The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-11 00:00:00

EVENING, APRIL 11, IaSO,

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE
OF TUESDAY.
DL VIDENDS.
At the Court, 13,singtiall-t?•eet.
G. S. Naish wid T. I. Gleunie. Fu,rringdon-street,
Snow-bill, general ironmonaer3, May 2, at eleven—J.
Melville and W. F. Street, Austin-friars, City, mer•
chants, May 2, at, twelve—W. S. Woollatt,
City, draper, May 2, st one—W. L. Collins, Wood-
street, Westminster, brewer, May 2, at one.
In the Country.
J. Cary, Shepton Mallett, Somersetshire. printer, May
2, at eleven, at the Court, Bristol—J. Gardiner, Bir-
mingham, provision merchant, May 1, at twelve, at the
Court, Birminxham.
PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.
• F. C. Christy, F. Adams, and J. P. Hill, Rotherhithe,
engineers, 153., on Thursday, 11 th inst., and three fol-
lowing Thursdays, between eleven and two, at the office
of Mr. Stansfeld, Basinghall-street.
A. Charman, Downside, Surrey, farmer, 2A., on Thurs-
day, 11th inst., and three following Thursdays, between
eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Stansfeld, Basing-
hall-street.

J. Morrison, Craven-street, Strand, tailor, 5s on
Thursday, 11th inst., and three following Thursday,
bet%% oin eleven and two, at the office of Mr. StaisfAd,
Basinghall-street.
NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
SS. Woollatt, Holborn-hill, draper, May 2, at one—
C. J. Carttar, Greenwich and Shooter's-hill, solicitor,
May 1, at eleven.

In the Country.
G. F. Sharpies, Manchester, hosier, May 1, at twelve,
at the Court, Manchester.
CERTIFICATES GRANTED.
J. C. Bremer. Mark-lane, merchant, certificate of the
second class—F. King, Oxford, auctioneer, certificate of
the second class—S. Shepherd, Cullompton, Devonshire,
merchant, certificate of the second class—T. Hart, Cul-
lompton, Devonshire, baker, certificate of the second
class—W. Cornish, Bristol, cabinet maker, certificate of
the second class—G. E. Inger, Nottingham, druggist,
certificate of the first class—J. C. North, Stamford, Lin-
colnshire, coal dealer, certificate of the second class—B.
Hewett, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, licensed vice
tualler, certificate of the second class.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
W. Wood and W. H. Wood, mercers and drapers,
Horncastle, Lincolnshire—Mary Ann. Edwards and J.
Hughes, booksellers and publishers, Ave Maria-lane,
Paternoster-row—F. I. Welch, J. Barrows, and Ann
Bradley, ironmasters and coal merchants (as far as re-
gards Ann Bradloy)— W. Smith and F. L. Wood, auc-
tioneers and appraisers, Liverpool—G. Ince and G.
North, plumbers and painters, Brunswick-street, Poplar
—J. Bacon and F. Bacon, tanners, Bermondsey-street,
Southwark—J. Wipell and J. Wignall, butter factors,
Keigbley, Yorkshire—S. Holroyd, E. Marriott, and C.
Hare, manufacturing chemist, Huddersfield—W. Binns
and W. Binns, woollendrapers, Sunderland—W. Hill,
W. Hill, jun., J. Hill, and R. T. Hill, manufacturing
chemist :, Liverpool (as far as regards J. Hill)—J. Lumb,
T. Simpson, T. Sykes, W. Brown, P. Lightfoot, and W.
Sykes, glass bottle manufacturers, Castleford, Yorkshire
—G. Page and J. Woodrow, curriers and leather cut-
ters, Norwich—B. Pridie and E. Hinton, gold and silver
smiths, Birmingham—A. M. Gardiner and A. Coates,
leather dealers, Manchester —G. Scarlet and G. B.
Scarlet, merchant tailors, Newcastle-upon-Tyne C.
Preston and T. Greaves, attorneys-at-law, Kingston-
upon-Hull—J. Sutcliffe, T. Sutcliffe, and R. Waite, corn
dealers, Bradley Mill and Barnoldswick, Yorkshire—
H. Sslwood and S. Sketchley, attorneys, Horneastle,
Lincolnshire—J. G. Spence and T. Griffiths, joiners and
packing case makers, Manchester—R. B. Preston, W.
W. Willink, and H. J. Sinew, civil engineers and foun-
ders, Liverpool (as fir as regards W. W. Willink).
INSOLVENT PETI TIONERS.
John Brightwell, Oxford.
John S wire, sets., Oldham, Lancashire, clogger.
Joseph Little, Hutton, Cumberland, grocer.
Michael Alman, &la.), attorney.
Robert Cowles, jun., Yoxford, Suffolk, cornehandler.
George Price. Bristol, agent.
Charles Matthew Palmer, Cambridge, tailor.
Robert Ward, Carlisle, Cum!). rland, innkeeper.
Samuel Wightman, Framlinghain, Suffolk, coachbuilder.
William Gais:brd. Bristol, baker.
George Thomas. Bristol, ironmonger.
James Grimes, Monks Coppenball, Cheshire, bookseller.
George Davenport, Monks Coppenball, Cheshire, inn-
keeper.
Thomas Newman, Saxmundham, Suffolk, shopmln.
Jeremiah Ea;taugh, Darsham, Suffolk, blacksmith.
Daniel Carr, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, bailiff.
James Reeve, Swefling, Suffolk, shopkeeper.
Charles Anthony Everett, Southwold, Suffolk, innkeeper.
John Hayward, Woodbridge, Suffolk, cooper.
Daniel Dann, Witaesham, Suffolk, dealer.
James Bush, Aldborougb, Suffolk, butcher.
George Statham, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, bailiff.
William Rice. Sheerness, grocer.
J. Glasscock, Eastchurch, Kent, grocer.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
J. Walker, Stonehaven, cattle dealer, to meet within
the Mill Inn, Stonehaven, April 15 and May 20, at
twelve.

J. Brown, Edinburgh, plumber, to meet within
Dowell's-rooms, Edinburgh, April 15 and :day 6, at two.
D. Jeffrey, Glasgow, manufacturer and merchant, to
meet within M‘Munemy's Bowling-green Timm, Glas-
gow, April 15 and May 4, at twelve.

ASSIZE INTELLIGE7NCE.
NORFOLK alßCUlT.—Norwich, April 9.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WIOUTMAN.)
John Humblethorpe, aged 21, was indicted for shooting
at Susan Lingwood, on the 26th of July last, at Griston,
with intent to murder her.
Mr. Couch appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Power
was counsel for the prisoner.
The prosecutrix is a young woman of 25, who pursues
the occupation of a dress-maker at Bradeabarn, in this
county, and sometimes sleeps at the house of her uncle,
Mr. Warman, at Griston, ii which village the prisoner
lives, following the trade of a carpenter. These two
young people made the acquaintance of each other in
the harvest time of 184 S, and the attractions of the
young lady being considerable, the boy fell a ready
victim to their power. He courted her with an ardour
peculiar to "first love," and was accepted as a lover.
They walked and talked together, and all seemed pros-
perous in his eyes. Their " course of true love," how-
ever, soon felt the truth of the poet's observation. The
mistress became estranged: other young men pursued
her. He became jealous of a certain currier, and ulti-
mately the engagement was put!off, in spite of his earnest
entreaties. In this state of things he addressed several
impassioned letters to the object of his affections, but
without effect. She became alarmed at his conduct, and
having engaged herself to one James Hopson, a rival of
the prisoner, she seems to have repaired to her uncle's
house in the month of July last. On the 25th she was
overtaken by the prisoner, whom she dismissed finally.
In that night her uncle heard the report of a gun,
which seemed to have been discharged in the house.
As no other sound followed that report except the
barking of a dog, Mr. Warman fell asleep again ; but
on getting up next morning he learned from his niece,
who slept in a front room on the first floor, that she had
found a bullet embedded in the chest of drawers in her
room. On this the room was examined, and it was dis-
covered that the bullet had entered at the window, and
had passed through the window and bed curtains, and
across the foot of the bed, cutting a hole or two in a
dress which was thrown on the bed when taken off at
night. Connecting these facts with the report in the
night and the conduct of the prisoner, the ground was
searched in the garden opposite the window, and about
15 yards off were marks of trampling, while the grass
betrayed the approach and departure of some person
from the spot. The policeman, when called in, tracked
the course of the bullet, which seemed to have crossed
the bed of the prosecutrix, within a foot of the bottom
of the bed, to have grazed the top of the dress which
was lying upon the bed-clothes and to have struck the
drawers in the room some few inches higher. The
window of the room was ten feet above the ground, and
the head of the bed more than five feet from the track
of the bullet. The prisoner had been in the room upon
some previous occasion to make some repairs in the way
of his trade, and knew,perfsctly well the situation of the
bed. Suspicion was at once directed to the prisoner, in
whose house was a recently-discharged gun, and a rough
bullet, corresponding in size and shape to that fired into
the bed-room. These facts having been proved by Mr.
Warman, the police, the prosecutriss, and other witnesses,
Mr. POWER addressed the jury for the prisoner, whose
act, wanton and unjustifiable as all must deem it, he sub-
mitted that the jury could not stigmatise us a felony,
and construe into a deliberate attempt on his part to
murder a being whom he fondly and distractedly loved.
They would rather, as he contended, look upon his act
as a mad step, adopted for the purpose of frightening the
prosecutrix into an abandonment of her engagement
with his rival. If he harboured any to any one,
that person would be his more favoured rival. It was
clear that he entertained a most devoted affection for his
former mistress. She had often changed her mind ac-
cording to her own admissions, and the prisoner might
well fancy that she might be induced to return to her
former suitor, if he could but alarm her. This was his
evident object in firing at her window; fur it must be ad-
mitted that if he had intended to murder, or even to injure
her, he had abundant opportunity to do so, even at that
spot. Uuder all the circumstances of the case, he (Mr.
Power), while he condemned most thoroughly the con-
duct of the prisoner, trusted that the jury would feel a
reasonable doubt that the prisoner was actuated by the
intention imputed to him by the indictment, and incline
to the belief rather that ho intended to fire up into the
room, but with no notion that the bullet would hit her,
or take the course it did.
Mr. Justice WIGHT3IAN left it to the jury to say whr-
ther they thought the prisoner, when he fired the gun
into the window, meant to strike the person of the pro-
secutrix as she lay in bed. They would tske into con-
sideradon all the facts which bad been proved as to the
position of the prisoner when he fired the gun, and the
direction of the bullet, and say whether they thought he
was actuated by either of the intents laid in the in-
dictment.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after a
long absence returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
James Pegg. aged 26, Charles Flegg, aged 28, John
Frang, aged 23, William Capes, aged 2.5, James Capes,
aged 28, Robert Wright, aged 28, and Charles Muynug,
aged 22, were charged with having entered on the
night of December 24, a certain plantation called Ash
Car, in the p4rish of Wighton, the property of the Earl
of Leicester, for the purpose of taking game.
Mr. Prendergast, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Henry Milk
appeared for the prosecution; Mr. 'William Cooper and
Mr. Couch defended the prisoners.

Zlt appeared from the statement of the Learned Counsel
and the evidence of the various witnesses, that the seven
prisoners, in company with a. man of the name of Strin-
ger(-against whom the grand jury ignored the. bill), were
at a public-house at Walsiegham, kept by a man of the

. . .
name of Minns, on Christmas-eve, the night in ques-
tion. A rents of the name of Broughton was, with other
people, present, and was iudeed by the prisoner Wright
it be lad a mind to go far a wale that eight, telling. him
they were going to Wareham Car. This Broughton de-
clined. This witness, in cross-exainieation, state .1 he
was great-nephew to the keeper Claxton. The prisoners
and Stringer left Minns about twelve o'clock, when they
proceeded to the house of John Flegg, a brother of the
prisoner of that name, -where they had more drink, and
left again about one ,i'cloek, each of them armed with
some weapon—one of the Fleggs had a gun, the others
had sticks and bludgeons—leaving Flegg's house by the
back way, whence the footmarks of eight men were
traced over several fields in the direction of the place
where a contest took place between the poachers and the
watchers, in which Sellis, one-of the latter, received a
blow which brought on concussion of the brain, from
which, however, he had recovered.
Mr. COOPER addressed the jury on behalf of the pri-
soners, contending that the evidence of the identity of
each of the prisoners was insufficient, and the jury could
not safely return a verdict of guilty on such evidence,
whereby the prisoners would be subjected to transporta-
tion for fourteen years.
Mr. Justice Wiairricot summed up most impartially
and at great length.
After two hours' deliberation, the jury returned into
court with a verdict of Guilty against all the prisoners.
Mr. Justice WIGUTMAN then said if he only knew who
it was that had struck Sellis the blow he should certainly
have transported him ; but as there was some doubt
about it, he would not send seven men out of the coun-
try. He then sentenced Charles Flegg to six months'
hard labour, and a week in solitary confinement ; the
other prisoners to a year's hard labour, the last week to
be solitary.

George Arnold, aged 20, was charged with having, in
company wrth three others, on the 24th of December,
been found armed in Tersfield Wood, at North Lipham,
the property of his Grace the Duke of Norfolk.
Mr. Newton prosecuted, and Mr. C. Cooper defended
the prisoner. _

It appeared from the evidence of William Barkham,
gamekeeper in the employ of the Duke of Norfolk, that
he was undressing, after having been out watching, at
about three o'clock in the morning of the 25th of De-
cember la-t, when he heard persons in Tersfield Wood,
close to his house, which is situated in the wood. He
looked out and saw three persons, who spoke to him. He
called up his grandson, Henry Barkham, and they pro-
ceeded out together. The grandson, being more fleet
of foot, came up to the men, four in number, at a gate
leading out of the wood. They were looking up into
' the trees. One of the number had a gun with him, and
the others were armed with sticks. Wilhy, a person
who died in Norwich gaol a short time since, while
awaiting his trial upon this charge, was the first who
saw him, and said, " Here is one of the fellows," and
knocked Barkham down; he, however, soon recovered
himself, and returned the compliment with interest, and
in doing so lost his stick; undaunted, however, he "went
at" the other three poachers', when the prisoner, whom
he well knew by sight, knocked him down, saying "Let
us kill him." Young Barkham shouted out, "Arnold,
I know you." On this the three men set off, leaving
their companion Wilby lying in the ditch. On Wilby
being searched, a gun-case, apparently belonging
to a new gun, was found on him, as well
as some snares. Arnold was afterwards taken
into custody by the police, and was sworn to by the
'witness, H. Barkham, as being the man who knocked him
down. It was attempted to be made out by the pri-
soner's counsel that Wilby had died from the effects of
the blow he had received; but the governor of the gaol
was called, who stated that a coroner's inquest had been
held on his body, and that the jury had returned a ver-
dict of death from natural causes.
Mr. COOPER, in addressing the jury for the prisoner,
inveighed in strong terms against the hardships of the
game•laws, saying it was to be regretted that men could
not be cerwitte.l to pursue their own avocations without
restraint, and questioned the accuracy of the evidence of
identity.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN, in summing up, said, what-
ever might be urged against the game-laws, as they were
at present, it was not to be tolerated that people should
go arme I at night for the purpose of taking game, and, if
interrupted by gamekeepers, to attack them in Conn..
quence of their not permitting them to break the laws.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the pri-
soner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with
hard labour.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Anams.)
Mary Ann Johnstone, 21, was indicted yesterday for
having stolen a Bank of England note of the value and
for the payment of 101., two half-crowns, and eight shil-
lings, the moneys of Louisa Amis, from her person.
Mr. CARTER, who,appeared for the prisoner, cross-ex-
amined the prosecutrix, and endeavoured to show, by
questioning her from the depositions taken before the
magistrates, that she had prevaricated in her evidence.
She negatived every question the Learned Gentleman
put to her, and said she had spoken nothing but the
truth throughout the case.
In consequence of an observation from the Learned
Judge,
Mr. CARTER said he would put in as evidence for the
prisoner the whole of the depositions, to show that the
prosecutrix had said that today which she had not said
before the committing magistrate. It was most unfair
towards a prisoner that counsel should be interrupted
in the discharge of their duty, and it was not the first
time his privileges as counsel had been interfered with
in that court.
The Learned JUDGE-It would be more consistent
with your duty, as counsel, to put in the depositions, and
not make comments until the proper time comes.
Mr. CARTER begged his Lordship's pardon. He was
not making comments, nor was he doing anything his
privileges as an advocate did not authorise him to do.
The learned JUDGE—I am the authority here, and I
say you are. Go on with your case.
Mr. CARTER—I must and do insist upon my privileges,
as the the prisoner's advocate, not being interfered with
by The Court. and it is impossible that I can perform my
duty to my client if the judge puts a limit on my dis-
cretion, and takes the case out of my hands outirety.
The Learned JUDGE—I am not taking the case out of
your hands at all, but I tell you plainly, so that you may
understand me at once, that if you think it is within your
discretion to assail the character of a respectable witness,
and impute to her that for which there is no pretence, I
shall put a limit to that discretion. You must not, and
shall not do it.
The depositions were then put in, and the examination
of the witnesses being concluded,
Mr. CARTER addressed the jury—The position cf a
counsel in a case circumstanced as the present was diffi-
cult in the extreme, and he felt bound to say that the
course his Lordship had adopted in limiting his dis-
cretion, and interfarieg with his unquestionable privi-
lege as the prisoner's advocate, was most unfair, most
unjust, and most ungenerous, especially when his client,
if declared guilty of the crime imputed to her, was
liable to be transported for a very considerable
period. The course the Learned Judge had taken was
not an example befitting a court of justice; he, as
counsel for the woman at the bar, had a right to com-
plain of it, and he deemed it his duty to raise his voice
against any limit being put upon the discretion of
counsel into whose hands the interests of the innocent,
as well as the guilty, were confided. His Lordship had
crippled him in this manner on the previous day, and
he could not but complain of it, as it was calculated to
inflict gross injustice upon prisoners, whose jaws were
padlocked by the law against those of their prosecutors.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to comment upon
the facts of the case.
The Learned JUDGE, in summing up, said no judge
bad a right to impose any limit upon the discretion of
counsel, so long as that discretion was fairly and pro-
perly manifested on behalf of a client, but he very much
doubted whether a judge had not the power, and was
bound also to exercise it, of placing a limit upon a
counsel's indiscretion. He could not allow counsel to
ruthlessly assail the character of a respectable witness,
without the slightest ground for so doing, as had been
the case with respect to this poor, helpless, but
respectable widow. He was determined to
preserve regularity in the court, and he would
not allow counsel to run at the character
of witnesses, against whom no real complaint
could be made. Thu counsel for the prisoner had taken
this course in two or three instancee, and appeared de-
termined to persevere; but if that was the issue joined
between himself and the bar, they should soon see which
was the stronger of the two.
The prisoner was found Guilty, and sentenced to six
months' bard labour.
The COURT ordered 11. 18s., taken from the prisoner,
to be giien to the prosecutrix.
Elizabeth King, 19, pleaded guilty of having obtained,
by false pretences, the sum of 5/. from George Salter,
with intent to cheat and defraud him of the same.
The clergyman of the parish in which the prisoner
lived, a lady with whom she had lived as servant, and
the prosecutor spoke very highly of her character, and
the latter strongly recommended her to meroy. It ap-
peared from their statements that the prisoner had been
tbe victim of some scoundrel who had induced her to
commit this and other frauds, by pretending that be
would take her to America with the money obtained. He
got the money from her as soon as she had obtained it,
and decamped, leaving her to take all the consequences
of those acts he had instigated her to perform.
The Learned JUDGE very feelingly addressed the
prisoner, hoping this would be her first and last step in
crime, and sentenced her to ten days' solitary con-
finement.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE:
MARL B ORO UGH- AST EET.
CHARGE AGAINST A POLICE INSPECTOR.—InSpeCtOr
Mall, of the C division, appeared befere Mr. Hardwick
to answer a complaint made by a French gentleman,
named Charles Dondayne, of having illegally taken him
into custody, and having acted with incivility and vio-
lence during the time he was in custody:
Mr. Ablett, who appeared fur the complainant, said
his client had been taken into custody by the inspector,
and afterwards rekase‘i, without being taken before a
magistrate. An application was made to the inspector to
know on what authority he acted. The inspector inti-
mated that he tietPd on a warrant from one of the Secre-
taries of State. But applying at the Home Office, and
also to the Commissioners of Police, no clue could be
obtained as to the authority under which the inspector
bad made the arrest. As it vi as inferred the inspector
had neglected and violated his duty, the present pro-
ceedings had been instituted with the view of obtaining
redress.
Mr. Wontner, for the inspector, wished know
whether the magistrate's decision would be received
as final by the complainant ? He should object to
the present form of proceedings if an ulterior object
was intended to be pr. moted by them.
Mr. Able t, on behalr a his client, said the magi-
strate's judgment would be considered final.