The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-24 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, June 22.

(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS and a Bench of
Magistrates.)
Robinson Boyd, a respectable-looking-man, surren-
dered to tako his trial upon a charge of having as•

saulted Ann Maria Talloni.

Mr. Billantine appeared for the defendant.
The prosecutrix &posed that she had been living
as servant at 67; Mortimer-street, Cavendish•square,
in which house the defendant occupied apartments.
On the 6th inst., at his request, she went into his
bedroom to fetch some waistcoats. He followed her
thither, and committed the assault now charged
against him. According to her statement the defend-
ant's conduct to her was grossly indecent.
In cross-examination she denied that she had
boasted to any one that she should get some money
from the defendant on this charge. She was eighteen
yeare Of age. She did not make any noise, nor call
for assistance when the assault was dommitted, be-
cause he held one of his hands over her mouth. She
immediately told her mistress and her fellow-servant
of what had occurred. •
The Learned JUDGE was informed, in answer to a
`question, that,there` was no other witness in the case.
He then said'he felt &Rind to complain of the manner
in which this case had been treated at the police-
cOurt. Here was only one witness bound over to
prosecute, and though it was so important that her
evidence should be ,corroborated, the magistrate had
not bound over two witnesses, to whom the
girl said she complained of the defendant's conduct.
When itioh evidence might have been had, it was not
right to send a 'case for trial on the evidence of one
. ,
witness only.,
It was intimated that the'prosecutrix's fellow-ser-
vant was in court, and she, was called. She stated
that the prosecutrix did till her that she had been im-
properly treatedt.by .the defendant on the day in
question.. When,the case Was' before the magistrate
the prosecutrix said to witness, "Boyd will be fined
a lot -or snowy, and I shall get'
- Mr.. BALLANTINE, in addressing the jury, con-
•tended• that the statement of' the prosecutrix was not
confirmed in any: particular, and asked them not to
convict upon uncorroborated testimony, considering
how many cases of this description were got up for
the puirposes of extortion, and how extremely difficult
it was to answer such charges when preferred.
'The Learned "JUDGE said: it, appeared to him that
the issue was gross and wilful perjury on the part of
the girl, or guilt on the part of the prisoner.
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Josses Thorpe, the conductor of a Chelsea omnibus,
No. 1,523, was charged with the following flagrant

act : •
Mr. Henry Griffiths, of 57, Bisinghall-street, de-
posed that between eleven and twelve o'clock that
morning he entered the defendant's omnibus in Sloane-
street, and shortly afterwards handed a half-crown to
the defendant, asking him for change. The defen-
dant turned adroitly round, and said, "This is a bad
half-crown," and offered him a bent one. Mr. Grif-
fiths told the defendant it was not the one he gave
him, whereupon the latter called him a " smasher,"
and told him he got his living by passing bad
money; and persisted in keeping the half-crown and
the change.
A policeman, who took the defendant into custody,
said that, on searching him, a good half-crown was
found upon his person. He had previously said that
he had no half-crown in his possession.
Alderman CARDEN postponed the further hearing,
and ordered the defendant to find bail to appear on
Tuesday.
The'followirig account of the conductor's conduct
was given by a gentleman who was present during
the above examination :—A lady got into the omni-
bus in the Strand, for the purpose of being set down
in the City. Upon reaching Cheapside she handed
ls. to the conductor, expecting 9d. change, but he
coolly deposited her money in his pocket, and when
she asked him for what she was entitled to receive he
laughed at her, gave the wink to two females inside,
and told her it was all right. Upon peremptorily
demanding her change the fellow terrified the lady
by saying she had better hold her tongue, as be knew
what she had been about, at the same time pointing
to a small bundle which she carried, and intimated to
the two women that she was no better than a shop-
lifter. The hint was soon taken by the women, and
the lady was glad, to escape from their company, and
to take refuge in a shop, but she was so shocked by
the incident that she was unable to give such infor-
mation as could lead to the identification of the
offender.
Alderman CARDEN said he feared that ladies were
in many cases prevented by their fears from bringing
fellows who followed such desperate courses to jus-
tice. He hoped the encouragement which prosecutions
of the kind received in the City would induce those
who were robbed or insulted to aid the magistracy
in punishing the delinquents. He trusted that if any
other passengers had been subjected to such treatment
as that of which Mr. Griffiths had complained, they
would not hesitate to come forward on Tuesday.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
QUEEN'S BENCH, DUBLIN, JUNE 17.
SPABLING V. PAUL.

This was an action for breach of promise of mar-
riage, and the defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. WHITESIDE, Q.C., stated the case of the plain-
tiff. The present was an action for breach of pro-
mise of marriage—one happily occurring but seldom
in this country, and the more seldom the better. The
plaintiff was a widow lady, and formerly a Miss
Palmer ; and at present her age was about 26 or 28.
She was left a widow with two young children ;
and Mr. Sperling, during his lifetime, was possessed
of a good landed property, and a gentleman of respec-
tability. The defendant was a partner in the house
of Vincent and Paul, implement manufacturers, pos-
sessed of an extensive foundry in Blackhall-street.
The defendant was a Scotchman, and nothing
could be said against him for belonging to that
noble country. He was about thirty-eight years of
age ; and, therefore, in the age of the parties there was
nothing unsuitable, and nothing which would have
been calculated to make it unlikely that their union
would have been a happy one. The time covered by
the events which would be the subject of inquiry by
the jury extended from November, 1849, to March,
1850 ; and in November the plaintiff, who was a
lady of agreeable manners and attractive appear-
ance, came to town on a visit to her brothers,
who carried on the business of drapers in Thomas-
street. It appeared that the defendant met her
'at' the house of a respectable lady, whose name it
was not necessary to mention. He was attracted by
her person and manners, and saw her home that
evening. He then visited at the house, and com-
municated his intentions to the plaintiff's brother.
His visits became frequent, and finally his atten
tions were such as led him to be regarded as the future
husband of the lady. He invited her to his house.
He had a party to meet her, placed her at the
head:of the table, which she expected to occupy for the
remainder of her life ; and although there was a very
pleasant company present on that occasion, he left
them to see the plaintiff home, although thereby he
might have appeared to have neglected the duties ex-
pected-from a host seeing his guests in his own house.
It would be unnecessary to go through the various
acts which showed the nature of his attentions. But
he spoke frequently to her of their marriage, and
asked if Mrs. Sperling intended that the two young
children should live with them ; and, looking no
doubt, to the prospect of a large family, he stated
thatif the house inßlackhall-street, which he erected,
would not be large enough, he would build a
larger one. He disclaimed against the idea of mar-
rying for money. His worship was at a purer shrine
than that of Mammon. He said ho might have had
girls with money, but that his affections were placed
on the plaintiff, and that he was desirous of uniting
himself to a sensible and judicious woman calculated
to make him happy through life.
The Learned COUNSEL proceeded to detail how the
defendant won the lady's affections, and then broke
off his solemn engagement to marry her.
Mr. John Palmer, the brother of the plaintiff,
deposed to the facts stated by counsel.
Cross-examined by Mr. MAATLEr—I will not say
that the plaintiff's husband was not alive in August,
1848. He died in either that or the previous month.
It was in the latter end of November I first saw the
defendant at a party at her house.
What was going on there ?—The ladies were
drinking tea and the gentlemen doing the same.
Was there nothing stronger than tea?—There was
punch afterwards.- ,
And were the ladies taking a share ?—Yes ; they
were taking a little.