The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-01 00:00:00

(Before the RECORDER.)

The Court was chiefly occupied this morning with cases for
uttering base coin, hut being meetly of a trifling nature, the only
point of interest in any of them arose from the circumstances
which went to prove that the prisoners uttered the coin knowing it
to be bad.

Dennis WCarty was charged with tendering a bad half-crown
in payment of beer had at the bar of a public-house. A good
half. crown was found upon the prisoner, but besides this a bad
shilling, folded up in paper.
The Mint inspector having examined the coin, algid both pieces
were of Britannia.metal, and in this instance slightly covered with
silver ; hence the necessity of preventing friction by having the
coin folded up in a wrapper.—Sentence was deferred.
Janet Collinstendered a bad half-crown in payment of sixpenny.
worth of grocery at a shop in the Strand. The young man pur.
sued 11;T trom the shop. The prisoner on being overtaken by the
witness, drew her hand from her breast and threw something into
an adjoining area, which was afterwards found to be two sixpences,
both bad.—Sne was found Guilty, and sentenced to six months' im-
prisonment and hard labour.

Hubert Berry, and Francis APCarty, were place:: at the bar,
charged with uttering base coin. Berry, who was 17 years of
age, genteel in his appearance, and had borne an irreproachable
character up to the time of the crime of which he was a:fused, ap-
peared to hsve been the dupe of M`Carty. Both were seen by the
policeman in company on the Camberwell and afterwards on the
Walworth-rosd, and in the course of three hour.. went into diffe-
rent shops in these districts, but ultimately on the Walworth-road
in three tobacconists' shops tendered successively three bail
shillings. The coin, which had been refused in every instance,
was found upon the prisoners. Wearty pleaded guilty, and the
jury found Berry also Guilty.
111`Carty was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour for one
year, and Berry for three calendar months.

In the opinion of Mr. Field, inspector of the Mint, the three
shillings Ii i been produced from the same mould, had been made
of Britannia metal, but not covered with silver.

John Williams was charged with stealing from the Jane Locker,
between the 7th and Bth June lag, then lying in the West India
Docks.

John Co!ford, master, went on board on the morning of the Bth,
and found the cabin in great disorder, the locks broken off, and
missed a pocket sextant, a gold ring and pin, belonging to himself.
Daniel Pluck, one of the seamen, found on the said moaning the
lashings of the companion-door cut, and the bolts wrenched.
Below everything was in disorder. Witness missed a jacket and
great-coat, which he saw afterwards in the possession of Thomson,
a pawnbroker.
Thomson's clerk said the articles had been pawned; the jacket
on the Bth, for 35., and the great coat en the 14th June, for 75.,
and in both instances by a woman.
Caroline Smith—Lives at 18, Lower King-street, Commercial-
road. She had pledged the articles last-mentioned for the prisoner,
who lodged at her house. She had aeon the prisoner wear the
jacket once, and only once.
Joseph Montagu, a constable at the East and West India Docks,
went to the prisoner's lodgings, and found a pocket sextant, a gold
ring and pin, with tickets for sundry other articles pledged. Wit.
ness got the prisoner in Clerkenwell prison. When taken he said
to witness that he had been in custody for the Jane Locker theft
already.
The prisoner was found Guilty; and having been convicted on
three separate occasions before, was sentenced to ten years' trans.
portation.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

A young woman, named Hannah Sullivan, in the service of Mr.
Edwards, a general dealer in Dorset-street, Salisbury-square,
was brought before the Lord Mayor Elect charged with robbing
her employer.
The complainant said, he bad for some time past missed cash,
and at last lie suspected the prisoner was the thief. He placed
some money in a tobacco.j.ir in the shop on Tuesday night, and on
the following morning he missed 3s. from it. On Wednesday
night he left 16s. in the same place, and yesterday morning be
again missed 3s. He then asked the prisoner if she knew any_
thing about that jar? She made no reply, till he said, " Now,
you know you have got the money; nobody else could have taken
it ;" awl she then produced 3s. trom her pocket and said, "This
is what I took this morning." He asked where the money was
she took the previous morning ? She gave him is. and a second
shilling fell from her dress, and she said she had spent the third in
sweetmeats and ginger.beer in the course of a coupleof hours; he
sent to acquaint her friends of the circumstances, and gave her
into custody after two or three hours had elapsed; he did not
wish to prosecute her at the Old Bailey, but he wished some
punishment to be inflicted on her.

The LORD MAYOR elect asked if he was in the habit of leaving
money about in different parts of his shop ? Mr. Edwards said he
was nct.

The Loan 'MAYOR eloct ebserved that it seemed strange that a
servlat sliJuld lock inLo jars upon a an:At for money if it were
usually kept in a till.

The complainant said, he could not account for her finding it
there; he had missed money from the till.

The LORD MAYOB elect asked if he had obtained the adraitiiO4

from the prisoner by any promise of forgiveness ? The complainant
replied he made ncne.

The prisonor said she took the money becaum she wanted to Luy
something.
The prisoner was remanded, that her friends may attend.
IV OR S 7' Rh', _I,: 7'.

Mr. Michael Scales, the extensive carcass butcher at White-
chapel, whose contest for the aldermanic gown has been al re-
peatedly under the notice of the public, was brought helm Mr.
Broughton, charged with committing the following assault upon
the Rev. William Symes, and also with wilfully breaking several
panes of glass in that gentleman's window.

The complainant stated that about five o'clock on the preceding
evening he heard a great uproar at the back of his residence, at
Old Ford, near Bow, which he found proceeded from the de-
fendant, who was endeavouring to force his way into the stable.
Finding hi; efforts at obtaining an entrance in that direction in.
effectual, the rear of the house being bolted, the defendant then
made his way round to the front of it, and, scaling some iron
palisades, ran across the court-yard to the street door, against
which he thrust himself, but being foiled there also, he next pro-
ceeded to the parlour windows, inside which witness was standing,
and which reached nearly to the ground, and imperiously de-
manded admittence. Witness refused compliance with his request,
on which the defendant expressed his intention to force an en-
trance, and without further parley raised his foot, and plunging
it through the lower half of the window, dashed in the centre of
the sash of it, and smashed out five or six large squares of glass.
Witness instantly lifted up the window, to prevent further
damage, and, stepping out into the court-yard, demanded
what right he had to make such a riot and disturbance at his
house, on which the defendant without provocation raised
his clenched fist and aimed a violent blow at his face that.
might have caused him some damage had it taken effect, but
witness fortunately warded it with his arm, and with the
assistance of a friend, who happened to be present, seized
the defendant to prevent other mischief. After restraining him
for some time in this manner, and no policeman making his ap-
pearance, the defendant, who made use of the most virulent ap-
pellations, said he greatly regretted that he had not come provided
with arms, and otherwise conducted himself with much violence,
was allowed to leave, and took a course across some neighbouring
fields, but was closely followed by witness and his friend, who at
length met a policeman, and the defendant was given in charge.
In answer to questions from the Magistrate, the complainant
stated that he and the defendant had married two sisters; that lie
had received him, his wife, and family, from motives of friendship,
into his house, in which they had continued to reside until June
last, when a caption, on a civil process, was effected upon the de-
fendant's person, and though his wife and family had continued
to reside there until Saturday last, the witness had reluctantly felt
compelled to forbid the defendant himself to enter his house, in
consequence of ascertaining that he had cast some very gross as-
persions upon the character of witness's wife. He had been
tenant of the house for about four years, and had formerly rented
it of the defendant, but the original landlord, Mr. Shaw Lefevre,
Speaker of the House of Commons, had thought proper to eject
the defendant from his holding, and witness had since paid his rent
to the Speaker's agent.

The defendant severely cross-examined the witness with a view
to prove that he was still tenant in part of the house, which solely
by his advice the complainant had attorned to the Speaker, and said
that he now held four rooms in it, had paid for the chief part of
the provisions that entered it, had paid to the complainant, by
himself and wife, as much as 201., by way of rent, and that a large
quantity of his furniture was still under the complainant's roof;
in answer to nearly all which the Rev. Gentleman gave a positive
denial, and alleged as the reason of the defendant's property being
detained, that the broker of the official assignee had made a formal
seizure of Mr. Scales's goods, by taking some chaise cushions, and
left the most positive caution against the defendant's resuming
possession. _ . _

Mr. Henry Hibbert Glover, the friend of the complainant above
alluded to, described the defendant's conduct, and the assault corn.
plained of, in nearly similar terms to those used by Mr. 'Spines, and
characterised the blow as deliberately struck, and Mr. Scales's be.
haviour as extremely violent and offensive.
""

Sorryll, a policeman, 135 K, proved meeting the parties while
crossing the fields, and that the moment they came up with him
the complainant wanted to give the defendant into custody for
forcibly breaking into his house. Mr. Scales dared the witness, at
his peril, to take him; said that the house was his own, and claimed
the right of entering it by force if he chose to do so. Witness con.
sidered it a disputed claim, in which he could not well interfere, and
requested them to accompany him to the pol►ce-station, which they
all assented to, and when they arrived there the charge was per.
slated in by the Rev. Mr. Symes, and taken ; but the defendant
was not locked up, and bailed soon aftir.

In answer to the charge, the defendant (who expressed himself
with great bitterness towards the complainant, and at one time,
when referring to his wife and family, became so affected as to
stop and bury his face in his hands), entered into a lengthened and
melancholy detail of persecutions he alleged he had been subjected
to, the sum of which was that he had been committed to prison
by the Court of Chancery for contempt of court, bandied about
fiom one prison to another, the governor of each not feeling au-
thorised to hold him—detention in prison longtr than needful,
from inability to file his answer in Chancery—a vexatious at-
tempt to declare him a bankrupt—and finally, that when, on his
ultimate liberation, only the preceding day, from gaol, in a state
of exhaustion, and almost fainting from the turmoil lie had gone
through, and want of food for many hours, he presented himself
at the door of that he use in which he had left, when captured,
his property, wife, child, and grandchild, and nearly wearied
to death, and anxious to get to bed, he found it closed against
him, and was forbidden to enter its doors. He was naturally
indignant at this treatment, and attempted to enter by the window,
which was old and rotten, and broke with very slight force; but
the moment he did so he was pushed out violently by the corn.
plainant and thrown upon his back in the court-yard, and before
he had time to recover himself was dragged a distance of five or
six yards along the pavement, and knelt on by one of his assailants,
while the other twisted his neckerchief so tightly it was almost a
miracle he was not strangled, for he was in such a debilitated state,
that when he was at last helped upon his feet, they were obliged to
hold him up, to save him from falling; in addition to which he
had been so cruelly treated by them, that there was no member of
his body that was not covered with bruises. When he at length
escaped from their violence, he was making the best of his way to
the police-station at Bromley to seek for protection, they followed
him, and having divined his intention from the course he was
taking, reached the policeman first, and delivered him over to his
custody. He would not deny the charge against him—lie did
break the window; but the house was his own home and that
of his wife—they had no other to go to, and he would do so again,
though he would take care that the next forcible entry he made
should be effected legally, and so as to avoid such cruel results.
He concluded by denying the jurisdiction of the Magistrate on a
right to disputed property, and appealed to two Acts of Parlia-
ment in support of his position.
The Reverend Complainant add his witness, Mr. Glover, having
denied the statements made by the defendant, or that he had ever
been in the house otherwise than by kindness and sufferance,

Mr. BcovGturox told the defendant that he saw no reason for
attributing perjury to two such respectable persons as the com-
plainant and Mr. Glover, and if the defendant was satisfied they
had committed it, they were open to indictment for so doing. The
defendant had committed an act of violence which was clearly con-
trary to law, and, without deciding upon the forcible entry and
broken glass, which were matters for purely a civil action, it was
his duty to see that the peace was preserved, and as the defendant
had broken it, be should order him to find bail, himself in 501.,
and two sureties in 401. each, to keep the peace to all her Ma-
jesty's subjects, and to the complainant in particular.
The defendant. complained of this bail as excessive, and wished
it reduced, but as the complainant expressed his apprehensions of
less amount being taken, the Magistrate declined to accede to tha
request, and the defendant was ultimately removed, apologisine
for still disputing the competency of the Magistrate's jurisdictiong