The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-30 00:00:00

to a little fellow in Aldersgate-street, whipped
the cap off his head cs .if in play, gave him
a deb with it over the eyes, and turned down one of
the narrow lanes in the neighbourhood, foll,:wed by
his comrades, to the terror and confusion of the victim.
Their next essay was upon a Loy in the vicinity of
Cheapside. In the exuberance of his fun, one of them
seized the cap of a lad who was going to school, and ran
down a lane, with his comrade in his rear. An officer
of police, however, obierring that the race was not a le-
gitimate one, and perceiving that one of the prisoners
was encumbered with a bundle, stopped the whole set,
and took them to the station-house, where it was disco-
vered that the two caps had been stolen, and that one of
the prisoners had robbed his mother of the clothes he
had been in the habit of wearing on Sunda) s and holi-
days, for the purpose of going with eclat to Bow Fair.
The LORD MAYOR said he should take time to con-
sider whether he should not order the prisoners to be
well whipped, and remanded them.

THE NEGOCIITORFOR T HIE VES
CHARGED WITH BIGAMY.
Charles Maynard, the estate agent in Howland-street, was
re-examined before Mr. Alderman Hughes Hughes,at Guildhall,
charged with attempting to negotiate the restoration of stolen
goods for a reward.
Mr. Clarkson, for the prosecution, said he proposed to go
into the charge of bigamy against the prisoner.
Collard, the superintendent of the Great Western Railway
police, produced a certificate of the marriage of Charles Gregory
Maynard with Sarah May, on the 23,1 of April, 1822, at Crip_
plegate Church.
John James Daniel, of 50, Aldenham •street, Somers Town,
a postman, was called to identify the prisoner as the person who
was so married. He said he knew the Maynard who was mar-
ried there, but it was so long ago that he should not recognise
the prisoner but for some corroboratory circumstances. The
prisoner's appearance was quite altered.
Mr. Alderman Hughes Hughes asked whose friend he was?
The witness replied he was Maynard's friend.
Mr. Clarkson reminded him that he signed the register book
as a witnsss, and asked him if he did not know that the prisoner
was the same person ?—The witness replied he thought he was,
but he was much altered. He met the prisoner once about twelve
months ago, and nodded to him, but their intimacy ceased soon
after the marriage.
Mr. Clarkson asked how long he was acquainted with the
prisoner ?—The witness said it was about a year.
Mr. Alderman Hughes Hughes remarked that he seemed to
be trifling with the Court when he professed to be uncertain.
He warned him to be careful.
Mr. Clarkson required the prisoner to remove his spectacles,
and telling the witness to make allowance for an advance of 20
years of age, again pressed him to say whether he was positive
the prisoner was the person who married Sarah May or not ?
The witness at last said he had no doubt he was the person.
He saw the wife last Saturday week at the last examination of
the prisoner.
Mr. Clarkson prayed that the witness should find sureties for
his appearance to give evidence upon the trial.
Mr. Alderman Hughes Hughes, after making some inquiries
about the witness, consented to take his own recognisance for
his appearance ; but recommended him to give his evidence in
a very different manner on the next occasion.
Miss Harriet Maxtead, the second wife, was :then examined.
She is a respectable-looking young woman, and cued much
while she was giving her evidence.
Sir. Clarkson promised to spare her feelings as much as he
could, arid to put as few questions as possible.
She stated that she had been acquainted with the prisoner
about a year. He represented himself to be a single man, and
she consented to marry him. They were married at Sand-
hurst Church, in Kent, on the 30th of July last.
Mr. Alderman Hughes Hughes asked if he obtained any
money from her?—She said she gave him what she had freely.
He had borrowed a little before their marriage.
Mr. Alderman Hughes Hughes inquired the total amount?
—She said she had not kept an account, but it was about 50/.
The prisoner declined putting any questions to the witnesses.
He was not prepared to meet the charge, because he was not
aware the other charges against him would be abandoned.
Mr. Alderman Hughes Hughes asked who had told him the
other cases were abandoned ?—The prisoner replied, it appeared
to be so.
Mr. Prance said he did not abandon his case respecting the
negeciation for the return of his writing-case and bills of
exchange.
The prisoner said he should furnish his counsel with circum-
stances connected with his first marriage, which he had no
doubt would be considered when the matter came before a
higher tribunal. That was all he deemed it prudent to say to
the charge at present.
Mr. Alderman Hughes Hughes remanded the prisoner on
this charge for further evidence of identity.
The prisoner's sister, Martha Maynard, whose address is un-
known, was the second witness, besides the postman, who
signed the marriage register.
Mr. Alderman Hughes Hughes then called upon Mr. Clark-
son to proceed with the other cases.
Mr. Clarkson said he was prepared with the additional evi-
dence of Sir. Clarke, the principal superintendent of the Great
Western Railway, in the case of the bills stolen from that rail-
way ; but with regard to the second charge of alike nature, and
which he had before mentioned, and to which he should not
more particularly allude now, he had no instructions to press
the case further.
Mr. Nash, the clerk to Messrs. Swain, Stevens, and Co.,
begged to withdraw from being a witness in the first case. He
thought there was evidence enough without him.
Mr. Prance considered Mr. Nash a material witness.
Mr. Nash explained the grounds of his reluctance. Two
members of the firm by whorl: he was employed thought he had
exceeded his duty in giving the prisoner into custody, and that
no case could be made out against him. As they considered
he had acted improperly in making the charge, he begged to
withdraw from the prosecution.
Mr. Prance explained, that the desk containing the railway
scrip which was to be the subject of the second charge, was
stolen from the Birmingham Railway, and the Company ap•
peered to he desirous to break up the gang of railway robbers,
till it was discovered that two solicitors, who had taken part in
obtaining restorati, n of the property, would make an awkward
figure in the witness-box A person who had been taken into
custody, but not brought before a magistrate, was then libe-
rated, the charge was stifled, and the re,ult was, that an action
had been brought against Mr. Nash, Collard, the officer, and
himself (Mr. Prance), for false imprisonment.
Mr. Alderman Hughes Hughes expressed his regret at hear-
ing such a statement. He considered the first case made out a
strong case, and he should certainly commit the prisoner upon
trial upon that. Mr. Nash had important evidence to give, and
he should at once secure his attention by binding him over in a
heavy penalty to appear and give evidence. Sir. Nash, so far
from deserving censure for misconduct, had displayed great in-
telligence and zeal throughout the business. A railway corn-
pany should be the last to sanction any compromise, or check
the discovery of the thieves and receivers, and the public con-
fidence in such companies would be proportionably diminished
as their conduct was disgraceful. Whatever Messrs. Swain and
Co. might think of the case, the truth remained the same, and
he should persist in committing Maynard for the attempt to
compromise the felony ; and if Mr. Prance chose to undertake
the prosecution of the other case, he should have process to
compel the attendance of any and all the witnesses he could
name.
Mr. Prance felt disposed to accept the Alderman's sugges-
tion, and said he would consider of the subject before the next
examination. He handed up to the Alderman copies of the
correspondence that had passed relative to the apprehension
and liberation of a person named Wareham, who had not been
brought before the Magistrate.
The evidence of Mr. Stanley Clarke, identifying the hand-
writing of three letters which have already been printed, was
then taken, and the prisoner was remanded for further exami-
nation on the 12th of September.
The following is one of the letters contained in the corre-
spondence handed to the Magistrate
To Charles Russell, Esq., Chairman of the Great
Western Railway Company.
" Aug. 25. Morley's Hotel, Trafalgar. square.
" Sir—lt perhaps has not escaped your attention that in the
month of July last I had, under peculiar circumstances, a
writing-case, containing property to a considerable amount,
stolen from me when a passenger on your line, and that an
attempt was made by a regular thief's agent to procure a sum
of money for the restoration of it, which ultimately led to the
apprehension of this agent, who underwent examination at
Guildhall. At the last examination a remand was applied for
by Mr. Clarkson, the counsel for your Company, on the ground
that certain intelligence had been obtained of a robbery in
which this agent recovered 150/. for the restoration of a parcel
stolen from the premises of the London and Birmingham Rail-
way, and, under the advice of Mr. Clarkson, Messrs. and
are summoned to give evidence of their having compro-
mised this Birmingham case, for the payment to Maynard
of 150/.

" To my astonishment I have received a letter from your
solicitors, that in consequence of Mr. Mills, one of your
directors, having, at the instance of Messrs. - and -
interposed to prevent the exposure of Messrs. -, the
Birmingham ease is not to be proceeded with, and that there-
fore the present opportunity, of such immense importance to
the public at large (of hreakihg up, as there is abundant
evidence to prove, of an organised gang of systematic robbery
of luggage on railways) is to be utterly lost. Your solicitors
have intimated to me that under existing circumstances it will
be hardly worth while to proceed against Maynard.
" I perhaps may he allowed to mention that since the last
remand another person has been apprehended upon satis-
factory evidence and under the advice of Mr. Clarkson, and
whose arrest would necessarily have led to important dis-
closures. This person ha•, since the interposition of
Messrs. -, through Mr. Mills, been discharged, and he
has brought, I find, an action against me and others for false
imprisonment.
" I leave all these facts to your superior judgment, and
should be glad to hear from you on Wednesday morning; but
I may perhaps be allowed to suggest that the public will hardly
be satisfied to allow the case to be so lightly passed over merely
to screen Messrs - from the consequences (if any) of their
connexion with Maynard.
" I have the honour, &c.,
" VAUGHAN PRANCE."
The answer to this letter does not appear in the correspond-
ence, but Mr. Prance received an intimation from the soli-
citors that they intended to proceed in his ease, and one of the
partners in the firm would prosecute the charge of bigamy.

TREATMENT OF RAILWAY PAS

SENGERS.
Yesterday Mr. James Lee, a tradesman residing in Brydges-
street, Coveet-garden, applied to Mr. Henry, at Lambeth
Police-court, for his advice and assistance under the following
circumstances :
Mr. Leo stated that last Sunday week Mrs. Lee and
himself went to visit a friend in the neighbourhood of Walton,
Surrey, and had obtained two day tickets at Nine Elms for
Walton station, for which he paid 2s. Bd. each, as second
Blass fare. On arriving at Walton, one of the porters on duty
there cut off a part of the ticket in the usual way, leaving
them one portion with which to return by its the evening. On
corning hack to the same station in the evening, he (Mr. Leo)
looked out for the same man that had cut the tickets in the
morning, and requested he would procure them a place in the
second-class carriage in the train then about to start. The man
said, " Follow me," and Mrs. Lee and himself accordingly
followed him the ss hole length of the train, when
he exclaimed that all the second-class carriages were full,
and returning a short distance along the train, the porter
pointed to a first-class carriage and desired them to get into it,
which they did, and the train proceeded towards town. On
arriving at the Nine Elms station an officer came round to re-
ceive the tickets, and a few minutes after he had given up his
the officer came back to him and told him that they had
travelled by the wrong carriage, and that they must accompany
him to the inspector's office. They complied, and on reaching
the office they were surrounded by a number of the Company's
servants, and, though he calmly explained the whole of the cir-
cumstance, they detained them twenty-five minutes, and told
him that unless he chose to pay 2s. Bd. additional fare they
should be taken to the station-house. He protested against his
improper detention,'as well as the demand for additional fare, and
refused to pay the latter, conceiving it to be an imposition, but
Mrs. Lee becoming alarmed at the threat of being sent to the
station, he, at her entreaties, paid the additional demand, and
was allowed to depart. He was told, however, that if ho
had any complaint to make, it should he received and consi-
dered of by the managing directors. He called at the sta-
tion on the following day, when he law Mr. Stovin, the