The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-20 00:00:00

LAMBETH.

George Hyde, an expert and notorious thief, was
charged with being concerned with two others in the
commission of a daring robbery. Police-constable 94 L
deposed that he had been employed on the preceding
night to watch the public-house of Mr. Richardson, at
the corner of Marshal-street, London-road, the front of
which is at present dowa ; and at about one o'clock on
that morning, he heard a kind of signal, which caused
him to be on the look out. Immediately after he saw a
respectably-dressed man come down Marshal-street, fol-
lowed by the prisoner and two others, and when the
former got close to Mr. Richardson's the three latter
came up with him, and two of them held his hands
wbih thet-ptisoner rifled his pockets. He (witness) at
thh time Wits at the first floor window of an opposite
hOese;Atnd observing what be had described, hastened
down to secure the parties, who, by that time, had left
the gentleman, and took different directions along the
London-road. He, however, kept the prisoner in view
until he ran up a turning, through which there was no
thoroughfare, and ultimately secured him. Before doing
so, however, the prisoner managed to strip off his coat,
and force it over the doors of the water-closets in the
court.

Mr. HENRY inquired if the person who had been
robbed was in attendance, and the constable replied that
he was not, nor did he know where to find him, as he
had gone away while he (the policeman) had been secur-
ing the prisoner. The witness added that the prisoner
had been frequently in custody on various charges, and
had been tried and summarily convicted.
_ _

Mr. HENRY said that, in order to give the constable
time to find out the person robbed, he should remand the
prisoner for a week.

Mr. John Day, a parson of respectable appearance,
attended to meGt a charge preferred against him by the
authorities of the parish of Camberwell, of having de-
serted his wife and two children, and leaving them
chargeable to the parish.
From the statement of Mrs. Day, an exceedingly
good-looking female, who held a fine infant in her arms,
it appeared that the parties had been married as long
back as November, 1833, but had separated shortly after.
They were however, as she swore, in the habit of meet-
ing occasionally, and the consequence was that she had
given birth to two children, one on the sth of September,
1840, and the other on the 19th of February last.
In her cross• examination by an attorney's c.lerk, who
attended on the part of the defendant, she said she had
been in the habit of meeting her husband at the Cross
Keys, in Wood-street, Cheapside, by his invitation, in
tie month of October last, and produced a note which
had been written, and upon the receipt of which she said
she went to meet him. She positively denied having
lived with any person of the name of Pullin, or going by
that name, since she had been separated from her hus-
band. 'She also denied in the most positive terms having
been in custody at Union Hall Police-court, or having
lodged i❑ Cornwall-road, Waterloo-road.
he witness was then asked if she knew two respec-
table females pointed out to her in the body of the
court, and after some time said she was acquainted with
one of them, Mrs. M'Laren, but the other she declared
to bo a perfect stranger to her.
The husband, at this period of the inquiry, requested
to be shown the note, upon the receipt of which, as she
stated, his wife had gone to meet him at the Cross Keys.
It was accordingly handed to him, and he at once de-
clared the date of the year was a forgery, for he had
never written it.

The note was in consequence closely examined,and it
was quite apparent, from a close inspection, that when
it had been written the year had been left out, and in
order to suit the wife's purpose, and the note itself being
one breathing affection for her, the 1844 was added to
the clate:' .
In addition to this awkward discovery, the two fe-
males above alluded to were called and examined.
The first, Mrs. Lines, of 46, Cornwall-road, deposed,
that on the 9th of August, 1840, Mrs. Day engaged a
lodging at her house for herself and her husband, and at
that time, and while she lived at her house, she went by
the name of Pullin.

Mrs. Day here, and in the most impudent manner,
told the witness she was quite mistaken, for that she had
never lived at her house. _

The witness, in continuance, declared she was per-
fectly positive on the subject, and added, that Mrs. Day
had been taken from her house in the custody of a po-
licemln, and had been examined at Union• hall.
Mrs. M'Laren, the secend witness, said she was per •
fectly well acquainted with Mrs. Day, from her sister
being married to a near relation of hers. Witness re-
collected being sent for to go to Union hill Police-
court, to see Mrs. Day, but upon asking for her in that
name, she was told there was no such person locked up
there. She, however, gave a description of her person,
and found she gave the name of Fullin, and in which
name she saw her.

Mr. HENRY said he was perfectly satisfied, and dis-
missed the complaint.

The attorney's clerk, who attended for the defendant,
said that Mr. Day was most respectably connected, and
but for the grossly profligate conduct of his wife, should
have provided her with necessaries to keep her from the
parish.
Mr. HENRY remarked that the ease wan one of gross
profligacy, and the attempt to make the husband liable
to the support of his wife and her offspring, was followed
up by the most shameless perjury he had ever heard on
the part of the wife, and taking it altogether, he (Dir.