The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-22 00:00:00

never took a private walk with any of them,
nor did any one of them ever take the least
liberty with me, or make proposals of any descrip-
tion to me. I informed the defendant of the fact
of the complaint to my father by the clergyman sub-
sequently to the 6th of April. At that period the de-
fendant did not say- that he entertained any suspicion
as to my rectitude of conduct. My father was en-
tirely ignorant of any intimacy between the defendant
and myself, until the fact of my pregnancy was dis-
closed to him. Our acquaintance began about Jan-
uary, 1843. The defendant never took any improper
liberties with me, nor made any improper proposals
until the 6th of April. My father is separated from
my stepmother I know, because they do not live to-
gether. It was in the month of October in which I
left school. The reason why I slept out of the house
when at school was, that occasionally there were so
many scholars that the house would not contain them,
and then it was that I ar3d others were sent with one
of the teachers to sleep in the rooms of the cottage,
which was just across the road. The rooms were
taken by the school-mistress. There was a lad of the
name of Mills in the school to clean shoes and attend
to the garden. There had never been any improper
conduct between that lad and myself, and what is
more, I never heard of such an imputation until this
day. The defendant and his mother keep two shops,
and appear to carry on an extensive business.
Mrs. Sorrell, the lady who keeps the school at NS, al-
thamstow, to which the young lady had been sent,
stated that she had been a pupil at her establishment
from 1839 to 1842. Her conduct had been extremely
good ; hut she was very dull and slow in learning.
She had not heard of this transaction until Monday last.
Cross-examined—The young lady had been placed
at her school by her stepmother in 1839, and at the
holidays she always returned to that lady, in Wilton-
place. The plaintiff at that time was at Malta, and
in 1842, after his return to England, he took his
daughter away from school. Part of the time Miss
Marlay was with her, she did not always sleep in the
house. She had deemed it requisite, from the increase
in the number of her pupils, to take rooms in the cot-
tage opposite, where the children were under the care
of one of the teachers. She had never had any occa-
sion to find fault with this young lady's moral con-
duct. She had never complained of the lad Mills
being too intimate with Miss Marlay, because she
had not had reason to do so.

Mrs. Catherine Woolley was next examined. She
lived opposite to the plaintiff, and had constant oppor-
tunities of watching the conduct of his daughter, and
had never seen anything improper in it.
Mr. Harrild was then put into the box. He denied
in the most positive terms that there had ever been the
slightest impropriety of conduct between Miss Marlay
and himself.

Cross-bxamined—He had heard that the clergyman
had complained upon the subject to the plaintiff, but
that complaint was without the least foundation. He
had scarcely been even upon speaking term% with the
young lady. He had never held a conversation with
her from her bed-room window.
Mr. JERVIS then addressed the jury at consider-
able length on behalf of the defendant, contending
that his client was the seduced rather than the se-
ducer. It was not likely a young man in his station
of life would look up to a young lady who was so
much above him in rank unless he had received the
first encouragement from her. After going through
the evidence of the lady, he submitted that even, if
they should be satisfied that he had been guilty of
the act of which he was accused, that the conduct of
the lady had been of such a nature as to render a very
trifling sum an abundant compensation for the injury
her character had sustained, or the loss her father had
been put to by her absence.
Mr. Baron RoLrE summed up, and
The jury, after ten minutes' consultation, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff —Damages, 1001.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE. _

A man of respectable appearance and good address,
who at first refused to give his name, but afterwards
said it was Edward Bathurst, was charged with
having endeavoured to obtain 2,0001. Exchequer
Bills under false pretences from Win. Davis, a stock-
broker. It was stated that the prisoner uad been in-
troduced to Wm. Davis by Mr. Moxhay, the pro-
prietor of the Hall of Commerce, who had agreed to
accept the prisoner as a tenant, in the belief that he
was a man of property. Two days after the intro-
duction he requested Mr. Davis to purchase 2,000/.
Exchequer bills, stating that he had an account at
the banking-house of Messrs. Dennison and Co. and
Messrs. Coutts and Co. It was, however, ascertained
that he had no account at either of those banks. Mr.
Davis did not purchase the stock, suspecting that
there was something wrong about the business, but
gave the prisoner into the care of a policeman. Mr.
Resaigh, a clerk in the banking-house of Messrs.
Dennison, stated that he never saw the prisoner till
that moment, and the house had no account in the
name of Edward Bathurst, neither had they any ac-
count with Coutts' bank.

Mr. Ellis, a clerk to Mr. Moxhay, stated that the
prisoner had signed an agreement for a counting-
house in the City with Mr. Moxhay two days ago.
Mr. Moxhay knew nothing of him until he called to
take a counting-house as a yearly tenant, when he
represented himself as having recently returned from
India, where he said he knew some eminent person,
whom he named, and also a personal friend of Mr.
Moxhay. He likewise represented himself as a man
of property, and expressed a wish to be introduced to
a London banker, stating, at the same time, that his
bankers at the west-end were Coutts and Co., with
whom he had lodged money amounting to about 2,0001.
Mr. Moxhay, not supposing for a moment that there
was any doubt as to the prisoner's possession of the
cash, introduced him at Messrs. Dennison, in the
belief that the moniv would be immediately lodged
there.
Sir P. LAURIE called upon the prisoner to ac-
count for so remarkable a transaction ? The prisoner
said he could explain the whole matter in the most
satisfactory manner. He had, he said, had a corres-
pondence with Coutts's house, while he was in India,
since the year 1830, and down to 1842, and he handed
a letter to Sir Peter Laurie, with a request that the
Alderman would read it.
Sir P. LAURIE read the letter, and said, " Well,
there is nothing explanatory in this."
The prisoner proceeded—When he returned to
England, he renewed the notice of the account which
he wished to have with the house, and the firm re-
quested that he would write to them the nature of
the business he meant to transact with them. lie
did as he was requested, and he had a copy of the
letter he had sent to them.—(He here produced an-
other paper which Sir Peter Laurie read.) He also
had the answer which he received from them, in
which they stated they consented to let him draw
bills, subject to their approbation. Afterwards he
saw Mr. Moxhay, asked him about an office, and
mentioned to that gentleman how he was situated
with regard to Coutts and Co., and that he was de-
sirous to open an account with a City banker. Mr.
Moxhay subsequently introduced him at Messrs.
Dennison's house. He (the prisoner) also stated to
Mr. Moxhay that he wished to employ a first-rate
stock-broker, and Mr. Davis, the complainant, being
at that moment at hand, Mr. Moxhay pointed out
that gentleman as in every respect qualified to act.
He afterwards saw Mr. Davis and questioned him
upon the rate of exchange, and on the last interview
commissioned him to buy 2,0001. Exchequer-bills ;
and finally he was given into the custody of the
police.
Sir PETER LAURIE said he really believedthere must
be something wrong in the head of the prisoner, who
seemed to suppose that Mr. Davis would be fool
enough to entrust him with 2,0001.
The prisoner—l certainly meant to deposit the
money; I had no intention to do any wrong.
Sir PETER LAURIE—You talk of your property ;
where is it ? You have shown that your application
to Coutts's was rejected. Show us what ground you
had for directing this purchase of stock to be made
at all.
The prisoner said he had been taken suddenly and
unprepared. He had not said he would immediately
pay for the Exchequer-bills.
Sir PETER LAURIE—YOt have told falsehoods all
through, and I think that a man who deliberately
tells a falsehood is capable of any other bad conduct.
He said this was a very serious case, and
he should
require the prisoner to produce two sureties in 2501.
each, and enter into his own recognizances to the
amount of 500/. to appear and answer the charge on
another day .1
The prisoner was then removed, and Sir Peter
Laurie directed that the surgeon of the Compter should
be requested to examine the state of his mind.
Two young fellows, named John Smith and Luke
Marrion, were charged with having attempted to
pick the pockets of a great number of persons on
London-bridge.
A policeman stated that he had distinctly seen the
prisoners, who were well-known thieves, put their 1
hands into the pockets of several gentlemen and ladies.
He followed them and they turned round and put
their thumbs to their noses and twirled their fingers
at him, at the same time making a very disrespectful
noise with their mouths. They persevered in that
way for some time. At length they turned a gentle-
man's pocket inside out, and witness collared them.
The prisoners said nothing could equal the villa-
nous lies of the police, as their case proved; for they
were walking quietly over the bridge when the po-
liceman who charged them made a most ferocious
attack upon them. They were both hard-working
lads, who never did injury to, or offended a human
being.
Policeman—They are every day working the
bridge. A girl that was with them gave one of them
a poke in the ribs with her elbow when she saw I
was observing them.
Sir P. Laulaz (to the gaoler)---Gooch, do you