The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-20 00:00:00

noblemen and gentlemen, would prefer charges against
them.

A ruffian, named Kent, was :charged with assaulting Mr.
Francis.

It appeared from the evidence, that on the previous night
the prosecutor went into a house of ill fame in Church-street,
St. Giles, to pay the rent (as he stated) for a young female
who had once prevented him from being robbed. He was
standing in the parlour when the prisoner came in, who im-
mediately recognised him (prosecutor) as having given evi-
dence against one of his associates some years ago. The
prisoner ran out, and seizing a shovel, came running•into the
room with it, brandishing it in his hand. He aimed a des-
perate blow at the prosecutor, who, however, succeeded in
warding it off. The prisoner then struck him on the thee
and cut his mouth, from which he bled profusely. Police
constable Allen fortunately came In, and prevented further
violence. The prisoner applied the vilest language to the
prosecutor.

He was fined 21. or a commensurate term of imprisonmen

MARLBORO() GH-S TREE T.
A person of very gentlemanly appearance, whose name
was entered on the police charge-sheet as Williqrrt
'YU/not, of No. 17, Southampton-row, Russell-scinare, sur,
veyor, and a good-looking, showily-dressed female, who gave
her name, Eliza Elliott, living at No. 16, Warren-street,
Tottenham-court-road, were placed at the bar on the follow-
ing charge
Police-constable 161 C, stated that about two o'clock this
morning, as he was proceeding on duty along Argyle-street,
Oxford-street, he found the defendants standing together
under the portico of the house No. 9. He desired them to
go away, which they did, but in about ten minutes after-
wards he discovered them in the court-yard of the Earl of
Aberdeen's mansion, under such circumstances as induced him
to take them to the station-house.

Mr MALTBY asked the male defendant what he had to say
in answer to the charge P—He replied that he:had been taking
too much wine, and had not the slightest recollection of what
had passed. He was extremely sorry for what had taken
place.

Inspector Frowd of the C division said he certainly was in•.
toxicated when brought to the station-house.
Mr. ➢IALTBY said he was liable to be indicted.
The female pleaded having been persuaded to drink more
than she was accustomed to.

The Inspector said she certainly was not in liquor.
Mr. MALTBY said he should fine the defendant, Wilmot,
405., or one month's imprisonment to hard labour. Elliott
he should commit for seven days to Westminster Bridewell,
without imposing any fine.
The female, in a paroxysm of grief, begged that she might
not be sent to prison.
She was, however, consigned to the lock. up cells ; and the
defendant, Wilmot, not having the required sum about him,
was obliged to submit to farther incarceration until he could
procure it.
Mr. MALTBY afterwards imposel a fine of 20s. on the female.
QUEEN-SQUARE.
-

Samuel &faiths, a painter, and Mary Watson, a young
woman fashionably attired, were placed before the Magistrate
on the following charge :
Policeman 153 B said, that shortly after 12 o'clock last
night, he heard a noise which proceeded from Rochester-row.
He hastened to the spot, and found his sergeant ordering the
defendants, who were disorderly, to go away, and, as they
would not comply with his request, he (the sergeant) told
him to take them to the Station-house, which he did. The
female defendant was drunk, and the male defendant, who
was sober, appeared to be endeavouring to get the young
woman home.

Mr. BOND inquired if the sergeant was in attendance?
Inspector Pearce said he was at the Home-office.
The policeman, in answer to questions from the Magis-
trate, said he should have taken the women into custody
without the intervention of any other person, had he himself
found her in the condition she was in when taken into cus
tody. The female defendant told the sergeant that she had
as much right in Rochester-row as he or any one else.
Mr. BOND—And so she might, for anything I know to the
contrary. He should discharge the defendants, but had any
additional evidence been offered in support of the charge, he
should have felt it his duty to detain them.
The defendants then left the Court without having been
called upon to answer the charge, and after having been in-
carcerated for eleven hours for an offence which the principal
witness was not in attendance to prove.
Mr. BOND appeared indignant at the conduct of the police,
which, to say the least of it, appeared unjustifiable.