The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-19 00:00:00

this transaction. It had not been clearly proved that the foreign tobacco, which had not paid duty on being un-
notes came into the possession e'f Mr. Fletcher, and upon this shipped.
point IN contended that the case for the prosecution had en- Colebv Atkinson Davis, an officer of Customs, fully
tirely failed. Fletcher had not been apprehended till after
proved the offence.
this transaction was disclosed, and he was attending at the
e
Mansion house as a witness when he was arrested. The prisoner %as fined in the penalty of NU
There was no evidence that his client ever knew anything .Two women named Green and Shaw were charged
fin
going,ther than wtth being concerned in the robbery of a great numbLer
_
the evidence warranted.:. they found that his client ever 01. pieces 4if woollen cloth, silk, satin, and velvet, the
forged this will. Ths ev:. :-.ce was mach too doubtful and property of Mr. Lamb, a woollen draper, residing at 100,
uncertain to warrant tb• •-. ;n finding a verdict against his Boll)• rtt. bill.
client. _ Mr. Humphries prosecuted and Mr. Robinson de-
.... _ _ . .

Mr. STONE was about to address the jury for William
Saunders and Lydia Saun.liers, when,
Mr. Justice WILLIAms said that though he did not think
there was no evidence to go to the jury with regard to William
Saunders, yet it was for them to say, before the Learned
Counsel addressed them. whether there was such evidence
against him as was worthy of' their serious consideration.
There was not the least evidence that he had any
knowledge of the uttering of the forged will—supposing it
to be forged—which was necessary, in point of law, to make
him guilty. They would therefore. consider whether they
would think it necessary for the Learned Counsel to addres
them for William Saunders.

fended the prisoners.
In November la. t, Green was discharged from Mr.
Lamb's employment, where she had been as cook. Soon
after her d.parture, the property was missed, and on
investigation it H as ascertained that the prisoners bad
been disposing of it. At Green's lodging in Crown-
coitrt, Goswell-street, several keys were found. One of
them opened Mr. Lamb's wareronm the othe opened a
box in which the key of the wareroom waste ntained.
Several small pieces of v..leet, satin, and cloth were like:
wise found there, which the prosecutor identifi, d.
dress-maker named Chelford depo.sed to having Ina°.

The jury did not think there was any evidence against
him, and they accordingly brought in a verdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. STONE then addressed the jury for Lydia Saunders.
She was charged with a guilty knowledge before the fact,
and with inciting Barber to forge the will and to alter it.
The first evidence against Lydia Saund,Ts was that of Martha
Anne Neville. She had not seen her for a year. His client was .
was never seen by the witness without her bonnet. She said
she had flaxen ringlets, but there was black hair found in
the hair brush. It was sworn that Mrs. Dorey was in the
habit of calling there, and was there anything improbable in
supposing that the black hair was hers. The mother was a
person of bad sight, and all she could say was, that she be-
lieved the prisoner was the person who lodged with her.
Could they be satisfied that she was the person who came with
Mr. Barber to Mr. Wills? Mr. Wills had not seen her for
more than five minutes, and he had no distinct recollection
about the person of the woman who called upon
him. The most important evidence they could ad-
dude was to establish a similitude between the
handwriting to the will and the ordinary writing of Mrs.
Saunders; but they had not tried to establish anything of the
kind. The Learned Gentleman then commented on the evi-
dence of Mr. Host and Mr. Philpot t, and begged of the jury
to consider how unlikely it was th,.t, they could recollect the
person of Mrs. Saunders, who must have gone to them as
much disguised as possible, when, upon cross-examination,
they admitted that they would not be able to identify any of
the other numerous persons who transacted business with
them. There was nothing, then, to identify the prisoner as
connected with this will. Mrs. Dorey, who was a guilty
person from her own confession, might have been the person.
fhe note which had been spoken of was never seen in the
possession of Mrs. Saunders, nor was her writing upon it.
The witness Gorsuch stated that he saw her get into an om
nibus, and.that it went in the direction of the City, and from
this they were called on to conclude that she went to the
Bank in order to get the gold. He said that she came in
with a bag, and that when she laid it on the counter there
was a jingle, as if of gold. Was it likely that she would lay
it on the counter, or that she would take such a sum as
1,0001., which must weigh about 21 lbs., in one hand, as
she was represented to do? There was nothing in the evi-
dence to satisfy them that her id..ntitv was clearly
established, and he entreated them to give the benefit of the
doubt to his client, if they were not fully satisfied upon the
evidence that she was the person who committed the fraud.
The same evidence which was given in the former case as
to the character of Mr. Barber was given before the present
jury. They all stated that Mr. Barber was a person of re •
spectability and honour.
It being now past five o'clock the Court adjourned till this
morning, when Mr. Erle is to reply.

several cloaks and bonnets for tip: prisoners out of cloths
and velvets furnished to her by thvm. These
garments which were considerable value were pawned
by the prisoners at the shop of Mr. Ling--y, in Greek'
street, Soho. and were produced in Court by his
assistant. The prisoners were remanded. •
A drayman, named Cousins, in the employment of Messrs;
Reid, the brewers, and residing on Saffron-hill, was charge,'
with assaulting his wife and two police constables.
It appeared, from the evidence, that police. constable Mar:
tin, 144 G, being on duty on Saffron-hill, between five and
six this morning, heard cries of "murder" proceed &on' 6
house there, and, on reaching the landing on the first-fioert -
saw the wife staneing in her night garments on the stairs'
and screaming violently. The prisoner, on hearing witness,
,rushed out, brandishing a fire-shovel, with which he aimed A
terrible blow at the officer's head. The constable elevated
his arm to ward off the blow, and the weapon descended upon
it with such force that the handle was broken in two
places.
He then ran into his room and Martin shouted for assistance,
his arm having been rendered almost powerless. Jackmat.l,
192 G, then came in, and, upon entering the room, the Pr,"
soner lifted a chair, and, with a blow, broke it on Jackman!
shoulder. He was finally secured but not without very gres''.
difficulty.
The prisoner's wife and the landlord of the house describe
the prisoner's conduct as extremely violent. He destroyed
a great deal of furniture.
ad
The prisoner with an air of great indifference, said he h
been out drinking all night, and did not doubt but that what
the police stated was true enough.
The MAGISTRATE sentenced him to seven days' iniprior
ment in the House of Correction. When he calve out hs
must be bound over to keep the peace towards his wife. •
Prisoner—There is no necessity for that; I will never liVs
with her again.
The MAGISTRATE hoped the Messrs. Reid would be
prised of the nature of the charge against the prisoner.
Inspector Penny promised to acquaint them.
The prisoner was locked up.
UNION-HALL.
Thomas litalland,- described as a begging-letter writer, was
charged with the following heartless robbery :
The prisoner has been flr some time known as a profeaced'
begging-letter writer by the officers of the Mendicity Societyt.
and in that capacity had introduced himself to the cenr'
plainant, an infirm old man, who was allowed Bs. a week PO'
his support from some members of his family. The old marl:
having some arrears due, employed the prisoner, being a OL,IIII
of "good address," to go and receive the money. Yesteraak
the prisoner proceeded for the cash, all of which he convert.,sto his own purposes, and "rigged" himself out in a new
of clothes, in which he appeared at the bar.
• net
Mr. COTTINGHAM characterised the conduct of the prISO
as base in the extreme to an aged man like the complatnl,
The Magistrate added that he should deal summarily 3/I_,
the case to prevent the complainant the trouble of attending
the sessions to prosecute, and commit the prisoner for two
months to hard labour; and at the same time Mr. Cottint:
ham directed that the prisoner should be divested of the ne°'
suit of clothes, which were to be given up to the ceinplaltr,
ant, as they were purchased with his money. . • ••

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HO USA:.

A woman, named Mary Walters, was brought before
the Lord Mayor by the authorities of Bishopsgate, upon
the charge of having al,a,,doried her settlement in Glou-
cestershire, to which shL and her four children ha-1 been
regularly passed from E t. B itolph, Bishopsgate, and re-
turnad to the latter, which she and four of her
childrtli became thus a rinus burdrn.

Mr Themts •Liff,rd Stuart, Vestry-clerk to the ic.frish
of St. Botolph, lhshopsgate, stated that the woman, who
was a widow, and her family, had been some time ago
chargeable to that parish, arid had been duly sent home
to Gloucestershire, where it was proved beyond the
slightest doubt her husband had had a birth settlement.
For a short time they remained in the Lodbury Union,
in the pari,h of %Vesterby. in Gloucestershire, but to he
surprise of the London awhoritie3, she appeared with
four of her children at the worl<house-gate in B.shops-
gate, and craved achnissom. Upon beim!. admitted, she
declared that she had bey n turned out with her children
by the Board of Guardians of Lodhury ; that although
they received her into the house', as if she had an es-
tab.ished claim upon the funds of the parish by virtue of
her husband's settlement. they subsequently denied all
knowledge of her husband, and actually thrust her out
to run the chance of o .casi,coal charity. Upon receiving
this extraordinary intelligence the parochial au herities
of St..l3,ft&ph, Bishop-gate, caused a letter to be written
to thAn at Lodbury. requiring an explanation, and the
answer they verived was thaf the statement of Mary
Walters was totally untrue, and that she had though
proper to discharge hers.-it. a p.:wer which every depen-
dent upon parochial bounty-enjoyed, and her children
had to remove from the union alzh,ugh her claim for
support was undeniabe.
The LORD MAvoa—Well, defendant, what have you
to Nay in ans,%er to the utter denial to the truth of chat
statement you made to the ves•ry-trierk?—The defendant
said that she had n t discharged hersUf from the parish.
That alt hou2ll she awl hid been appal, nth
received into the union cla real e!aimants, they had beet;
torned -oon afterwlr al.d told that thei might

beg their way home f.o agabi, and that she ha
in ruin requ,sl.d hat fh.-...:entlenien of the Bo:,rd
give her, for lily's sak,,, twopence or thr epence a piece
to enable her to convey her children to Lond,.n.
The LORD MAYOR—I have here a letter from the
:i.tchorities of Lodnury, asserting that all you have said
is filse—that they willingly admitted you, and that you
insisted upon leafing them, and that as a matter of
course they could not d, taro you against your will.
Mr. Smart said that the woman had repres- nted her
c n lition in sucli a toann-r as was calculated to aff, et
tll ordinary hearers. lie had been at great trouble in
estab ishint< the settlement,. but he had succeeded upon
the evidence of the sister of the defenda_,t's deceased
husband, and -he parish to %Ilia she and her children
had heen removed had paid all the expenses claimed by
St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, a strong proofthat the settle-
mer,t, had been let:ally made out.

The, Loiti3 MAYOR said that he should deal with all
ca•es of the kind with a severity which, he trusted.
would much diminish the expens-s to which the London
parishes we e put by imp. stors.
Mr. Smart said ihe inc.) !%N nience and annoyance and
expense ovca-i,ne.? try p.isons who acted as t,:e def nd-
ant had acted was inconctivabk. If the parish in Glou-
cestershire chose they tittatt reject the ..rder which
would be g v,n without the produetion of the witnesses,
and ev,ry tittle of the legal evidence which had been
already given. The difficulty in cases of this sort be-
came, in fact, overwhelmingly great, and if there ap-
peared to be the slightest defect in legal proof back the
claimants were thrown upon thc City, with all the ex •

penses.
The defendant said wes willing to work for her
chi'dren. and ,he did hot w,int to be a dependent at all.
The LORD MAYOR entence you to imprisonment
iu BrideA ell for a n-lont'.. The next offence of the kind
you cornwit will :subject you to imprisonment fur three
months.
The defendant was then committed. Her children
have bei-n sent to be taken care of at Norwood.
An old wretch named John Budmore, %hose age was
stated on the list to be 65, was charged with having vio-
lated two sisters of very tender years.
The prisoner was said to be the pew-opener of a Diseni

. .
ing meeting-house in Spitalfields. One of the children
stated that when she and her sister went into bed the
pri-oner went down upon his knees and prayed, after
which he undre-sed himself and joined them.
The second child was too ill to attend the examination,
and the prisoner was remanded for several days.
A gentleman of the bar was brought before the Lord
Mayor.
The defendant bad been driving in his cab along
Cheapside in the morning, at a moderate pace. when a
boy. about fourteen years of age, was seen to fall at the
horse's feet, and the wheel of the cab passed over his
head. The poor boy was taken to the hospital in a state
of insensibility, and the surgeon's certificate represented
that he was in extreme danger.
It was quite evident that the accident was not caused
by neglect or want of proper caution on the part of the
defendant, who was immediately discharged upon bail.