The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-25 00:00:00

STANDARD.—On Wednesday, at Chelsea, a poor
woman, a domestic servant, but, as it is -said, respect-
ably connected, destroyed herself by cutting her throat.
the Coroner's jury sail, " in a fit of temporary insanity,
caused by the dread of prosecution for shop•lifling."
In the particular „cake the dread of prosecution
was, we believe, groundless, for the gentleman from
whose shop the wretched woman had stolen some
ribbons, upon his oath di.:claimAl any purpose of
prose •utirg ; and we have no right, even if an honest
man's eath were not conclusive, to surmise such savage
cruelty, as prosecuting the stealer of a few ribbons,,to
any one. The unhappy creature was the victim, not of
the gentleman whom she had plundered, but of others
who have made the prosecution of "lady thieves"
notorious. We have as little compassion as any
can have for the offences of persons above
the reach _ of want, who commit offences for

which want it,elf is an imperfect apology ; hut we have,
and we suppose all ought to have, compassion for that
infirmity of intellect which alone eau cause persons in a
respectable station of life to hazard what to-them is not
merely punishment, but utter ruin and degradation,
for the sake of trifles which, if their intellects were not

• • •• 44.• J•
infirm, must be things wholly beneath their care ;
and we have no feeling but that of loathing, for those
who pursue such unhappy beings to the utter ruin and
degradation that, by their weakness of understanding,
they may incur. It is good to support the law, no doubt,
but the law is not supported ; it is umde hateful when it
is made the instrument of ruin to weak-minded trans-
gressors, and of torture, if not extortion, to their innocent
connexions. We should like to: know whether these
fierce chanpions of law never violate the law them
selves ? It has bf en suggested to us that there is
an ingenious policy in taking every opportunity of
posing and ruining "lady thieves." There are some
dealers who find it more convenient and more profitable
to treat with servants than with principals, but such
cannot devise a better mode of exclu.iing the latter than
by now and then destroying a "lady thief."

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
LAMBETH.
THE LATE CASE OF POISONING AT CAMBERWELL.-
Last evening, after the other charges, which did not pos-
sess the slightest feature of public, interest, had been
disposed of, George May, the shopman and confidential
servant of the late Mr. Montague, a grocer at Camber-
well, who, as well as his wife, had been poison:A on the
11th of last month, surrendered to his bail, to undergo
his tinal examination before Mr. Henry, on a charge of
embezzlement and forgery.
Mr. Wall.nger, the banister, and Mr. D.)dd, the vestry
clerk of Camberwell parish, appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr. Humphries, the solicitor, attended on behalf of
the prisoner.
Previous to the case being entered on, Mr. Wit!linger,
in reply to a question from Mr. Henry, said that he had
caretutly conzidered the nature of the evdenee against
the prisoner, and his impression was, that there was
sufficient to send the case before a jury on the charge of
embezzlement, but with respect to the charge of forgery
he should not at present press it.
The Learned Gentleman then called Mr. Samuel

Church Boyce, an accountant, who deposed that he had
investigated the accounts of the late Mr. Montague. and
from them he was of opinion that the deceased was in
solvent circumstances at the time of his death. The
witness was here askel as to his opinion on a bill made
out by the late Mr. Montague, of moneys due to him
from Mr. Smith, one of his customers; but Mr. Hum-
phries objected to his doing so.
Mr. HENRY admitted the objection, and told Mr. Wal-
linger that all that could be done would he to ppt the
account itself in, and leave the jury, as men of business,
to draw their own conclusions from it.
Mr. Humphries, in his cross examination of. • Mr.
Boyce, asked if 'he was aware that there had been any
administration to the effects of the deceased ?—when
two of the nephews of the late Mr. Montague, who were
present, rose, and said that their father, who was brother
to the deceased, had administered to his eff,Tts, and that
letters of administration had been regularly granted to
him.

Mr. HENRY supposed the of jrct cf Mr. Humphries in
putting the question was to ascertain the amount proved?
Mr. Humphries replied that he would at once tell.
His object in putting it was this:—lt had been stated
that no letters of administration had been taken out to
the effects of the ch ceased, and this was rendered the
more probable from the fact of the deceased being in-
solvent.
Mr. HENRY remarked that it was very seldom indeed
that parties administered to an insolvent estate.
Mr. Humphries thought it was more frequently done
than his Worship was aware of.
Mr. Joseph Montague said that, after the lamentable
death of his late uncle and aunt, he took possession of
the whole of the books and papers in the shop, and
handed them over to Mr. Boyce, the accountant.
Mrs. Lucy Mears, the wife of a gardener at Camber-
well, deposed that she was laundress to the late Mr. and
Mrs. Montague, and was in the frequent habit of calling
at their shop ; and was also laundress to the family of
Mr. Smith, a gentlemen who resided in the same row.
In the month of September last, she was in the shop of
Mr. Montague, and heard him and Mrs. Montague in
conversation about money matters. The prisoner May
was in the shop at the time, and had he been listening
must have heard what Mr. and Mrs. Montague said.
Could not recollect whether there was any other person
in the shop at the time besides Mr. and Mrs. Montague,
the prisoner, and herself, but her impression was that
the prisoner had heard what had been said by the de-
ceased, as it had been spoken in rather a loud tone of
voice. Mr. Montague said ho could not think what was
the reason why Mrs. Smith did not discharge his bill as
well as the rest of her tr4bsmen. He said he under
stood Mrs. smith had paid every tradesman but him, and
could not think the reason she should have excepted
him. He further said that Mr. Smith was a builder, and
perhaps might have wanted the money for another pur- '
pose. There was another occasion, about Christmas last,
when she (witness) was ir. the shop of Mr. Montague,
and heard him speak about Mrs. Smith, No. 9 in the
row. At the time there were wher persons in the shop,
but she could not recollect how many or who they were.
The prisoner was packing up a basket of goods, and
might have heard the deceased if he had been listening.
Mrs. Montague said to her husband, " Serve you right ;
you should have taken your bill to No 9 yourself, and
you would have got your money." Witness thought the
person meant by this conversation was Mrs. Smith, at
No. 9.
Mr. Wallinger here handed to Mr. Henry a bill, made
out in the handwriting of Mr. Montague, and which had
been found in the ledger after his death, and in which
was inserted the amount weekly of the goods supplied to
Mr. Smith, from the month of April, 1844, to Christmas,
and which amounted in the aggregate to 261. Bs. Oid.,
and said, that coupling this with the circumstances men-

tioned by the last witness, there was a strong presump-
tion that the deceased had been under the impression
that this amount was still owing by Mr. Smi:h, and in
confirmation of this opinion he pointed out the exact
amount, 264 Bs. Ofd., written by the deceased in the
margin of the ledger.
Mr. HENRY would leave the case to be submitted to
the grand jury, if the prosecuting party should think
proper to send a bill of indictment before them. For
his own part, he did not think the case sufficiently made
out or strong enough tosend it before a petty jury. It was
his duty not to send a ease for trial unless he saw some
reasonable grounds for a conviction, and as he did not
see any chance for a conviction in the present case, and
as it was, in fact, doubtful whether a judge would have
let the case go to a jury at all, he should discharge the
prisoner. _ _

The prisoner. on leaving the dock, was joined by a
crowd of friends, who had previously thronged the
Court, aad who upon hearing of the determination of the
magistrate, gave way to some exultation.