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

to commit the prisoner for trial upon evidence al-
together insufficient to procure a conviction.
The prisoner was accordingly discharged.

(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 struckc' 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 55., the property of Louis Roch-
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. He
then went back to the prosecutor's, and having
questioned Dederick touk her also into custody.
He afterwares proceeded to Tenter-street, where
Woolenough lived, and having searched his house
arid 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 lie 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-
dence to go to the jury against Charles Wool-
enough.
Mr. Orridge addressed the jury, and in a most
able 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 acquited.
Dederick was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour ;
Woolenough to six months' hard labour.
Mr. Horry said, for the prosecutor, that his de-
sire had been not to punish Dederick, but to detect
those who had induced her to commit the offence.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-Av. 19.

MANSION-HOUSE.--Daniel Durgett was
charged with stealing four dozen of carved 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 espocially so, as ho
was only a turner, and not a carver. Thus, there
being a strap with a buckle on most of the handles,
one workman swore to his work by the peculiar
way in which the t2g 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 ease
had been made out, and asked that the prisoner
might be committed for trial.
On the, 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 carver
to swear to his own work, as he bad 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.
The Lord Mayor himself inclined to this view of
the question, believing that what one clever carver
could do another could do, and therefore he refused

GUILDHALL.—Mr. Alderman Phillips, who on
a former occasion so kindly entertained the applica-
tion of Mrs. Thompson, the distressed engineer's-wife,
who was present yesterday, addressed her in the fol-
lowing terms :—ln consequence of some observa-
tions which I made in reference to you, and which
were noticed by the press, several benevolent parsons
have sent various sums, amounting in the whole
to 120. We have taken a great deal of trouble to
ascertain the truth of your:story, and I am exceed-
ingly happy to find that my first impression has
been confirmed by the inquiries that have been
made, and that the timely assistance thus obtained
for you has saved a most deserving woman from
destitution. We have received a letter from your
husband's employer, in which he gives a most satis-
factory account of both you and your husband, which
renders it the more gratifying to me to have been
able to afford you the relief which has led to your
obtaining the means of establishing yourself in
some way to get a living for yourself and the three
little children who are dependent upon you. I
understand it is your intention to open a school in
Greenwich with the means which the public have
placed at your command, and I sincerely hope and
trust that you may be successful and prosper in
your present undertaking. It is, I assure you, with
great pleasure that I now hand you over the
amount forwarded for that purpose.
Mrs. Thompson, who appeared quite overwhelmed
by her feelings, said she hoped that her gratitude to
those who assisted her in the time of need would be
made as public as the tale of her distress which had
called forth the contributions she now received.

BOW-STREET.—A charge of perjury was pre-
ferred against Robert Wesley, an elderly man, a
clerk in the city, under the following circumstances :
Mr. Hand, solicitor (attending for Messrs. Gill-
man, wholesale shoemakers, &c., of Norwich) called
witnesses to prove that in 1852 the defendant pur-
chased a retail bootshop of Mr. John Kidgell, of
Reading ; that he signed his name and passed on
all occasions as " Charles Wesley," and was the
only person concerned in the business negotiations ;
that shortly after he (defendant) had taken posses.
sion of the business he was waited upon by a Mr.
Barnes, the foreman and traveller of Messrs. Gill-
man, through whose agency upwards of £lOO worth
of goods were supplied to defendant ; that in a very
short space of time the business was given up by
defendant, who suddenly disappeared without pay-
ing a farthing of Messrs. Gillman's claim, and NA as
not heard of or seen far several years, until their
foreman, Mr. Barnes, accidentally. met the defen-
dant at a business house in the city ; that proceed-
ings were at once commenced against him, and a
verdict for the amount obtained ; but defendant
petitioned the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and the
plaintiffs were further defeated by his having settled
his property upon his wife. The declarations made
by the defendant before the Insolvent Commis-
sioner were to the effect that he never passed as
Charles Wesley ; that he signed the agreement and
conducted his business on behalf of his brother
Charles Wesley, who paid him a fixed salary for
his services ; and that the letters and documents
put in and signed " Charles -Wesley," were, he be-
lieved, in the handwriting of his brother.
For the defence Mr. Wontner, solicitor, called
a son of Charles Wesley, who stated that to his
personal knowledge, the business at Reading was
taken for his father by the defendant Robert Wes-
ley ; that Charles Wesley had formerly resided at
Sheffield, carrying on the business of an agent
and shareholder, but bitterly had lived in
the house of, and was supported by, witness—
being totally incapacitated by ill-health. He was
at present living at Welling, in Kent, and wholly
unable to attend the court. 'Witness travelled for
a house in the city.
A great number of witnesses on both sides were
examined, and
Mr. Jardine ultimately committed the defendant
for trial, the usual bail, if procurable, being accepted.
Mr. Peacock, the Post-office solicitor, attended to
inform the Court that, upon the petition of the lady,
the charge against Miss Flint for taking back a
letter which she had posted at Peckham, had been
withdrawn by direction of the Postmaster-General.

WORSHIP-STREET.—Henry Ford, a slightly-
built young fellow, described as a gin gerbeer manu-
facturer, was charged with stabbing with intent to

murder.

The prosecutrix, a good-looking young woman
named Sarah Thompson, who was seated while
giving her evidence, whose utterance was so faint
It was scarcely audible, and who was constantly
supplied at intervals with restorative medicine by
order of the surgeon in care of her, stated—l lived
with the prisoner as his wife up to the day before
this happened, Wednesday, the 10th inst., when
about 12 o'clock at night I was returning from the
theatre, in company with another young woman
named Ellen Sampson, with whom I am acquainted.
On reaching the Downham.road the prisoner sud-
denly made his appearance, and advancing to me
said, " You have sold my goods !" I said I had, and
he asked me where the money was. I told him
that I had some cf it on my back and some upon
my feet, meaning that I had laid it out in boots
and clothing ; but I told him that if he would come
home with me I would give him some money. He
exclaimed, " No, I don't Want the money, I want
you." I told him I could never live with him again,
on which he said " If you don't mean to be with me
any more, I'll murder you." I told him that I did
not mean to live with him any longer, and walked
slowly away, he walking by my side, and still
urging me to go back to him, which I still re•
fused. When we had reached within three doors
of the top of Wellington-street, Shacklewell, to
go to my father's, whQ lives in John-street close by,
he suddenly said, " Now, Sarah, make up your
wind, or I will settle it," and instantly, before I
could reply, he stabbed me in the head. I don't
know what instrument it was, for I became sense-
less, and don't know what became of me afterwards.
When I recovered my senses I found that I was in
a doctor's shop, and that I had been stabbed in the
left breast, in the shoulder, in the chest, and in the
head, from the wounds in which I bled very much,
and have been in the hospital ever since then.
Ellen Sampson—l was with the prosecutrix at the
time she refers to, and when the prisoner came up
he had a youth with him. This youth told me some-
thing. which very much alarmed me, and I looked
about for a constable in consequence. The prosecu-
trix and prisoner stood together talking some time,
when she suddenly asked him, " Are you going to
hit me ?" He replied, " I don't know," and she en-
treated him to swear that he would not strike her,
but this he would not do, and she then asked him to
keep his hands in his pockets and go away from her
as she was not going home any more with him. He
then said he would hang for her, and she asked him
to come to the top of Wellington-street, where they
walked together, I and the youth following them.
The prisoner wanted her to go down Shacklewell-
lane, but she would not, and on their reaching the
end-of the street 1 saw him strike her suddenly in
the face and then on the breast, and she very nearly
fell to the ground. I screamed loudly and a con-
stable came up, on which the prisoner ran away,
and on our looking at the prosecutrix we found her
bleeding so profusely from the head, shoulder, and
bosom, that we carried her to the hous3 of a sur-
geon, and then to the German Hospital, at Dalston.
Crisp, 3 N.—l heard screams, and on running to
the spot the prosecutrix fell into my arms senseless
bleeding front the wounds described, and her
clothes completely saturated with blood.
Sergeant Bovis—l took the prisoner yesterday
evening at London-bridge, where I found him upon
one of the wharfs, waiting, as he said, for the
Gravesend boat. When I told him the charge I
wanted him for, at the same time cautioning him,
he said, " I don't care if I am hanged for it ;" and
on the road to the station he exclaimed, " If she
lives, and I get over this, I'll do for her; you don't
know what she is, but I do."
Francis Roberts, the youth referred to by the
young woman Sampson, said,—l saw the prisoner
meet the prosecutrix, and push her against some
railings. I asked him to come away, but he would
not, and I next saw him thrust his hand into his
pocket, withdraw it, and then strike her three
times. She screamed out, " Oh, I'm stabbed !" and
fell against some palings, and on the officer coming
up with a lantern I saw blood upon her breast,
mouth, and shoulder. I know that the prisoner had
two penknives, a buckhorn-handled one and a white
one, as lie had asked me to buy one, and I refused.
Mr. Charles Frolunann, house-surgeon of the
German Holfital, prosecutrix was
brought to me suffering from four wounds—one on
the right shoulder, and two in the chest. The first
was a comparatively slight one, the second was a
stab, and one of those in the chest was slight, but
the other was a severe one, as it had divided an
artery, and was half an inch broad, which might
have been caused by withdrawing the blade. She
bled very much, but the stab fortunately did not
reach the lungs. After the second day I did not
apprehend danger to her life, as the bleeding had
stopped, and I consider that she is now out of dan-
ger, though she is still an out-patient.
Mr. Hann-nil' (to the prisoner).—And what have
you to say to this serious charge ?
Prisoner (who had stood with his head buried in
his hands on the front of the dock).—I am guilty
of stabbing her, but on the Monday before the Wed-
nesday when this occurred she stabbed me.
The prisoner was then commi;ted for trial, the
prosecutrix fainting on hearing it, and being car-
ried out of court.