The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-03 00:00:00

TEE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY E ENING, MARCH. 3, 1868.

F il! Closing i Business
Prioe. dene.

83 i;5 i
81 82 181 80} I
23 30 f

3 4
75 77
70 72

104 10,5!
29} 201,
5} 0i
b 6
1e.4 105
It 4 105
121 IZS

V 5 97
iv iSt

45 47
2, 30
7 2)

126 1.,i6,

46 47
183 19
12 )5
litS 3163
85 87
ti 11

1);i

1( 6j 107

73 77

354

105 107

63 64
98 100
130 13}
134 136

291 301

1041 51
105 i

12Zi 1

116
t. 13 bh

107 62 7

721 2 /
92

LAW INTELLIGENGS—rhis Day,

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Right lion. Sir J. P. Wilde.)
DOWN V. CIIAFFINS.—IMPORTANT DECISION.

Mr. Lopez made an application on behalf of the
defendant in this suit that his costs should be
allowed. The case was tried in November, 1867.
It appeared that a will had been made in March,
1863, in which the property of the testator was
divided in six equal portions amongst his children,
the defendant being one. The testator died in
February, 1867, and in the meantime he had made
a first will, in which the defendant was omitted
altogether. This was quite inexplicable to
him, as he was on the most friendly terms
with his father when he died. lie could only, there-
fore, attribute it either to undue influence or to the
infirmity of his father, he being partially blind.
The testator had been a large pawnbroker in Wat-
ling-street, in the City, and had retired from that
business and gone to live at Brighton. On these
grounds it was contended that it was natural that
the son should be surprised at the course pursued
by his father, and that it should occur to him that
his father, being in a weak state of mind, should
be influenced unfairly towards him by a stronger
one, and that, therefore, he ought to be
allowed his expenses for having brought about this
inquiry. It appeared from the statement of the
executor, and which ought to have been made at
first, that the father had not left him anything, be-
cause he did not wish the money to go to his cre-
ditors, but he had left a message, which was not
delivered to one of his daughters, who appeared t o
be better off, asking her to provide for this son.
If her son had been properly informed of this he
would not have instituted this suit, and this was
an additional reason for the remission of costs.

The Court thought that such applications should
not be encouraged, and refused to grant this one,
but ordered that the attachment should be in the
registry 10 days.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

STANDING TREAT AND ITS RESULT.—Catherine
Mills and Bridget Collins, two low-looking women,
were charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt with stealing
from the person of Mr. Thomas Thompson Collier,
a clerk, residing at No. 21, Cirencester-place, St.
Pancras, a canvas bag containing £3 in gold, 38s.
in silver, &c.

The prosecutor said that about 12 o'clock the
previous night he was going home, being rather the
worse for drink, when he went into a public-house
in Windmill-street, Tottenham-court-road, to have
a little more, and he there saw the prisoners and got
into conversation with them. The prisoners asked
him to stand treat, and he did so, giving them half
a quartern of rum each. Shortly after he left the
house, when the prisoners followed him, and on his
putting his band into his pocket for the purpose of
getting out some money to pay for more drink he
missed a small canvas bag containing £3 in gold,
38s. in silver, and some coppers. He seized and
gave Collins into custody, but the other prisoner
got away.
In answer to Mr. Tyrwhitt, Sergeant Ingerson,
6 E, said that neither the bag nor the money had
yet been found.
Sergeant Burroughs, 21 E, said that about 12
o'clock last night the prosecutor, who had been
drinking, but knew what he was about, gave the
prisoner Collins into his custody as an accomplice
of another woman with robbing him, and on taking
her to the station she said that it was not her who
robbed the prosecutor, but another woman, who
after doing so ran away and left her with the pro-
secutor. From information the prisoner Collins
gave Mills was taken into custody at her lodgings,
in Short's-gardens, by Sergeant Ingerson.
Mr. Tyrwhitt remanded the prisoners.

AL I_,EG ED 211C!,1E1l.

--~ -

Dr. Diplock, the newly -appointed coroner for \Vest
MiddleseY., has held his first inquest, and had a case before
him of a very horrible kind. The deceased was a child
named Honors Sweeney, aged one year and ten months.
She was the dallghter of a married woman named
Margaret Sweeney, living in Providence-place, Dawes-lane,
Fulham. In the same house, and in the next room, there
lived another man led woman, rained Manning. On
Thursday afternoon last Mrs. Sweeney left her baby in
the cradle whilst she went into the yard to chop up some
firewood for Mrs. Manning. Whilst she was in the yard,
she looked np into a room and saw Mrs. Manning sitting
there with the child in Ler lap. Shortly afterwards she
heard the child scream, but, though she was the baby's
mother, she did not heed these screams, and, indeed, ap-
pears to have been the more callous as she knew that Mrs.
Maiming had been in the habit of beating it. She went
on with her wood-chopping, and, when she had finished,
returned to her room just in time to see Mrs. Manning
lay the child on the floor. Mrs. Sweeney took it up, and
was nail, shocked at finding that the skin of its legs
peeled off and adhered, to her hands. Then her maternal
feelings were roused, and she turned to Mrs. Manning
and asked what she had been doing. For answer, Mrs.
Manning took hold of a chair, and attempted to strike
the mother of the baby. An alarm was raised, and
the neighbours, rushing in, rushed Mrs. Manning
out of the room. The mother then took her baby
to the police-station, when a surgeon was called. He
found that the upper part of the thighs, and all
about the lower part of the body, was terribly burned.
Although so horribly injured, the child lingered until late
on Friday night. In answer to a question from the
coroner, the mother said she had seen Mrs. Manning hold
the child over the fire, but she did not think just then it
was with the intention of injuring it. It would seem
that, in burning the child, Mrs. Manning had taken care
not to let the flames touch any part of its clothes or her
own hands. A verdict of wilful murder was returned
against Mrs. Manning, who had already been taken into
custody.