The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-15 00:00:00

Mr. HARDWICK said he understood very differently
the evidence given by M. Deneulain.
The solicitor said M. Deneulain might have ex-
pressed himself imperfectly, owing to his defective
English; but the facts were as he had now stated, and
if proofs were wanting he begged to tender Mons.
Deneulain again. As yet no proof had been offered
that the Baron had real grounds for saying he should
have remittances in a given period.
The Baron said his letters would establish that fact.

Mr. IlAnnwicK said, from all he had heard, it was
his determination to proceed no further in the case.
If the parties chose to carry the matter further they
were at liberty to indict the Baron at the sessions.

Mr. Pollock said his client considered he had been
defrauded, and it was his determination to go on with
the proceedings.
'When an application for the return of the letters
and papers was made to the Court, Count de Witts
took up his letter and declared his determination to
keep it unless the magistrate directed him to re-
linquish it.
After some altercation, the Count was allowed to
retain possession of the letter.—The Baron was then
liberated.

An Italian boy was placed at the bar on the following
charge :
A clerk to Mr. Garrard, of Suffolk-street, Pall-mall
solicitor, stated that about half-past four o'clock yester-,
day afternoon, the defendant came opposite to Mr. Gar-
rard's door with an organ, and commenced playing.
Mr. Garrard feeling this to be much annoyonce and in-
terruption to him in his business, desired the defendant
to go away, but he refused, and continued playing for
upwards of ten minutes. He was then given into charge
of the police.
Mr. lIAnDwIcK said that no doubt but the street
music was, in many cases, a very great nuisance, and the
defendant should at least have moved on when he was
desired. He should, therefore, fine him five shillings, or
five days' imprisonment and hard labour.
The defendant said he had no money, and begged hard
to be forgiven.

Mr. IfAnDwicii was, however, inexorable, and the boy
was accordingly sent to prison.
UNION•HALL.

Three young men, named Charles Bloch, Charles
George, and Henry Solomons, were brought before Mr.
Cottingham, charged with creating a riot at a beershop,
near the Nunnery, at Peckham, and assaulting Mr. Don-
nelly, the assumed landlord.
Mr. Campbell, inspectot of the P division, informed
Mr. Cottingham that for the past week the whole
neighbourhood near the complainant's house had been
in the utmost confusion owing to some dispute as to
the possession. Complaints had been made at the
station-house at varions times, and as many •as eight
constables have been required to quell the disturbance
and disperse the mob surrounding the house. Last
night the disturbance was so great that it was feared
some mischief would have occurred in the scuffle with
the defendants and the complainants. The police had
had some difficulty in dispersing a mob of nearly 200 people
which had collected round the house. The defendants
were eventually given into custody for assaulting the
complainant.
The latter stated that he was put in possession of the
beer shop about eleven months ago, by a Mr. Andrews,
who now endeavoured to eject him by force, and contrary
to law. On Tuesday week last he put in two of the
prisoners to take possession of the house, and they had re-
mained since then. Last night they were joined by the
third, when they endeavoured to eject him and his family
by force. In the struggle he was assaulted by the de-
fendants, whom he gave into the custody of the police.
Mr. COTTINOHAM inquired whether Mr..And7,43
was
in attendance, as he should like to kno7;
any right to eject him. whether he had
Mr. Andrews ste,--
stated that lir•
...vett forward, and on being sworn,
comma'• was the real landlord of the house, and the
had been put into the beer-shop as a servant
r at the weekly salary of 215., with certain perquisites.
An agreement was entered into between them that he
should take stock whenever he thought proper, and
if any deficiency was found out he should have the
power of either giving the complainant twenty-one
days' notice to quit the house, or three weeks' salary
to quit immediately. On Monday week he sent brokers
to take the stock, when they found a deficiency of
18/. 15s. lie then offered the complainant 31. 3s. to
quit immediately. lie refused to do so, when he ac-
cordingly put parties in possession, to protect his stock.
When the complainant took possession, the weekly re-
turns were 161. or 181.; but now they were found to be
not more than 6/. Ile intended at some future period
to bring a charge of embezzlement against the cora-
-1 plainant.
Mr. COTTINOR k!ri asked him why he did not turn him
out on Mondayweek last, when he found out the deficiency.
Mr. Andrews said that complainant's wife and child were
ill at the time. He had compassion on them.
Mr. COTTINGHAM said that he should recommend a
reconciliation between the parties. He thought they
had better put the case in the hands of some gentle-
man as arbitrator, and abide by his decision, as
from documents he had seen he believed that
there was some misunderstanding between them.
He could not, under any circumstances, allow the de-
fendants to commit a breach of the peace without some
admonition from him. He should advise them not to
interfere, but let Mr. Andrews attend his own business,
and fight his own battles. To give both parties an op-
portunity of coming to some settlement, he should re•
quire the defendants to enter into their own recogni-
sances in the sum of 401. each for their attendance this
day week.