The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-01 00:00:00

GUILDHALL.

Charlotte Wyatt, a miserable-looking creature,
about 30 years of age, was charged with attempt-
ing to drown herself in the Thames.
Peter Boddy, a street-keeper, deposed, that in
passing over Blackfriars-bridge about five o'clock on
Sunday afternoon, he observed the prisoner at the
bottom of the stairs, getting into the water. He
got down in time to save her, and her mother was
now in attendance. The prisoner was drunk.

The mother said the prisoner was married to a
slaughterman, but was living apart (for it was im-
possible to live with her) on an allowance of 3s. 6d.
per week, which the prisoner regularly squandered
away within an hour after she had received it.—
She was a confirmed drunkard.
Mr. Alderman BROWN asked the prisoner if she
wished to say any thing ?
Prisoner replied, that she did not know how she
came to think of such a thing. A friend gave her
the liquor.
" Have you reflected on the dreadful situation
you would have been in if you had appeared before
your Maker, your own murderer ?" asked the Al-
derman. _ _ _

The prisoner looked about her callously, and said
she was very sorry.
Alderman BROWN asked the mother if she would
take her home ?

The mother said her conduct was so bad that she
could not. Indeed she wished her to be bound
down not to annoy her.
The Magistrate replied that she might give her
into custody when she was offending. He did not
know that he could do anything with her now.
She was accordingly discharged.
A woman upwards of 50 years of age, named
Jane Athwell, was charged with making a similar
attempt on the Surrey side of the bridge, about six
o'clock the same evening. Easeley, a watchman,
said he had traced her family. She had suffered a
severe injury on the head, and was partly deranged.
She was quite sober. Her son was now in attend-
ance. _ _

The Alderman asked the son if it was true that
her head had been wounded as described.
The son, who seemed much affected, said it was.

Will you take care of her ?" said the Magis-
trate.—The son promised that he would to the best
of his power.
" Then be so kind as to do so. She is dis-
charged," rejoined the Alderman.
Joseph de batten, a valet to Mr. Rothschild, of
Stamford hill, attended to show cause why an order
of affiliation should not be made upon him with re-
gard to a child born in the parish of St. Ann, Al-
dersgate-street.
Anstice Keogh, the mother, was produced ; but
before she was sworn, she was questioned by Mr.
Harmer for the defendant, respecting her husband.
She said she had not seen him since the year 1818.
He was a private in the 9th Lancers, and she had
heard some time ago that he was dead, but it now
appeared that he was still living.
Mr. Harmer said it would be necessary to prove
wife before the latter could be allowed to swear this
icmhipossldtiobitihiteyof access between the husband arid
defendant.
Mr. Payne, the second clerk, said the. overseers
offered as proof of this, evidence that the woman

had resided constantly in London, and documents
from the War-office to show that the husband had
never left his regiment, which was stationed in
Yorkshire about nine months before the birth of the
child. The regiment was now at Nottingham.
Mr. Alderman VENABLES remarked, that the
doctrine respecting the impossibility of access bad
of late been a good deal modified. It would be dif-
ficult to find any person to swear the woman had not
an opportunity of meeting her husband.
I The mother, weeping, protested she had net
seen him.

Mr. Alderman BROWN objected to the validity of
the documentary evidence. If the overseers could
produce legal proof of the husband's continual resi-
dence in Yorkshire, they might take it at once to
the sessions on the adjournment-day. The sessions
could make the order in the same manner that two
justices would.
The Mrgistrates concurred in declining to make
the order. _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Dunsby, the foreman of the inquest of Far-
ringdon-within, applied for a summons against
William Pullen, of Cranbrook, in Kent, for send-
ing the carcass of an ox and two sheep for sale in
Newgate-market, the same not being fit for human
food.

Mr. Alderman BROWN asked what proof he had
that Mr. Pullen sent it ?—Mr. Dunsby said he had
Mr. Pu!len's letter and invoice, which was delivered
with a part of the meat, and which he had obtained
from the salesman's foreman.

Mr. Harmer suggested the letter might hays been
written by somebody else in his name.
. .

Mr. Alderman iktowN said that was obvious.
Could Mr. Dunsby prove the hand-writing.
Mr. Dunsby said the inquest had a difficult duty
to perform. He waa unlearned in the law, and he
hoped no impediment would be thrown in his way.
He wished to state the course that had been taken
before by the Aldermen.
Mr. Alderman BROWN said, no impediment would
be put in his way; the public were much obliged
to him for his exertions; but if he were unlearned
in the law, he might have the assistance of the City-
Solicitor. The city would cheerfully pay the ex-
pense. He could not issue his summons: until he
had evidence that Mr. Pullen consigned the meat.
Suppose he were to come and state that he did not
send the meat : then he would have been put to the
trouble of coming out of Kent improperly.
Mr. Harmer said, the name might be altogether
fictitious.

Mr. Dunsby called the foreman to Mr. Kimber,
tke salesman, to prove the hand-writing; but he
a wore that he had sever heard of or seen his writing
before. This was the first consignment that had
been received from him.

Mr. Dunsby next asked the Alderman to hear the
opinion, on oath, of the officers and others as to the
unsoundness of the meat, as a ground for issuing his
order to burn it.

Richmond, the officer, was beginning to state that
he had seized four quarters of what was called an
ox, and two sheep, in a cart in Newgate-street, that
morning, when
The Alderman, after consulting with Mr. Harmer
and the clerks, said, " I feel, and I am told by
those around me, I have no authority to order the
meat to be destroyed ; that is the province of the
inquest; and they will do it, if they think proper,
on their own responsibility."
Mr. Harmer said, he had inspected the meat, and
if he were on the inquest, he should condemn it
without hesitation.

The Alderman said, the city would protect him if
an action should be brought against Mr. Dunsby in
such a case as this.

Mr. Dunsby said, he should do his duty fearlessly,
and withdrew.

About four o'clock in thelafternoon the huge move-
able oven, constructed at the city expense, to de-
stroy putrid meat, was drawn into the area of New-
gate-market, and the beef was burned; but the sheep
were taken away to be boiled down for dog's meat.