The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-24 00:00:00

had been adduced. With regard to the other point,
that the offence was unknown to the laws of this
country, it was a mere distinction in names, it being
here called a conspiracy. As the evidence was
sufficient, he should certainly commit the prisoner for
the offence, as set forth in the warrant of the Secre-
tary of State.
The prisoner was then committed, preparatory to
being sent to France.
GUILDHALL.

Yesterday Mr. Postan, the vestry-clerk of St.
Botolph-without, Aldersgate, brought before Sir P.
Laurie a journeyman bookbinder named Mills, and
charged him with neglecting to support his wife, in
consequence of having discontinued an allowance of
half-a-crown per week.
Sir P. LAURIE asked the wife how old she was P
She replied 73.
The Alderman put the same question to the hus-
band, who stated that he was fifty years old.
Sir P. LAURIE asked how long they had been mar-
ried P—The husband said about two years.
Sir P. LAURIE inquired what had induced him to
marry a woman old enough to be his mother ?—The
husband said she never would tell him her age till now.
Sir P. LAURIE asked if he could not see how old
she was P—The husband replied, she represented that
she was much younger, and that she did not know
where she was born or baptised.
Sir P. LAURIE hoped he did not believe what every-
body said, and asked again why he married a woman
old enough to be his mother ?
" The more shame for you," exclaimed the old
woman.
" The more shame for you," repeated the husband,
looking fiercely at her, and he proceeded to state, that
having three children by his first wife, who were run-
ning about the streets all day when he was called to
work, he thought it a matter of prudence to marry
this woman, as she was a clean pleasant sort of person,
and had a clean, comfortable home.
Sir P. LAURIE asked how she got her living?—
The husband answered that she went out cleaning.
Sir P. LAURIE asked why they separated ?—The hus-
band said, after living with her three months, he found
out that she was a complete drunkard, and had run
up scores at two gin-shops. He used to give her the
rent weekly, and one morning when be got up and
happened to see the rent-book lying on a chair he had
the curiosity to look at it, and found she had squan-
dered the rent-money. But the reason he refused to
make her an allowance was that she had been keeping
a man for a year past. He could show that they
lived together, and had but one bed in the room.
Sir P. Litmus asked the wife how she came to
marry at such an advanced time of life ?—She said
she was a widow, and Mills told her such fine tales as
the world never heard before ; he courted her for
three months, and she wanted to put him off another
month, but he was such a canting fellow that she
could not. As soon as they were married he brought
home an empty box, and a lousy girl twelve years old.
She, however, did her duty, and made them both
clean and decent. After living with her five months
he turned his attention to some other woman, and
had the impudence to say that he loved that woman's
little finger better than the whole body of his lawful
wife, and he left her after giving her a shocking
black eye.
Sir P. LAURIE thought that at her time of life she
ought to have been proof against the flattery of the
sex. What had she to say to the serious charge made
by her husband ?—She said she took in mangling,
and she had the young man to do for her. It was
only a boy, her nephew. Her husband was like the
dog in the manger, who would neither eat the hay
himself nor let anybody else.
Sir P. LAURIE reminded her that the accusation
was that he slept in her bed.
She said it was false. He slept on it in the day-
time, but at night he slept in a corner of the room.
Sir P. LAURIE asked the age of boy. She replied
he was a boy to her—about twenty-three.
Sir P. LAURIE observed that her husband was a
boy to her in one sense, for she was old enough to be
his mother. In visiting the dwellings of the poor he
had found them obliged to sleep in the same room
without much regard to delicacy. He should like to
see this nephew before he decided on the case.
The landlady of a house where the wife and nephew
had lived for months was called. She had seen but
one bed in the room. The old woman and the nephew
used to fight. On one occasion, when the policeman
came in and found the nephew in bed, he asked where
the old woman slept ? and the nephew replied, "Along
with me, to be sure. Where should she sleep r There
was, in fact, no room to make up a bed for him on the
floor. The old woman went away in her debt, and
scandalized her character by reporting that she slept
away from ho:ne whole nights together.
Mr. Postans, the vestry-clerk, stated, that both the
husband and wife were paupers at the time they were
married, and the woman continued fur a time to re-
ceive her allowance of Is. 6d. per week. as a widow,
from Rotherhithe parish.
The wife stated, that her husband went with her
half-a-dozen times to receive the money.
The husband said, he understood it was an allow-
ance from her daughter at Leatherhead.
Sir P. LAURIE ordered the case to stand over, for'
further proof and inquiry, till Thursday.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Yesterday Adele Dupierre, or Dupre, underwent a
second examination before Mr. Maltby, on a charge
of having stolen and pawned a large quantity of shoes,
the property of Mr. Van Bever, shoemaker, Burling-
ton-arcade, with whom she lived as shopwoman.
Mr. Lumley, from the office of Mr. Flower, at-
tended for the prisoner, and a solicitor from the office
of Mr. Goatley for the prosecutor.
Mr. Lumley said he had an application to make to
the Court. He proposed to cross-examine Mr. Van
Bever, and also Mr. Bever's solicitor. Now he hoped
the Court would order that one party should not be
in Court while the examination of the other was pro-
ceeding with.
The solicitor expressed his surprise at this an-
nouncement. He had no evidence to give that he
was aware of. He was not a witness, and he was
only present as Mr. Van Bever's legal adviser.
Mr. MALTBY decided that the examination of the
solicitor, as proposed by Mr. Lumley, would be irre-
gular and unnecessary.
Mr. Van Bever was called, and the statement which
he made on the former occasion relative to the dis-
pin his stock, the admission
Dupierre that she had pawned
he took both against the
cto
hot. e
vt ehpreryop
por,
eif
sr
ott
ynh
,ee
radeficiencynAddhl ee
stepsD u
prisoner and another young woman, formerly in his
service, in consequence of a statement, subsequently
the prisoner, was read
disavowed,
.m made to him by

The solicitor then asked Mr. V. Bever various
questions, to which he replied that he had never, at
any time in his life, given the prisoner shoes to pawn
for him. On the 9th of August he left England to go
on the Continent, and he returned on the 24th of Au-
gust. The prisoner had money given to her for ex-
penses during his absence. Waring the time he was
out of England the prisoner had never received per-
mission to pawn any goods, nor was he aware that she
had pawned any until the robbery was discovered.
The solicitor here said he should produce a number
of duplicates relating to shoes and boots pawned by
the prisoner during the period of Mr. Van Bever's
absence.

Mr. Van Bever, in continuation, said as soon as he
returned to town he settled accounts with the pri-
soner, and at that time had not discovered his loss. As
there was another young woman engaged for the shop
he made preparations to take stock, as was his custom
when he had a new hand. He intended to have taken
stock last Monday week, but was prevented in conse-
quence of a fire happening in the shop, which fire he
had reason to'suspect the prisoner had caused.
Mr. Lumley said there had been nothing hitherto
said about any fire, and it was not correct for Mr.
Van Bever to make any allusion to it in the present
stage of the proceedings.
Mr. Van Bever replied the charge would be made
before the case ended, as he had instructed his solicitor
to do what was
Proper in the affair. Mr. Van Bever
further said that after the stock was taken, and the
deficiency discovered, he charged the prisoner with
the offence, upon which she began to cry. He told
her it would be the best thing for her to tell the truth,
and she then said she would work out the amount,
and would produce the tickets if he would not say
anything more about the matter.
Mr. Van Bever underwent a very long cross-
examination by Mr. Lumley.—Had been twenty-nine
years in England, and all that period in the service
of Mr. Erard, the harp-machinist. Kept a shoe shop
about eighteen years, but was a harp-machinist.
Worked piece-work for Mr. Erard. Had been in
partnership with Mr. Reynolds, in New Bond-street.
Had quarrelled with his wife, and had been two or
three times brought to that Court for alleged as-
saults. The prisoner bad been first engaged about
three years ago. She bad left for nearly two years,
and had been re-engaged in consequence of his former
shopwoman leaving him. It was as false as —to
say, that at any time he had either given her shoes
to pawn, or had authorised her to pawn shoes. Had
never asked the prisoner to meet him at night. Had
given money to his wife the last time he was in
Paris. Was not in the receipt of thirty shillings a
week as wages from Mr. Erard. Found his earnings
enough for his expenses, without having occasion
to abstract money from the shoe business.
Here Mr. Van Bever's patience appeared to fail.
He said, whaf, have my private actions and ray do-
mestic affairs to do with the case ? I have been
robbed, and I come here for justice. I appeal to the
Court for protection against such nonsense as is going
for ward.

Mr. MALTBY wished to know what bearing the
questions had on the case which the solicibr was
putting to Mr. Van Bever?
Mr. Lumley said he should presently show that
the probable solution of the deficiency in the stock
was, that Mr. Van Bever had taken the property and
caused it to be pawned for his own private ends.