The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-28 00:00:00

GUILDHALL.

Albert Merminod, a Frenchman, was placed at the
bar before Sir Chapman Marshall, charged with
stealing two bills, one for 1501. and the other for i 001.,
and the half of a 300/. Bank of England note, 'riving
been remanded on a former examination on the charge
of forging the' signatures of Messrs. Cahn and Co.
The evidence already adduced proved the prisoner's
having the bills in his possession, and attempting to
get them changed at Messrs. Coutts and Co.'s bank on
the 20th of March ; and on finding that they had
been stopped, taking them to Messrs. Cahn and Co.'s
in order to return them and induce Mr. Cahn to pay
his expenses from Paris to London and back. When
the prisoner was taken the half of a 3001. note was
found on him, in a letter which Mr. Cahn proved was
intended for him, as he had already received another
letter containing the corresponding half of the note,
by the same post, as that in the prisoner's possession.
The prisoner was now committed to take his trial
at the Old Bailey on the charge of forgery. The
charge of robbery fell to the ground in consequence
of it not having taken place within the jurisdiction of
the English courts.
Application was made to the Alderman for a sum-
mons against the brokers of the Oriental emigrant
ship, to recover 204., being the amount of two deposits
of 101. each for passages out to Australia.
It appeared from the statement made before the
Alderman, that the applicants had paid their deposits
for a passage to Australia in the ship Oriental, and
that the original charterer bad since thought fit to
transfer all passengers to the Tory—a vessel• not more
than half the size and tonnage of the Oriental, the
convenience, comforts, and capabilities of the Tory
being far inferior. The applicants in consequence
had endeavoured to obtain an interview with the
brokers, but they were nowhere to be found, and on
going to the Tory "they were informed that unless
they chose to go by that vessel they would lose their
deposits, as the brokers of the Oriental were hank.
rupts. According to the 32d clause of the Passengers'
Act, it appeared that the original charterer may
transfer passengers to any vessel he may think proper,
but that it must be "equally eligible," which was not
the case with the ship Tory. They said application
was made as much with the view of cautioning the
public against similar impositions for the future, as of
obtaining the deposits that had been paid.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Joseph Brooks and Ann Cuddick were brought
before Mr. Hardwick for final examination, charged
with having been concerned in breaking into and
entering the dwelling-house, No. 8, Leicester-street,
Leicester-square, and stealing therefrom pistols and

other property, valued at upwards of 2001., belonging
to Mr. Charles Baylis Uther. The prisoners were
fully committed.
Mr. Reuben Amiss, tailor, Conduit-street, attended
on an adjourned charge of assault, preferred against
him by an elderly gentleman of firtune named Can-
nington, residing in Kentish-town.
The evidence, which on the former and present oc-
casion was very lengthy, was to this effect :—The
complainant being desirous of seeing his• nephew
about money matters, called in Conduit-street, and
spoke to the defendant, who was, as he believed, in
partnership with his nephew. lie remained in the
shop some time, and some alterdation having arisen
with the defendant he was desired to leave the

shop. He was seized by the arm and turned round
by the defendant, who, as alleged, passed a
handkerchief wet with something that smelt
like putrid meat, over his face twice, and then with a
forcible push he was turned into the street. He had
not walked many yards before his eyes and nose pro-
fusely discharged—he staggered and became giddy,
and almost tanconsciour. He reached home with dif-

6culty by the kindness of a friend, and when he got
home he became worse. In two or three days the
symptoms became alarming; he felt as if he had been
salivated—he lost taste and smell, and the skin about
the mouth became sore and peeled off. He partially
lost his senses, and on the sixth day he sent for h a
usual medical attendant, and had been under his
care ever since. Believing that his illness had been
occasioned by some sort of poison on the handker-
chief passed over his face, he had taken out a sum-
mons against the defendant.

The defendant denied, in the strongest terms,
having used a handkerchief to the complainant. He
had obliged him to leave his shop, but had used no
more than necessary fore.
A witness was now called, who saw the whole
affair. The complainant was put out of the shop with-
out improper violence, and his face not touched by
the defendant with any handkerchief.
Mr. Norman, surgeon, of Duchess-street, never
had heard of an agent that would produce the effects
described by the complainant ; he considered the
effects might bare resulted from cold, combined with
great excitement and irritation.
➢ir. Cunnington, jun., stated that he was not in
partnership with the defendant.
Mr. HARDWICK said, except the singular circum
stance of the alleged application of the handkerchief,
there was nothing particular in the case. Tne com-
plainant had gone to the defendant's shop to see his
nephew, a squabble had occurred, and the complain-
ant was turned out of the shop. The complainant
said violence was used, but that had been negatived
by the witnesses. Then came the allegation of the
application of the handkerchief, and the subsequent
effects from it. That would be a very serious charge
if it was substantiated. Now this charge was either
a fact, a hallucination, or a malicious assertion. With
respect to the fact, a witness who was in the shop all
the time saw nothing of the handkerchief. There was
no known agent which would produce the effects de-
scribed, and there was no motive for the act on the
part of the defendant. These circumstances all operated
against the fact. He did not for a moment believe
the charge was a malicious assertion ; and then came
the question of hallucination. Taking the circum-
stances of the complainant's general enfeebled state of
health, and the excitement consequent on the alterca-
tion with the defendant, in common with the medical
evidence, that the symptoms might be produced by a
severe attack of cold, he was hound to believe that
the complainant had laboured under a delusion, and
that no handkerchief charged with any irritating fluid
had been used. He could not carry the case any
further, and as he must attribute the effects described
by the complainant to excitement and delusion,
he should dismiss the summon?, leaving it to
the complainant to indict the defendant if he
thought fit.