The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-07 00:00:00

The next charge was made by Mr. Lonsdale,
hosier, Regent-street. The prisoner, it appeared, had
called at the shop, and obtained, at various times
handkerchiefs, stockings, and other property, to the
amount of 131. The prisoner had always stated that
she had been sent by the Hon. Mr. Laseelies.
The Hon. Mr. Lascelles deposed that he had never
authorised the prisoner to obtain goods from Mr.
Lonsdale.

The parties in this case were also bound over to
prosecute.
Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Smith inquired about the
property which had been pledged by the prisoner.
The pawnbrokers were present, and the goods could
be identified by the owners, as some had private
marks on them.

It was understood that the ultimate disposition of
the property was to await the issue of the trial of the
prisoner.

CLERKENW ELL.
Mr. James Elliot, an attorney, residing in Bruns-
wick-street, Barnsbury-road, Islington, was brought
before Mr. Greenwood, in custody of the master of
the Islington workhouse, and other parish authorities,
charged as being of unsound mind, and a person who
was unfit to enjoy personal liberty.
The evidence to sustain the charge of insanity was
given by one of the warrant-officers of the Court.
He deposed that on Saturday night week he went to
his residence to serve a warrant on him for breaking
a door; it was between eight and nine o'clock; the
prispner was perfectly naked, with the exception of a
blanket thrown round his shoulders, and declaiming
scriptural texts, from a Bible fastened to a wall, with
great violence of language and gesture. On Monday
he again visited him, when he was occupied in the
same manner, and nearly in the same naked con-
dition. The parish authorities took him into custody,
and placed him in the workhouse four days ago,
where he had since remained.
Mr. GREENWOOD refused to interfere, and the
prisoner withdrew.
WORSHIP-STREET.

Charles and Mary Greenwood, a decent looking
married couple, were charged before Mr. Bingham
with having violently assaulted two policeman of the
K division, and rescued a prisoner from their custody.
Police constable B 70, stated, that he was on duty
in Hackney-road, at one o'clock on. that morning,
when he heard a loud uproar, which was created by
a drunken man, who lodged in Minerva-street, in the
same house with the prisoners. Witness repaired to
the spot with another officer, and, after a good deal of
persuasion,. they induced the man to retire into his
house, but he came out again soon after, and renewed
the disturbance, upon which they took him into cus-
tody. As they were endeavouring to remove him,
however, the prisoners and two others persons rushed
out of the house, and rescued him from them. The
male prisoner had only his shirt on, but he was armed
with a large and heavy piece of wood, with which he
struck witness a violent blow on the face, and caused
his nose and mouth to bleed profusely. He then
retreated back into the house, but witness followed
him, and took him into custody.
In answer to the charge, the male prisoner said he
was aroused from his sleep bythe disturbance in the
street; and, on looking out of the window, he saw the
policemen engaged in a struggle with a man whom
they were beating in an unmerciful manner with their
truncheons. The man's wife, who was standing by,
implored them not to murder her husband ; and on
seeing him at the window, she begged him to come
down and interfere on her behalf. He accordingly
went to the street door, and requested the policemen
to desist from ill-using the man, and either to let him
go or take him at once to the station-house. He had
no sooner urged the request, however, than the police-
men relinquished their hold of the man, and ran to-
wards him, and having pursued him up stairs, they
took him and his wife into custody.
Joseph Powley, a shoemaker, living opposite to the
prisoner, stated that he looked out of his window on
hearing the alarm, and saw the policeman struggling
with the-drunken man, and using their truncheons
with the utmost violence. He heard the prisoner re-
monstrate with them from thee
thresholdnd n
eoftred
his own
door, upon which they left man, and
house after the prisoner, whom they. brought out,
together with his wife, in their custody
Mr. BINGHAM said that the case wasirone of so much
decisioni m po rt a n cr
ee
s,
pt
ehteati
ehge
it
to uwl t
hneoutpa rsrei
ev
ien agt
tah
esatisfactory
r,
andllhlee
pshriosueled adjourn
ersw,e it forrelitlerlis attendanceaitedupenbail
for
their
appearance on Thursday next.

EXTRAORDINARY MATRIMONIAL AM:IR.—The
love .%ffair in Dublin that appeared this week in the
papers will find something to do for the bar.
The ,gall'Aut Captain G--, of the 84th Regiment,
came- over. from Chatham at the desire of Miss
—g to be married. The dresses were made
up, and the hour fixed, when the fair one gave
the Captain the slip, and went off with an old flame,
a Mr. whom her friends had discarded. It
appears her father left her fifty thousand pounds
fortune. It is said that Captain G— is about to
institute a suit for breach of promise of marriage
Against Miss ll—g.—Limerick Chronicc.

The defendant said he defied any one to say that he
had ever in his life committed an act of smuggling.
Deputy Peacock and some other gentlemen of the
Corporation waited upon the Lord Mayor for the
purpose of complaining to his Lordship of the shoot-
ing upon the artillery ground at Woolwich. The
Deputy said that on the day before, in passing by the
Woolwich artillery ground, in one of the Star Com-
pany's boats, a ball passed over the raised ground
into the river, within a few yards of the bows of the
vessel. He, considered that if the ball had fallen a
few yards nearer to him very great destruction would
have taken place. The captain of the same vessel had
undergone a similar hazard as he passed some time
ago, and two or three years ago the head of a water-
man was actually blown off from the gunnery at
Woolwich.
The LORD MAYOR said he had never heard of
such a calamity, and asked whether it was generally
known.
Deputy Peacock said it ought certainly to have
been made known, and he did not know how it could
have been concealed from the public knowledge.
Mr. Hobler said that complaints had been made
of the dangers arising from the practice in the artillery
ground, and that a representation to—the authorities
was always efficacious in putting a stop to it.
One of the Deputation to the Lord Mayor said that
bombs often struck the opposite bank of the river.
The LORD MAYOR said that the practice ought not
to extend to the river, and that he should at once
write to the Ordnance Department upon the subject.
Mr. Godson, the Deputy of Aldersgate Ward, said
he waited upon the Lord Mayor for the purpose of
asking his Lordship whether what was complained of
generally as a very great nuisance could not be abated
or altogether removed. He had gone with his family
to Fresh Wharf, Thames-street, in order to get on
board a steamer for Gravesend, and upon entering the
wharf a dirty fellow demanded half-a-crown of him
for wharfage. He by no means objected to pay the
demand, but he requested that a ticket should be fur-
nished to him of the amount. The acknowledgment
was refused, and he was referred to the clerk. He
applied to the clerk, but he was treated with very
nearly as little ceremony by these gentlemen.
The LORD MAYOR said, that he, as a wharfinger,
would certainly not allow any clerk or other person
in his employment, to take money without giving an
acknowledgment for it. A wharfinger would be sub-
ject to loss himself, if he were to permit any Qther
practice, so that he had his own property as well as
the property of the public to look to in having his re-
gulations rigidly attended to. His Lordship was
convinced that the proprietor of Fresh Wharf would
take care to look into the abuse complained of, on
having the representation made to him.
Deputy Godson said he had no doubt of the inter-
ference of Mr. Knill to prevent any repetition of the
nuisance, and stated that he had heard of so many in-
stances of annoyances of this kind, especially in the
case of females, that he was determined to mention
what he had himself been a witness to, in the presence
of the Chief Magistrate, who was so well qualified to
judge of the duties of a wharfinger.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Harriet Davison was brought before Mr. Maltby
for final examination, charged with having defrauded
several tradesmen by obtaining goods under the frau-
dulent pretence that they were for the Hon. Mr. and
Lady Lascelles, of 'Wilton-place.
Charles Thorpe shopman to Messrs. Dickens,
Smith, and Co., silk-mercers, Regent-street, stated
that in October last the prisoner came to the shop,
stating she was sent to make some purchases for Lady
Lascelles, a customer. Witness served her with the
articles she asked for, which consisted of plaid, lace,
velvet, and French cambric. These goods were
packed up and given to the prisoner, in the belief that
they were for Lady Lascelles. In about two days
afterwards the prisoner called again, and said she had
made a mistake in the quantity of lawn, which ought
to have been sixteen yards instead of six, and she was
accordingly supplied with ten yards more. A few days
afterwards she came again for some silk, for two
mantles for the young ladies, and she took the goods
away. Witness served all these articles under the
impression they had been ordered by Lady Lascelles.
On a former day proof was brought forward of the
manner in which the prisoner came into custody.
Messrs. Dickens and Smith had been apprised of the
prisoner's proceedings, and when she came last week
for some more goods, she was detained, and given into
the custody of a policeman.
The Hon. Mr. Sebright Lascelles, of Wilton-cres-
cent, said the prisoner had been engaged as wet-nurse
by Lady Lascelles, and had been discharged last
January. In October last Lady Lascelles was on a
visit at Chatsworth. At present Lady Lascelles was
too much indisposed to be able to attend to give evidence.
All parties were bound over to prosecute in this
case.