The Express.
London, England, 1862-04-03 00:00:00

MARLBOBOUGH:B:rREET.

William He;;;;YraTic:rei, iledgigit:hOuse keeper, of
12, Little Portland-street, was charged with an assault
en Alfred Aimer, a coffee-hems keeper, under the following
airenmetances.
Messrs. Eyre acd Lawson prosecuted ; and Mr. Edward
Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, defended.
The complainant said he wu employed by a Mr. Ward
to remain in possession at the defendant's house, and went
with him on the previous evening. Mr. Ward was the
broker, and Mr Deacon, of 21, Old Bond-street, the land-
lord. On entering the purge, and as Mr. Ward was going
to make the inventory, the defendant seized Mr. Ward, and
threw him from one side of the passage to the other. Re told
the defendant that he could not permit that, when a scuffle
muted between him (witness) sod the defendant, and both
fell. A female then said she would rip him (witness) up,
mad his hat was smashed. A second struggle took place to
get presseesiou of a pair of tongs, and a constable coming up,
the defendant was given into custody. lie (witness) had
• few small marks about his face.

-
By Mr. Lewis—The defendant did not say that be bad
paid his rent up to March. The defendant rents under the
tenant of the next house, a Mr. Bushell.
Mr. H. W. Ward, of 65, Great Russell-street, clerk to
Mr. Baker, auctioneer, said Mr. Deacon, the landlord of
the home' Nos. 11 and 12, Little Portland.street, autho-
rised the distress, and signed the warrant to detrain on
both homes, which were held by Mr. Bushell under one
t. He told the defendant he held a warrant for
2ri.ms.B2'd., and mid he wanted the rent from both houses,
and that If the rent was not forthcoming he must distrain.
A person nutted Bushell was the tenant, and he had under-
let one hawse to the defendant. The defendant seized him
by the collar, and threw him from one side of the M
to the other, and then a scuffle took place between '.lllB4amili.
man
and the defendant._

By Mr. i;ewisZThe authority for the distress is from Mr.
Deacon to Mr. Baker, but he being from home be (withers)
enemata it. He had no particular authority to levy this
dif. _ .

Bane other evidence being given,
Mr. Lewis said it was • case of great Mudship. Mr.
Deacon was the landlord of the two houses, which be had
let under one agreement to Mr. Bushell, and the defend-
ant rented one of them under Mr. Bushell, and had paid
him rent up to March last. Mr. Deacon bad allowed. Mr.
&when to run in arrear for a whole year, and than in-
Wonted Mr. Baker, who was represented here by his clerk,
to levy for • whole year's rent. Ile (Mr. Lewis) considered
it • case of treat hardship, and he bad doubts whether it
was even done leplly, for he had heard th►t the peruse had
net altered until 20 minutes put six o'clock. The defendant,
he was instructed, bad said, on their entering the home,
" I owe no rent, and you shan't oome in," and all that took
plane was a bit of • struggle. What the defendant bad
awe wee in ignorance of the law, and under the inepreeden
that the persons had no right to enter, as he owed no rent.
He (Mr. Lewis) considered it • very trumpery case.
Mr. Tyrwhitt maid be thought the defendant had fah
mama to doubt whether they could ask him for the rent.
He should, however, as the awault wu proved, fie* the
defendant 10a. or 14 days.

Mr. Poynter was engaged for some hours in hearing a
case in which the Thames Conservancy summoned the

Mr. Sleigh then called William Pearce, a fisherman, at
Strand-on-the-Green, in the employ of the Commarrancy,
who gave similar evidence to that already detailed. The
liquor, when he first aw it, was running from a hole in the
wall, at the rate of five gallons per minute along the ahcre.
A barge standing near prevented him seeing distinctly from
when it ran, but be saw it twice afterwards running from
the drain. It was not running into a barge.
Crom-examined—There was a hose on the wharf above
discharging liquid matter into the barge.
William Gardner, clerk of the works under the Metro-
politan Board of Works, also gave similar evidence. He
saw refuse running from the drain on the Mot March, at
a time when there was no barge near it. He law liquor
running again on the 19th, but it was at that time mixed
with sewage.
Mr. Evans here pointing out that the liquid might have
run from the pipe above into the drain at the time of dis-
charge into the barge, and Mr. Paynter having concurred in
this view of the matter,
Mr. Sleigh remarked that presuming such to be the cue,
no matter how the liquid got into the Thames, the company
were equally liable.
Mr. Paynter did not think such was the law.
Mr. Sleigh observed that Dr. Letheby had informed him
that in a trial before the Lord Chief Baron Pollock, in the
Court of Exchequer, where the Staffordshire Gaslight Com-
pany were the defendants, it had been held so, although the
nuisance should be caused by others and not by the sea
company. (The ease having been subsequently found, fully
bore out the learned counsel's opinion.)
The case for the prosecution being now closed,
Mr. Morgan contended that under this act of parliament
there must be absolute knowledge shown to procure a
conviction. The company he represented had no inte-
rest in allowing this refuse matter, as it was called,
to run away ; in fact, the contrary was the case, as it
was of some value to them. He urged that there must be
some mistake among the witnesses, and that instead of the
liquid running out in the manner described, it had simply
tnekled down the wall from the pipe while being discharged
into the barge. Moreover, if the company had had a desire
to let this matter run into the Thames why should they
selects time when everyone could notice it. viz.,low water,
as bad been described by the witness's! He concluded
by complaining of the manner in which so large
a body as the Thames Conservancy had got up
this cue, the offence imputed to his clients depending upon
the testimony of labouring men, who might have tampered
with the saes es before giving them to their employers.
He then
Mr. Henry Bannister, who said he was the deputy•super-
intandent of the gas company, in whom employ he had been
13 years. He received an intimation that there was a
leakage on the 13th of March, and men were at once sent
down to attend to it. There was no communication what-
ever between the liquor pipe and drain. This he knew et
his own knowledge, as be had superintended the laying
down of the liquor pipe. In doing so the workmen had Doi
come in contact with the drain pipe. Sewage only flowed
through it, and it had no connexion with their works. The
liquor pipe conveyed the whole of their gas liquor away to
the wharf, whence it was discharged into barges. This gas
liquor was a very valuable commodity, as they sold it; it
was not, therefore, to their interest to let it run into the
Thames, as so much lost was so much loss to them.
Cross-examined—The drain communicates in no way with
our works.

Mr.il2emas Barkworth wu then called, and said he re-
sided at the wharf, and looked after the pipe there ; be saw
a slight leakage, and communicated with the works, whew it
was set right. The leakage could not have existed any
length of time.
Mr. Sleigh having then replied,
Mr. Punter observed that be must take time to consider
his judgment, and adjourned the case for that purpose.

The prisoner replied, wehing, only she was very .1,
Martin denied that. Ile should not Lon
had she been so, but have given her in custody to the pufics,
and taken care of the child.

The prosecutrix Lore said, that when aLe gave Car I
sonar the child, it was wrapped up in a sarincloal..
was now gone.
Mr. Burcham asked Martin whether the cloak was on till
child when he admitted the prisoner
Martin replied that he mold not tell, as the prisoner 1.4.1
the child wrapped in the end of her shawl. The aibi,tiot
matron would be able to answer that (portion.

Mr. Borchelt) accordingly remanded. the 1.4.4.6.)1.1 f. I
attendance of the asaistant matron.