The Sun.
London, England, 1868-04-27 00:00:00

This case was resumed this morning, but the
proceedings consisted of the speeches of counsel for
the plaintiff, on the evidence they had brought
forward to prove their case. They dwelt very strongly
upon the evidence of Mrs. Lyon, who they contend
plainly showed that the influence the defendant had
obtained over her rendered her far from being a
free agent. The lady had been imposed upon from
beginning to end, and one of the learned counsel
(Mr. Fisher) said that after Mrs. Lyon had declared
the whole thing a swindle, the defendant had coolly
written to her to ask her for a letter vouching for
his personal honesty. Home Invariably addressed
his letters to Mrs. Lyon as " My darling mother,"
and, in fact, he effected so complete an ascendancy
over her that she became his tool, notwithstanding
that he had written that he felt repugnant at her
attachment, although he had by his great attachment
succeeded in getting so large a sum from her. Sh 3
was a lady who had the greatest affection for her
husband whilst alive, and ;after his decease she
seemed animated by the greatest desire to do all
that he had. requested. The defendant found
her to be a person of great susceptibility,
and, finding she possessed great wealth,
he set about obtaining an influence over her, which
eventually he turned to his own personal advan-
ii bealsiev theed
advan-
tage. Although he (Mr. Fisher) could not deny
l a.
,t
thatone
time
e w
that Mrs. Lyon had given the money, she had been
seidemupecihna thatd
told
shehreera, vi really
asoll imposed
i
only mefium for restoring communication between
her and her deceased husband, and it m •
u believing
that completely that had led her to do that which
had given rise to the institution of the present suit.
The case seems likely to go on for several days yet.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-TMS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

PP.ICKING TIIE GARTER." -- CHEATING A
FOREIGNER.—Johann Emile, described as a printer's
roller maker, was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt
with being concerned with another not in custody
in defrauding Louis Adolph Malaterre, a French
tailor living in Marshall-street, Golden-square, of
the sum of £3 4s in French money, by cheating him
at a game called pricking the garter."
After some evidence being given, Mr. Tyrwhitt
(on the application of Police-constable George King,
76 D) remanded the prisoner for a week.

WESTMINSTER.
A REMARKABLY. INQUISITIVE TURN OF
James Topson, described as a wood merchant, was
charged under the following circumstances :
John Besley, a foreman of painters, living
at 55, Eceleston-place, said that at seven
o'clock on Saturday evening he had occasion
to go to a shop in Buckingham Palace-row,
Pimlico, to varnish a revolving shutter. While
he was doing it the defendant, who was drunk, with
two companions, came up, and defendant pushed
one of them up against the steps, upon which com-
plainant was standing, and also run up against
them himself, and had it not been for
seizing a bracket, complainant must have
been thrown to the ground. In about an
quarter of an hour after defendant and a companion
returLed and commenced wiping his fingers down
the varnish. Complainant told him to desist, or he
would shove the varnish-brush in his face. De-
fendant put his hand on the varnish again, and upon
complainant going to prevent his doing it again
defendant pushed him, and he then put the varnish-
brush on his face, and then defendant and his
friend knocked him about.

Defendant denied that he had assaulted the man
as described or pushed any one against the steps.
lie put his finger upon the wet varnish, and inquired
whether it was " copal." Upon which complainant
told him to go about his business. lie (defendant)
put his finger on the varnish again,obscrving, " he
thought it was copal," upon which the complainant
thrust the brush in his face and varnished
all his face and hair, and then a general struggle
ensued. _ _

A policeman proved finding the complainant
engaged with the defendant, who was drunk, and
another man. Ile saw defendant strike complainant
three or four times.

Defendant denied this, and wished to be allowed
to ask complainant a question.
Mr. Arnold assented.

Defendant—Did not I inquire whether it was
copal varnish?

Complainant—Yes, you did.

Defendant—When I put my finier to it a second
time, did I not say I thought it was ?
Mr. Arnold—Yours must be a most inqui-
sitive turn of mind which could make you
interfere in this way. I have no doubt you wont
to the man and interfered to annoy him. You
must pay a fine of 10s. or seven days, and en ter
into recognisances for your good behaviour for
three months.