The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-23 00:00:00

LAW

EN CE.

Mary Walsh—l was servant to the plaintiff. On
the 27th of April Mrs. Mullett left. My mistress
said she should go away en the 2Gth of April, and
on the next day she did so. Prior to her doing so,
however, she gave all her trinkets and her watch into
my care. The plaintiff was aware that she was going
away, because she told him she would on the pre-
ceding evening. Upon that occasion she had come
~home late, when he asked her where she had been.
She would not tell him ; whereupon the plaintiff said
he would make her. She again refused, but he said
she should tell him, or he would make her. Upon
this, she said she should go away from him altoge-
ther. The plaintiff, in a tone of astonishment, ex-
claimed, " That surely she would not think of doing
so; did she remember her four children ? Could she
abandon them ?" My mistress cried very much, but
persisted in her determination to leave. The plaintiff
then said, if she had resolved upon adopting such a
step he would place her in proper care, and snake her
an allowance ; he would place her with her father.
She said she would not go there, for her father was
nothing to her.
Cross-examined—l have lived three and a half
years with the plaintiff and his wife. They lived in
the most comfortable and affectionate manner, and
with kindness and attachment: to their children.
I never heard any angry words pass between them
until the last three months. I have never seen her
cry during the whole of that period. I have known
the plaintiff td come home late at night ; one o'clock
was the latest. I have heard Mrs. Mullett complain
of his being late. But they did not have words about
it, for he has explained where he has been. I never
saw him strike or throw anything at her.
Mrs. Dibble—l am sister to the defendant's wife.
They were living in Salisbury-square in April last.
The defendant did not sleep at home at that time,
because they had had words, and a difference in con-
sequence. I was there a few days after the plaintiff's
wife had gone off from her husband, when the latter
called there. It was about seven o'clock in the even-
ing. He saw my sister. He was not very much
excited when he was speaking to her. The defendant
came home while the plaintiff was there. I heard the
plaintiff ask the defendant for his wife. Mrs. Lloyd
was crying very much in consequence of what the
plaintiff had communicated to her. I heard him after-
wards say, " You are a black-hearted villain." The
plaintiff said, "You have got my wife ;" and the de-
fendant said, " That is to be proved." Afterwards the
defendant said, " You may take my old wife, and I'll
have your young one." The defendant ordered the
plaintiff to leave the house, which he was about to do
when blows ensued. Mrs. Lloyd left the house to
protect her life, and afterwards she left her husband
altogether, in consequence of his connection and be-
haviour. Mrs. Lloyd left her home on the 29th of
May. The defendant lives now at Forest. hill. They
have two children living. Mrs. Lloyd is my sister.
Mr. COCKBURN rose, and said he would save at
once his Learned Friend the trouble of offering any
further proof of the criminal act. That fact he now
was not there to deny. He was prepared to admit
the fact, and that the parties were residing together
at Forest-hill.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Lincoln, Dec. 20.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
The principal part of the day was consumed in trying
eases for the concealment of birth and assaults upon
females.
Of the former Jane Covey, aged twenty-four, Fanny
Thorpe, ar.red twenty-seven, and Rebecca Cossington, were
convicted of the offence of concealing the births of their
bastard children. We do not publish the details, but
the Learned Judge, after pointedly alluding to the serious
offence the prisoners had committed, sentenced Fanny
Thorpe to two years' imprisonment and hard labour,
and the two other females each to twelve months' im-
prisonment and hard labour.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 21.

THE CORPORATION OF GLOUCESTER V. WOOD AND OTHERS.
—JUDGMENT.--THE LATE HR. JAMES WOOD'S WILL.
, When this case was called on, the LORD CHANCELLOR
inquired of Mr. Swanstone, counsel for the Corporation
of Gloucester, whether his clients acceded to the terms
of the order of Vice-Chancellor Wigram?
Mr. SWANSTONE said they did.
Mr. WALKER—It was not an order of his Honour,
but a proposition suggested by the Court.
Mr. SWANSTONE—The Corporation of Gloucester are
ready to secede to the proposals that have been made,
and they will submit to any order the Court may here-
after think proper to make.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then said he had considered
this case with great care and attention, and the con-
clusion he had come to was, that the money in litiga-
tion ought not to be paid to the executors pending
the appeal to the House of Lords against Vice-
Chancellor Wigram's decision. On looking at the
judgment of the Court below he observed that his
Honour at the time stated, that in a question of such
importance, where property of upwards of 200,0001. was
in litigation, it was not likely that either party would be
satisfied with the decision of a puisne judge of the Court,
and therefore he (the Lord Chancellor) considered it a
proper case for an appeal, and that the proceedings were
not frivolous. After some further remarks, his Lordship
said, suppose he was to order the money in dispute
to be paid over to the executors, they would not feel
themselves justified in distributing it. Under
the present circumstances, therefore, he thought it
had better remain invested in the Funds, under the con-
trol of the Court, until the appeal to the House of Lords
was decided. At the same time he was of opinion that
the executors were at full liberty to apply to hare any
portion of the fund paid over to them on their giving sa-
tisfactory security. It was asked by counsel for the execu-
tors that, in the event of loss by a decline in the funds, the
Corporation should make it good. Now he could not
make any order on that point, as the Courts had always
considered Consols in the light of money : if the
price full, the executors would lose (in case the appeal
should be in their favour) ; but if it was higher, they
would have the advantage. In conclusion, his Lordship
ordered the money claimed by the Corporation, under a
codicil in the will of the testator, to remain invested in
the Funds pending the appeal, with liberty to the de-
fendants (executors to the will) to apply to take any
portion of it out, on giving sufficient security.
A long discussion ensued respecting costs.
MS LORDSHIP directed the costs of the present mo-
tion to be paid by the Corporation.

- Joseph Sharpe, aged twenty-three, was charged with
having, on the 3d of September, at Barrowl9y, com-
mitted a capital assault on a married woman named
Mary Leeson.

The
fa2ts were few. It appeared that, on the day in
question, the husband of the prosecutrix being absent
from his home longer than was expected, his wife be-
came apprehensive, and went in search of him. The
prisoner accompanied her, and when only two hundred
yards from the cottage in which the Leesons lived, threw
her down, and, according to the evidence of Mrs. Lee-
son, completed his purpose. The jury found him guilty
of the common assault only, and the judge sentenced him
to twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour.
The calendar, which contains but two or three cases of
any interest, is likely to begot through with on Saturday.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.--.Norwich, Dec. 21.
The County Court was opened at an early hour to-
day, to enable his Lordship to pass sentence upon the
several prisoners convicted, either by verdict or confes-
sion, of arson. Accordingly Rutland, Dye, Medlar,
Rump, Parker, the two Quantrells, Baker, the two boys,
Harvey and Lessams, who as well as Parker pleaded
guilty, and Jane Watts, having been placed at the bar,
Mr. Justice Wm.'s:us, with great earnestness of
voice and solemnity of manner, proceeded to discharge
that which he could not but feel to be a most unwel-
come duty. The exhibition now before him was most
painful to his mind, coming as it did so close upon
a recent penal example, in which he had borne a
part, in the adjoining county of Suffolk. It had
been hoped that the example and exhibition
then made would have tended to diminish and
check the commission of a crime which, in his (Mr.
Justice Williams's) opinion, ranked next in atrocity to
that of murder, being one which resulted from a settled
determination to do wrong, and was attended, moreover,
by no benefit to any single human creature, while it in-
flicted incalculable injury on those whose property was
destroyed, and, indeed, on all the labouring class too.
In one of the cases now before him, a witness had well
aaid'that " a fire would be a bad job for we labourers,"
and if persons of that rank in society would but think
seriously on the subject, he was sure they would all
come to the same conclusion. His Lordship having then
briefly adverted to the distinguishing features of the
charges against the several prisoners, proceeded to sen-
tence all the men, and Parker (who had pleaded guilty
to two indictments), to transportation for 15 years, but
adjudged to the boys, Harvey and Lessams, in conside-
ration of their extreme youth, imprisonment for one
and two months respectively ; and to Jane Watts,
whose case was of so singular a character as to induce
the jury to believe that she must have been mad, the
like punishment for 12 months.
His Lordship then adjourned to the Guildhall, where
three prisoners awaited him. Of these cases the follow-
ing alone was werty of notice :
Lucy Thorpe, aged thirty, was indicted for the wilful
murder of her illegitimate child.
Mr. Palmer appeared fbr the prosecution, and the' pri-
soner was defended by Mr. W. Cooper.
From the evidence of Mrs. Roll, whose husband keeps
the Dove Inn, in this city, and her daughter, if appeared
that the prisoner came in August last and demanded
lodgings for herself and a child aged two years. Her
size even then attracted the notice of Mrs Roll, but on
her asserting that she was not enceinte she obtained her
object. Towards the end of a month her landlady's sus-
picions were again roused by her increased bulk, but she
positively denied the charge, with more solemnity than
truth, for in a few days she gave birth to the being whose
fate was the object of this inquiry. It appeared that on
the night of the 10th of September, the prisoner had for
her bed-fellows her little boy and a daughter of her land-
lady, aged fifteen. According to the testimony of this
girl, they passed the night as usual till six o'clock with-
out any disturbance; but at that hour she was awoke
by the noise of a baby crying. On getting up, she
she saw the prisoner dressed and walking about the
room. She then went out to get some water, and on her
return was seen to wipe up some blood which was on the
floor. Immediately after the noise was heard by the
witness, when the prisoner knelt down by the bed-aide,
and pulled the curtains close down. Her son, who was
also awake, then asked his mother, " what that noise
was?" to which she replied, " that it must be some bird,"
and then got into bed again. The witness then got up,
and, having acquainted her mother with the transactions
of the night, an inquiry was made, which resulted in the
discovery of the dead body of a fine male child under the
bed, and covered up with towels. A surgeon having
been called in, certain marks were discovered on the
neck of the poor thing which led to this charge ; but, it
being impossible for the medical witnesses to-day to de-
cide whether they were to be attributed to accident
during delivery, or to design,
The jury were directed to Acquit the prisoner, without
any defence being gone into.
With this case the first Norfolk Winter Assize may
be said to have terminated ; for, soon after its close, all
parties concerned therein, from high to low, having
packed up their bags, briefs, and bodies, went their way
across the marker-place, rejoicing, no doubt, that the
festivities appropriate to the ensuing week were not to
be broken in upon and marred by any unwelcome and
close coLtamination with vice and poverty—those I'm
ful sources of that wretched thing, a heavy calendar,

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 21.
(Before Sir J. WIGWAM.)
VIVIAN V. COCHRANB.
In this case a question has arisen between the plain-
tiff; the Rev. J. W. Vivian, Rector of the parish of
St. Peter-le-Poor, in the City of London, and the
proprietors of the National Bank of Ireland, Broad-
street, as to the principle upon which tithe was to be
taken on the house and premises used for the business
of the bank, whether it should be levied on the amount
of the reserved rent, or on the value of the house in
its improved state. The question is an important one
to the owners of property in the city, and at a former
stage of the proceedings his Honour had stated that
his decision was not likely to be final on the matter.
It had been postponed on one or two occasions, but
was given this day.
Hia HONOUR, after remarking on the novelty and
importance of the case, said the plaintiff was the
rector of a parish in London, and the defendant re-
presented the National Bank of Ireland, who are
lessees for years and occupiers of a house, the tithes of
which are claimed by the plaintiff. The lease under
which the bank occupancy was made in consideration
of a reserved rent, and of a covenant by the lessees to
expend 2,0001. in building, &c. ; that sum had been
duly expended according to the covenant. The right
of the clergyman to tithes of 2s. 9d. in the pound on
the reserved rent was not disputed, but the plaintiff
claimed to be paid 2s. 9d. in the pound on the im-
proved value of the property arising from the expen-
diture of the sum above stated. The question at issue
was, then, on which of the two valuations the tithes
were to be paid, and this depended on the statute of
37th Henry VIII., c. 12, which is an Act regu-
lating the payment of tithes in London. His Honour
read the decree in that Act, and after going minutely
into the details of the case, said it was one presenting
great difficulties, but he thought his decision must be
in favour of the plaintiff and his claim to the tithe ; he
therefore directed an account of the said tithes to be
taken on the value of the premises, but without costs

John Mullett—l am in the employ of my brother,
the plaintiff. The defendant dealt with my brother
for paper, and during the last six months it averaged
at the rate of 12,0001. a year. In April last he owed
us 4,3001. He had about 1,3001. worth a month.
The 4,3001. have been paid in due course.
Cross-examined by Mr. Walesby—The defendant
dealt with us for three or four years.
The Parliamentary return of newspaper stamps
was here produced to prove the sale of the publica-
tions of which the defendant is the proprietor. This
closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. COCKBURN then addressed the jury on behalf
of the defendant, and said he was not instructed to
deny the offence of which proof" had now been laid
before them.

The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up ; and the
jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff.--Damages, 7501.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—Ereter, Dec. 20.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERsoN.)
Henry George Carpenter, the druggist who was con-
victed yesterday of an assault upon Elizabeth Ilibbert,
was this morning sentenced to one year's ,imprisonment,
but without hard labour.
The early part of this day was occupied in trying cases
of a description not proper to be reported. All the other
cases were finished before the Court rose, to do which,
however, his Lordship was obliged to sit to a late hour.
William Smith was indicted for assaulting and robbing
Mary Ayre on the highway.
Mr. Bird conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was
defended by Mr. Rowe.
The prosecutrix, an old woman between 70 and 80
years of age, bent double with the weight of time, and
wearing upon her face the many furrows it had made, in
a feeble voce, that could be heard only a few feet from
the spot where she stood, gave evidence to the following
effect :—On the 6th of November last she was making
her way as well as she could from North to South
Molton. She had proceeded nearly two miles of her
way (which must have been a great task for the old
lady), when she was passed by two men, who asked
her for some nuts, an article which she usually
sold. They passed on and she followed. She had
not got very far, when a man with a handkerchief tied
over his head suddenly jumped from the hedge, and, ap-
proaching her, knocked her down, andforthwith proceeded
to take from her pocket, in which was contained a box
holding 375., and some other trifling articles ; and, hav-
ing done this and threatened her, the robber made off.
Whilst standing over her, the wind blew back the flaps
of the handkerchief which was bound round his head,
and then she immediately recognised the prisoner at the
bar, whom she had known for years.
immediately found him Guilty. He was
seiTtehnecejdurt)o. be transported for ten years.
I?iehard Back was indicted for the manslaughter of
John Perriam.
Mr. Stone prosecuted ; the prisoner was defended by
Mr. Rowe.
It appeared that the prisoner had occupied a house
situated in Elford-lane, Woodbury, as a tenant of a Mrs.
Elizabeth Back, who was his mother. About a year
since she made over the property to a Mr. Wranch, who,
unable to obtain payment of his rent, put a distress war-
rant in the hands of the deceased, and his son, Henry
Merriam, with directions that they should distrain fur the
rent doe. In obedience to those instructions, they went
to the prisoner's house, whom they found from home.
Having ascertained where he was gone they sent for him,
and after a time he made his appearance. Henry Perriam,
the son, stated that on reaching the house the prisoner
immediately went to one corner of the room, where
a poker and a pair of tongs were standing. He
seized them in his hands, and then, flinging the tongs
away, grasped the poker in his right hand. The de-
ceased, on his entry, was sitting near the table, and
commenced reading the warrant. Nothing else was said
to him; not a word besides was spoken. The prisoner
said nothing;
on his right
h but,t
grasping the poker as described, he
made
assault, on witness, struck him a violent
b
arn], which completely disabled it, and
i) afuriousri g
the arm hung powerless by his side. Ile then aimed and
inflicted a similar blow on his left arm, attended with
like results, and added a third, which struck him on the
head. The deceased, seeing this, discontinued the
perusal of the warrant, and came to his son's assistance.
The prisoner swore if they did not leave his house he
would kno2k their brains out, and the deceased, there-
fore, quitted the room, calling to his son not to strike the
prisoner, but to come with him, which he did. As he
(the witness) reached the door prisoner struck him an-
other blow, and be tumbled in the yard. He recollected
then seeing his father standing by the door, and the pri-
soner's fist in the attitude of striking him. He did not
see the blow, but in a moment his father fell by his side,
and he (the son) fainted away. When he recovered his
senses, his father was standing over him, the blood
dropping from his face and falling upon his own. As
soon as he could he got up, and then perceived that his
father had received a violent blow on the lower part of
his forehead, from the wound inflicted by which the
blood was running. He went home. His father was
upwards of 70, and before this had been well, but from
that moment complained of being ill, and within ten
days had done with earth, and was a corpse.
Mr. Warren, a surgeon, of Exeter, was called, who
had seen the deceased two days before his death, and had
also made a post mortem examination. He stated tha

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 21.
,Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and Special Juries.)
CRIM CON.—MULLBTT V. LLYOD.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Hoggins conducted
the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cockburn and Mr.
Walesby appeared for the defendant.
This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages for the domestic loss sustained by the plaintiff,
by means of criminal conversation had by the defend-
ant with his wife. The damages were laid at 2,0001.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD proceeded to state the
case. The plaintiff was a young gentleman of about
30 years of age, and was a paper manufacturer, and
a wholesale stationer, in an extensive way of business
in the city of London. The defendant was some
years his senior, and was one of those persons who
had taken upon themselves, or had assumed to them-
selves, the position of public instructors—he was the
proprietor of several newspapers. One was published
under the title of Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, a three-
penny affair, he believed, Lloyd's Penny Sunday Times,
and Lloyd's Penny Miscellany. Ile now resided at a
villa on Forest-hill. The plaintiff was married on
the 9th of September, 1836. He was then a young
man of twenty-two years of age, whilst the un-
happy lady was some three of four years
younger. The marriage had been one of sincere affection
and strong attachment. At the period of his union
the plaintiff was in a salaried employment, but shortly
afterwards he had commenced business on his own
account, and being successful, he had looked forward
to that full enjoyment of his domestic comforts, to-
wards which all men with a family were accustomed
naturally to yearn. Up to the time, within a very
brief period, when this lamentable event came to pass,
there had never been a breath even that could inter-
fere with that happiness—a happiness which had been
increased and added to by the fact of his wife having
borne him four children. The defendant also, he re-
gretted to say, was a married man with three children.
The connection between the plaintiff and the de-
fendant had not simply been of the most intimate cha-
racter, but it had amounted to brotherly friendship.
The defendant had dealt with the plaintiff for paper to
the extent of 12,000/. per annum, and at the moment
when this affair took place was then a debtor to him
to the extent of upwards of 4,0001. That sum, it was,
however, but fair that he should state, had been regu-
larly paid as the bills had severally arrived at maturity.
He had merely mentioned the fact in order to show the
extent of the transactions which had been carried on
between the parties. The plaintiff, too, had been
one of' the securities for the defendant at
the Stamp-office. Such, then, it would be
seen, were the relations in which these per-
sons stood the one towards the other. They
were those of the closest friendship. They were on
the most intimate, and friendly, and cordial footing.
Some time after the plaintiff had been married he be-
came the proprietor of two mills, the one at Bristol,
and the other at Tonbridge, and until that period he
had never slept away from home. Then, however,
such a course was absolutely necessary, for he could
not carry on his business without ; but upon no occa-
sion had he left his wife without a female companion.
Subsequently the defendant, it was remarked, had
become a frequent visitor at the house when the
plaintiff was from home, and that the lady took rides
with him alone. In the month of April, however,
the matter was seen by the servants ; for Mrs. Mul.
lett was observed to go out in the absence of her hus-
band, and to remain away for some time, but to con-
trive in most instances to reach home before her hus-
band's return. On the 27th of April, at length, she
went out, and never returned, leaving all her trin-
kets, and even her watch behind her. The plaintiff was
left to seek where he best could consolation for the de-
privation of the partner in his best hopes, in his best
wishes, in his best expectations, and above all the mother
of his children, whilst the defendant, deserting his own
wife, had taken to his arms a paramour in the person
of the wife of his most intimate friend. With that
paramour was he now living at Forest-hill, where
she was known as Mrs. Lloyd. The house, it ap-
peared, stood back from the road, and was approached
through a gateway leading into the front garden.
That gate since the plaintiff's wife had flown there
had been kept locked, so that, contrary to all former
custom, even the tradespeople were not permitted to
come up to the house. But this difficulty it would
be proved had been overcome by the plaintiff, and the
identity of the female now living and passing as Mrs.
Lloyd, being in reality Mrs. Mullett, the plaintiff's
wife, would be most clearly established by evidence
which could not be impeached, for that lady had her-
self come down without her bonnet, and spoken to a
gentleman who was well acquainted with her. There

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stgffurd, Dec. 20.
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
At the sitting of the Court this morning, the Learned
Judge directed Joseph Penn (who, on Wednesday last,
had been convicted of the manslaughter of Prudence
Hughes, at Sedgley) to be placed at the bar where-
upon, his Lordship said, "You have been found guilty,
upon the clearest possible evidence, of the manslaughter
of Prudence Hughes. The jury, by their verdict, have
evidently taken a must merciful view of your case, and
have acquitted you of the more serious crime of murder.
The sentence of the Court is, that you be transported for
the term of ten years."
John Sherriff; an account of whsse trial,dogether with
that of Miss Railton and Mr. Hildreth, fur the conceal-
ment of the birth of a child, has already appeared in
our columns, was again placed at the bar, under an in-
dictment fcr using a certain instrument on the 19th and
23d of Oetober last, at the parish of Wolverhampton,
with intent to procure the miscarriage of Miss Jaue
Railton, a young lady.
The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Beadon appeared for the prosecution, and stated
the facts of the case clearly and concisel% to the jury.
Miss Railton was then called several times as a witness
against the prisoner; but as she did not come into Court
for that purpose, the Judge ordered her recognisance to
be estreated.
Mr. BEADON then observed that it would be needless
for him to proceed with the case during the abssnce
of so material a witness, and the Learned Judge directed
the jury to acquit the prisoner, upon which he was dis-
charged from custody.
Mattheu, Leach was then arraigned for cutting hnd
wounding Wm. Skinner, with intent to do him some
grievous bodily harm, on the 2d of last September.
Mr. Beadon appeared fur the prosecution; Mr. Neale
for the prisoner.
The evidence adduced tended to show that the prose-
cutor and some other men were together drinking in a
public-house at Sedgley, when th prisoner suddenly
came in and tried to take Skinner's pipe from his mouth.
This gave rise to a quarrel, which ended its an inter-
change of blows. Both the prisoner and the prosecutor
fell to the ground, and a jug which Leach had in his
hand was smashed against the ground. On picking up
the prosecutor he was found to have received a severe
cut on the back of his neck.
For the defence it was contended that the injury was
inflicted by a broken fragment of the jug.
The jury found a verdict of Not Guilty.
John Gavan, Mary Gavan, and Margaret Mackintyre
(natives of the sister kingdom) were indicted for stab-
bing James Coyne and Hubert Coyne, with intent to do
them some grievous bodily harm, at Wolverhauipton, on
the 25th of August lust.
Mr. Yardley appeared for the prosecution. The
prisoners were undefended.
James Coyne, a labourer, stated that between eleven
and twelve o'clock on the night of the 25th of August,
he, with his wife and brother, were returning home along
Stafford-street, Wolverhampton. They had arrived
within twenty yards of their house, when they passed
James Gavan and other persons standing in the street.
Prosecutor said, " Good night, lads." John Gavels put
out his leg to throw prosecutor down. lie escaped, how-
ever, but just as he had passed the party, he felt a knife
running into his left arm. He turned round and seized
John Gavan. They wrestled, and the prosecutor re-
ceived a cut on the chin with a knife. His wife ran for
the police. Ile received four cuts on the arm, and two
on the chin. Prosecutor did not know any of the other
persons.
Ellen Coyne, the prosecutor's wife, corroborated her
husband's testimony, and saw Mary Gavan make a
blow at witness's husband with a knife. Her husband
was on the ground at the time, and kickod off the blow
with his foot.
Bridget Coyne said that she saw John Gavan with a
knife in his hand, with which he stabbed the prosecutor.
Michael Stea art, inspector of police, saw the prose-
cutor shortly after the occurrence, lie was covered with
blood. Witness then apprehended John Gavan.
Mr. Edward Francis liehane, surgeon, Wolverhampton,
described the nature of the wounds the prosecutor had re-
ceived. They were such as might be inflicted with a knife.
The jury found the prisoner, John Gavan, Guilty of a
common assault, and the Learned Judge sentenced him
to be imprisoned twelve calendar months to hard labour.
The female prisoners were acquitted.
James Thompson, Benjamin Moore, and James Mar-
chant, were indicted for feloniously wounding Thomas
Westwood, on the Ist of June, at Kingswinford.
Mr. Iluddlestone and Mr. Woolrych appeared for the
prosecution, and Mr. Neale for the defence.
The prosecutor, who is a glass-maker, had been very
cruelly ill-treated by three men, when returning home
from his work on the evening in question. The prisoners
were not clearly identified as the parties who had com-
mitted the outrage, upon which they were acquitted.
At about half-past four o'clock on Friday the business
of the winter assize fur this county closed, having lasted
altogether about eleven days. With the last trial here
the present Oxford Circuit terminated. The cases which
came before the Learned Judge on this occasion were
almost all of a very serious character, and the number of
prisoners was far greater than was anticipated; although,
h9WeYer: several of the charges agaillst them were of a

when he saw the deceased alive he was labouring appa-
rently from some disease of the chest, which produced
great difficulty of breathing. He said to him, ‘‘ Why,
Perriam, you must have been ill tier some time," and the
deceased answered that he had. Two days after he died.
On making the post mortem examination he discovered a

great quantity of watery serum on the brain, which also
bore evident marks of a chronic disease, which must have
existed for a long time. On examining the chest and
surrounding viscera he found the heart very much
diseased, which also must have been a complaint of long
standing ; and he considered the death of the deceased
resulted from ene or both of these maladies, and not
from the effects of the blow. It was possible that the
blow might have accelerated his death, and possible that
it had had no such effect.
Mr. Baron ALDEasuN stopped the cage, observing that
everything was to be presumed in favour of the prisoner,
the contrary of which was not satisfactorily proved. The
jury, if satisfied with the truth of the evidence given by
the son, would find him guilty of an assanit.
This verdict was immediately returned, and the Learned
Judge then sentenced him to four months' imprisonment,
with hard labour.
John Maddock and William Maddock were indicted
for assaulting and robbing Richard Coles, on the high-
way, and stealing from his person a hat and handkerchief,
his property.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Charles Rowe Salter was indicted for maliciously shoot-
ing at James Salter and Henry Canniford, with intent
to maim, &c.

'Could not, therefore, be any dispute as to the fact of
the supposed Mrs. Lloyd being the real Mrs. Mullett.
George Cox, jun., produced an accredited copy of
the marriage register between the plaintiff and his
wife. The marriage took place the 10h of Septem-
ber, 1836.

George Luck—l am uncle to the plaintiff's wife.
I have known the plaintiff and his wife during the
whole of their lives. I was in the habit of visiting

them after their marriage, in the Deptford-road. He
is now living at his mill, I imagine, in the country.
They had lived most happily together until just be-
' fore this event. They have four children.
Isaac Henry Sercombe--I attend from Somerset
House, and produce the bond entered into by the
defendant to the Stamp-office, and the plaintiff is one
of the securities to that bend. In August last that
bond was withdrawn, and another substituted. The
defendant there is not a surety. The bond is for the
payment of the duties on Lloyd's Weekly London
Newspaper.

Mr. Cox prosecuted; Nfr. Rowe defended the prisoner.
From the evidence in this case, it appeared tt at the
prisoner had most improperly fired a gun at toe two
boys named in the indictment, but at such a great dis-
tance as to negative the supposition that he was actuated
by the intent laid in the indictment. He was, therefore,
acquitted ; but the Learned Judge expressed a regret
that it was nut a case in which the jury could find a
common assault.

Ills Lordship rose about nine o'clock, all the business
being finished ; and this ends the business of the Winter
Western Circuit,

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY RYNNINGS DECEMBER 28, 1344.

capital nature, only two men have been left by Mr. Jus-
tice Coltman for execution.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Mr. Patrick M. Owen, a young Irishman, was
brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged with having
broken a looking-glass, worth 171., and done other
damage to the property of Mrs. Fletcher, of 34,
Duke-street.
The complainant said she kept a respectable
lodging-house for ladies. The defendant, who was a
stranger to her, called upon her about five weeks ago,
and said he had been recommended by a Mrs.
Thompson, of Dublin, to a young lady who lodged
in the house. Complainant refused to allow him to
see the lady in question, as she was under the pro-
tection of a friend. The defendant refused to go
until he had seen the lady, and then complainant
threatened to call the police. The defendant imme-
diately thrust his umbrella against a looking-glass
worth 171., and broke it, and also broke a gas lamp
worth 10s. The defendant went away, and com-
plainant obtaine4 a summons against him, but the
summons could not be served until Friday evening.
The defendant attempted to deny being the person
who had called at the complainant's house.
Mr. HARDwicit was satisfied that the complainant's
story was correct, and therefore fined the defendant
.51. for the assault, .51. for the glass, and 10s. for the
gas lamp.—The defendant paid the money.
THAMES POLICE.
The brother of the late master of the Hero appeared
before Mr. Ballantine to contradict a statement made
on Thursday by a person, who in applying for an
arrear of wages alleged to be due to his son, one of
the parties who perished in the wreck, said the acci-
dent was attributable to the circumstance of the cap-
tain having been ill, and entrusting the care of the
vessel to the mate, who was in liquor at the time.
To disprove so serious a charge, and to relieve the
memory of his brother from the obloquy it was calcu-
lated to attach to it, the applicant handed to the ma-
gistrate a letter from Messrs. Hoffman and Shenk,
urging him to attend at the police-office for the pur-
pose of contradicting this statement made against the
master of the Hero.
Mr. BALLANTINE said the Court could not be made
the vehicle of public information, not in any way
connected with the public business. The reporters
would no doubt correct any misrepresentation, if it
was in their power.