The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-21 00:00:00

BOIV-STREET.

John Bennett, William Laidler, Henry Tiddyman,
John Jones, and John Sullivan were re.-examined
before Mr. Henry, on the charge of extorting money
from Samuel 'Wyatt, a tobacconist, in Lincoln's Inn-
fields, by threatening to prosecute him for an unna-
tural offence.

About two months before Christmas Tiddyman
purchased some tobacco in the pru,ecutor's shop. In
receiving it across the counter he squeezed the hand
of the prosecutor, an aged infirm man, who then in-
vited him to partake of some gin and water. From this
time up to the period of their apprehension, Tiddy-
man and his associates continued to visit the prose-
cutor, shortly before the hour of closing his shop, and
to demand, from time to time, various sums of money
to prevent their accusing him of an infamous crime
in a public court. Upwards of GO/. had been ex-
torted from him in this way, when a niece of the
prosecutor, suspecting the nature of these mid-
night interviews, secreted herself in a position
which enabled her to overhear the conversation
of the parties. She then introduced herself at
the meetings, and insisted on taking part in
the negotiations " with a view to the final settle-
ment of the case," and, after privately arranging
with Sergeants Thompson and West, of the detective
police, to secrete them in the house, she made an ap-
pointment with the whole of the prisoners, and thus
secured their apprehension, determining to prosecute
them without the consent of her uncle.

The following specimen of the documents drawn up
by the prisoners, and purporting to be the agreements
by which all the parties were to be bound upon cer-
tain conditions, was found upon Laidler, who had re-
presented himself as a solicitor, and had actually de-
manded and received 121. from Wyatt on one occa-
sion, in part liquidation of his fee., for professional
services. The agreement was written on a 2s. GI

stamp :
" Memorandum of :an agreement made and entered
into between Samuel W 3 att, of Great Queen-street,
Lincoln's-Inn-fields, on the one part, and Henry Roberts,
John Evans, John Smitb, Charles Harrison, and Wil-
liam Laidner, on the other part:—
"I, the said Henry Roberts' and others, do by this
agreement disclaim all future demands of the said S.
Wyatt, and the said Henry Roberts and others do hereby
declare that we will never annoy, or molest, or cause
any person or persons to annoy or molest, the said S.
Wyatt.
"Now, this agreement is binding on both sides; that is,
providing the said Henry Roberts do not annoy, or cause
any person or persons to annoy or molest, the said S.
Wyatt; and the said S. Wyatt and Mary Legg, niece of
the aforesaid S. Wyatt, do undertake and solemnly
swear that they will never prosecute, or cause any infor-
mation to be given to any person or persons which may
lead to the apprehension of, the said persons, whose
names and signatures are on this agreement.
'• This agreement further showeth, that I, the said S.
Wyatt, and Mary Legg, niece of the said S. Wyatt, are
willing that this case should be compromised; that is to
say, that we have this day paid the said Henry Roberts
and others the sum of 30/. in an 1.0. U., which the said
IL Roberts and others hold, Having been given and
signed by the said S. Wyatt, in the presence of Mary
Legg, niece of the said S. Wyatt, for the settlement of
the present case.
" And should either of the said persons whose names
and signatures are to this agreement annoy or molest the
said S. Wyatt, upon their so doing the said S. Wyatt
shall be art liberty to prosecute either of the said persons
so doing, according to the form of the statute in such
case made and provided.
And should either of the said persons in this agree-
ment annoy or molest, &c., him, the said S. Wyatt and
Mary Legg, his niece, do solemnly swear that they will
only prosecute the one so annoying bim, the said S.
Wyatt; that is to say, if one of the persons in this
agreement should go and annoy or molest him, the said
S. Wyatt, he should be at liberty to prosecute him only;
and the said S. Wyatt does undertake that he will not
interfere, by word or deed, with any of the persons
named in this agreement, with the exception of the one
so annoying him.
" Dated the 12th day of March, 1850.
(Signed) HENRY ROBERTS.
" JOHN EVANS.
" JOHN SMITH.
" CHARLES HARRISON.
" WILLIAM LAIDNER.
" The signatures of S. Wyatt and Mary Legg
to follow here."
The blanks left for the signatures of Wyatt and
Mrs. Legg had not been filled up.
Mr. HENRY inquired if the prisoners had given fic-
titious names ?

Sergeant Thompson stated that Jones was better
known by the name of Joyce, in which name he had
been before convicted. The others, he believed, bad
given their proper lames, although they had assumed
a variety of names on different occasions, as in the
case of the agreement produced. Sullivan, Bennett,
and Laidler were also well known to the police, and
the two former bad been convicted.
Mrs. Legg stated that Tiddyman was the person
who assumed the name of Henry Roberts in the ne-
gotiations with Mr. Wyatt and herself.
Mr. T. Bryon, who stated that he was a continental
agent to British bankers and merchants, identified the
prisoner Laidler as a suspected associate of two men
who were tried and convicted at the Lewes assizes
about four years ago. A gentleman of title and dis-
tinction prosecuted a solicitor named Bowyer, and an
accomplice named Steer, for threatening to accuse him
of an unnatural offence, and they were both sentenced
to transportation for life. Laidler was in the service
of the gentleman's son at that time, and had sup•
ported the charge got up against his master's father ;
but when the result of the trial was known, he pro-
ceeded to London by railway, and never returned.
The witness having occasion some time ago to be at
the Ilighbury-barn Tavern, at Islington, accidentally
observed the prisoner, who appeared to be employed
there as a waiter.
Laidler (to witness)—l believe we have met at
Paris, too, have we not ?
The witness replied that he thought be had once
seen him at an hotel in Paris, also officiating as a
waiter.
The depositions of the prosecutor and niece having
been taken down in writing, the prisoners were again
remanded for a week.
We believe the presiding magistrate, Mr. Henry,
has received a great number of anonymous letters
from persons who appear to have been victimised by
the gang of miscreants with whom the prisoners are
associated. In one of these the writer stated that
being once accosted by a fellow answering the de-
scription of Bennett,he inflicted a wound upon his right
band, which was likely to remain a lasting memento
of his indignation. His Worship desired the gaoler to
look upon Bennett's hand, upon the back of which
there was certainly a remarkable scar. The prisoners
however, attributed it to some other cause.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Mr. Reuben Amiss, tailor, 66, Conduit-street, was
summoned before Mr. Hardwick, for an assault on
Mr. J. Cunnington, a gentleman of fortune, residing
at 10, Glocester-place, Kentish-town.
Mr. Wontner, who appeared for the complainant,
characterized the charge as one of a novel and extra-
ordinary character. The complainant, on the 6th of
the present month, went to the defendant's shop to see
his nephew, who was in partnership with the defen-
dant, on the subject of some trust money. The
nephew was not there, but the defendant was. Com-
plainant waited in the shop, and saw a man whispering
to the defendant. The defendant came to him and
told him he should not wait there any longer, and
took him by the arm and turned him round. The
defendant then threw a damp handkerchief over his
mouth and nose, and pushed him out into the street.
The complainant, almost immediately afterwards, was
seized with stupor, and staggered about until, fortu-
nately meeting with a friend, he was enabled to reach

home. Since that period the complainant had been a
severe sufferer.

Mr. Cunnington, an elderly gentleman, proved that
he called at the defendant's shop to see his nephew,
but could not effect his purpose. lie saw a sort of
whispering going on between the defendant and
another person. Immediately afterwards the defen-
dant ordered him to leave the shop, and after seizing
him by the arm, he drew a wet handkerchief over his
nose and mouth, at;d turned him by a forcible push
into the street. The handkerchief smelt as if it bad
contained putrid meat. Complainant hid hardly
reached Regent- street before he fc-dt an extraordinary
sensation in his head. He partially lost his senses,
and how he got over the road he was unable to tell.
Ile was put into an omnibus by a friend, and when he
reached home his eyes, nose, and mouth were dis-
charging profusely. Complainant felt as if he Intd
been severely salivated. His mouth broke out into
sores on both sides, and he had been ill ever since.

The following certificate was handed in :
Samuel Sandys, surgeon, No. 4, Francis-strePt,
Kentish-town—l have attended Mr. Cunnington
professionally for about fifteen years. He sent for
me on the 12th instant. He was suffering from
slight congestion of the brain and febrile action, de-
pression of breathing, and inflammation of the mucous
membrane of the nose, mouth, and eyes, also a free
discharge from those parts. He was labouring also
under considerable nervous excitement. His nose
and mouth much swollen. He complained of pain all
over him. II never, in my experience, observed symp-
toms so aggravated from the effects of cold. Any
irritating fluid applied to the nose would produce such
symptoms. _ _ _

Airs. Cunnington proved that her husband went
out quite well in the morning, and returned with the
appearance already described. For a time her hus-
band did not appear to be in his right senses. Much
alarm was produced by the altered appearance of her
husband.

A witness named Chapman declared that he had
never seen the complainant the worse for liquor in his
life.

The defendant denied the charge in toto. lie had
no intimation that the complainant intended to call at
his shop, and he could not have prepared a handker-
chief as described. He denied having applied a hand-
kerchief, and he would be able to prove that the
charge against him was quite unfounded.
The case was postponed till Wednesday next, for
the production of other witnesses.