The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-09 00:00:00

which we have already given during the arguments, to
&low the state of Mr. Dyce Sombre's mind. His Lord-
ship also read voluminous extracts from the affidavit of
Mrs. Dyce Sombre, and the reports of the medical
men, the latter of whom unanimously expressed their
belief that the petitioner was of unsound mind. After a
careful analysis of the arguments that had taken
place, his Lordship concluded by. stating that he felt it
impossible to supersede the commission.
After some abort discussion the petition was ordered
to stand over, in order that the parties might consider
what should be done with respect to the future treat-
ment of the unfortunate gentleman.
The remaining proceedings of the Court were totally
devoid of interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

Augustus Halifax, the young man who was, on Sa-
turday last, examined upon the charge of baying uttered
a forged cheque for 65/., purporting to be drawn by
Wm. Edward Western, of Great James-street, Bedford-
row, upon the house of Sir R. C. Glyn, Halifax, and
Co., was brought up in the custody of John Forrester,
for final eitamination. Mr. Bush attended for the pro-
secution, and Mr. Humphreys appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. Edward Western added the following to his
former evidence :—The cheque stated to be forged was
marked and numbered B X 1199, and th,: note produced
for 101., No. 56,322, had the words upon it " James Mar-
tineau, 9, William-street, Islington.' These words were,
he believed, in the handwriting of the prison.tr ; at least
they bare a resemblance to his handwriting.
Mr. Charles Francis Western, brother and partner to
the last witness, stated that he knew the prisoner's hind-
writing. He had examined the cheque for 61. and the
101. Bank of England note, and he believed the writing
in the body of the cheque, with the exception of the signa-
ture, and the indorsement of the bank note to be the
writing of the prisoner. The signature to the cheque
was excessively like his brother's, but upon close exami-
nation he thought it was not his brother's. The prisoner
had been in his office about a year, but he had left it
about two years ago. He had since he left their em-
ployment occasionly been engaged in writing for the
firm. He had a Chancery suit in which he was in
terested. The last time witness saw the prisoner at the
office was on the 22d of July, when he brought home
some writing.
In answer to questions from Alderman T. Woon, the
witness said he thought his brother was in town on
Sunday, and that the cheque-book was generally kept in
his brother's office..
Alderman T. WOOD—Would the prisoner, if he
brought home any writing on that day, have had access
to your brother's office ? Witness—He might have
gone in, but he ought not to go in at all. The
cheque produced had been torn out of the end of the
cheque-book, and was not a consecutive cheque.
Mr. Mead stated that he had been clerk to Messrs.
Western eighteen years. He had known the prisoner
several years. The prisoner had been a clerk in the
house, had left the employment between two and three
years, but had occasionally since that time done some
writing for the house. Witness was well acquainted
with the prisoner's handwriting, and believed the
writing in the middle of the cheque to be his writing
disguised, as well as the date. The signature very much
resembled Mr. Western's. He'could not state in whose
handwriting the signature was. It --sembled Mr.
Edward Western's very much, but he did not believe it
to be his. Witness believed the name and address on
the Bank note to be also in the prisoner's handwriting
disguised. He had frequently seen the cheque-book in
the offices of the partners. Witness had seen the prisoner
at the house on the 24th of July, and from one to four
days previously.
Mr. Humphreys did not consider it necessary to ask
the witnesses any questions, but asked the Alderman
whether he thought the evidence sufficient to justify
him in sending the case to the jury ?
Alderman I'. Woo]) said, in his opinion, there was
enough to take before a jury, and committed the pri-
soner for trial at the Central Criminal Own.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Wednesday Mr. Frederich Parhyn, the proprietor of a
shawl warehouse, No. 84, Quadrant, appeared before Mr.
Maltby, to a summons, for having assaulted Miss Eliza-
beth Steer, of 88, Dean street, Soho, on Saturday last.
Mr. Bryan, barrister, attended on the part of the de-
fendant.
The complainant, a very respectable young woman,
stated that she was in the employment of Mrs. Nichols
bonnet-maker and milliner, 72, Quadrant. On Saturday
last, while she was out on business, she saw exposed at
defendant's shop-door a shawl, ticketed at 14s. 9d.
Thinking it a very good one for the price, she resolved
upon having it, and went home to get the money to buy
it with. she returned to the shop about three o'clock in
the afternoon, and saw the shawl still exposed. At that
time the defendant was standing at the door, when she
addressed him, saying she would purchase the shawl and
at the same time lifted it from where it was hanging and
tendered the money. The defendant took hold of the
end of the shawl, and requested her to step into the shop
while the article was being put in paper. Complainant
replied that she did not want paper, but defendant
held fast to the shawl, and complainant went a few
steps into the shop. A second person, named Atkins,
a shopman, was there, and he snatched the ticket from
her while defendant endeavoured to get the shawl out
of her hands. Defendant then seized her by her arm,
and twisted it so much that she was obliged to get
medical advice. The two men'at the same time used the
most gross language, and Parkyn told her that if she
did not leave the shop instantly he would kick her out,
and added that if she had got money enough to pur-
chase, the shawl, she most likely had obtained it by
walking up and down Regent-street. The language
used by the defendant, and his shopman, was of the
most indecent description. She then walked out of the
shop.
In answer to Mr. Bryan, complainant stated that she
was in the etnploy. of Mrs. Nichols, and not of Mr.
Nichols. Mr. Nichols keeps a shawl shop in the Quad-
rant, not far from defendant's. The money with which
she intended to purchase the shaWl she obtained from
home, and not from Mrs. Nichols. She was not aware
of any disputes between defendant and Mr. Nichols.
She had mentioned the fact of the shawl being ticketed
at so low a figure, and expressed a wish to have it
to Mrs. Nichols, who said that if she (complainant)
could get a better shawl at a cheaper rate else-
where than she could be supplied with at their own
esiablishment, there would be no objection on her part
and she should not feel offended. Complainant examined
the shawl in the presence of the defendant, and while he
was standing at the door, on saying to him that she
would purchase the shawl, he replied " very well," and
went on with it to put it in paper, while complainant held
one end. Upon her oath she went there for no other
purpose than to purchase a shawl. Mts. Nichols had
nothing to do with it, and had never seen it. Complain-
ant did not serve in the shawl trade at Mr. Nichols's.
She did not understand the trade. Defendant asked
complainant if she came from Mr. Nichols ; but she re-
plied no, the shawl was for herself. He did not tell her
that if she were a stranger she should have the shawl.
She could not remember every word that was said ; but
the abusive language was too unprecedented to forget.
The language of Atkins was as bad as that of defendant,
and she had applied for summonses against them both,
but only obtained the one for Parkyn. Complainant was
not requested to leave the shop, except in abusive terms.
by defendant, who said to her " If you don't go out, I'll
kick you out, you d—d b—h." There was a struggle for
the possession of the shawl, which defendant at lengtl
gained.
It was endeavoured to be shown, as an answer to this
statement, that the complainant' had been sent by a rival
shopkeeper to purchase a shawl which was, for the pur-
pose of trade, ticketed at a price much less than its value.
Mr. MALTBY said, that as nothing had been shown to
prove that complainant went to defendant's shop in fur-
therance of any instructions from Nichols, it must be
considered as a bona fide purchase. He would not say
that she had a right to claim the property. She took
the shawl down and was told it should be put in paper,
which induced:her to believe that she was to have it.
Instead, however, the ticket was first snatched off, and the
shawl was afterwards taken from her, and she ordered out
of the shop with threats. It was his (Mr. Maltby's) opi-
nion, that the Assault arose from the fact of the shawl
having been ticketed at a price at which it was not in-
tended to be sold. Upon the whole case he was satisfied
an assault had been committed, accompanied by threa-
tening language, and he should therefore fine the de-
fendant 4L and costs.—The fine was instantly paid.
UNION-HALL.
Benjamin Rogers, Alfred Andrews, Charles Thorpe,
John Edwards, and W. Fowler, were brought before
Mr. Trail', charged 'with creating a great riot at the
Chartist Hall, 1151, Blackfriars-road, and violently
assaulting Mr. Knighton the owner of the premises. It
appeared that Mr. Knighton had a lease of the premises,
and had agreed to let the large room to the Chartistsfor
48. a week, for lectures to be delivered on the five points
of the Charter ; but the society had greatly increased,
and Mr. Knighton had demanded an advanced rent, and
that there was now a law suit pending. Last night, the
defendants had called a Chartist meeting to be held in
the room ; but the complainant refused to admit them
and closed the doors. • The doors were broken open by
the defendants, who proceeded to destroy the furniture
in the room, and beat and assaulted Mr. Knighton in a
violent manner.
Mr. TRAILL sail he understood this to be an old
grievance, but they were all acting illegally, and two of
the defendants had already been bound over. The Ma-
gistrate ordered Andrews and Edwards to find bail in
501. to keep the peace for six.months each ; Fowler was
fined 10s., and the other four defendants were committed
to the sessions for destroying the furniture and assault.

THE ALLEGED POISONING CASE
AT STEPNEY.

James Cockburn Belaney was brought up on Wednesday-
for final examination at the Thames Police-court, charged
on suspicion of having caused- the death of his wife,
_Rachel Belaney, by having administered to her a quan-
tity of prussic acid on the Bth of June last. The ease,
hicli has excited the deepest interest, was several times
remanded, and in the interim a Coroner's jury returned
a verdict of wilful murder against the prisoner. The
circurnstances have boen already so fully before the pub-
lic, that at present we need give no more than a brief
summary of the leading facts. It appeared that the
prisoner practisvd a few yrsrs ago as a ur,geon, but
without a certificate, in the neighbourhood of the Com-
mercial-road, where he formed an acquaintance with
Mr. Hobson, a bookseller in the road, and Capt. Clark,
a. master mariner, in King-street, Stepney, who, how-
ever, lost sight of him for some time. About the 3d or
4th of June he returned to London with a young, beau-
tiful, and accomplished wife,_ and took lodgings near
his friend Captain Clark. . During the three or four
days which they were there; the, prisoner and his wife,
according to the testimony of Captain Clark and
Mr. Robson, who appeared -to be their sole sequaiut-