The Sun. — 1849-04-13 (London, England)

COTTINGHAM—Who paid for the half-and-half, complainant or the prisoner Donovan? Witness—The latter paid for it. Mr. COTTINGHAM complainant)—You have heard what the witness has stated upon oath ; is it true?— Complainant—It is not true.  Biliceman 104 M stated that, about half-past nine o'clock on the night in question he saw Donovan and a woman, whom he believed to be the complainant, walking together on Bankside. The latter held a handkerchief up to her face, as if she was anxious to conceal it, when he approached them. Knowing Donovan, the latter stopped to speak to him, and wanted him to have some gin, which be refused, while the female walked on alone. Donovan then proceeded after the woman, and witness went on his beat. About half-past ten o'clock the same night witness was informed of the alleged outrage upon the complainant, and he saw her, and she then informed him of it, and said that her assailants had robbed her of 45., a handkerchief, ring, and brooch. She pointed out Donovan as one of her assailants. Foley said that he saw no person but Donovan in the barge with the complainant, and as she complained of being cold i❑ the cabin, he (Foley) went ashore to get a light and some wood to make a fire to warm her. Donovan said that at present he declined saying anything.  COTTINGIIAM said there was no doubt a most gross outrage had been perpetrated on the complainant, and that he should take ears that the whole of the circumstances should be thoroughly investigated, in order to bring her assailants to jintioe. For this purpose he should remand the prisoners until Monday, and gave directions that the publican's daughter and other witnesses should be in attendance. WESTMINSTERPeter Van Neirop, a Dutchman, was charged with having feloniously assaulted and wounded two persons named Thomas Murrell (father and son), who, in consequence of the serious nature of the injuries inflicted, were unable to attend before the magistrate. Sarah Murrell stated that she resided with her family in Duke-street, Chelsea. At a little after 11 o'clock on the previous night she was sitting in one of her apartments, which were up•stairs, when she was suddenly alarmed by hearing her husband (Murrell senior) cry out " Murder!" Her son, who had been sitting with her immediately hastened downstairs, and she followed, when she saw the prisoner, with an iron candlestick in his hand, strike her husband twice on the head with it, and a great deal of blood flowed from the wounds. On her son interfering in his father's behalf the prisoner attacked him also, and inflicted two severe wounds, one upon the side of the face near the ear, and the other on the upper part of the head. The poi ice were called, and the prisoner was given into custody. In reply to an inquiry from the clerk who took the depositions, The witness stated that the prisoner eacupied the lower part of the house in which they lived, and added that she believed that the cause of the difference between the prisoner and her husband which led to the violent attack complained of was, that her husband had solicited the accused not to fasten the street door until the return home of his daughter and one of her brothers, who had gone to Cremorne Gardens that evening. The police produced a very heavy iron candlestick, the foot of which was much battered; they also handed in the following certificate:—  "April 12, 1849. "We certify that Thomas Murrell, the lather, and Thomas Murrell, his son, have received several severe contused wounds on the bead, and are not in a fit state to attend before a magistrate. "A.