The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-13 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

(Before Mr. IVALEsBY, Deputy-Assistant Judge, and a
full Bench of Magistrates.)
The first September session under the recent Act
for the better administration of criminal justice in
the county of Middlesex commenced on Tuesday, at
liicks's-hall, Clerkenwell.green before the Deputy..
Assistant Judge and an unusually full bench of Ma-
gistrates.
The calendar is numerically extremely heavy, con-
taining no fewer than 96 cases, of which 63 are in-
dictments for felony, whilst 33 are for misdemea-
nours, some of an important character.
The grand jury having been sworn,
The Deputy-Assistant JUDGE shortly addressed
them.

The cases which were disposed of in the course of
he day did not offer any feature of public interest.
During a temporary cessation, however,
Mr. PRENDERGAST said he trusted his Lordship
would permit him to make an application for the
postponement of a case wherein the defendant was in-
dicted for a nuisance. The case was entitled " The
Queen v. Thompson." The defendant was very ex-
tensively engaged as a brushmaker, and had a manu-
factory at Kentish-town. The prosecution was by a
gentleman of the bar of the name of Pike. The affi-
davit upon which he made the present application dis-
closed several most important facts in reference to the
circumstances of the case, and it was quite clear that
as the prosecution had for its object the stoppage of
his business, the proceedings were a life or death
matter so far as the defendant was concerned. There
was this singular fact, too, connected with the ewe—
that it was the first instance in which a brushmaker
had been prosecuted for carrying on his trade. No
brushmaker had until now ever been indicted for a
nuisance. The ground upon which he moved for a
postponement of the case was the absence of a mate-
rial witness.
The Learned JUDGR asked whether there could be
any objection to a postponement ?
Mr. HORRY, who appeared on behalf of the prose-
cution, said there were very powerful objections.
Mr. PRENDERGAST begged to direct the attention
of the Learned Judge to the fact, that had the late
statute been still in force, the case could not have
been tried until the adjournment day, which would
have fallen just about the period at which the next ses-
sion would commence, so that in reality, although a
postponement was now asked for until the ensuing
session, the case would come on quite as early as
before the new Bill had come into operation.
The Learned JUDGE thought it was very early in
the session to make such an application, for the wit-
ness might be obtained ere it had concluded.
Mr. PRENDERGAST remarked, that the object in
making the application thus early was to relieve se-
veral professional witnesses from a probably unneces-
sary attendance for three or four days.
The JUDGE inquired of Mr. Horry what inconve-
nience could arise by the postponement ?
Mr. Houuy replied, that the inconvenience to the
prosecution would be very great ; in addition to which
destructive character—would still be carried on. The
,the,nuisanee7r-a nuisance of. the,mast pernicious-and
defendant was in the habit of using a preparation of
sulphur to, as he said, bleach the bristles of which
he made his brushes ; and he furthermore used, as
the Learned Counsel was understood to say, the chlo-
ride of arsenic in the construction of a peculiar de-
scription of fancy shaving-soap, as well as for another
h were the result of these
s were funie
eof the most injurious character, and
spread themselves around the neighbourhood wherein
they were carried on with the most lamentable effects.
The object of the prosecution of course was to ac-
complish the removal of the nuisance as quickly as
possible, and any postponement would tend to delay
the achievement of so desirable an end. He was in-
structed that the defendant had removed this nuisance
from another place about two years since. 'With
respect to the ground upon which the postponement
was sought, he should submit that the affidavit did
not show the materiality of the evidence of the par-
ticular witness sufficiently even to justify the appli-
cation ; whilst, on the other hand, the prosecutor had
a witness who was now in the most dreadful state o"

health, and who had lost her husband and (laughter
from the operation of these poisonous fumes upon
their system.
Mr. PRENDERGAST here read an affidavit, which set
forth that the nuisance, if nuisance it were, had been
discontinued from the moment when the notice of
indictment had been served upon the defendant.
Eventually it was arranged that the trial should be
postponed until the next sessions, upon the under-
taking of the defendant not to renew his operations
during that period.

GAMING !LOUSES.
Mr. PRENDERGAST now moved that bench warrants
might issue in the case of

The defendants, -- Godfrey,
TILE QUEEN U. GODFREY AND OTHERS.
Joseph Bevan, Joseph
Sherwood, C. Liley, and W. Sufilin, had been indicted
on the I9th of August, for keeping a common gaming
house in Bury-street, St. James's, but had neither put
in bail nor appeared. The party making the affidavit
swore that if the bench warrants were issued, he was
in possession of such information as would enable him
to capture them, and so bring the parties up for trial.
The COURT granted the application for the war-
rants, with 24 hours' notice of bail.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.
THE STEAM-BOAT RIOTS AT TEMI'LE-BAR PIER.—
Seventeen men, named William Irish, Henry Stollard,
Fitzgerald, William Richard Heave, Thomas
Maxton, Thomas Norcott, Richard Ash, John Wal-
kins, Thomas Jones William Valiance, Robt. Wilson,
Richard Field, Geoilge Everard, James Everard,John
Rutland, Thos. Coll, and Edward Collins, were placed
at the bar yesterday upon an indictment charging them
with creating a riot and violently assaulting Henry
Maynard, in the parish of St. Clement Danes, on the
26th of July, 1844. There was also upon the calendar
a further count, charging Rutland, the two Everards,
Heave, and Ash, with an assault upon the same Henry
Maynard.
The circumstances of this case must be fresh in the
memory of the readers of The Sun, they having been
published at length when the examination of the
several traverser,: took place at Bow-street Police-
office. The subject of the indictment arose from the
circumstances of two rival steam- boat companies lay-
ing claim to the right of ingress and egress at a wharf I
called the Temple-bar Pier. Those rival companies •
were known as the Waterman's and the Old Wool- 1
with Company, and an altercation having arisen be.