The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-20 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.—Yesterday, Mr. Francis Dhuory,
wine and drug merchant, of •No. 12, Little Britain, ap-
peared at this Office, on a charge of bastardy, preferred
against him by the officers of St. Martin's parish.
Mr. Rawlings, the assistant-overseer, produced the de-
position of Elizabeth Worthy, which was sworn to in the
presence of Mr. Mirisnum., and which stated, that the
defendant, Francis Dhuory, was the father of the child of
which she had been delivered, about three weeks before,
in the workhouse of St. Martin's parish. Mr. Rawlings
added, that the unfortunate young woman who had
given birth to the child was now no more, and the parish
'was obliged to proceed against the defendant for its main-
tenance, and also for the expellees incurred at the time of
its birth.

Mr. MlNsifunt said, he recollected the young woman
coming before him, and. asked if any person waswesent
who could swear to the identity of the infant.
A young woman, who held the child in her arms, said
she could give the necessary proof.
A respectable-looking woman, in mourning, who proved
to be the mother of the deceased, observed there could be
no doubt of the child's identity.
Mr. Dhuory said something, rather indistinctly, about a
want of proof.
Mr. MiNsuutr. asked him if he were a married man ?

Mr. Dhuory.—l am.
Mr. Read,' the proprietor of Slaughter's Coffee-house,
St. Martin's-lane, and who is also overseer of the poor for
Spur-alley-yard ward, in the same parish, addressing the
defendant, said, that his conduct towards the unfortunate
deceased was both unmanly and unfeeling; "for," said
Mr. Read, "after seducing her from her home in Spa-
fields, and keeping her for three years, when, at the end
of that time, she proved pregnant by you, you turned her
out into the streets, and told her she might go and be d—d."
Mr. Dhuory (to Mr. Read).—You know nothing about
the business, Sir ; you shoal mind what you say.
Mr. Read—But I do know about the business, and I re-
peat that your treatment of the unfortunate young woman,
whom I often saw in the workhouse, was most unkind and
unfeeling.
Mr. Dhuory—You have no right to interfere, Sir.
Mr. Read—l have a right to interfere ;itis my duty
to do so ; you never contributed a penny to purchase her
one necessary in her trouble, and I repeat—
Mr. have nothing to do with what may

have occurred between the parties previous to the birth of
the child. The mother has distinctly swore that you are
the father, and the only question for me to decide is, the
weekly sum you must pay for its support. What are your
circumstances?
Mr. Rawlings.—Oh ! he is well able to pay, Sir. He
is a merchant, and a man of property. I think I Os. a week,
your Worship, is little enough.
Mr. Dhuory—Ten shillings a week ! 'tis too much. 1
was ordered to pay only half a crown a week on another
occasion, and why should I pay 10s. now ? I can't afford it.
Mr. Mirtsmn.r.—You can balance accounts, you know ;
by which you will find you have provided for two children
for 12s. 6d. a week.
Mr. WILLIAMS, a county magistrate on the Bench, said,
the admission of the defendant that he was paying for
another illegitimate child, after acknowledging he was a
married man, tended considerably to aggravate the case.
Mr. MrusituLL—l think so too; and I shall make the
order for 10s.
Mr. Dhuory repeated his inability to pay that sum.
Mr. Mixsuum.—What ! a merchant in the city unable
to pay 10s. a week ?
Mr. Dhuory—Merchants are as often behindhand as
other people.
Mr. MiNsuntr.—You should have thought of your
means, Sir, before you incurred the responsibility of bring-
ing children into the world. You cannot expect that
others are to pay for your offspring. Let the order be made
out for 10s.
The order was made out accordingly, and a bill for five
guineas, including the expences incurred by the parish dur-
ing the confinement of the deceased, being handed to the
defendant, he wrote a cheque on his bankers for the amount,
and the parties withdrew. . •

MARYLEBONE.— George Neeshain, a young ma❑
whose clothes appeared to have been long in his service,
was charged by Mary Sturt, a smart young woman, with
being drunk and disorderly in Vere-street, Oxford-street, at
half past twelve yesterday morning.
Mrs. Sturt, after giving her address, No. 4, Angel-
court, in the Strand, proceeded to state, that as she was
walking along the streets at the time before-mentioned, the
defendant behaved with rudeness towards her, and on at-
tempting to take bold of her, fell upon the steps of a door,
and dropped a quantity of money. Seeing he was intoxi-
cated, she assisted him in picking it up, after which he ac-
cused her of stealing a sovereign, and sent her to the watch-
house, where it became evident, from his own statement,
that he had not lost one, and she was liberated. Mrs. Stint
further stated, that after she left the watchhouse, he followed
her and grossly insulted her in Vere-street, so that she was
compelled to give him in charge.
The defendant (who described himself " a Member of
College," living at 322, Oxford-street) having no excuse
to offer, was fined ss. by Mr. Hoskins for being drunk,
and placed under the gaoler's care, until he gave bail for
his appearance in answer to the charge of assault.
Richard Shadwell, driver of the hackney-coach, No.
247, was fined 20s. and costs, for using abusive language
on Saturday night towards Mr. Henry Nassau, of No. 41,
Baker-street, his fare.
A footman belonging to Mr. Nassau bore testimony to
the language used by the driver, which is unfit to be re-
peated, and
Mr. Nassau stated that he had given no provocation, for
he put 58. 6d. into his hand, which is beyond what he
could demand for bringing him from Vauxhall.

LONDON ADJOURNED SESSIONS.

THE PARISH OP ST. ANDREW, HOLBORN, V. THE REV,

MR. TYSON.

This was an appeal from the decision of the Lord Mayor,
who some time ago made an order of affiliation against the
Rev. defendant.

Mr. Anor.Pnus expressed a wish that there might be
some error in the notices, by which it would become un-
necessary to proceed further in this business ; but there was
no irregularity of any kind. He stated that the only
question the Court had to try was, whether the reverend
appellant was or was not the father of the child. They
would, in all probability, be supplied with a specimen of
the bad feeling already exhibited upon this subject against
the poor girl. He would not, however, attempt to aggra-
vate the case by any observations, but would be content
with proving that the appellant was the father of-tire child
by the only testimony possible in cases of the kindthat of
the mother; who would also swear that she hadMeen
seduced by the person who now so resolutely denied that
his 'acquaintance with her was other than ordinary. To
her credit, the injury done to her innocence had ilot
degraded her into habits of prostitution. The reverend
defendant alone was conscious of her weakness, whatever
attempts might that day be made to traduce her.

Mary Ann Franklyn stated that she was the mother of
the female child she held in her arms. It was born on the
13th of April, in St. Andrew's poor-house. The father
is the Rev. Mr. Tyson.
Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—CouId not say the
exact month she entered Mr. Tyson's service, but it was
after the death of Mr. M'Masters. Could not swear.to the
month in which she was seduced by Mr. Tyson, who had
made repeated attempts before this upon her virtue. When
she found out positively that she was in the family way,
she was five months gone. Never applied to him for relief
until convinced that she was pregnant, and that was her
only reason for going to him. She had stated as a reason,
before that she knew it was of no use. She did not wish
to expose him. She had endeavoured ti/ see him, but she
had not written to him. She discovered her condition in
the middle of January. She saw Mr. Tyson afterwards,
but he did not speak to her. They had no conversation at
all upon the subject.. She never went to any person in
that month, and said that she would swear the child to
that person. Never said to any person "As you are the
last, I must swear that you are the father."
Mr. Pnitrurs here informed the Court that a very ma-

terial witness was not arrived.
Ann Franklyn continued—She hail never said to any
woman that the father of the child was a clerk at Bloxam's.
Knew a woman named Wilmot. Never had any intercourse
with any man within the last year in the world. A Mr.
L. had made an attempt, but without success. She never
knew any man intimately in her life except the Rev. Ap-
pellant. Never said to any woman that she should be
obliged to swear the child, and that the father was so poor
as not to be able to pay more than ?.s. 6d. a week. Knew
Bolton and Crick; but they never took liberties with her.
Never went out at night in men's clothes; but 'knew a
young woman who did. Knew Mr. Walker and Mr. Begg ;
but never was seen-by them in men's clothes.
Re-exaLiained—Some sisters of Mr. Tyson came from
Yorkshire, and then she gave notice that she would leave
the house. Susan Davis took her place. In July she
called to see Susan Davis, and then she saw the Rev. Gen-
tleman. It was to that visit she attributed the condition
to which she was brought. Susan Davis, Mrs. Wilmot, and
Mr. Lee were examined before the Lord Mayor. Aldred,
Lyon, Bolton, and Crick were not called. She was in-
deed a good and virtuous girl until the Rev. Gentleman
seduced bell..
Mr. Cnas. PHILLIPS then addreised the Court.—He
meant to show that the young woman had perjured herself
over and over again ; and surely, if that appeared to be the
case, it would not be justifiable in the Bench to pronounce
for the conviction. The Learned Counsel then alluded to
the denials which the girl had made in the course of her
cross-examination, and said that if he could show that in
any one instance she had sworn falsely, no credit could be
given to her in a transaction of so serious a nature.
Mr. ADOLPH us believed it was an axiom of the Court
to affiliate if the mother swore to the father. If the charge
was false,_ the mother could, of course, be prosecuted for
the perjury.

Mr. PHILLIPS would prove that she was a most aban-
doned woman ; that she dressed herself in men's clothes,
and was guilty of the greatest indecencies.
William Walker, a watchmaker, knew Ann Franklyn
when she lived at Mr. M'Masters'. Saw her there dressed
in men's clothes ; was in the kitchen with her at the time.
Cross-examined—When lie saw this curious exhibition
he lived with Mr. M'Masters. The first intimation he
had that this case was coming on was from Mr. Tyson,
who called upon him, and asked him whether he knew
Ann Franklyn ; never mentioned the conduct of the girl
to Mr. M'Masters, ner to Mr. Tyson until the latter called
upon him. Mr. Tyson asked him whether he knew any
thing improper of her, and he (witness) then told him
What he had just stated. The girl called on him twice
after Mr. M'Masters' death. _ _ .

Hamilton Begg also swore that he saw the girl dressed
in men's clothes about four years ago.
Daniel Crick swore that he saw the girl in Mr. McMas-
tars' clothes.
Here Mr. PHILLIPS put a question to the witness, which,
if answered in the affirmative, would have subjected him
to ecclesiastiCal censure. The Recorder intimated this
to the witness, who said, in reply, that he had certainly
been very intimate with the young woman. The witness
added, that he might have kissed her, and he was sure that
she tried to make herself look like a man.
Sarah Bransdon deposed that the girl told her that she
must swear the child, as the father could not afford to pay
more than 2s. 6d. a week.
Cross-examined—Mr. Tyson sent for her upon this sub-
ject. Witness (lid not ask her who was the father of her
child. She said th4t she had been to her father, but he

would-do nothing for her, and she was obliged to swear
the child.

Mrs. Wilmot deposed that the girl told her that the
father of the child was a clerk (a laugh) ; hut she did not
say that he was clerk in any house.
John Lyons said that he was intimate with the girl.—
Mr. Tyson called upon him at his house.
Mr. ADOLPHUS said, that if evidence had not been sup-
pressed, he should not have thought it necessary to address
a word to the Court ; for the making up of the case was
indeed palpable. The fact was, the woman who had
clothed herself in men's clothes was the paramour of one of
the witnesses, and not the mother of Mr. Tyson's child.—
The offence, in the first instance, was had enough, but the
Rev. Gentleman had contrived to make blackness still
more black. The Learned Gentleman then commented
with much severity upon the evidence, and submitted to
the Court that the paternity of the Rev. Appellant was
undeniable.

The Court then, without hesitation; confirmed the
order, with costs.

RELIGIOUS FANATICISM IN FRANCE.

The Correctional Tribunal of Alencon has just
been occupied with the trial of three men, named
Quinet, Ruel, and Bernard, for the offence of not
taking off their hats when the Host passed them.—
They are the followers of a man named Fleuriel, a
zealous propagator of a schism which was formed in
_ _

the Catholic Church on the occasion of the Con-
cordat of the year 9, and which is commonly known
by the name of the Little Church.
Four witnesses were heard in support of the
charge, which their evidence strongly supported.
The President then proceeded to the examination
of the culprits, beginning with Quinet.
Where were you going when you met the pro-
cession ? I was with my cousin, and was taking
hiM to Fresnay.

Why did you not take off your hat ? Becausei
our religion forbids us to do it. When I was re-.
quired to take off my hat I answeled that I was of
the religion of JesuS Christ, and not that of Satan.
You think, then, that the mode of worship prac-
tised in France is that of Satan ? Yes, Sir.
Why do you look so upon the religion of France ?
Because it is Satan-Napoleon who is the chief of it.
Who taught you that doctrine P—lt is my father
who taught it to me in bringing me up in the reli-
gion of Jesus Christ.
What proofs were given you that the public reli-
gion is not the true one?—The works of iniquity
it has accomplished.

What are those works of iniquity ?—They are the
sins committed in taking away fePst days, in killing
Louis XVI. and his Queen, in selling the goods of
the nobles, in slaying the priests, and persecuting
the Church of Christ.

You have been led into error, for in the time that
priests were slaughtered, that religion was forbidden,
and does it not now actually exist ? How exist ?
It is at the expense of the oaths sworn to Satan.
Napoleon, whom the priests acknowledged as their
God.

It was, however, Napoleon who re-established re•
ligion 7—Napoleon re-established religion, to make
himself worshipped, and lead souls to bell; he is the
Anti-Christ.

It is needless to add, that this examination excited -
great laughter.
With respect to Ruel and Bernard, they made the
same profession of faith ; but the latter, whose fea-
tures indicated a high degree of excitation, called to
Quinet for the Acts of the Apostles. He read
several of the Epistles of St. Paul, who, however,
does not seem to have had much concern in the
matter, and concluded his lecture by saying—" You
see, then, Gentlemen, according to this, that it •
impossible for us to do what you require.% When I
left my wife and child I at first grieved, but When I
reflected that it was in the service of God, I re-

joiced. Let the scaffold, in that service, come before
us, and we shall all be ready to mount it rather than,
change our. faith."
The PRESIDENT.—Have yin any Counsel ?
Prisoners.—Our Counsel is on high—it is God !

After this exclamation Bernard proceeded-to-reed
a paper, the more curious, as it is the work of the.
Precursor of Jesus Christ" himself--Louis de
Fleuriel, surnamed Elias. The paper was a long
one. The following are the reasons which it gives
for not paying homage to the established religion :---
" We cannot render homage, or respect, or honour,
to the Anti-christian religion of France, which, since
the Revolution, approving every thing, sanctioning
every thing, blessing every thing, and protecting
every thing, has seduced, degraded, dishonoured, and
exterminated mankind by schisms, heresies, profli-
gacy and wars—being visibly the enemy of the
throne of God, of the throne of the Church, and of
the happiness, present and to come, of the Kings and
people of the earth. Far from blessing that revolii-
tionary worship we, with all the holy Priests of God,
with all the just of heaven and earth, say to it,
Anathema! execration These are the words
which ought continually to come from our mouths,
in order to awake from their long sleep of impenitence
the Constitutional Concordatist Priests, unhappy
apostles of the revolutionary worship. We are just,
we are charitable towards them, in carefully avoiding
to scandalize them by a salute—that is, by any act
of respect which neither they nor their worship
deserves, and which the holy Apostle himself forbids
us, that we may not participate in that iniquity.

" Far different from the Priests of the Revolution,
and all that belongs to them, are Apostles to us.--
Catholic Priests, and our religion, our altars, our
ceremonies, our processions, our prayers, are exempt
from having touched the dakk, bloody, decayed, and
perishable edifice of the Empire of Napoleon, the
prophesied Anti-Christ."
The paper concluded by professing " Eternal
hatred to the Communion Cup and the Sacrament
of the Daemons, with whom we neither can nor
ought to participate. Honour, glory, adoration, and
protection, to the Cup of all Holiness and Sacra-
mentAs soon as Bernard had finished reading this most
singular
document, he placed it in the President's
onfiaglhl2, Salvation, of Jesus Christ, son of the
Most
hands, saying, "There's for you."
The PRESIDENT--Who wrote this ?
Bernard.—lt was the Holy Ghost which hath
sent it to us.

The PRESIDENT.--Is it not rather Fleuriel
Bernard.—l repeat to you that it was the Holy
Ghost.
After a short deliberation the Tribunal decided
that Quinet, Ruel, and Bernard, by refusing to take
off their hats before the procession, had outraged the
Religion of the State, and, for that offence, clon.,'
demned them, by the 13th article of the law of the
20th April, 1825, to six days' imprisonment, to pay
a fine of 16 francs, and for them collectively to pay
the costs of the procedure.
The unhappy fanatics immediately called out,
stamping their feet—" You have our bodies, but
you have nothing. Dawn with schism and heregy
You are all agents of Satan."—Constitutionnel of
Sunday.