The Sun.
London, England, 1828-04-02 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCgy

GUlLDHALL.—Yesterday Henry Child, the person
charged by Air. Horne (deputy signer of writs in the
Court of King's Bench) with having stolen a prireipii
from the file in the King's Rench Office, was again placed
at the bar, and discharged after a suitable admonition from
Sir P. Laurie.

LAW-WRITING v. CIIAIRMAKING.-In this case, one
Mr. Jeremiah Mahoney was charged with having assaulted
a Mr. Samuel Burrowes, of No. 52, Barley-mow-passage,
Cloth-fair, West Smithfield—in a very unhandsome and
ungrateful manner; that is to say, in the manner which
Ulysses adopted towards Polyphemus, viz.:—.
" He ate his mutton,
" Drank his wine,
" And then he pok'd his eye out."
"May it please your Worship," said Mr. Burrowes,
"this gentleman,"—meaning thereby Mr. Jeremiah Ma-
honey—" is an intimate acquaintance of my wife's ; but I
never saw him before, but once—and that's three years
ago—when I was a bachelor. Yesterday,: he came to
see my wife, and I asked him to stay dinner; and he did;
and after dinner we sat down to take-a pipe and a glass of
grog comfortable—for I thought I'd make much of him,
as he was a friend of my wife's; so I treated him with
the best of every thing, and very genteel. While we were
smoking, we had a little argument of course, but some-
how it took a wrong turn ;L-he got into a passion, and I
got into a passion, and then he gets up and gives me a
poke in the eye !---But I've no animosity against the gen-
tleman ; and if—"

" You are very forgiving towards your wife's friend,"
said the Alderman," "Pray, is your wife here ?"
Mr. Burrowes replied that she was ; and thereupon the
lady came forward and denied that there was any particular
friendship between her and Mr. Jerry Mahoney. " And
I do assure your Worship," added she, " that his conduct
was very bad ; for while they were gelidly smoking their
pipes he jumped up and flew at my husband like anything;
and I don's know what the consequence might have been if I
hadn't fetched the watchman to take him away."
Mr. Jeremiah Mahoney replied, with a very un-Mahoney-
like modesty, that he thought Mr. Burrowes had stated the
case pretty correctly, and for his own part he was very
sorry for what had happened. And upon this acknow-
ledgment he was discharged ; with an admonition from
Mr. and Mrs. Burrowes never to show his face in their
house again.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.---Yesterday Signor Cu -
rioni, of the Italian Opera, appeared, we believe, for the
fifth time before a fell bench of Magistrates, at this office,
to meet the claim put forward against him by the parish
authorities of st. Giles-in-the-fields, which charges, that
be has burdened the parish with the support, for four vea vs
past of an illegitimate female child, his offspring. We
have so often given the particulars of this case that it is
unnecessary to go into any details again, further
_than to
state that the Magistrates from the beginning have placed
no credit on the evidence of the woman, Mary Ann Ken.
nel or Connel, who swears that Signor Curioni is the father
of her child, except as far as some material part of her
testimony was corroborated by that of others. It will be re-
collected that Signor Curioni denies in the most positive
manner having ever had the slightest acquaintance with or
knowledge of this woman ; but in opposition to this, and
in confirmation of Kennel's oath, it will be remembered,

that on a former day a woman named Frampton, who does
net bear so bad a reputation, or did not in giving her evi-
dence exhibit the same levity that characterised the former,
swore deldedly to the identity of signor Curioni, as a
person that she had repeatedly let in and out of a house
in Somers. town, as a visitor to Kennel, at the very period
that must have given origin to this child.
Mr. Alley attended for the parish, and the Hon. Mr.
Law appeared on the part of the defendant.
Mr. Alley having gone through the often-repeated evi-
dence in support of the parish claim—
Mr. Law addressed the Magistrates at considerable

tthoa te calpasei n, pointingwithout
noyu ta
tttl: em
pmta itiyo•
Mr. Law called as a witness a
euenabgrs
stt
al it, itnai
at otwep pet
rohesi
sist u f
clam.o noi
female, named Jane Blake, to oppose the evidence of
Frampton, the main prop of the case against the defendant
on the former (lay.

This witness swore that she lived in the same house with
Frampton and the woman Kennel, at Somers-town, at the
period referred to in their evidence, that she was the person
who almost invariably opened the door to any one calling
upon Kennel, that she did not believe Frampton ever so
opened the door, that the witness recollected a man some-
thing like a foreigner, visiting Kennel on several occasions
at that time, that witness almost always let him in and out,
and she positively declared that Signor Curioni was not
that man, or in any degree like him. This witness further
said, that Kennel told her, while with child, that the father
of it was a man named Broadbothom, with whom she aso:-
ciated at the time.

A Mrs. I3rown,"residing at No. 10, Lucas-place, New-
road, stated that Kennel and her sister had lodged at wit-
ness's house while the former was with child, and that she
understood from them at the time, that some man, whose
name she forgot, like Robothem or Robinson, was the
father. Witness recollected the day, four years ago, that
Kennel went to have Signor Curioni pointed out to her,
and when she returned, or when the witness saw her next,
Kennel told her he was not the right man, but she heard
her say in some time after that she had found a good father
in Signor Curioni for her child.
Several other witnesses were examined, but this is all
that was material.

Mr. CONANT (with whom were Sir G. FARRANT and
the Rev. Mr. THURSET, magistrates) then said, that al-
though he had not mentioned it before, he would now state,

that from the commencement of this case, two magisttates
out of three were of opinion that the order should be made
against the detindant,not that they gave much credit to
the mother of the child herself, but there were so many
according circumstances which bore out her evidence,
that they did not doubt its truth. But Mr. ROE, who
is at present out of town, was of a different opinion, and
gave no credit to the case against the defendant, until
the witness Frampton was examined, when he agreed with
the other magistrates that the order should be made, but
still consented to let the case stand over until this day.
lie (Mr. Conant) and the other magistrates present, were
now of opinion that the evidence produced by Mr. Law
was not sufficient to shake the former case, and they were

therefore decided in making the order on Signor (:',urioni
for an allowance of 3s. 3d. per week for the support of the
child, together with all the expenses of its support up to
this time from its birth,,,,as well as the expenses of the
mother's accouchement.

Mr. Parker, the churchwarden, said as he wished nothing
on the part of the parish but what was just and fair, he
would only ask the defendant to pay the expellees of lying..

in and the support of the child since the commencement
of these recent proceedings, dropping what the parish had
paid for the support of the child for nearly four years.
The order was then signed against the defendant ; but
Mr. Law, on his behalf, gave notice of an appeal to the
Sessions against it, and Signor Curioni entered into sureties
to try the appeal.
HATTON-GARDEN.—Yesterday a lusty tall man,
between 40 and 50 years of age, wko gave his name iv,,,,
Richard Batt, residing in Edmond-street, Somers-town,
was brought up before Mr. Serjeant Sellon in the custody
of Davis and Jordan, two constables of Spafields, charged
with an attempt to seduce Mary Jennet, a child about seven
years old.
Mr. Sergeant SELLON said, that though he had himself
no moral doubt of the defendant's criminal intention, yet
as the circumstances were not strong enough to warrant.

him even in holding him to bail, he niust discharge,him.
Batt then left the office and ran, followed by the shouts
of a multitude of persons who were collected to hear the case.
Last night a Mr. George Allen, a solicitor, was brought
up to this office under a warrant, charged with having as-
saulted his wife on the morning of yesterday.
Mrs. Allen, attended by her solicitor, Mr. Harmer, came
forward and stated to the sitting Magistrate, Mr. Sergeant
SELLON, that the defendant, from whom she had been sepa-
rated for some time past, came to her on a visit that morn-
ing, and immediately proceeded to strike her, and that in
so violent a manner as to put her, as she herself expressed
it, in great bodily fear, and endanger her life. She only
now wished him, she said, to be bound over to keep the
peace towards her, and would not choose to prosecute the
►natter further, even though she never expected him to live

with her again.
The Magistrate having called upon Mr. Allen to defend the
charge, he replied " Sir, I did str►ke her, and would again,
acting under the influence of my wounded feelings. She is
a most unfortunate woman. We have been married six
years, but 12 months ago a deed of separation was made
between us. However, I occasionally visited her, and
coming up to town last Saturday from Lancaster assizes, 1
understood from my friends that she held a criminal cor-
respondence with a worthless fellow who pretended to he
a barrister, but who is only a clerk in a solicitor's office
is Gray's inn."
Mr. Harmer—The lady is willing to go with her hus-
band, and be malted again, and forsake this man, if Mr. A.
will accept the terms.
Mr. Allen—l should have no objection, but this very
day she was again in company with that fellow. This, Sir,
(to the magistrate) is net a subject for your consideration;

it belongs to another court, and I am now ready to pub
in my bail.
Mr. Serjtant SELLON-Then let your bail tome forward
and be hound for your appearance next sessions.
Mr. Allen—Sir, if you will indulge me till the sessions
subsequent to those at hand, I shall feel greatly obliged, as
I have to attend the Manchester sessions immediately.'
To this the magistrate assented, bail was put in, and the
parties left the office.

. UNION-HALL.--On Monday, Daniel Gill, a medical
student belonging to Guy's Hospital, was brought before
the presiding Magistrates, M. SWAI', J. T. Hoer, S.
Davis, and D. KING, Esqrs., charged with having vio-
lated the person of a young girl, named Sarah Hollis, in the
. .
service of'plr.Hicks, in Paragon-place, Kent-road.

The office having been cleared of all females except the
complainant, who is rather an interesting looking young
girl, she proceeded to state, that sht lived as servant in the
house of Mr. flicks, with whom the prisoner lodged. She
was in the habit of attending on the prisoner, and on the
morning of the 18th of March, he having rung for some
water, she proceeded up stairs with it to the first floor,
which he occupied, and when heading it to him he took her
forcibly round the waist and carried her into his room, and
flung her down on the bed. The complainant here became
so affected that she was unable to proceed until accommo-
dated with a chair., Having recovered in some measure,
she proceeded to describe the outrage committed on her
person, and stated, that she made every resistance in her
power, and screamed aloud, but owing to the absence of
the family, who were from home, her cries for assistance
were not heard, and as she alleged, the prisoner accom-
plished her ruin. It appeared that she bad not communi-
cated what had befallen her for some days after it had oc-
curred, and the reason she ascribed for her silence en the
subject was, on account of a serious illness with which her
mistress was afflicted, and she was fearful of describing the
manner in which she had been treated by the prisoner.
thinking that it would add to her illness. The moment,
however, her mistress became better she related every cir-
cumstance connected with the outrage to her.
Mrs. Hicks was examined, and she stated, that subse-
quent to the day on which the offence was alleged to have
been committed, she particularly remarked that the com-
plainant appeared to be very unhappy. She (Mrs. Hicks)
frequently interrogated, her as to the cause, and at length
the girl told her of the outrage committed on her person
by the prisoner during the absence of the family. This
witness described the complainant to have conducted her-
self with great propriety during the time she lived in her
service. It was stated that all the complainant's friends re-
sided at a considerable distance from town, and that was
the reason the circumstances attending her violation were
not communicated earlier.

. The complainant, after undergoing a close cross exaininv
tion, during which she did not vary from her first account
of the transaction, Mr. Alley said that he waa instructed
to state that evidence would be forthcoming whiCh would
completely impeach her veracity, and prove that she was
a woman of immoral character.

The Magistrates consulted together for a short periods
and then remarked that the evidence given by the com-
plainant, whose testimony they had no reason to doubt, was
of that nature that they considered it their duty to commit :
the prisoner on the capital charge.