The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-26 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

(Before the Learned ASSISTANT JUDGE, and a full

Bench of Magistrates.)

The second March sessions for the county of Middlesex
commenced yesterday morning, at ten, in the Court-
house, Clerkenwell-green, when the number of prisoners
.whose names appeared upon the calendar for trial was
eighty-nine, of whom eighty-one were charged with
felony, the remainder being for assaults and mis-
demeanants. In none of the cases did there appear any
features beyond those ordinarily coming before the Court.
Owing to the circumstance Of it having been expected
that the horrible and revolting atrocities which have
disgraced the metropolis in the Spa-fields burying-
ground would have been brought before the Court to-
day, and owing to the fact of the Court hou,e being in
the immediate neighbourhood of the churchyard, the
Court was densely crowded by the inhabitants, who ex-
pressed strong hopes that the most stringent measures
would be taken for the repression of the nuisance. It
was understood that a bill of indictment would be pre-
ferred before the grand jury by the parish authorities
against the parties who are the ostensible proprietors of
the burying-ground, at as early an hour as possible.
An omnibus-conductor, named Joseph Sleigh, was in-
dicted for stealing half-a-crown, and two shillings and
sixpence in silver, the property of William, Archbishop
of Canterbury. In another count of the indictment the
property was laid as that of George Henry Maughan.
The charge was in reality for taking the amount
of money specified from the pockets of a gentleman
named Beache, who had died in the cab. The particu-
lars have appeared. The property was described in the
indictment as that of Mr. George Henry Maughan, as
the next of kin and executor of the deceased, and also as
belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the
ordinary of the diocesan district.
Mr. PA.YNS made a very able speech in defence of the
prisoner, and contended that in the incidental hurry and
confusion any other person might have taken the money
as well as the prisoner; after which he called several
witnesses who gave him an excellent character.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict of acquittal, and the prisoner left the dock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
LAMBETH.

THE LATE CASE OF POISONING AT CAMISERWELL.—
On Monday, after the other charges, which did not pos-
sess the slightest feature of public interest, had been
disposed of, George Moil, the shopman and confidential
servant of the late Mr. Montague, a grocer at Camber-
well, who, as well as his wife, had been poisoned on the
11th of last month, currendered to his bail, to undergo
his final examination before Mr. Henry, on a charge of
embezzlement and forgery.
Mr. Wall;nger, the banister, and Mr. Dodd, the vestry
clerk of Camberwell parish, appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr. Ilumphries, the solicitor, attended on behalf of
the prisoner.
Previous to the case being entered on, Mr. Wallinger,
in reply to a question from Mr. Henry, said that Le had
caretully considered the nature of the evidence against
the prisoner, and his impression was, that there was
sufficient to send the case before a jury on the charge of
embezzlement, but with respect to the charge of forgery
he should rot at present press it.
The Learned Gentleman then called Mr. Samuel
Church Boyce, an accountant, who deposed that he had
investigated the accounts of the late Mr. Montague, and
from them he vas of opinion that the deceased was in
solvent circumstances at the time of his death. The
witness was here askei as to his opinion on a bill made
out by the late Mr. Montague, of moneys due to him
from Mr. Smith, one of his customers; but Mr. Hum-
phries ohjected to his doing so.
Mr. HENRY admitted the objection, and told Mr. Wal-
linger that all that could be done would be to put the
account itself in, and leave the jury, as men of business,
to draw their own conclusions from it.
Mr. Ilumt'hries, in his cross-examination of Mr.
Boyer, asked if he was aware that there had been any
administration to the effects of the deceased ?—when
two of the nephews of the late Mr. Montague, who were
present, ruse, and said that their father, who was brother
to the deceased, had administered to his effects, and that
letters of administration had been regularly granted to
him.

Mr. lIENRY supposed the object of Mr. Humphries in
putting the question was to ascertain the amount proved?
Mr. Humphries replied that he would at once tell.
His object in putting it was this:—lt had been stated
that no letters of administration had been taken out to
the effects of the deceased, and this was rendered the
more probable from the fact of the deceased being in-
solvent.

Mr. HENItY remarked that it was very seldom indeed
that parties administered to an insolvent estate.