The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-06 00:00:00

Elizabeth Ponton said the prisoner lived with a
woman named Feeby in the same house as she did,
and their room was next to hers. On Saturday night,
while in bed, she heard the infant scream repeatedly,
and feeling assured that some violence was being
exercised towards it, she knocked at the wainscot,
and the noise ceased, but in such a way as to con-
vince her that some one was stifling its cries with
their hand or with the bed-clothes. As the prisoner
had been in the habit 'of cruelly using the infant on
former occasions, witness resolved to get a sight of
the child to see its condition. She contrived to gain
admission into the room with another lodger, and
they examined the body of the infant. It was one
mass of bruises from top to toe, and its eyes were
both blackened. It was evident that the wretched
infant had repeatedly suffered brutal violence, and
that the prisoner, who was the only person in the
room when the child was screaming the overnight,
had inflicted the injuries, which were distributed over
the child's face and body. Information was given to
the police, and the wretch was taken into custody.
Ann Feeby, the woman with whom the prisoner
cohabited, who had the infant in her arms, came for-
ward, and said the prisoner was not the father of the
child, she having only lived with him about three
weeks. She knew nothing about the ill-usage in-
flicted on the infant, as she was engaged in nursing a
woman in another part of the house.
The witness Ponton said the mother must have
known that the prisoner was in the habit of beating
the child. The prisoner was accustomed, when he
beat the infant, in order to disguise his brutality from
the other lodgers, to call out to it, " What's the mat-
ter, my dear ; are you frightened at the chairs ?
Here's a bit of bread and butter," at the same time
striking it a blow on the body or face.
The mother of the child admitted that the prisoner
had beaten both her children, and had also beaten her.
The prisoner, in defence, with great indifference,
said, "I was cross and the child was cross,iand so I
beat it."

Mr. HARDWICK said it was impossible to find lan-
guage sufficiently strong to express his abhorrence of
the conduct of such a brute in human shape. A
wretch who could find the heart to lift a hand against
a helpless infant, deserved the worst punishment which
the law could inflict. As far as the law allowed he
would go in this instance, though the penalty bore no
proportion to the offence, and he should inflict a fine
of five pounds, or two months' hard labour. Mr.
Hardwick then called the mother forward and warmly
reproached her for her unfeeling conduct, in not re-
sorting to the law for protection for her wretched in-
fant. Her conduct, he considered, to be but one shade
less infamous than that of the man with whom she
lived, and it further showed that she was wholly un-
worthy to be entrusted with the care of her two chil-
dren.

Police-constable, C 119, said the mother could
hardly he induced to come forward against the man.
Mr. HARDWICK request.,A a constable to ask the
parish officers of St. Jaroes's to stt-i) to the Court.
The church wi rdt..ns and the reli-ving overseer, Dore,
immediately attended, and were made acquainted
the circumstances or the case.

Dore said the man and the w;.rnan belonged to St.
James's. They had both been taken iuto the work•
house, and both had discharged themselves about
three weeks ago, under pretence of getting married.
The woman was an incorrigible profligate ; her two
children were by different fathers, and she had now
taken up with the man just sent to prison, without
being married to him.
Mr. ITAupwrcK said he had no doubt that the
woman was perfectly worthless and wholly unworthy
of commiseration or relief, but then it was quite clear
that something ought to be done to protect her un-
happy children. _ _

Tile churchwardens, under tl.e circumstances of the
case, consented at once to receive the woman and her
children into the workhouse.

MORE BRUTALITY.—Henry Pardoe, a pauper, was
charged with beating his wife.
The wife, when she entered the witness-box with
an infant in her arms, disclosed a shocking sight; her
face was blackened all over, and every feature was
beaten quite out of human shape. She said she went
on Saturday to the stone-yard, where her husband
was employed, to ask for some money for the support
of herself and child. Her husband offered her a
shilling, which she said was not enough, and words
arose between them. Her husband was about to
strike her, when she took up a stone to throw at him.
He took the stone from her, threw her down, and beat
her on the face with his fist until she became as she
now appeared.
The man, in defence, said the injuries occurred in
his attempt to take the stone from his wife. The stone
accidentally went against her face in the struggle.
Mr. HARDWICK said something must be done to
put a stop to these savage attacks of men on their
wives, or women with whom they lived. He should
fine to the full extent, namely, 51., or two months'
hard labour.

ASSAULTS. —John Rode? ick O'Connor, assistant to
his brother, a furrier in Regent-street, was charged
with having been mad drunk the overnight, with
assaulting his brother, with having attempted
to commit suicide, and with having severely bitten
two of the police.
The defendant's brother did not attend to support
the charge.
The constables, who had been called in by the
brother, proved the state in which they found the de-
fendant, and the injuries they sustained in attempting
to take him to the station-house. One constable was
struck on the face, and bitten on the hand, and
another constable had one of his fingers nearly
bitten off.

In defence, the defendant said, his brother wanted
to prevent him from drinking as much gin and water
as he pleased. He told his brother he would do as
he liked in that respect, and an altercation ensued.
It was a mistake to suppose that he intended to com-
mit suicide ; the mistake arose from his having a
penknife in his hand, with which he was trimming
his nails. 'The police complained of ill-usage, but he
had a similar complaint to make, as he had been
struck over the arms with their truncheons. As to
the charge of drunkenness, he could say, that he had
not drank more than the hest part of a bottle of gin.
Mr. ThunwlcK inflicted the fine of forty shillings
for each assault on the constables, or one month's im-
prisonment.