The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-28 00:00:00

MARY LEBONE VESTRY.

On Saturday, at the weekly meeting of the Mary-
lebone Vestry, Mr. E. Joseph in the chair, Mr. Flood,
the vestry clerk, brought up and read the following
report St. Marylebone, March 23, 1842.—At the
committee appointed to investigate the circumstances
attending the abstraction of certain surplices from St.
John's Wood chapel; present, William Low, Esq., in
the chair. The committee having carefully investi-
gated the circumstances connected with the surplices
stolen from St. John's Wooil chapel, regret that they
are unable. to trace such surplices to any person or
persons whomsoever." _

Mr. Gomm having moved the adoption of the Report,
Mr. ANDERSON rose and said it was most unsatis-
factory that the committee could come to no other
conclusion, seeing that the, surplices had been traced
to the residence of a vestryman. From henceforth he
should take his seat as a vestryman of Marylebone
with the greatest reluctance, inasmuch as he con-
ceived that disgrace and' discredit were cast upon
every member composing it.
Mr. COCHRANE was surprised at the observations of
the last speaker. Surely; he would not pretend to
say that the stolen surplices had been traced to the
residence of a vestryman. If such were the fact, he,
too, would really be ashamed to take his seat, for it
would tend to make them appear the most disgraceful
body that ever existed.—(Hear, hear, and oh.) He
called upon Mr. Anderson to explain.
Mr. ANDERSON did not feel called upon to explain.
Mr. FOSTER felt the force of all the observations
made by Mr. Anderson.—(oh, oh, and hear, hear.)
It was true they were unable to fix the robbery of
the surplices upon any person, but still the Report of
the Committee was most unintelligible. Although
he (Mr. Foster) did not believe them to be the same
surplices as those which were the parish property, still
the police did trace, at the period of the robbery, cer-
tain surplices to the house of a vestryman, that ves-
tryman being himself a member of the Committee.
Mr. COCHRANE—Good heavens !

Mr. GOMM said it was shameful to cast imputations
upon any one, without a tittle of proof.—(Hear, hear.)
The wife of the vestry had purchased, as a ward-
robe-keeper, certain sues, and they had been
made into other articles of dress, but on being taken
to St. John's Wood Chapel, 'they were declared to be
quite a different cloth to those stolen. There was not
a shadow of a shade of suspicion.
Mr. SODEN said the charge against the vestryman
by certain parties, was because he was a strong poli-
tical opponent of theirs, and they wished to see him
disgraced.—(Hear, hear, and oil !) But they had
not succeeded.

The Rev. Dr. DIIIDIN said this was really a very
ominous day for that vestry, when a member of it
was charged with having his wife implicated in such a
transaction. It was an implication so odious, repul-
sive, and abominable, that the vestry ought not to rest
24 hours under it.

Mr. GIBSON said there could be no doubt of the
charge being the result of gander from evil disposed
persons, but, in order that the refutation should go
fully forth, he would move that the Report be referred
back to the Committee.

Mr. W. EYRE seconded the amendment. The re-
port had gone forth, and it was proper that it should
be fairly met.
A VESTRYMAN said he .was the party alluded to, and
it was nothing more nor less than an attempt to stab
his political character. The surplices were bought by
his wife from a lady residing at Battersea.
On the question being put, the Report was adopted
by a large majority.'

On Saturday, at the Surrey. sessions, Solomon
Reeves, a labourer on the South Eastern Railway, was
indicted for an assault on Thomas Gower, on the evening
of the 22d of February, in the parish of Bletchingly.
It appeared that this case'was connected with some of
those disgraceful transactions which have lately occurred
on the railway lines. The defendant, with nearly a
hundred other labourers, forced an entrance into the
house of the prosecutor, who keeps a beer .shop, and sells
cheese and grocery, and demanded refreshments. They
were refused, and defendant then said he would break
the prosecutor's head and serve him the same as the
others (alluding to two attacks and robberies committed
in the neighbourhood on the preceding day, for which
eleven men have been sentenced to fifteen years' trans-
portation). He then attempted to get over the counter,
but the prosecutor drew a pistol, and swore that the
first man who got over should receive the contents in
his head. The threat had the effect of causing the de-
fendant to withdraw himself a little, but he subsequently
struck the prosecutor, who had put the pistol in his
pocket, several blows with his fists. A policeman was
called, but he was told that if he interfered they would
do for him, and he therefore retired ; he subsequently,
however, returned with a body of constables, and suc-
ceeded in apprehending the prisoner. The Jury brought
in a-verdict of Guilty, and the Chairman, after animad-
verting ,on the gross character of the offence, and the
necessity of at once putting an end to such conduct, sen-
tenced the prisoner to twelve months' imprisonment and
hard labour.