The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-09 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 9, 18507

rest satisfied with that decision in the present case.
At the same time he could not but feel no small asto-
nishment that the Learned Judge of the court should
refer him to the bar practising before him for a
confirmation of his Lordship's decision, seeing that
he did not entertain by any means the highest re-
spect for those gentlemen.
kir. PAYNE could not allow such a remark as that
which had just been made by the Learned Counsel to
pass without notice. It was a most unjustifiable and
a personally insulting remark. So far as he was
himself individually concerned, he should treat the
uncalled-for observation with the fullest feeling of
contempt to which it was entitled.
The Learned JUDGE trusted that the Learned
Counsel (Mr. Payne) would not take any notice of
the latter. He would, at the same time, remind the
counsel for the defendant that the course he ought to
have pursued, seeing that he had in the outset
admitted that his client was guilty, with a view to
that man's interests, should have been of a conciliatory
character, rather than one which might be calculated
to have a contrary effect. God forbid, however, that
any course—let that course be as unwise as it tnight
—which a counsel might think proper to adopt,
should have the slightest influence on the Court when
considering the meed of punishment it should award
upon a defendant.
Mr. PARNELL deeply regretted that in the course
he had taken he should have incurred the censure of
the Court. There was nothing to which he so much
objected as anything in the shape of an altercation
with a Learned Judge or with his brethren of the
bar. He had merely stated that which he had per-
sonally experienced as the practice of other courts in
cases similar to the present, without being at all aware
that by urging for its adoption there he had been over-
stepping the custom of that court.
The Learned JUDGE said that the remarks he had
made had not been intended as censure. The Learned
Judge then summed up, and
The Jury at once returned a verdict of Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE, in passing sentence, said that
the evidence had failed to justify the conclusion that
the blows which had been spoken to had any relation
to the cause of the poor woman's death. Had the
testimony tended to such a conclusion the matter
would have borne a very different aspect. The judg •
ment of the Court therefore was that the defendant
should be imprisoned for two months in the House of
Correction. He had, he saw, already been one month
in prison.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Denis Ryan, Edward Brazil, and Catherine
Lenney, were brought before Alderman Huwphery,
charged with having committed a desperate assault
upon a policeman, named Notley, in the neighbour-
hood of Widegate-alloy, Bishopsgate.
Notley, who was stated to be in the hospital, suf-
fering from the effects of a severe beating and
kicking, was seen by another policeman staggering
from weakness and loss of blood, in Widegate alley,
at three o'clock in the morning, and was obliged to
be supported to the station-house. It appeared that
in the attempt to put an end to a tailors' row the un-
fortunate officer had been attacked by several persons,
and that Ryan was amongst the most violent of his
assailants. His truncheon and his lantern had been
wrenched from his possession, and the blood streamed
" like a river" down his face. Brazil was believed
to be another of those who made the formidable
attack, and a hat was picked up near the spot on
which the skirmish took place. A bonnet was also
found there, to which Katherine Lenney was supposed
to have a claim. The police had been called to that
place by cries of " Murder," a word in general use in
that vicinity, but repeated in a tone which showed
that it was really meant. Ryan, who acknowledged
that the hat was his, was identified, not only by Not-
ley, but by a boy who was taking his father's supper
to him at a warehouse.

A boy, named George Ruby, who appeared to be
about 14 years old, was then put in the box, and the
Testament was handed to him. He looked quite
astonished upon taking hold of the book.
Alderman HUMPHERT—WeII, do you know what
you are about ? Do you know what an oath is ?
Boy—No.
Alderman HUMPHERT—Do you know what a
Testament is ? Boy—No.
Alderman HUMPHERY—Can you read ? Boy—No.
Alderman HumemEtt-r—Do you ever say your
prayers ? Boy—No; never.
Alderman HUMPHERY—Do you know what prayers
are ? Boy—No.
Alderman HUMPITERY—DO you know what God
is ? Boy—No.
Alderman HUMPHERY—Do you know what the
Devil is ? Boy—No. I've heard of the Devil, but I
don't know him.

Alderman Ilummuntv—What do you know my
poor fellow ? Boy—l knows how to sweep the
crossing.
Alderman Flumrusuy—And that's all ? Boy—
That's all. I sweeps the crossing.
The ALDERMA.N said, that in all his experience he
had never met with anything like the deplorable ig-
norance of the unfortuate child in the witness box.
He, of course, could not take the evidence of a crea-
ture who knew nothing whatever of the obligation to
tell the truth. _ _

____
The prisoners, who denied that they had been
guilty of any violence, were remanded till Friday
next.

WESTMINSTER.

George Thomas a very respectable-looking
youth, between 16 and 17 years of age, clerk at the
West Cornwall Railway Company's offices, 1.74,
Great George-street, Westminster, was charged with
stealing a sovereign, the money of his employers.
Mr. BRODERIP said it was his duty to commit the
prisoner for trial at the present sitting of the Central
Criminal Court.
TV ORSHIP-STREET.
Henry Newell, the conductor of a Paddington
omnibus, appeared to a summons before Mr Hammitt
to answer a charge preferred by Mr. Thomas, the
secretary to the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, for having unlawfully refused to
admit him as a passenger in his vehicle.
The complainant stated that on the morning of
Sunday se'nnight he hailed the defendant's omnibus
in the City-road, for the purpose of proceeding to the
terminus of the South-Eastern Railway, in time for
the ten o'clock train to Dover, where he had impor-
tant business to transact. The defendant immediately
turned round and stared him in the face in an insolent
manner, but continued his course ; and upon repeating
the signal, which the defendant evidently observed,
as he made an impatient gesture with his hand, it was
still disregarded, and the omnibus went on until it
reached the corner of a street at a short distance,
where he suddenly stopped and took in three other
passengers. Witness then entered another omnibus,
which conveyed him to the station, where he saw the
defendant, and on demanding his reason for rejecting
him as a passenger, he replied in a careless tone that
he had no time to stop. Witness thereupon took his
number, and having reason to suspect that he had
purposely refused to convey him to his destination
from a knowledge of his official position, as he had
previously been subjected to similar treatment from
other members of the fraternity, he felt it his duty to
adopt the present proceedings against him.
On being called upon for an explanation of his
conduct, the defendant declared that his omnibus was
full at the time he was first hailed by the complainant,
but that three of the passengers got out before the
stoppage for the admission of the others referred to
by that gentleman,
Mr. Thomas, however, positively contradicted the
latter part of his statement, as he kept the omnibus in
siaiit from the time he hailed it until it stopped to
receive the other passengers, and he felt quite satisfied
that no one got out during that interval.
Mr. liamastra. said that he considered the case had
been cleariy proved, and as the defendant's conduct
might have been productive of serious inconvenience
to the complainant, who had functions to perform
which, although they might not be altogether palata-
ble to persons in that particular class, were of great
public importance ; and, as a warning to others in a
similar situation, he should impose upon him the full
penalty of 20s. and the costs.
LAMB ETH.
John Walkins and Charles Wright, two well-
dressed men of respectable appearance, the former of
whom represented himself to be a butcher, residing
at Appleby, and the latter a gardener residing at
Derby, were placed at the bar before Mr. Elliott, for
final examination, on a charge of conspiring to defraud
Mr. Joha Maddle, a gentleman residing in the
Wandsworth-road, of .5/.
Mr. Games appeared for Watkins, and Mr. Salomons
for Wright.
From the evidence it appeared that about midd ty
on Saturday last, the prisoners, in company with three
others, walked up to Mr. Maddle, a good-natured-
looking old gentleman, in the Clapham-road, and
Wright, addressing him, said that he had purchased a
greyhound, led by one of the other men, from the
father of Walkins, for 151, but his servant, who he
had sent for the animal, having deducted 15s. for
himself, the " old gentleman" not only refused the
money but solemnly declared that he should not,
under any circumstances, let his master have the dog.
He (Wright) then entreated Mr. Meddle would be-
come his agent in the matter, and took that gentleman
into a beer-house clots by and placed before him
fifteen sovereigns, requesting aim at the mama time to
hand them to Walkins for the dog. Watkins, who
was present, said he could not think of taking the
money, for if he did so he should have to tell the
old gentleman a lie. The sovereigns, he said, be-
longed to Wright, and he could not think of taking
them. Wright here requested Mr. Meddle to accom-
pany him into a private room, but Walkins stopped
them, saying he should have nothing private, and
that it was quite clear to him that the object of
Wright was to hand over the money unseen to his
friend (Ur, Meddle) so as to enable hirn to pay for