The Sun.
London, England, 1828-12-04 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

Yesterday Daniel Heath alias .lolin Loyd, a
respeetable.looking young man, was brought to this
office by Fagan, charged with bigamy.
The prisoner earnestly entreated that the case
might be remanded, to give him time to procure
professional assistance.

- Mr. ISIISSIIULL observed, that he bad no objec-
tion to comply with the prisoner's request, but it
would be necessary to have semc evidence before
him to warrant him in detaining the accused.
Margaret Evans, a young woman with a child in
her arms, was then brought forward by Fagan, who
said she was the second wife. Being sworn, she de-
posed that on the 19th of September, 1826, she
was married to the prisoner, who went by the name.
of John Loyd. The ceremony took place in St.
Giles's, according to the certificate which she pro-
duced. - Witness, after some time, discovered that
the prisoner's real name was Daniel Heath.
Mr. Mostium, asked if any witness was present
who could give evidence as to the first marriage ?
Fagan said he had brought forward a young man
who was present at the celebration of the first mar-
riage, and who, helupposedi was ready-to depose to
that effect.

A young man accordingly presented himself t 9
the Magistrate, and as the oath was about to be ad-
ministered to him, the prisoner said he wished, with
the Magistrate's permission, to put a question to him
b4ore he was sworn.

Mr. MiNstium..—You may question him if yoi
please. _ _ _

Prisoner—l wish to.ask him:whether he believes
is a state of rewards and punishments hereafter ?
Witness—No.

Mr. AlissuuLL—Do you profess any religion
Witness—No.

Mr. MlNsuut.l.—You say you do not believe in a
future state. Witness—l certainly do not.
Fagan here observed that he had a great deal of
difficulty in procuring the attendance of the witness,
who had kept purposely *out of the way.
Mr. MINSHULL—Have you any objection to be
sworn as a witness in the usual way upon the New
Testament ? Witness—l had rather not be sworn,
because I conceive that my word is as good as my
oath. I consider myself bound in honour to speak
the truth.

Mr. MtssuuLL—But I suppose you are aware
that if you are sworn on the New Testament, and if
you swear falsely, you will not only be punished
hereafter, but you can be punished in this world
also. Witness—l am aware of that.

Mr. MtssuuLL—What is your name and busi-
ness ? Witness—My name is Thomas Ayling; I
am by trade a shoemaker.
Mr. 1111NnuLL—Are you acquainted with the
prisoner Witness—Yes; we were once upon
friendly terms.
Mr. HALLS—Were you ever sworn in your life ?.
—The witness, after some hesitetion, answered in
the negative.

Mr.MlNstuiLL Were you ever at a place of re-
ligious worship ? Witness—l have been to many
places of worship.
Mr. HALLS—What du you call yourself? Wit-
ness—l don't know.

Mr. MiNsntiLL—How long is it since you signed
the certificate of this person's marriage ? Witness
—I do not recollect. I was present, however, when
he was married to a young woman who is not here
now. The prisoner's wife, by that marriage, I be-
lieve to.he still living. She was alive I know three
weeks agd.

Mr. MuistiLL—l cannot take your word .for
these facts. Here is a New Testament : have you
any objection to be sworn upon it ? Witness—
None i❑ the least.

The witness being sworn according to the usual
form,

_
Mr. MINSHULL said, now that you are sworn
upon the Nev' Testament, let me ask you if you
feel any additional obligation to speak the truth ?
Witness—When I am brought forward here, I cer-
tainly feel myself bound to speak the truth, but I do
not feel any additional obligation upon me to state
what -1 know now that I am sworn.
Mr. MINSIIULL said, that under these circum-
stances, he would not call upon the witness to give
evidence upon his oath. He would remand the case

until to-morrow, and would require the attendance
of the witziebs again.
The prisoner requested to be aloived to remain
at the watch-house, in preference to his being sent
to prison.

Mr. MINSUULL said he had no objection.
The witness again stepped forward and said he
was very busily engaged just at this time, and hoped
his presence would not be required again.
Mr. MlNsuuLL—lf you do not attend, you shall

have a summons to compel you.
Mr. HALLS observed, that the witness, notwith-
standing his profession that his honour was as bind-
ing as his oath, had committed a most dishonourable
action in being a subscribing witness to a certificate
of marriage, to prove which he must have known
that his evidence would not- be taken. His no-
tions on the subject of religion were such, that,

legally Ppeaking, he was put beyond the pale of
the law, and could not be a witness in any case civil
'or criminal.
Witness—As to religion, your worship,;lperceive
so much hypocrisy in those who profess it, that you
will excuse me for saying that I consider it little
better than a cloak for crime.
The parties then retired, and Fagan directed to
bring forward the first wife, with whom it appears
the prisoner has been living in Cromer-street up to
the period of his apprehension.
The second wife expressed her unwillingness to
appear, and said she would not have done so if the
prisoner had consented to maintain his child, which
she carried in her arms.
Dr. Sutherland appeared at the office in tine course
of the day, and stated that he had seen his name
mixed up with a prosecution for fraud, which was
tried last week at the Clerkenwell sessions. He
begged publicly to declare that he was in no way
connected whh the case in question. By some error
he had been mistaken for a person named Suther-
land, a chymisr, residing in Soho,. who it appeared
was the individual examined on that occasion.
Sir R. BIRNIE observed, that although the gentle-
men who attended this office to report the proceed-
ings had most likely nothing to do with the case in
question, and were therefore not accountable for the
error complained of, they would probably, notwith-
standing, give publicity to the Doctor's explanation.
The trial referred to was for a conspiracy to de-
fraud. The defendants were Nortbhouse and Low.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Yesterday a respectable-looking young woman,
named South, residing in Praed-street, Paddington,
applied to Mr. DYER to know whether she could pro-
secute her husband for bigamy, and, in support of
her application, produced a letter from a gentleman,
named Cromelin, who resides in Park-street, Gros-
venor-square. The letter acquainted the Magistrate
that about six years ago the young woman married
a man, named James Southwood, who had had a
family of fourteen children by his first wife. The
marriage ceremony was performed according to the
rites of the Roman Catholic church, she belong-
ing to that persuasion, and Southwood being
a Protestant. Southwood persuaded the cre-
dulous young creature, who was only sixteen years
of age, that his first wife had been dead some
years, and they afterwards came to this country,
where they continued to reside until she discovered
that he had another wife living, and, in consequence
of this discovery, she left him, and entered the ser-
vice of Mrs. Raymond Baker, Mr. Cromelin's sister-
in-law, in whose family she remained till within
these last few days. The young woman added,
that Southwood, who was at present in Dublin,
had recently come into a property worth 2,0001.,
and under such circumstances she wished to know
what course she was to pursue, as the children were
entirely dependent on her for support.
Mr. DYER explained to the unfortunate young
creature that Southwood bad practised a most infa-
mous deception upon her, as the marriage was not
a legal one, and he could not, therefore, be sub-
jected to a prosecution for bigamy. Her only resource
was to apply to the parish for assistance.
'1 he unfortunate young woman, after thanking the
magistrate for his advice, said she would endeavour
to get herself and the children passed to Ireland, and
quitted the office in tears.
A(fred Lavender was brought before Mr. DYER
on the following charge :
Mr. William Henry Cooper,. of Bates Hotel,
Dover-street, stated that Lord Stafford, of Cossey,
had been, sojourning at the hotel until Tuesday
morning, when he left town. Previously to his
Lordship's departure he gave the prisoner, who was
employed at the hotel as a porter, a sovereign, and
told him to divide it with the chambermaid. Instead
of attending to his Lordship's instructions, he,:ap-•
plied the whole of the sovereign to his own purposes,
and positively refused to give the chambermaid a
shilling, for which he (Mr. Cooper) immediately
discharged him. The prisoner returned in the Coarse
of the day, grossly inebriated, when his boxes were
delivered up to him, and he was turned out of doore.
The prisoner again forced his way into the hotel at
eight o'clock in the evening, and struck one of the
waiters a violent blow on the latter attempting to
eject him, and he also endeavoured to assault. the

complainant.
The prisoner insisted that Lord Stafford intended
that he should keep the whole of the sovereign, and
the chambermaid, therefore, had no claim to any
portion of it.
lie was fined for being t:runk, and held to bail
for the assault on the waiter, West.