The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-10-27 00:00:00

PLUNDER OF GOODS.

John Morrison, a person employed at the Waterloo
goods station of the London and North-Western Rail-
wag, was charged for stealing a bar of soap. Detective
officer Scaife said : -In consequence of complaints made
of the plundering of property at the station, I went to
watch there last night, and saw a cart go out with
boxes of soap on it, and saw the prisoner come out with
it. He concealed something under his coat, and on
going* over, I found this bar of soap that he had taken
out of a box. Mr. Marshall, one of the solicitors to the
company, prosecuted ; and although he did not press
for a heavy punishment, yet he thought for example
that the man should get some punishment. It appeared
the man had been some years in the service of the dom-
pany, and bore a good character; and in consequence
of that, he was let off with two months' imprisonment.
(Before Messrs. R. GLADSTONE, J. C. CORBALLY and
• CASTELLAIN.)
ASSAULT. BY A POLICEMAN.

Police-officer Cartwright (679) was summoned by
Mr. John R. Evans, a clerk in the employment of Mr.
Wilton, the carrier, of the Lancashire and Yorkshire
Railway Company, for having assaulted him. Mr. Cobb
was for the complainant, and opened the case. From his
statement, which was borne out by Mr. Evans 'and three
or four other respectable witnesses, it appeared that on

the 3rd of October the officer was in Great Howard-
street and saw a carter, who is in the employment of
Mr. Wilton, with a lorry laden with wheat, going into

Lila yard of the railway company, and, thinking the

load too heavy, he took the driver's name and address,
and then followed him into the yard of the company's
premises, which is private property. Mr. Evans, seeing
the officer go into the yard, asked him what he wanted ;
and he said the name of the carter. The carter said he
had given the officer h 4 name and the number of his
cart. Mr. Evans thpri"told the officer to leave, as the
place was private property, and he had no right to be
there, having got what he wanted—the name of the
carter ana the number of his cart. The policeman then
asked Mr. Evans' name and address, which he refused
to give ; whereon the officer caught him by the arm,
tore his coat, and' dragged him off to the station,
where he preferred a charge against him for obstructing,
him in the discharge, of his tith.). The bridewell-
keeper refused the charge, and now the officer appeared
to answer the summons for having assaulted Mr. Evans.
As stated, these facts were proved by several respecta-
ble witnesses, all of whom were examined by the defend-
ant, who was not only excited, but appeared insolent to
the witnesses and not quite respectful to the magis-
trates. At the conclusion of the case, Mr. Gladstone
said the bench had considered the case very carefully,
and were unanimous in their opinion on the whole of it.
lie spoke in strong terms of reprobation of the conduct
of the policeman, and said although an officer was to be
protected and upheld in the discharge of his duty by the
magistrates, yet he had no right to violate the liberty of
the subject.. Ile had taken Mr. Evans in the
wrong; he had not done anything unlawful, he had
not obstructed the officer in any way, and he had no
right to be dragged through the streets like a pickpocket,
for lie had not violated any law, nor offered any ob-
struction to the officer. After reviewing the whole case,
and dwelling with great severity on the conduct of the
policeman, he said the bench would fine him 40s for the
assault, and then leave it to the Watch Committee to
say if the offi:!il- was a fit per.= to be entrusted in such
a position hereafter. The defendant paid the fine, and
remarked, in an insolent manner, that that was what lie
got for doing his duty. Mr. Gladstone told him he had
outraged his duty, and would leave the Watch Com-
mittee to deal with him on that point.

Pk-

1