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

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Two men, named Frederick Ferrett and Robert
M'Culloch, were charged with being drunk, and a
gentleman residing in Marylebone-street was charged
with having indecently assaulted the defendant Fer-
rett. Ferrett was first placed at the bar.
l'olice-constable Drane said, that about half-past
one o'clock that morning he saw all the three defend-
ants in the Haymarket. M'Culloch called to him,
and said, that a gentleman had attempted to take inde-
cent liberties with his friend Ferrett, and Ferrett
thereupon made the same accusation. Witnes3 seeing
that Ferrett was quite drunk, and that M'Culloch was
nearly drunk, refused to take the charge, but told
them all to go the station-house and make the charge
there. They did so, and the charge was taken against
the two first defendants for being drunk, and against
the other defendant for the indecent assault. The
acting inspector who took the charge proved that
Ferrett was drunk, and he was therefore fined five
shillings. Robert M'Culloch was next charged with
being in liquor.
Mr. MALTBY required an explanation of this term,
which was, that the defendant was not so drunk as
Ferrett.

Mr. MALTBY could not entertain the charge in that
shape, and therefore dismissed it.
_ _

The third defendant was then placed at the bar,
charged with indecently assaulting Ferrett. After a
very long investigation it appeared that there was no
foundation whatever for this charge.
Mr. Woolf, who appeared for the defendant, offered
to bring proof that the defendant was a person of the
highest respectability, but Mr. Maltby said there was
no occasion for any such evidence. It was altogether
an extremely improbable case, supported by most un-
satisfactory evidence. Both the defendants making
the charge had been drinking, and one of them was
quite drunk. M'Culloch knew nothing more than
what he had learned from Ferrett as to the assault, and
the state in which Ferrett was at the time rendered it
impossible to depend on the accuracy of his story ; he
should therefore order the defendant to be dismissed
immediately.

Mr. Woolf said it was the intention of the defend-
ant, against whom this most unfounded charge had
been brought, to prosecute the authors of it. No
man's character or honour was safe if such conduct
was overlooked.

Ferrett and M'Culloch were then ordered to enter
into their own sureties to meet any charge brought
against them.

LAMBETH-STREET.

Saul Fitchell, a German Jew, charged with rob-
bing his employer, Mr. Adolphus Lipman, outfitter,
of Pearson-street, Ratcliff-high way, 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
for a refuge, and the temptation was too great for
him."