The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-17 00:00:00

POLICE. INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.—THE LATE BURqtARIIS ix
TIIE Ciry.--Yesterday Mary Anne and Elizabeth Dove,
who were a few days ago charged with having beencon-
cerned in the robberies which were committed within the
last month; in a house in Cornhill, and another in St.
Mary Axe, were brought before the Lord Mayor for a se-
cond examination.

Mr. Humphreys, the solicitor for_ the prisoners, when
the first case against his clients (the burglary and robbery
in the house of Mr. Hobten, of Cornhill) was entered into,
stated to the Lord Mayor that he had evidence to prove that
the elder of the prisoners was the wife of the man in whose
house the stolen chith was found--a circumstance which,
he submitted, would be essential to the case.
The LORD MAYOR—Very well, Sir, I am ready to re-
ceive any evidence which you may think proper to tend on
the part of the prisoners.
Solicitor for the prisoners—The witnesses to prove that
she is a married woman are here, my Lord. Will you
please to call them? '
The Loan MAYOR—Certainly not. If you please you
may call and examine them. It is not my business.
Solicitor—l do not know for what offence you may think
proper to commit' them, and, therefore, I cannot decide
what atirt of evidence it is proper for me to call. Pray,
my Lord, for what are you going to commit them?
The Loan Ma.voit—l do not conceive that it is at all
necessary that you should be informed.
Solicitor—Your Lordship may think proper to commit
either for a misdemeanour, or, under a recent Act, for a
felony. It is of consequence to my clients that I should be
informed whether they areto be committed as principals in
the robbery, or as receivers.
The Loan MAYOR--I certainly shall not say which.
Solicitor-I cannot know what evidence is necessary
until I knoW what my clients are charged with.
- The Loan lavou asked the elder prisoner whether she
hail any thing to say. She replied in the negative.
Solicitor—l submit to your Lordship whether there is
any evidence as to felony. t
The Loan MAYOR—.I shall not answer, that.
Solicitor—Then I shall call no witnesses. It is suf-
ficient for my purpose if I tender the evidence, which I
hereby do.
The LORD MAYOR.--.NO ; that course won't do. I
shall have it'put down that the prisoner declined calling
witnesses. • She has said nothing in her defence.
Solicitor-She has said that she' is a married woman.
The LORD MAYOR—No ; she' has declined saying ass
thing.
Solicitor—Then (to Margaret Dove) say that you plead
that you are the wife of Henry Dove. This wail accord=
ingly done.
The LORD MAYOR (to the Chief Clerk)—Put it down
in the depositions that she says she is a married woman,
and that she declines calling witnesses.
Mr. HOBLER, jun., for the prosecution in the two cases
of burglary and robbery, said that the fact -of the elder
prisoner being married was not at all material, as it was
not demonstrable that she was sub potestate yin in either
case. He submitted that the evidence was sufficient to
justify the committal for felony. • •

The depositions having been read over,
The Loau 111AYOR said that the cloth having been
found on the preniises, where it lay with.the knowledge of
the prisoners, so recently after the commission of- the bur-
glary, he should not hesitate to commit both prisoners for
felony. His Lordship stated that he thought it necessary
to mention that he presumed the guilt.of Elizabeth Dove,
from the circumstance of her declaring that the bundle she
bad in her hand.contained foul linen, and her objecting to
"shew its contents to the officer.

The second case of burglary and robbery (that in the
warehouse of Mr. Smith, of St. Mary Axe) was then
gone into. A man named William Chick, who was ap-
prehended a few days ago, was then ptit to the bar, along
with Mary Aim Dove, charged with having been con-
cerned in the offence. -

Daniel and John ForreSter, and Herdsfield, went to the
miserable hovel of Chick, in Roston, a few days afro, in
consquence of information on the subject of the stolen co-
chineal ; Chick, upon being told that the officers wanted
something, admitted that there was something in the
}Rinse, but denied that he knew any thing about it, and
declared that some men had thrown it into the room and
di,'iappeared. • ,

The depositions against Mary Anne Dove and Chick
were then read over, and they were both, committed for
the felony, in the second.case. Elizabeth was merely com-
mitted in the first.
The. Logi). MAYOR Said, that it was in the -

opthn of
edtttier f4elocvy or
the innistionearnour, although he distinctly committee for
the 'former in both.

MARLBOROUG H-STREET. —Yesterday J. Hayes,
an Irishman, and a person dressed as a gentleman, who gave
his name William Williams, but which is not considered
to be his real name, were brought from St. Giles's wata-
house, charged with having committed an assault of a hor-
rible description.
• Hayes is a-man in htunble circumstances, and keeps a
fruit stall in Piccadilly. The other prisoner is evidently of
higher circumstances, and, by his own account has been a
chemist and druggist at Hull, in Yorkshire. He had on
his person a gold watch and appendages, a gold neck chain,
a diamondring,.and a pair of silver spectacles, with green
glasses ; but no papers of any description, so as to lead to
the discovery of his real name orplace of abOde, were found
upon him.
Mrs. Leavers, of No. 3, Lumber-court, Seven Dials,
stated that the prisoner Hayes lodged in her house, that
circumstances had previously ,occurred which excited her
suspicion that the, prisoner Hayes ivas an improper charac-
ter, and amongst others, was the fact of his being visited
by several gentlemen, disguised and muffled up in great
coats. On' the preceding night Hayes returned home with
the other prisoner, and after going to his (Hayes) own
apartment, they entered an adjoining empty room, and
locked the door. She then gave information to Line, the
watchman, and he took them into custody under circum.
stances not fit to be related.
The watchman gave his evidence in corroboration of
the last witness, and added, that Williams was taken on the
top of the house, endeavouring to escape.
The MAGISTRATX called. upon the prisoners to state
what they had to say to the charge.
Hayes
purchasing fruit On the preceding night he
saidfr knewutiltiaatthheiss .the " gentlean" only from
amlnii:
met the " gentleman" near the English Opera House,
he asked him to take some beer with him. He (Williams)
first accosted him with "Well, my Grecian, is that you ?"
He admitted having been treated by the gentleman on se-
veral previous occasions.
Williams said that he was, as previously stated, a che-
mist from the country, and was not known in London. He
resided sometimes at the Spread Eagle Tavern, and some-
times at the Tavistock Hotel. •

Upon the Magi4trate asking whether he was known to
the proprietors of either of those taverns, he replied that he
was not.

Along inquiry subsequently took place by the Magis-
trate, with the 'view of dificoverin," who Williams really
was, but nothing further than has been stated could be eli-
cited from him.

Both prisoners were remanded for further examination.
After Williams was locked up, a person came to the
office, requesting to speak to the person who was com-
mitted for an assault. Now as there are generally from a
dozen to twenty persons daily committed to this office for
assaults, of course the officer applied to request the name
of the party he wished to see. This, however, the appli-
cant said he could not tell ; notwithstanding the Magistrate
permitted this person to see Williams in the presence of
Pepper, the gaoler. Williams afterwards wrote a letter,
addressed to a Mrs. —, at Lincoln. It is expected, on
the re-examination, that some additional facts respecting
Williams may be brought to light, although, in the present
state of the evidence, it is not considered sufficient to bring
home the charge for a capital offence against the two de-
linquents.
UNION-HALL—A neatly-attind young woman, with
a baby in her arms, whoSe name entered in the constable's
barge book was Eli;abeth Clark, Was yesterday brought
before M. SwAnzr, Esq., the presiding Magistrate, ac-
cused of stealing a silk shawl at the Coburgh Theatre the
preceding evening.
• The prisoner was stopped by the constable as she was
passing out of the place of amusement, immediately before
the half-price commenced ; and as she was descending the
stairs from the.gallery, a silk shawl dropped from her Pit-
son. She was followed by a woman who accused her of
having stolen it.
A witness who bad known the prisoner some years, said
that the prisoner having dropped her own shawl picked it
up, and as the one belonging to the complainant was lying
down, she must have seized them both without a felonious
intention.
_ _ .

A solicitor, who attended on behalf of the prisoner, re-
presented her as being respectably connected, and could
prove that she was above such an act as that which was
'ascribed to her.

Mr., SWA ism asked the woman who preferred the charge
if she wished to proceed with it, and being answered in
the negative, -dismissed the prisoner with a caution as to
her future conduct, observing that there was certainly a:
doubt about the case, nevertheless her conduct was not
free from suspicion.
We ought to hAye remarked tlu t the motAblq Who Plc-

vented the prisoner kin quitting the theatre, degeribed her
as' being 'very anxious, to depart. • •
The prisoner accounted for this on the ground that she
wanted to go and procure refreshinent before the persons
who were entitled to •enter •at half-price could occupy the
seats, as the theatre was likely to be very much crowded,
on account of the attractive pieces always produced by the

manager.

LAW INTJLLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Aua. 16.
LONGMAN AND GO..V. SMITH.

This was an application to dissolve an injunction
obtained, to iestrain'the defendant. from pirating any
part .of_ the additions which the plaintiffs had made
to a new edition of the Abridgment of 'Murray':
English qrammar.
The case had been several times before.the Court,
and was now..finally disposed of. . .
Mr. Smith, the defendant appearedin person to
move that the injunction be distolved. He said that
the plaintiffs had first of all sworn that he had pirated
60 pages • then that he had pirated nearly the whole
book; and lastly, that he had pirated 30 pages.

EX-PARTE SMITH, IN THE MATTER OF MILES.

This was a petition presented by the assignees of
the bankiupt, and it prayed of the Court an order to
expunge the proof of a debt admitted by the Com-
missioners. The objection taken to the proof was,
that notice had not been given to the assignees that
the accommodation bill which formed the subject of
the debt had been dishonoured.
Mr. RosE supported the petition.

Mr. KNIGHT; on the other side, read several affi-
davits, which deposed that distinct notice of the fact
had been given to the bankrupt. The Learned
Counsel also animadverted upon the vexatious nature
of the proceedings in this case. The parties, instead
of settling the matter before. the Commissioners, who
had been invested, by the new Bankrupt Act, with
full power to expunge the plod of a debt, had Chosen
the very, expensive mode of applying to that Court.
Mr. ROSE said he was convinced; from his own
knowledge, that the expense of an appeal to the
Commissioners was much greater than that of a pe-
tition to that Court.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR. was of opinion, that'the
evidence in favour of notice baying been given pre-,
ponderated, and be must, therefore, dismiss the
petition.