The Sun. — 1848-12-02 (London, England)

BULLOCK.)  Frances Bar;ett, a very respectable-looking young woman, surrendered to take her trial on a charge of stealing a duplicate, by which she obtained possession of a dress belonging to Frances Lee. Mr. Huddlestone defended the prisoner. It appeared that the prisoner and prosecutrix resided together, and that the latter, having pledged a dress, placed the duplicate in a box, whence she missed it, and, going on the succeeding day to the pawnbroker's, she found it had been redeemed by a person who wore a bonnet and shawl somewhat similar to those possessed by the prisoner. Upon this, prosecutrix went to the fortune-teller's, who, having performed some magic conjurations, told her that whoever had the dress would sell it for more than it was worth. Upon this the prosecutrix communicated her suspicions, when, some further magic spells having been completed, it was decided that the prisoner was the guilty party, and she was accordingly requested to accompany the prosecutrix to the pawnbroker's, which she did, and the pawnbroker's assistant having been asked by the prosecutrix whether the prisoner was not the person who had redeemed the gown said she was, and when he heard of the opinion pronounced by the magic oracle, he became so strongly im pressed in his belief as to induce the magistrate to commit her for trial. His evidence this day was so contradictory and prevaricating, that the jury discredited it altogether, and acquitted the girl, stating that she left the court without a stain upon her character. William Sale, aged 19, a carman, was indicted for stealing a pair of reins, valued at 65., the property of IVilliam Winter.  The case was a very clear one, and the jury found him Guilty. From inquiries instituted by the Court, it appeared that the prisoner formed a portion of a desperate gang infesting the Surrey side of the water, and is brother of the convict of the same name who was executed some time back for the murder of Mr. Bellehambers, at We3tminster. The COURT sentenced him to seven years' transportation.  John IPPNeiI, aged 26, a printer, was indicted for feloniously intermarrying with Mary ElizAbeth Bonnet, his wife being then alive. The facts proved in evidence were these:—On the 4th of August, 1839, the prisoner married his wife at St. Pancras Church, and on the 13th of November, in the present year, he married the second wife, at Bloomsbury. Information having been received of the fact, he was apprehended before he could get home with his new bride.  The prisoner, in his defence, went into a long story, and said that he lived happily enough with his first wife until he had occasion to suspect her fi3elity. She, however, persuaded him he was in error, and all went on smoothly until one day he brought home a friend with whom he had been having some drink. After they had been in the room some time he fell asleep on the sofa, and when he awoke he found his friend in bed with his wife. His wife denied there had been anything criminal, but when he told her he had only been feigning sleep for the purpose of watching her, she admitted her guilt upon that as well as previous occasions. Upon that they agreed to part, and he therefore thought he was at liberty to marry again; besides, his second wife was tome relative to his first, and was aware of his beint, p married man. The second wife, who was present, said in a loud tone, Mr. Bnixocic. said, " That's falser ewraathneo harm that was no excuse if she did The prisoner said, there know it. done, as he had been taken a short time aft Mr. BULLOCK —That makes no difference. The prisoner again asserted there ence. d been no harm done to the second wife. The Learned COMMISSIONER then sentenced him to eight months imprisonment and hard labour. The other cases heard during the day in this coutt did not possess any features of public interest.