prisoner for bail to answer
an indictment.
The prisoner was accordingly committed for trial,
notwithstanding his protest that it would nearly
ruin him.

THAMES.—A CURIOUS CASE.—Wm. Barnes, a
beerseiler, in the Mile-end-road, appeared before
Mr. Woolrych on a summons, charged with assault-
ing Mary Ann Lomas, a young married woman.
Mr. Gomm, from the office of Mr. Chas. Young,
solicitor, stated that this case was one of a very re-
markable nature. The complainant had formerly
led a very gay life, and had been acquainted with
the defendant for some time. Ultimately she re-
pented of her folly, was admired and courted by a
respectable man, and married him. After the mar-
riage the defendant importuned Mrs. Lomas to re-
new the connection between them. She rejected
his offers, and entreated him to leave her alone.
The defendant, however, confirmed to importune
her, threatening to inform her husband of the con-
nection which formerly existed between them. The
persecution of the unfortunate woman existed for
some time, and she at last gave way and submitted
to his wishes, but only once, and she firmly resolved
never to converse with the defendant, or to meet
him agliin on any pretence whatever. The
defendant, however, continued to pester the cora•
plainant with his attentions, and threatened to ruin
her if she did not cohabit with him, and dishonour
herself and her husband. The complainant was
firm, and Barnes, with a mind full of evil, then
threatened to make her husband acquainted with all
that had taken place. This diabolical threat failed,
and the defendant then wrote an anonymous letter
to the complainant's husband, describing her former
course of life, his (the defendant's) intimacy with
her before and after her marriage, and stating that
she was carrying on a criminal intercourse wtiha
Mr. Oliver. This incident was in some respects like
the one which ended so disastrously in Northumber-
land-street a short time ago. The letter was fortu-
nately intercepted by Mrs. Lomas, and he should
produce it to show the deep:laid villany of the de-
fendant. Barnes, failing in his wicked designs,
commenced a new system of annoyance, by meeting
Mrs. Lomas in the street, calling after her and
threatening her; applying to her the most foul and
offensive names, and at last descending to personal
violence. Mrs. Lomas was walking along the Mile-
end-road a few days since, in company with Mrs.
Tf
na bd taln Mt actatted
hlewsafter the complainant, uttered the, her sister-in-law, when the de-
fendant
most filthy and
.obscene laniclllage, and said "I 11
m snph your face in. rt eomplpinant remonstrated
with him onct abed rears. H:r re
la; ive said, " Cc ma
away from!iAt Ini,y blackguard," on 3,71-tieb he mid,
Never 'mind, I'll catch you 1,-
4 YourSilf, and they;
T., will mark your fare, T tr
he itportunity arrived
too soon faro the complaintrat, who returned by the
same route alone, when the defendant.•
met her again,

abused iler, and struck her on the mouth. On a
former occeasion he knocked her down and gave
her two black eves.

The complainant. her sister-in Jaw, and a young
lady named Julia -Watford. unknown to either party,
were called in confirmation of Mr. Gomm's state-
ment.
Miss Walford heard the defendant make use of
foul language, and saw him strike the complainant
on the mouth with his fist.
Mr. Woolrych inquired where the complainant's
husband was, and why he did not interfere on be-
half of his wife.
Mr. Gomm—The husband is at sea, and the de-
fendant takes advantage o that to annoy,
insult,
and ill-use the complainant.
The defendant, in reply to the charge, said he
had never written the anonymous letter to the hus-
band, and never saw it until that day. He co-
habited with the complainant three years before her
marriage, and for two months afterwards. Since
they had quarrelled the complainant had been ill
the practice of calling at his house and using taunt-
ing language, and she said to him on the day le
question, " I've got your master in Mr. Oliver.'
The complainant gave a most emphatic denial t•
the defendant's statement.

Mr. Woolrych said he had listened to this eoe
with deep attention, and was satisfied with t 1
plain, straightforward, consistent statement of the
complainant, confirmed as it was in all the materna
particulars by two respectable witnesses, He ut-
terly disbelieved the defendant's statement. There
was no direct or positive evidence that the defen-
dant wrote the anonymous letter, but that Barnes
was the author of it there was most cogent proof.
There were two singular coincidences between the
letter and the cross-examination of the complainant
by the defendant. The letter stated, " Mr. Oliver
has one or two kept women ;" and again, " I have
frequently seen your wife, Mrs. Lomas, go by mY
house with Mr. Oliver in a chaise ;" and it was
most singular that the defendant aeked the com-
plainant if she did not ride out in a chaise with gr.
Oliver, and often pass his (the defendant's) beer-
house in Mr. Oliver's company. The defendant also
asked Mrs Lomas "Does not Oliver keep to"
women ?" To write to a woman's husband the most
atrocious lies to excite his jealousy, was an assassin-
like and contemptible proceeding. The whole con-
duct of the prisoner to Mrs. Lomas was most un-
manly, brutal, and cowardly. A more degraded-
fellow he bad never met with. He fined the de'
fondant 403. and costs, and impounded the anonr
mous letter.
Mrs. Lomas afterwards applied for and obtained
another summons against Barnes for abusing and
threatening her in the police-court. •