The Sun. — 1858-05-27 (London, England)

WESTMINSTER. —DANGEROUS ASSAULT. -- Eliza Weaver, a diminutive woman, was charged before Mr. Arnold with the following► dangerous assault upon Sarah Gardner, a needle-woman, of Blue Anchor-place, Yorkstreet, Westminster.  Complainant, who bad her head bandaged, and exhibited evident marks of weakness from the effect of some serious recent injury, said that on the previous morning she was standing at her door with a fiend, when Mr. Weaver, the husband of the prisoner, who lived in the same house, came up, and they bade each other good morning, and began to have a conversation, when a stone suddenly descended from the window above on to her head, and injured her so severely that she could scarcely speak or move about. She was unable to say whether it was done wilfully or not, and had never had any quarrel or misunderstanding with the prisoner. A witness for complainant proved that sbe saw the accused raise the stone and throw it down. She was quite sure that it was done deliberately, and defendant said that she had intended it for her husband. A. policeman having proved her apprehension, and said she gave the same account of the transaction when he took her into custody, Prisoner, in answer to the charge, said that she neither intended to throw the stone at the woman Gardner nor at her husband. It slipped down accidentally as she was removing it.  Mr. Arnold said that, after having heard the evidence, he had no doubt but the first account given of the assault by the prisoner was the true one. She had intended to throw the stone at her husband, but it had struck Mrs. Gardner, and in a case of this nature the law made no distinction. It was an illegal act for her to throw the missile at herhusband, and having missed him and struck another person she was fully accountable for the injury she bad done, and had she killed complainant would have been tried for murder. lie should commit her, but would remand her in order to see what her husband had to say about her. CAUTION TO SERVANTS —Ann Key, a woman attired as a gipsy, about 40 ',tars of age, was charged with obtaining money by pretending to tell fortunes. She went down the area of a house in Knightsbridge on Tuesday morning, with a dish under her arm, and asked whether there was anything of that kind to be mended. She was told to call the next day, and was about to ascend the area steps, when judging, it is presumed, from the mild appearance of the maid servant who had answered her that .he was a person who might easily be duped, she asked to be allowed to tell her fortune, and having obtained sixpence " to cross the maiden's hand with," the key of the area door, and a pocket handkerchief, she revealed to the simple-minded girl the important intelligence that she would soon leave her situation as she would be bated by the other servants, and would shortly be married. While talking with her the servant wa4 called away and the prisoner left the house. Shortly afterwards the girl went out, and perceiving defendant at is short distance endeavoured to recover the key, which tho woman refused to restore unless she received some more money, and the girl gave her ls. 6d. in order to avoid a scolding, but defendant was still inexorable, and having demanded an old gown, and finding that the girl did not return with it to the place where she had appointed to meet her, she came again to the house, and rang at the area bell till given into custody by one of the footmen. Mr, Arnold animadverted upon the imprudent conduct of the girl, both in giving away the money and allowing herself to be prevailed upon to part with the key, as it afforded the accused the means of robbing the house. He did not, however, for one moment think that the girl bad any underhand motive, Then, turning to the prisoner, who pleaded that she had never done anything of the kind before, he said that, in the first place, she had no business to have attempted to tell fortunes and impose upon unwary people. Putting the mildest construction upon the act of obtaining the key, it was to extort money from the girl. He did not believe it wax her first offence, as she appeared to be an adept in the art. It was a disgraceful case, and he should feel no hesitation in inflicting the highest penalty the law would allow, which was, that she should be committed for three months to hard labour in the House of Correction.