The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, ,Tune 10.
THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF MR. MICHAEL SCALES
V. THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE SEWERS FOR THE TOWER
HAMLETS.
In this case, which had not concluded when we went to
press, the COURT took time to consider its judgment.

BAIL COURT, June 10.
(Before ➢lr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
THR QUEEN V. HALL.
Mr. CRAnNOCK in this case moved for two writs of habeas
corpus.
The COURT said that the proper course would be to apply
in Chamber upon affidavit founded on the commitment, a
copy of which the defendant was entitled to, but there was
no legal objection to having the proceedings removed by cer-
tiorari, as well as to have the prisoner removed by habeas
corpus.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 10.
(Sittings in Banco.)
GOSLING V. BEDDEII.

The Court was occupied the whole day in hearing argu-
ments upon the rule for a new trial in this case, which in-
volved only a question of accounts, and possessed nothing of
general interest.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, June 10.
(Before Commissioner Sir C. F. WILLIAMS.)

THE ROMFORD BANK.-IN RE THOMAS JOHNSON, THE
ELDER, WILLIAM JOHNSON, AND CHARLES MANN, OF
ROMFORD, IN ESSEX, BANKERS, AND CO. PARTNETtS,

DEALERS AND CIIAPMEN.

A fiat was issued against the above parties upon the
Bth inst., at the instance of Emanuel Cooper, William
Corry, Swynfen Jarvis, and Joseph Henry Warter, of
No. 71, Lombard-street, bankers, and co-partners, on
behalf of the " London and County Joint-stock Bank,"
and the adjudication took place this day.
No day has yet been fixed for the choice of assignees,
but Mr. Follett has been appointed official assignee.
We are requested by the solicitor to the fiat, Mr. Wil-
kinson, to state that every opportunity will be afforded
by the representatives of the London and County Bank
of coming to the most satisfactory arrangements with
the creditors of the Romford Bank.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
CLERKENWELL.

Thomas Ryan, a blacksmith, residing at No. 11, Car-
rier-street, Bloomsbury, was charged with brutally as-
saulting Mary, his wife.
It appeared from the evidence, that on Tuesday even-
ing last the prisoner came home, and upon some trifling
and unfounded pretext he quarrelled with his wife and
used bad language towards her. She remonstrated with
him, upon which he knocked her down, and with his
hob-nailed boot kicked 'the unfortunate woman on the
head, producing a deep and serious wound over the right
eye, the flesh about which was in so inflamed and con-
tused a state, that the organ was not visible. He then
seized her by the hair and dragged her like a dog about
the room, whilst she was bleeding from the wound. A
policeman, 57 E, arrested the prisoner, who was rescued
from his custody, and the constable himself thrown
headlong from the street into a cellar. The prisoner
thereby escaped, and was not arrested until Sunday
night last.
Mr. GREENWOOD sentenced the prisoner to pay a fine
of 5/, or two months' imprisonment.
William Neale was charged with violently assaulting
John Osment, the landlord of the Red Lion public-
house, Cow-cross-street, Clerkenwell.
, The prisoner was creating a riotin the Red Lion on the
previous night, and the landlord attempted to expel him,
when the prisoner kicked him violently in a delicate part
of his person, whereby the complainant was seriously
injured.
A surgeon's certificate was produced, stating that the
injury was of a very severe nature, and that Mr. Osment
was unable to attend.—The prisoner was remanded.
William Alexander John Chapman, a pawnbroker, re-
siding at 74, Turnmill-street, Clerkenwell, was charged
with receiving sixty-five fur skins without giving a du-
plicate for the same, the property of Mr. Davis, a furrier.
Anne Ballard, a poor woman, who had received the
furs to sew them from Mr. Davis, proved that she
pawned them, but received no duplicate.—The defendant
was fined 31.
Charles Bingham was charged with stealing 121, the
property of a Mr. Josiah Reeve, a tailor, residing in
Leather-lane.
The robbery took place on Friday night last, when
the prosecutor, coming home in a state of intoxication,
went to bed in the same room in which the prisoner slept
with the twelve sovereigns in his breeches-pocket. He
awoke in a few hours after, and missed the money. The
prisoner, it was proved, had been seen disposing of money
for the possession of which he could not satisfactorily
account.—The prisoner was remanded.
Louisa Groves, aged six, and Sarah Bennett, aged
eighteen, were chared with being concerned in the rob-
bery of Israel Boulanger, a Frenchman, of 71. 12s. On
the night of the 14th of May, the prosecutor was induced
to go into a house of ill fame, in Church-street, St.
Giles, but had not been in the room more than a few
minutes, when the prisoners, another young woman
named Knox, and a fellow named Johnson, came into
the room. Johnson bade him deliver up his money.
The prosecutor did not understand English, but, sus-
pecting their purpose, buttoned up his coat. Bennett
and Johnson then attacked him in a ferocious manner,
and the light was extinguished. Bennett fetched
a knife, which Johnson seizing, attempted to
cut the prosecutor's throat. He put up
his hand, to push the knife from his throat, and received
a gash in the wrist. Johnson succeeded in cutting
through the neckcloth, but the knife did not enter the
throat. Knox and Bennett then emptied his pockets of
their contents. Bennett, in the struggle, placed her hand
on Boulanger's mouth, to prevent his cries for assistance
from being heard. Police-constable Baker, 108 E, en-
tered the house just after the robbery had been perpe-
trated, and found the prosecutor bleeding profusely from
the wound on the wrist. All the prisoners then escaped,
owing to the prosecutor having been unable to commu-
nicate the facts in English to Baker ; they have, how-
ever, been apprehended since then, Johnson on a dif•
ferent charge.—The prisoners were remanded.
Charles Mathews was charged with having been
drunk, and with deserting his wife and five children,
whereby they became chargeable to Clerkenwell parish.
It appeared from the evidence of Aldberry, clerk to
the Guardians ; that five months ago, the prisoner's wife
applied for relief to the parish, alleging that her husband
had abandoned her, and that herself and children were
utterly destitute. They were received into the work.
house, where they remained ten days and were dis-
charged. From the period of their discharge to the
present time, the family had received parochial relief
to the amount of 4s. 10d. weekly ; each time the wife
appledfor it she alleged that she did not know where her
husband was. It appeared, however, from the statement
of the prisoner that he had been living with his family
all the time, and had concealed himself whenever the
relieving officer came to the house. On Saturday even-
ing last, being drunk, he went to the workhouse and
was given into custody.
The prisoner admitted that he had been at home. His
wife practised the fraud at his request, in order that he
might not be separated from his family in the work-
house. He hoped that whatever punishment should be
inflicted would be visited on him, as he was the cause of
the misrepresentation.
Aldberry, however, said he would prosecute in this
case, as this description of fraud had been of late very
frequent in Clerkenwell parish. The husband had been
at work.

The woman was accordingly given into custody, and
the husband discharged.
The husband again entreated that he might be
punished ; he was guilty, and he made his wife apply
for relief to save their children from starving.
Aldberry added that each time the woman applied for
relief she told the same story about the absence of her
husband.

The husband, who wept loudly, entreated of the Ma-
gistrate not to send his wife to prison. His children
were now in a state of starvation.

Mr. GREENWOOD ordered the woman to be remanded,
and the children to be taken care of by the parochial
authorities.

WORSHIP-STREET.

Yesterday Mr. John Bayley, residing in Brunswick-
terrace, Hackney-road, and holding a situation under
Government, was charged before Mr. Broughton, with
indecently assaulting his nursemaid, Sarah Amelia
Barber, a girl thirteen years of age.
The complainant, an artless-looking child, and short
for her age, stated, that she had been seven weeks in the
service of the defendant, who was a married man, with
a wife and three children, as nursemaid, and that on
Saturday evening, about six o'clock, her mistress went
out in company with her sister, leaving her master and
herself at home. Witness was rocking the infant to
sleep in its cot in the drawing-room, where the prisoner
was sitting on the sofa, and, as the child was very frac-
tious, she asked the prisoner's permission to go down
stairs for her needlework. The prisoner assented, and
she was about doing so, when he got up, and, kneeling
down before her, took hold of her hand, and asked her
to let him kiss her. This she allowed the prisoner to
do, and he then pressed her to sit with him on the sofa.
She refused, and the prisoner pulled her down beside
him, and after retaining her there for some time, made a
solicitation of a very indecent description, which she
indignantly repelled, and got away from him. The in-
fant having now gone to sleep, the prisoner got up, un-
dressed the other two children, four and six years of age,
himself, and put them to bed ; and the witness having
gone down into the kitchen to look after the children's
boots and shoes, was followed there by the prisoner, who,
drawing a chair to the fire-place, asked her to sit near
him; this she refused, and went up stairs for some of the
children's clothing, followed by the prisoner, who pur-
sued heetrion,
into the kitchen again ; here, after an indeli-
cate action, he forcibly pulled her on to his knee, which
she resented, and after a violent struggle succeeded in
escaping, when she attempted to leave the house, but was
stopped by the prisoner, who promised her a handsome
present if she would engage not to mention the transac-
tion to her mistress. She ultimately got out of the
house, and meeting her mother, who was making pur-
chases in Shorcditeh, acquainted her with the prisoner's
conduct towards her.

The witness was severely cross-examined by Mr.
Ware, who attended for the defence, but without in the
least shaking her testimony.
Henry Barber, the prosecutries father, stated, that
when he met the first witness she was in a state of great
excitement. On being made acquainted with the facts,
he immediately went to the house of the prisoner, and
accused him of the offence. The prisoner at once ad-
mitted the justice of the accusation. invited the witness
in, and promised that if this transaction were overlooked,
he would take care that nothing of the kind again
occurred. The witness, however, indignantly left the
house, and meeting a policeman shortly afterwards, re-
lated the facts to him, and gave the prisoner in charge.
Policeman 340 N deposed to taking the prisoner into
custody. When he told him the charge against him,.he