The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-02 00:00:00

LAMBETH-STREET.

Saul Fitchell, a German Jew, charged with rob-
bing his employer, Mr. Adolphus Lipman, outfitter,
of Pearson-street, atcliff-highway, of nine watches,
was brought up for re-examination.
The police-officer stated he had been unable to dis-
cover any further facts towards the inculpation of the
prisoner.
Mr. Lipman, a young man of the same persuasion,
and the most benevolent of his order, now solicited
the magistrate on his aggressor's behalf. He said
that though he had been very ungrateful to him, yet
his poverty had not allowed him to withstand tempta-
tion, and he himself freely forgave him, hoping that a
Divine Providence would recompense him and turn
the prisoner's heart. He was in a foreign land, and
his inability to procure work from this act would
more than punish him. " The poor man," continued
Mr. Lipman," came in poverty and rags to my house
fur a refuge, and the temptation was too great for
him."
He said further things in extenuation of his guilt,
but the Magistrate said he regretted he could not at-
tend to the benevolent dictates of the complainant,
but must commit him for trial.
UNION•HALL.

Owen Bryan and John Caffery, the former beaten
very much about the head and face, and the latter
with his clothes covered with mud, were brought be-
fore Mr. Cottingham charged with two other men,
not in custody, with a very daring attack on two
gentlemen named Joseph Clarkson and Benjamin
Palmer, and robbing the latter of a sovereign and
some silver, on Kennington-common.
From the joint statements of the complainants it
appeared that they resided at Camberwell, and that,
as they were returning home that morning about one
o'clock, when they arrived near the vitriol works on
Kennington-common, they saw the two prisoners and
two other men (not in custody) standing together
near the stile which leads in the direction of Camber-
well. The moment the complainants arrived at the
stile they were attacked by the four men ; Mr. Clark-
son received a blow which knocked him into the ditch,

upon seeing which Mr. Palmer ran to his assistance, and
struck his assailant (Caffery)' and he reeled into the
same ditch into which he had previously thrown Mr.
Clarkson, who, having recovered himself, in return
attacked the three other assailants, and he and his
friend Mr. Palmer fought them until nearly
the whole of their clothes were torn off their
backs, during which one of the ruffians called out,
" That - (meaning Mr. Palmer) has money in
his pocket," and at the same moment a snatch was
made at his pocket, and,a sovereign and some silver
stolen. During the conflict two of the assailants ran
away, and policeman, 94 L, hearing shouts for help,
hastened to the spot and secured the two prisoners,
one of whom (Caffery) lay sprawling in a deep and
muddy ditch adjacent to the place where the affray
commenced, and it was with some difficulty he was
extricated from the situation in which he was placed.
The complainants produced their hats and waistcoats,
which were torn to pieces, to show the violence with
which they were attacked ; and they added that the
two prisoners were engaged in the attack upon them,
which they had no doubt was done for the purpose of
robbing them.
Policeman, 94 L, stated that, hearing cries for help,
he hastened to the spot, and found they proceeded
from Caffery, who was lying in the ditch nearly
smothered in mud. The complainants were close to
the spot, as also Bryan, the other prisoner, and the
former related the manner in which they had been at-
tacked. Having extricated Caffery from the ditch,
the policeman then took him and the other prisoner to
thestation-house, where the complainants gave an ac-
count similar to that which they had given before the
magistrate. The policeman added that the other two
men escaped before he had time to get to the place
where the outrage was committed.

Bryan, although cautioned by the Magistrate as to
the statement he made in answer to the charge, said
that he had been out with his fellow-prisoner and
another man, and that as they were passing the
common they were met by the two complainants and
another gentleman ; that one of the gentlemen shoved
up against him (Bryan), and, on asking what he did
it for, the answer was a blow, which he returned, and
this led to a scuffle, in which the parties on both
sides joined, and during which they (the prisoners)
were beaten very much, as their appearance now
testified. He added that neither he nor his com-
panions had any intention of robbing the com-
plainants, and that he earned his bread by hard
labour, that of a porter in Newgate Market.
Caffery gave a similar account of the transaction,
and, exhibiting his clothes to view, said that for taking
the part of Bryan when he was struck, he was
knocked into the ditch and nearly smothered in mud.
Mr. COTTINGNANI, said that as the charge was not
ripe for committal on that day, inasmuch as the other
two men engaged in the outrage were not in custody,
he should remand the prisoners until Wednesday.
Peter M' Waiter, a fashionably-dressed young Irish-
man, was brought up on remand from Wednesday
last, charged with robbing public-houses and taverns
in this district, and also at the west end of the town.
The Court was thronged with parties who had been
plundered, as well as by a numerous auditory anxious
to hear the examination. The following additional
evidence was adduced :
Mr. Thomas Dobson stated that he lodged at
Perry's Coffee-house, Seymour-street, Euston-square,
and that on last Tuesday week the prisoner came to
that house with a carpet bag in his hand, and stated
that he had just arrived by the train from Manchester.
He engaged a bed, and witness left home early next
morning, and when he returned at night he found his
room had been entered in his absence, that his trunk
had been forced open, and plundered of five sovereigns,
a silver watch, with a gold chain, a chesterfield coat,
and two silk handkerchiefs. Upon inquiry, it was
found the prisoner had decamped the same morning,
soon after the departure of witness from the house.
The witness here identified the coat worn by the pri-
soner as his property, and he was compelled to " doff'
it, which he was very unwilling to do, while at the
bar.

The head-waiter at the Gloucester Coffee-house, In
Piccadilly, stated that a well-dressed yuong man hired
a bed there, and when all the inmates had retired to
rest, he went into the rooms of several gentlemen who
were sleeping there, and succeeded in robbing them of
their purses, containing the sum of 141., a gold watch,
and other articles, with which he got clear off. The
witness added, that the prisoner resembled the thief,
but he would not undertake to swear positively to his
person
Cotterell stated, that information had appeared in
the Hue and Cry of six different robberies of public-
houses at Manchester by a man, answering the de-
scription of the prisoner, with § carpet bag.

Mr. COTTINGHAM said that he should commit the
prisoner on the three first charges, and that he should
be brought up again on Wednesday, and that probably
when publicity was given of the examination in the
newspapers, other parties who had been robbed would
attend.
The prisoner requested the return of a prayer-book
found in his possession when he was taken into
custody.
The application for its restoration was opposed by
the publican, who stated that since the prisoner was
taken into custody he had ascertained that several rob-
beries had been committed in Dublin by a man an-
swering the prisoner's description, and that he had
reason for believing that the prayer-book would be
found to have been part of the produce of one of them.
The prisoner, who seemed very depressed in spirits,
was then conveyed back to the county gaol.
CROYDON.

SINGULAR CASE.—Mr. Richard Lacey, a gentleman
of fortune, residing at Chelsham, and George Standen,
his groom, attended before Messrs. Reid, Adams,
Lucas, Sutherland, and Barclay, the presiding magis-
trates, the latter to answer a charge of having un-
lawfully shot at and wounded a setter dog, the pro-
perty of Mr. W. Russell, a farmer at Chelsham, and
the former with aiding and abetting his servant to
commit the act, for which offence, by an Act of Par-
liament passel in the 7th and Bth years of the reign
of George IV., they had incurred a penalty of 405.,
besides the value of the dog.
of Croydon, attended to
supAplorr.tßtihcehards,solicitor,
complaint.
It, appeared, from the testimony of several wit-
nesses, that on Tuesday, the 20th of August, about
eight o'clock in the evening, the complainant's setter
premises, and he was
heard
ardstrtoayegidve intoMrLay
instructions
cteo's
the other defendant to get
the gun and shoot him, and directly afterwards the report
of a gun was heard, and the animal was seen to run
limping away, and it eventually appeared that he had
been very seriously injured, so much so as to render
him utterly useless for the present shooting season.
Mr. Russell, in answer to questions from the Bench,
said the dog was a very excellent one, and at this
period was worth at least 101.
Mr. ADAMS inquired whether the animal was at all
mischievous, or whether there was any reason for the
defendant's attempt to destroy him ? Mr. Russell said
he was a remarkably quiet, inoffensive dog, and he
could not conceive what motive there could be, except
that of mischief, to destroy him.
The defendant, Standen, in answer to the charge,
admitted that he shot the dog, and said the reason he
did so was because he thought he was a dog who had
frequently come howling about the premises at night.
Mr. Lacey said the family had been very much an-
noyed by the dog's noise, and he certainly gave di-
rections that means should be taken to get rid of him,
but he denied, positively, that he told Standen to
shoot him.
Mr. ADAMS said he supposed he only told him to
keep the dog quiet, and he had certainly taken effec •
tual means to endeavour to do so.—(A. laugh.)
The Magistrates, after a short deliberation, ex-
pressed an opinion that the charge had been made out,
and they adjudged Mr. Lacey to pay a fine of 405.,
with 31., the value of the dog, and 12s. costs. The
,other defendant, who appeared only to have acted
under the orders of his master, they fined 20s.
Mr. Lacey said he should not pay the fine.
The Bench replied that if he did not, he would be
committed for fourteen days.
Mr. Lacey said very well, he would go to prison.
In a short time, however, he appeared to think
better of it, and he requested the Magistrates to allow
the matter to stand over for a few days to give him
an opportunity of producing evidence to show that
the dog was not so much injured as was represented,
and the Bench granted his application, upon the un-
derstanding that if he failed in doing what he sug-
gested, the original decision would be enforced.
The same defendants were then charged upon
another information with having unlawfully killed a
terrier dog, the property of Mr. John Brown.
It appeared in this case - that the dog in question
was missed from Mr. Brown's premises on the morn-
ing of Wednesday week, and the same day it was
seen in Mr. Lacey's, caught by the leg in a large rat-
trap, and shortly afterwards the animal was shot by
the defendant Standen, and then buried in the dung-
hill. A search-warrant was obtained, which was
executed by a constable named Tappen ; and on his
questioning the defendants, they at first denied all
knowledge of the dog, but when he found it in the
(lung, Mr. Lacey said to Standen, " Never mind,
George, don't be afraid, they cannot hurt us."
Mr. Lacey, in answer to the complaint, with great
earnestness declared upon his word that he knew
nothing about the dog being shot, and said he was
ready to take his oath of it, if the Bench would allow
him. He wished the Magistrates to question his
servant, and he said he would clear him.

The Magistrates said they had no right to ques-
tion a defendant, but Standen was at liberty to make
any statement he pleased.
Standen then, evidently much to the astonishment
of Mr. Lacey, said the truth was that his master
ltneW all about it, for that when he told him the dog
was in the trap he gave him the gun and told him to
shoot it.

The Magistrates said they had no doubt that this
statement was correct, and they expressed their sur-
prise that a person in the station of Mr. Lacey should
have pledged his word, and have offered to swear to
the truth of that which he knew to be false.
Mr. Lady still asserted that he knew nothing about
the dog being shot.
Mr. ADAMS said he did not believe him, and he
thought his conduct had been very disgraceful.
The other Magistrates said that they quite con-
curred in what had been stated by Mr. Adams, and
they only regretted that the evidence was not suffi-
cient to warrant them in convicting him, without the
which they could
sntaotteamcte,natnodf
thhiesycsoildoeufledn dcaenrttaiu pon
lya
in that case have
inflicted the full penalty.
The information against 11.1 r. Lacey was then dis-
missed, and the other defendant was fined in the
mitigate penalty of 20s.
CEIARGE or ARSON.—A man named John Way
was examined on Saturday, before J. W. Suther-
land, Esq., and other Justices sitting in Petty.
Session, upon a charge of having wilfully and ma-
liciously set fire to and destroyed a stack of hay, at
the parish of Sutton, the property of Francis Gosling,
Esq., the banker. It appeared that the fire took place
about four o'clock on 11 ednesday afternoon, and be-
fore it was got under, upwards of ten loads of hay
were entirely consumed. The evidence against the
prisoner was that, just before the fire broke out, he
was seen by a little boy, named Chapman, sitting
upon a gate close to the stack, and on his looking
round a minute or two afterwards the prisoner was
gone, and he then heard a whiz," and at the
same moment the stack burst into flames. The
prisoner was met by a young woman, coming
in a direction from the stack, and it appeared
that he gave an alarm, and assisted to extinguish the
fire. On his being questioned by Mr. Gosling's
gardener, he said that he was the first at the fire, and
on the gardener telling him that could not be for that
the gate was locked, and that he had been obliged to
get over it, and fell down in doing so, and that at this
time there was no one near the stack, the prisoner re-
plied, " There you have done me I'll allow—you
have beat me there. After a very careful inquiry,
the Magistrate said there was a very strong case of
suspicion, but they did not think the evidence suffi-
cient to warrent them in committing the prisoner to
take his trial. He would therefore be discharged,
but they should require him to enter into his own re-
cognizance to appear on a future occasion to answer
any complaint that might be preferred against him.