The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-22 00:00:00

PETERS V. WARD.

WHO AKE GENTLEMEN ?—This was a summons under the
same Act, and an objection was taken to the description of
Mr. Peters in the affidavit; he had been described as a gen-
tleman.

It was contended that no person was entitled to describe
himself as a gentleman but an attorney. Sir John Bayley
had taken the objection, and it had been held that even an
articled clerk could not maintain that character on paper.
The COMMISSIORER—What is this deponent ?
ATTORNEY—Nothing, I believe.
'I he COMMISSIONER—Then how is he to describe himself,
if he is of no trade or profession ? This description does not
tend to mislead, and I overru'e the objection.
An ATTORNEY said that the proper and only legally recog-
nised title under an Esquire was " Yeoman," unless they were
gentlemen by Act of Parliament.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(T HIS DAY.)

OLD COURT
(Before Mr. Justice WIG LITMAN. )
CHILD MURDER.—Mary Ann Eager, a young woman
aged 19, was indicted for the wilful murder of her infant child
at Greenwich, on the 26th of June last.

From the evidence that was adduced on the part of the pro-
secution, it appeared that the prisoner lived with her father and
mother at Greenwich. On the day mentioned in the indict-
ment she was taken ill, and gave birth to a child. Upon her
mother asking her if she had not done so, she screamed
" Yes ;" and upon being asked where it was, she mentioned the
place. The prisoner appeared in a most wild state, and seemed
quite lost. Until this took place her mother did not suspect
she was in the family way. When the body of the child was
taken out of the chamber vessel it was quite dead. At this
time the prisoner was lying on the bed exhausted and speech-
less. The prisoner was very fond of children.
Mr. Hatch, a surgeon of Greenwich, stated that he was
called into the house of the prisoner's father. He sae/ the
body of a female child on the Poor ; it was quite dead, and
there was a jagged wound on the neck, which appeared to have
penetrated to the vertebra of the back. The wound was such
as would cause the death of the child. On seeing the prisoner
she was in a most exhausted state; she had recently been de-
livered of a child, and continued under witness's care for some-
time dangerous ill. From a post mortem examination witness
was of (minion the child had breathed. The wound might
have been inflicted with a pair of scissors.
Cross-examined by Mr. CLARKSON—Believed the child was
the first the prisoner had had. The naval string was entire.
In the case of the prisoner parturition must have been attended
with great pain, and the agony might have caused such
violence on the part of the prisoner as might have terminated
in the death of the child.

Another surgeon of the name of Mitchell gave similar evi.
dence.

Mr. E. PLATT appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. CLARKSON defended the prisoner in a most feeling
speech, and called several witnesses, who deposed to the pri-
soner being very fond of children.

Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN summed up, and
The jury acquitted the prisoner.

NEW CO (1 1171
(Before the Commow SERGEANT.)
Frederick Woolf'', a young man of respectable appearance
and address, aged 23, was indicted for burglarionsly entering
the house of James Samuel, a shoemaker, in the City-road,
and stealing therefrom a coat, value 31., a watch, value 305., a
pair of boots, some silver spoons, and other articles of minor
value.

The prosecutor stated that on the morning of the 7th of
July, on coming down to his show-room, he missed his coat
and boots, but found in their place a coat and pair of buots,
which were produced in Court.
The coat was identified as having, been stolen some time
before from the prisoner's master, who lost at the same time
a breast-pin, which a pawnbroker swore was pledged in his
shop by the prisoner. The pawnbroker was positive as to th
identity of the prisoner, and that he pawned the goods of Mr
Samuel.

Mr. BALLANTINE defended the prisoner, and called his
landlord, and the wife of the latter, who swore that the prisoner
did not leave their house on the night of the 6th of July.
These witnesses gave him an excellent character.
A genteel young woman, named Ann Dawson, stated that
on the 7th of July the prisoner was in her company for more
than one hour, at the time when the pawnbroker swore to his
pawning the goods laid in the indictment.
The COMMON SERGEANT put it to the jury whether they
would take the evidence of one witness who might be mistaken
in a matter of identity, against three witnesses who could not
be mistaken, but must have sworn falsely, if the prisoner were
guilty.
The jury, without hesitation, acquitted the prisoner.
The COMMON SERGEANT saw that there was another in-
dictment against the prisoner, but if it depended on the same
evidence, he would not recommend counsel to proceed with it.
The Counsel for the prosecution expressed a determination
to proceed, and the case was ordered to stand over for the
present.