The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-11 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAJ4 COURT.
OLD: cotmr.

Henry Davies was indicted for feloniously assault-
ing Thomas .M`Carthy With .a poker, with the intent
to do him griems bodily,hafm,
Mr. Clarkson conducted the proseCution, and
Messrs. Doane and C. Jones- appeared for the defence.
From the evidence of the-prosecutor, it appeared
that both he and the accused were licensed victuallers
at Chelsea, Mr. Davies being the landlord of the Ca-
dogan Arms. The oceurrence in question took place
in the ni Pof the 12th of January in the defendant's
:ht
house. p 1 'he prosecutor was in 'the house drinking for ,
a great many hours, and in the course of the even 4
some dispute arose, and, according to the. prosecutor s
story, the accu seized a poker from the fire-place,
and struck him a very severe blow with it on the
head. In crosssexamination, he admitted he was a
good deal the • worse -for liquor at the time, and that
he had made use of insulting language to the accused..
The defence set up was, that no poker was used,
hut that upon the prosecutor making use of some of.
fensive expression •to the accused, he collared. him,
and they struggled and fell down, and that lie hurt
his head in the fall.
A witness named Fry was, called to prove these
facts, and he swore positively that no poker was made
use of.
'Captain Fitzgerald, a Magistrate for the county of
Middlesex, was called to speak to the character of
Mr. Davies; and he described him as a very honourable
and respectable man, and he bore testimony to the
excellent Manner in which his house was conducted.
The jury expressed themselves satisfied, and with-
out troubling, the Judge to sum up, at once returned
a verdict of-Not gUilty.
Mr. Baron GURNEY observed, that the real fact of
the matter appeared -to be, that the prosecutor had not
wilfully mis-stated the facts, hut from the quantity
he had drank he was not. in a condition to tell what
really did take place.
(Before the
.Recoania.)
Anne Elizabeth Earnshaw, 34, married, and Emma
Well 4, 28, single woman, were indicted for stealing a
silver knife, value 6s. 6d., the property of Mary Anne
Rose. Mr. Ballantine prosecuted, and Messrs.
Clarkson and Wilkins appeared for the prisoners.
The circumstances under which the present, and
several other charges of a similar character were
made against the prisoners having been very recently
fully given in our police reports,-
,it will be unneces-
sary to repeat them ,07',any length on the present
occasion. The •prison-er Earnshaw, who is respectably
connected, accompaniaiky the other woman, Wells,
were in the habit of :going to the shops of different
jewellers,-and asking to look at various articles, such
as watches, rings, &c., and taking that opportunity to
steal every article that came in their -way. In the
present case they went' into the shop of the prose-
cutrix, in Farringdon street, and asked to leok at
some silver fruit-knives. A great number were
shown them, but they did not purchase any ; and,
immediately on their leaving the shop, a silver knife
was missed. The prisoners were followed to a pawn-
broker's shop, and taken into custody, and upon Wells
being,searched, a silver knife.was sound in her pos-
sion, which the proseeuttix identified as her property,
but it appeared that it was not the same she had
missed. . • •

Mr. CLARKSON, on behalf of the prisoners, argued
that the knife in question might have been sold at
some former time, and that there was no proof of its
having been stolen at the time the prisoners were in
the shop.
Several witnesses; were called, who gave the pri-
soners an excellent character and it was stated that
Earnshaw was in the receipt of a considerable income,
and that the other prisoner lived with her as a
companion.
The jury found Earnshaw Not Guilty, and con-
icted Wells, but at the same time recommended her
to mercy.
The RECORDER said they had better wait a little
before they took this step.
The prisoners were then indicted for stealing two
diamond rings, value '3/. is. 6d., the property of
Thomas Chapman.
This case was of a similar description to the last,
and the jury returned the same verdict, acquitting
Earnshaw, apparently upon the ground that the pro-
perty was found in the possession of Wells.
The prisoners mere -then arraigned upon another
indictment, charging them with stealing a gold watch,
Value 301., the property of John Smith.
The prosecutor in this case is a watchmaker in the
Strand, and the prisoners went into his shop, and
wished to look at some watches. A great many
were shown them; but they said none of them- suited,
and left the shop without purchasing any article, and,
almost immediately afterwards,' a gold watch, value
0/., was missed. from one of the trays. This watch
was subs?quently found -in the' possession of the
prisoner Wells.
The jury, in this caw, found both prisoners guilty.
The prisoners were then indicted for stealing a gold
locket, the property of georr. Lamb.
The case was clearly ,rnade out, and the jury again
returned a verdict of guilty against both prisoners.
The, RECORDER sentenced them to be transported
for seven years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
C'LERKENIVELL.

THE ABDUCTION CASE.L-WITI. Burton Newenham
was brought up on remand, charged with the abduc-
tion of Miss Frances Louisa Wortham, of 28, Gerard-
street,. Coburg -road, IslingtOn, a ward in Chancery.
The prisoner took his place- in the dock with great
composure. He was neatly dressed, but looked paler
and in worse spirits than on the previous occasions.
rthe Court was crowded with respectable civilians and
professional gentlemen-, and great anxiety wax mani-
fested to know the result of the struggle between Mr.
Combe and Vice•-Chancellor Knight Bruce for the
possession of.the prisoner. Mr. Allen, the tipstaff of
the Court of Chancery, Was in attendance, bearing the
Lord Chancellor's warrant for the prisoner's ap-
prehension.
Mr. Mallard, a county-Magistrate, sat on the Bench
'temple,
piklerr, co.Cndumllcd eteasa spectator. Mr. Southey, of the
the prosecution; arid Mr. Hum-
phries defended the prisoner.
Mr. Southey said that since the last hearing of fie
Case he had communicated with Vice:Chancellor
Bruce, and informed him of the Magistrate's deter-
mination, and of his reasons for'coining to that deter-
inination. The Vice-Chancellor said he considered
Mr. Combe acted wrongly in detaining the prisoner
;ngainst the Lord Chancellor's warrant. The Vice-
Chancellor said he entertained a very strong opinion
'on the subject, but he had not been able to commu-
inieate with the Lord Chancellor, who was at his
country seat in Berkshire. He (Mr. Southey) had
been directed by the Vice.;Chancellor to express his
opinion, and it was under his Honour's direction he
did so. He would not ball upon the Magistrate to
Having communicated
'whatpursue b -aadnytrapnasrptiiertiedla,rhceowarassenow ready to go on with
ithe case.

Mr. COMBE—Let the case be proceeded with.
Mr. Humphriesßefore your Worship comes to
any decision I have a proposal to make.
Mr. COMBE—I have already decided. I do not
•think it necessary to reiterate the reasons which I
,have already publicly stated for the course I am
'about to pursue. If the Lord Chancellor or the
Vice-Chancellor have the power to take the prisoner
out of my hands, then. let them exercise it, and I
will, of course, yield to -it at once. A prisoner has
been brought before me charged with a very grave
offence—evidence. has been submitted which warranted
mein believing that that offence had been committed.
I have reason to know that evidence can be adduced
which will prove the commission of a much higher
offence. I repeat Ido not feel myself at liberty to
give the man up to the Court of Chancery under such
circumstances. If the law gives paramount autho-
rity to the Lord Chancellor--authority to take a
prisoner under these circumstances from a police
• magistrate, I must
.submit, of course, but I am not
aware that the law confers any such powers.
' Mr. Southey—l. do not now make any application
to you one way or the other.
Mr. COMBE—I was called upon to give the pri-
soner up to the tipstaff of the Court of Chancery now
present on a former occasion, I refused to do so, and
I now refuse. Call upon Mrs. Wortham to appear.
After some delay, 141 rs. Wortham, mother of the
o so?u 1d exa-
mine lady, made her appearance. She was genteelly at-
tired, and took her place in the witness box with ap-
aosukledd
he
efr6bSe
ap-
parent reluctance. Having been sworn,
mil‘nierbeCr°,mornEsh
Southey preferred the Magistrates doing so.
In answer to questions from the bench, Mrs.
Worth= repeated her former testimony, which the
clerk (Mr:Mould) upon this occasion took formally
°AtiltreYistirfathe; dow
down in depositions for trial. She added several new
facts. The following is the substance of her testi
mony :—ller husband was in the shawl trade in Re-
gent-street, and died on the 14th of June, 1842, leav-
ing no property whatever. Ile? daughter, an only
one, Frances Louisa, the subject of the present inves-
tigation, was born on the 24th of December, 1828,
and was consequently 15 years old last Christmas
eve. The prisoner came to lodge at her house in
June,lB4o, and continued to lodge with her at Ge-
rard-street up to the period of her husband's death,
when he left.
Mr. Cosine—Do you know what lie is? Witness
—No ; I have been informed that he is a person of
in,lependent fortune. A lady in the neighbourhood,
with whom he formerly lodged, told me sd. The
witness proceeded to state that, after her husband's
death, the prisoner continued on visiting terms with
her. Six months after her husband's death, her
daughter was bequeathed landed property to the value
of 4001. a year, but at present incutnbered with a life
annuity of 200/., of which bequest the prisoner was
aware. On the 7th of January, 1843, witness re-
ceived a letter from Mr. Hawkins, one of timp trustees