The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-21 00:00:00

CONSISTORY COURT, Nom 20.

CATTERALL V. CATTERAT.L.
This was originally a suit of nullity of marriage by Mr.
Joseph Catterall against Georgiana Ann, his wife, by the
name of Sweetman, on the ground that the marriage, which
was had in New South Wales in 1535, under an Act passed
in that colony in 1834, was invalid, by reason of the non-
observance of certain forms and regulations prescribed by the
Act. The Court rejected the libel pleading that ground of
nullity, but permitted the husband, if he thought fit, to
plead that the marriage was null and void by the law ante-
cedent to the Act and without it.
Dr. ADDAMS row, on behalf of Mr. Catterall, declared he
would proceed no further in that snit, and moved the Court
to allow him to proceed against his wife in a cause of divorce
by reason of her adultery, ingrafting this suit upon the
former, the wife (who is resident in New South Wales) hav-
ing appeared by proctor in the suit of nullity. The difficulty
in this case was, that in New. South Wales there was no court
possesed of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as in India, which
could take cognisance of the case. . Mr. Catterall, who was
resident in this country, had endeavoured to obtain a disso-
lution of the marriage, and a Bill was actually introduced
into the House of Lords for that purpose, and was read a
first time, when it was discovered that the House of Lords
had no authority to examine witnesses in New South Wales,
and the Bill in consequence dropped. It was then supposed
that the decision of the House of Lords in " Regina r. Alilles"
would have the effect of annulling this marriage; but that
decision was found not to go the length of pronouncing such
marriages not good for all intents and purposes. He now
moved the Court that, instead of sending out a fresh citation
to. New South Wales, he might be allowed to bring in a libel
in a cause of divorce by reason of adnitery.
Dr. LUSELIGTON deferred his decision till the next court-
day.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant Judge, and a full

bench of Magistrates.) -
Elizabeth Weistead was yesterday indicted, charged with
having stolen three lace collars, the property of Mary Howes.
Mr. Clarkson appeared for the prisoner.
The prosecutor, it appeared, keeps a linendraper's and
haberdasher's shop in Whitechapel. On Saturday last the
prisoner went into it, and asked to have some lace shown to
her. A considerable quantity of that material was accordingly
brought, from which, after a due examination of its contents,
she selected a piece, and at once paid for it. She then re-
quested to be shown some collars, whereupon a box contain-
ing a number of those articles was placed before her. After
having spent sometime in looking at the contents of the
box, she said that there was not one the pattern of which
met with her approval. Upon this the shopman turned round
to reach another box, which, having obtained, he put on the
counter. In looking at those collars which bad previously
been submitted to the inspection of the prisoner, he re-
marked that there were two missing. He nevertheless at the
moment thought it the better course not to say a word upon
the subject, but waited until she was about to leave the shop,
which she was in the act of doing without having made any
further purchase. lie thereupon called her back, and without
hesitation accused her of having stolen the collars which he
had missed. The prisoner, upon hearing the charge, at once
took them from under her cloak, saying that she was a'very
poor girl, and that distress had driven her to commit the
act. A policeman was immediately sent for, and into his
custody she was given upon his arrival.
Mr. CLARK-sox, on behalf of the prisoner, made a very
pOwerfhl appeal, in the course of which he suggested that it
was by no means impossible that she had unintentionally
taken up these collars with her other parcel ; and then ob-
served, that, in her alarm at the accusation of theft being
made against her, it was not at all unlikely but that she had,
as the witness had stated, scarcely knowing what she was
about, said that her poverty had induced her to commit
the act.
'A number of respectable witnesses were then called, all of
whom gave the prisoner the highest character for respect-
ability, propriety, and correctness of conduct.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence,
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Yesterday W. Child, a beadle employed in the neighbour-
hood of Trinity-square, was summoned before the Lord
Mayor for having unlawfully used abusive and insulting
language towards James Welch, with intent to provoke a
breach of the peace.
The complainant, who described himself as a dealer in fish
about Billingsgate, said that on the 10th of November, as
he was in Queen-street looking at the moyoralty procession,
the defendant walked up to him, called him a lazy thieving
vagabond, and told him to go about his business. Witness
said to Child, " Mind what you are saying of ; don't accuse
Me wrongfully," and:Child went away. Yesterday morning,
in Billingsgate- market, where witness was about his business,
Child watched him all over the market, and in fact was con-
stantly following and accusing him of being a thief, and did
all he could to prevent him from earning bread for his wife
and three children. Child had, about seven months ago,
pilled him before the Lord Mayor upon a false charge, and he
was sentenced to a month's imprisonment, but he solemnly
declared that he was completely innocent.
The LORD MAYOR—When were you convicted ? Com-
plainant—.on Whitsun Saturday.
The LORD MAYOR—Were you ever in any kind of trouble
before ? Complainant—Never in my life, and he always
alludes to that when he sees me.
Child—What else did I say to you on Lora Mayor's day ?
Complainant—Nothing else.
Child—Yes I did ; I told you you were in custody before,
and if you did not go away I should apprehend you again.
Arthur Frazer, a blacklead pencil-maker, residing in Brick-
lane, said that be was present on the 10th instant when he
heard Child call the complainant a skulking thief. The com-
plainant asked the officer's reason for saying so, but no an-
swer was returned.
W. J. Johnson, a porter in Billingsgate-market, said he
was standing at his master's form in the market, when the
complainant came up to him, and pointing at Child, there,
said, " Isn't it too hard that that man won't let me get a
morsel of bread for my wife and children ? I am afraid to
go anywhere for fear of his attacking me wrongfully, and
accusing me as he did before." Child continued to watch
him still.
Child said that there were great numbers of thieves about
at the time, and as he knew the complainant, and had
brought him up in the late mayoralty, when he was con-
victed, he told him that he must go away, or that he should
go to the station-house. He (defendant) did not consider
that he exceeded his duty in cautioning the complainant to
be gene.
W. Collier, policeman 455, was called by' Child as a
witness on his behalf. He said, that while standing at the
corner of Queen-street, he heard Child say to the complainant,
" If you don't go on, I shall take you into custody, forliknow
you to be a thief." There were a great number of bad cha-
racters about.
Child—My Lord, there was a regular hustling going on,
and several thieves had been taken out of the crowcL I saw
the complainant amongst the mob, and, knowing him, I told
him my belief.
The. Low) MAYOR (to Child)--I wholly 'disapprove of
your conduct in calling the man a thief. Taking it for
granted that he had been imprisoned for the commission of
an offence, he had paid the penalty, and it is inhuman to re-
proach a person under such circumstances in a manner cal-
culated to interfere with his chance of becoming better, and
getting his bread by honest industry. Let me hear no more
complaints of this description. I dare say your fault is to be
4ttributed to over-zeal, but it is particularly censurable in an
Officer to hunt out of honest labour those who may have
committed errors which they may be sincerely regretting.
His Lordship then directed that the expenses of the sum-
mons should be paid back to the complainant, and desired
him to go back to his occupation, in the honest course of
Which he should certainly be protected.
The observations of the Lord Mayor gave great satisfaction
to the hearers.

.• GUILDHALL.
Henry Habb,jam, a beershop-keeper, near the Elephant and
Castle, and Charles Crook, were further examined, charged
with stealing seven 51. Bank of England notes, which were
lost by or stolen from Miss Byfield, of Canonbury-place, on
her way from Messrs. Jones, Loyd, and Co.'s, to Islington, on
the Bth of September.

Mr. J. Payne, the bairister, attended on behalf of Crook,
and Mr. Hobler for Habbijam.
Mr. Hubbard conducted the prosecution.
Crook had made a voluntary• confession, and Pockman, the
City policeman, was now called to state that Crook had made
an addition by saying that Ilabbijam told him he bought the
notes. _ _

The notes were lost in the forenoon, and Crook having
changed one in the evening of the same day at a Mr. Stubbs's,
in Lambeth-walk, was taken into custody, and after three or
tour examinations he made a confession to the officer' which
led to the apprehension of Habbijam. Crook said he was
invited by Habbijam to go with him, and he went with him
to Walker's wine-vaults, At the Marsh-gate, where they had
some drink, and Ilabbijam changed a Si. note. They then
went to the Fountain, Lambeth-walk, and changed another.
.Crook signed his name in blue ink on this note. They
changed another at the Cock and Bottle, in China-walk,
and here the landlord sent out for the change to a corn-
chandler.
Mr. Bean, the landlord of the Fountain. Lambeth-walk,
was now called to corroborate this statement. He said when
be was questioned by the magistrate before he did not remem-
ber the circumstance, but he and his wife had talked about it
since, and he now recollected changing a 51. note. He did
mot see any person with Crook.
Henry Thomas Crook, the brother of the prisoner, said he
attended his brother's second examination, on the 22d of
October, and saw Habbijam in the justice-room, whea he
said he would stand in Crook's shoes for a halfpenny. When
his brother was apprehended he told him to call on Habbijam
and a man named Ridges, in Red Lion-street, Lock's-fields,
and tell them he was in custody ; they knew all about the
Business, and would tell him where Mr. Games, the solicitor,
lived. Habbijam said he was very sorry to hear Charley
was in trouble, as h 4 had known him some time, and their
wiyea were brought up togetinr, whoa they litw Mr.

1 11

Games, Habbijam said he wanted him to defend Charles
Crook. There was something amies about some notes. Mr.
Games said he did not know Crook. Habbijam replied, "Oh,
yes, you do, we call him 'Nelson," and described his person.
As they were returning Habbijam told witness to make him-
self easy, as he could bring a person who could prove Crook
had a horse and cart to sell, tho prisoner having accounted
for the possession of the notes by saying he received two in
payment for a horse and cart.
Mr. Aldirman WOOD saw nothing to change the opinion
lie expressed before that the case against Habbijam was very
weak. If Crook's confession had been confirmed in the
material points, he would have admitted him to give evi-
dence. Against Crook there was his own confession, and
abundant other evidence. He was shown to be in possession
of the stolen notes, and it would be for a jury to say
whether a guilty knowledge could be inferred from his con-
duct. By allowing an accomplice to become a witness upon
making a confession, insufficiently corroborated, he should
allow both the offenders to escape justice. There had been
seven examinatiens ; and he thought that, with more zeal
and intelligence on the part of the prosecution, a complete
case might have been got up; but it now appeared to be
hopeless. _ _

Mr. Hubbard justified himself against this censure. The
Alderman had no conception of the immense trouble that had
bran taken to find any witness acquinted with Habbijam, and
able to swear to his handwriting. One witness, who was
summoned for to-day, had sold off everything, shut up his
honse, and fled. In another instance, where a barman, who
changed a note, and was required to attend, his master, who
hail not changed it, and could give no evidence, had the
effrontery to come instead. He prayed another examination,
and for warrants against certain witnesses.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said he would willingly grant the
warrants and remand the prisoner till Tuesthy, Habbijam
continuing at large on his bail, as the case against' him was
so slight. ,
The prisoners were remanded.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Emanuel Goldsmith was brought up to undergo another
examination on the suspicion of having been implicated in a
robbery which occurred on Friday night last, at the house of
his master, Mr. Russell, jeweller, New Coventry-street.
About half-past six on Friday evening last the prisoner
informed police-constable Adams, who was on duty in Lei-
cester-square, that a robbery had been committed at No. 7,
New Coventry-street, and that he suspected the thieves were
still in the house. The constable went to the house, and, on'gain-
ing admission into the shop, found that it had been completely
stripped of its valuable stock, consisting ofjewellery, antiques,
and plate, to the amount of between 6001. and 700/,
The robbery had been managed with such address and de-
liberation, that the plated articles had been left untouched ;
and whereon it became necessary to remove the shades and
cases under which the valuables were kept, they were
carefully replaced in their original position. Information of
the robbery was immediately given to Mr. Russell, who
had another shop in King-street, and the suspicion fell on
the prisoner, who was shopman to Mr. Russell, and whose
business it was to sleep at the shop in New Coventry. street.
Mr. Russell stated that his grounds for suspicion against
the prisoner rested on several circumstances. First, that the
doors had been opened without violence, and this could have
been done by the prisoner, who was entrusted with the keys
of the premises. Next, that the valuable stock only had
been taken away, and the common left behind. The pri-
soner had been been made acquainted by his daughter as to
the character of the stock, and therefore was able to make a
correct selection. And, lastly, the confused and contradic-
tory account given by the prisoner of his movements from
live to seven o'clock on the evening when the robbery took
place.
Police-constable Adams was examined, and police-sergeant
Langley, of thedetective, also gave evidence, but they did
not succeed in making out a case beyond mere suspicion
against the prisoner. The opinion of police-sergeant Lang-
ley was, that the robbery had been either committed by
some one engaged on the premises, or by parties who had
contrived to make themselves previously well acquainted
with the stock. _ _

A solicitor, who attended for the prisoner, put the follow-
ing questions to the constable :
Solicitor—As one of the detective force, you must have
bad considerable experience in robberies of this sort. Now
are you not aware that thieves always carry with them their
own materials for producing a light ? Constable—lt is the
usual practice.
Solicitor—And do you tot know that thieves are suffi-
ciently well informed as to the value of property that they
can tell silver from plated goods, and real from mock jewels ?
Police-constable—ln general they can tell ; and it is
possible that the thieves might have looked over the stock
before they planned the robbery, under pretence of pur-
chasing.
Solicitor—Now did you ever know a lock that an expert
thief could not pick ? Constable—Any thief could have
picked the lock of the outer door ; but there was an inner
door, and, that I think could not have been picked unless
the party had previously taken an impression on wax.
Mr. Russell said he believed he should, at a future day, be
able to bring evidence of a more conclusive character, and he
therefore hoped the Magistrate would remand the prisoner
for a few days.

The prisoner's solicitor said there was no evidence what-
ever against his client. He trusted, therefore, the Magistrate
would not keep him any. longer in custody.
Mr. Russell, with much warmth, asked if a person upon
whom so much suspicion rested, who was charged with steal-
ing property to the amount of 7001. or 800/., was, on the mere
declaration of his innocence by his attorney, to be turned
loose on the public again?'
The solicitor said, after these observations, he was bound to
say that up to the present charge the prisoner had borne an
irreproachable character. He trusted, at least, he would be
admitted to bail.

Mr. HARDWICK declined to accept bail, and remanded the
prisoner for a week.

WORSHIP-STREET.

A middle-aged man, named Thomas Goldsmith, who was
stated to be in prosperous circumstances, was brought up for
final examination, charged with stealing one peck of coals,
the property of a gentleman named Stephens, residing at No.
20, Buccleuch-terrace, Upper Clapton.
It appeared from the evidence, that shortly before 7 o'clock
on Sunday morning the prisoner was observed by a lad,
named Wilson, to be lurking about in front of the prose-
cutor's residence, with an empty pail in his hand, and after
castinc, a cautious glance about him, to observe if he was
watched, suddenly clamber over the railings of Mr.
Stephens's area, from which he shortly after emerged with
the pail filled with coals, and was hurrying off in the direc-
tion of his own hone, when the boy informed a policeman of
what he had witnessed, and the prisoner was pursued and
taken into custody. On being searched at the police-station
his coat-pockets were also found to be crammed full of coals,
and on these being emptied out the officer was surprised to
find a quantity of gold and silver, nearly amounting to 21.,
which it was afterwards ascertained was the prisoner's own
money. The constable next. proceeded to search his house
in St. John's, Hackney, and on examining a trunk in his
bed-room discovered two deposit-books from as many
savings'-banks, which contained entries in the prisoner's
name in the whole amounting to upwards of 107/.
The prosecutor now attended, and expressed a hope, as the
prisoner was proved to be in circumstances of comparative
affluence, and it was obviously impossible for him to identify
the coals as his property, which would most probably cause
the prisoner's commitment on the charge, if the Court should
adopt that course, to result in an acquittal, that the magis-
trate would amerce him in some heavy penalty, to be ap-
priated to the relief of the numerous distressed objects having
claims upon the office poor-box.
The MAGISTRATE, however, said that he regretted he could
not accede to such a benevolent, suggestion, as the offence the
prisoner was charged with was not one in which a fine could
be inflicted; but, as it was doubtful whether a conviction
could be insured if the prisoner were sent for trial at the ses-
sions, and which course, moreover, would entail a conside-
rable expense upon the county, he should take upon himself
to deal summarily with the case, and order the prisoner to
be at once committed to the House of Correction for four-
teen days, with hard labour, for the offence of being foiled
upon the prosecutor's premises with the intention to commit a
felony.
The prisoner, who was described as a man of remarkable
penurious habits, and who evidently preferred the imprison-
ment to the payment of any penalty, was then removed in
the van.