The Express.
London, England, 1855-01-20 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 20, 1855.

MOM TIOS4IIBI/MIANI 1.1111711111L1T.
/117111 e. 11317111.
The question in this suit arose oat of a will in which the
testator had given an annuity of 2001. to his aunt, 8. Anson,
and, upon her decease he directed that "1001., part thereof
should be continued in equal shares to such of her daugh.
ten as remained single' for life. 8. Anson had died, as
alsa hid one of her daughters. The court under these cir-
cumstances had to decide whether the gift to the three
daughters was joint, in which case the two eurvivon would
ke entirlid to 601. each, or whether the annuitant* were to
be eogaidired as tenants in common, and thus only entitled
trader the events which had happened to share two-thirds
of tie 1001. between them.
Mr. Oreenside, Mr. Gafford, Mr. Bosworth, and Mr. Haw-
kins appeared for the several parties.
The Vice-Chancellor thought that the intention to be
collected from the will was that the gift of the inanity was
to the Ouse daughters ea joint tenant&

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Ints. 19.
memos is WICO.-11NP0111 ILSID esersear., •1117 /MIMI WIII/11,
XVII AIM eaoerreoir.
TER CHASING-CROSS BRIDOS COMPANY V. MITCRLI.L.—
LAND TAX.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs the Charing-
cross Bridge Company, against William Otho Mitchell, a
collector of land tax, for having seized and taken by distress
certain tolls of the plaintiffs By an order made by Mr
Justice Coleridge under the Common Law Procedure Act
of 1852, a special case was stated for the opinion of the
court. It appeared that the company was incorporated by
the 817 Wm. IV., e. 133 (a local act), by the name of
" the liungerford aid Lusbeth Suspension Foot bridge
Company, " which appellation was changed by a sub-
sequent act, the 8 it 9 Vie,. e. 162, int
defendant is
collector of land tax for the liberty and parish of fit.
Marties-in•the-Fields, and on the mat of April, 1854, he
distrained for 3651. 21. 61., being six years' mous of land
tax on the plaintiffs' tolls, taken and collected by virtue of
their sets from persons passing over that portion of the
bridge within the above-named parish from the year 1848
to the year 1853 inclusive. The plaintith' contended that
such tolls were not liable to bo assessed for land tax, or that,
if they were so, they were only liable for a portion of the I
tax. The defendant contended that the tolls were liable to
assessment. The plaintiffs hiving built the bridge, had,
since 1843, demanded tolls. The act which made the bridge
a public one declared that that part of it which is in the
liberty of Westminster and le the county of Middlesex
should be held to betin the parish of fit.liartin's-in-the-Fields,
that that part which is in Surrey should be held to be in
the parish of Lambeth. For the more effective construc-
tion and support cf the bridge, the plaintiffs, under the
860th
section of the act of William, procured a lease and grant
from the Ilungerford Market Company of part of their
lands, and en indenture was on the Ist of November, 1842,
entered into between the parties, by which the bridge
company had full powers to make, in or about Ilungerford-
market and the wharf adjoining, certain towers and other
works ueces'ary foe the bridge, including toll-bars and toll-
houses; and they were further to have fell liberty to keep
and maintain such works, and fro right of way through the
market for foot passengers, such right of way, however,
not to extend to trucks, hand-harrows, le., without the
consent in writing of the liangerford Market Company.
The lease was for 99 years from the 13th February, 183,
and the consideration was 6,000/. The plaintiffs, in accord-
ance with the terms of the indenture, built the pier wharf,
toll houses, aid other works. About 50 yards from the
Middlesex side, and on that part of the bridge within the
parish of Martin's-in-the-Fields, the Bridge Company
'raced in the bed of the river a pier for the support of the
bridge, on which is a toll house where tolls are de-
manded from steam boat passengers. The assessment in
question was made on the tolls taken at both toll
houses on the Middlesex side. I'revious to the exe-
cution of the indenture the Market Company re-
deemed the lend tax chargeable on the land, and
premises comprised in the indenture, and on which the
works of the Bridge Company are erected. In 1849 the
tolls were again assessed to the land tax in respect to so
much as was payable within the parish of St. Martin's for
611. 19s. 76., the estimated value being 1,7501. The plain-
tiffs were similarly assessed in respect to the tolls foe dm
yeas from 1850 to 1853. In these eases the asseennenle
were appealed against, but they were coafirmed by the sons
nesioners. They, however, had not been paid, and time
opinion of the court was now asked on the following qui&
vane :—Firstly, whether the plaintiffs were liable to tin
lead tax in respect of the tolls upon which they had been
assessed; secondly, whether the tolls are
from the land tax by reason of a portion=
works being built and erected land and premises
which had been redeemed from the (a on
s by the Hungerford
Market Company ; and, thirdly, whether they should have
been charged in respect of a proportion of the tolls only,
and if so, for what amount?
Mr. Bramwell (with whom was Mr. IL.Mathews) argued
the ease for the Bridge Company; and Sir cos)
'f hens.?
(with whom was Mr. Needham) for the Commissioners.
Lord Campbell was of opinion that this was a good assess-
ment. It would have been a good assessment on the Haw
gerford-bridge Company if the land tax hail not been
redeemed ; and tn the queition aeon, it having been
redeemed, was it a good assessment ? The tolls were sepa-
rate and distinct tenements, and the redemption of the
land tax by the market company had nothing to do with it.
It seemed to him, therefore, that the assessment was good.
The objection that it was perused property was totally un-
tenable, for the shareholders were only entitled to a share of
the profits of the company.
Mr. lattice Wightman and Mr. Justin, Crompton con-
curred.
Judgment for the defendant.

BAIL COURT.-Lu 4.19.

irITISOII AT Ilia PAIIA6-111.0•2 ML ANTIC, ZILE AND
ICBM.

PALMER V. OWTXXI.-ASILOLT.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Home appeared for the plaintiffs;
and Mr. E. Juliet and Mr. Hawk me for the defendant.
This was an action for assault and slander. The de-
fendant pleaded not guilty.
The following evidence was adduced:
Mr. Palmer-1 have known the defendant at the Oriental.
He was there in June. I was there in the evening of the
12th June. The defendant invited me to comet* his moms
We
to play at card'. He also invited Mr. Donaghan.
played vingt-et.un from 12 till 3 I had lost to Dona-
an to 161. I woo from Owynne some PM or Kg,
Dona-
ban
two and throe o'clock. I was then ansiou to go.
The defendant bagged se as a personal favour, to give Ida
a dame of getting missy bask. I said I will play WI
es lawar, burr, but Me eM..RIOt lesser. It was
we &MU pet 61. ea .soli Ned. We had before pu
le. lbe *ilea vim binalli at the rignestof the dohs•
dash We emoilamad to for easily half as hem I
lad lbw mew ben tbo 2771. It woo thee 61,-
11kt. The delbodootteiduol beet bebsweillbs
MI is would eve me *sok la the seitadosrreorl
Malimoot b. Tbo diffident sent ow a swelgyl
boot day, mei I wool to Mr. Davies colloe, a seliediel k
Vordoest ThS lohniest vs, thare. mil Iwi w thee
I he( sesslisi a maw ibleb I Um&
- 110811 •lISOIllwo NI. to osoipentisoefilitlikaill&l"

I said that I would sot take flan Mit be shilling Ism *eat
theywa he had lest Re dies odd be segreMed sassed- i
th sending
Plat,y ; ha lumped*, fa a liar and
said, " Mr. OIIIIA you have behaved like a lienstin; if
I pay you this mug, my wife and child Millie starving."
I said, " If that Is the ease, yes will Gad mese/Arent man,
and I don't sue was her yea pay me a els& shilling. It
is • hard cue upon me, as I lest 241., mbith I wasobliged
to pay ; but what eau you do 2 " lie said he would pay
me 501. that day. I said I wee eadoini, bat I begged
him to undentead that I did net Mahn the W. in db-
charge of the debt. The tisiondiest Is set a 1118 likely to
be ruined by that--he is a slob Mil 11114 • •88•814•adet.
I said that I would accept de gas aed Awed re would
pay ale the balance at his sediset eanunimm. He
salted me when he should INTO the 601. ; I
clerk said with
sad
Davis' clerk. I then reputed it before the ,
I pledged myself not to mention it to any one. I was
at the Oriental that evening zed saw the Iandefen I said
I supposes you have left the 601. at the °See. this at
the door. He said he had not left it, and gave no reran. I
said, how tan I depead upon you alter yen have
broken your promise. I consider you have behaved as an
blackguard would do. He then struck me and I struck
Met Hs then told me that I won cheat, a swindler, and
that I was turned out of a club et Bruises, sad I had done
hiss last night. The hoses was full when he said this.
There is nor oath in say of the ststesaents he made.
Cts-eurained-1 reside in London, 16, Iltri.atribes.
Manchesterseguare. lam nothing. I have been nothing
abut a year and s half. From my ehildhood I have been
something. I hold a commisaiou is the Pembrokeshire
Militia. I have been in Brussels. I occupy three rooms
shove the drswing-room. I am a single man. I used to
manage my fathers affairs as an agriculturist. I applied
hr the benefit of the act in 1862. I was then nothing, and
bad nothiog. My petition was dismissed, sot upon the
viand of fraud, but for non-resideaos. It is • family gees
den what I live nun. 1
herebydont live epos play, but honestly;
I pay my way. lam
My debts were those of my late father's. The property I
gave up was a winaowiag mashing, value 61. There Lail a
reversionary interest also. There was a cart also. I had not
Lilt eitherales for
wtseheicepr2Mthelmweeeehlnneir I wisasb:htwen.elnivting
and three months in Tgior 1853. That mu after my peti-
tion au dismissed. I played cards thus at the club—
whist, and 'Lathing else. The defendant was 'tenement in
the tad Life Outdo. I was in the habit of going to the
Oriental. 1 believe Densities to be a commission man.
We played in the bed-room. The waiter produced the
sards—l had sot an The defendant had not been drink-
ing pretty freely. I don't remember the defendant winniag
• single sovereign. Oh, Lord !—Yes, he did. He bad won
161. or 61. of au. I have paid Doneghan. I saw him last
ISaturday week, at 2, Oxford-terrace, Edgware road. I
went there to get his evidence. He was a friend of the
defendant. From the time the defendant had lest 701. he
won backwards and forwards. I don't know what was dose
with the cards afterwards. I should think the defendant
struck me on the bead. I struck him on the hestfferith es
umbrella. His hat was on. I don't thin I struck him
more than ones nr twice. My ear west rather inflamed. I
saw no blood on his face, am did I know that his heed M.
gaited dressing till a few days since. I have never bum a
bankrupt. I have an income, but decline to tell the sewn
and the amount. I live upon principal money.
Ba-sumined—The income is oonnecten with my family.
I never played so high before. Mytemper was ruffled br
the blow. My father resided in Wales. My mother sod
sisters reside in Braude. This wee my sehedule. The
debts were my father's. My own were not 2501.
William Robertson—l was waiter at the Oriental on the
13th June. I took a letter from the defendant to the plains
tiff. When the parties same in the 'eosins, the deluding
said, "yon woa't receive my offer 1" The plaintiff sell
~ Me." The defeadant said he would not pay anythim at
all. The plaintiff then said, " Then you will be a blocks
guard." They then turned and went into the hell. The
plaintiff then used the word blackguard again, and the de-1
fondant struck him.
Croes-examined—l saw the plaintiff strike the defend-
ant with an umbrella. The defendant said he could not'
have last the money fairly. I said, " Then examine the
eards," and they were brought down sad examined.
They were not the cards of the house. I had not supplit d
them. Ido not know how cards are marked for cheating
The Defendant said, " How am I to get out of it i" I
recommended he should make an offer. I bad known the
plaintiff fifteen months. He had been in the habit of play-
log at whist and 100. (The Plaiatiff—" I don't:know the
game."). There is a card club at the hotel. I only know
they plaintiff as a customer. He has been in the habit
of playing after the club hours. I have seen h play-
ing with Mr. Newton. Dough an is traveller to •
wine music. I did not advise the defendant not in
pay the imaey. I did sot say that I had suspleions great
the plaintiff, Out I did about Donaghan. I had seen the
dededeme at alas that night. It was quite perceptible that
be bad Min thinking. After' the striking I washed the'
liked of Ids Ye. Re had thrown his hat at the phistiff.
The defendant bed the worst of it.
Edward ihree—l am a waiter at the Oriental. The
seeds wore Min out f the box belonging to the elub.
They bed leis toed. I don't know whether the defendant
Ivo sober sr sit that eight.
Croee4zeedesl—l had not seen him drinking anything.
I did not nodes that he was excited. I don't know that he

was sober.
Mr. Watson then summed up the plaintiff's evidence
with great warmth, and expressed his indignation at the
defendant's mode of paying his debts of honour.
Mr. James, in addressing the jury for the defendant, said
that the plaintiff cants there demandiag damages for a
slander on his character, but he had given them no oppor-
tunity of judging whether it was a slander or not. Be
trusted that the only benefit the plaintiff would obtain by
bringing this action would be the lecture of his learned
friend on improprieties in play. As to the amault, it was
clear:that the plaintiff had used provoking language first,
and had then, in return for a very slight blow, repeatedly
struck the defendant's head with an umbrella, drawing
blood. Under these circumstances the jury would only
give the smallest damages in their power.
Hie lordship, in summiag up, said that the verdict must
be for the plaintiff, and the jury a say to what damages
the plaintiff was entitled. In Menke" the charge mania
the plaintiff of cheating starch, bid se Mndation.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 101.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—JAN. 19.
'LTO2IOIOI DANOD.-111.01i Cllllll /OMR 11ST0,101. reflrCl NM"
Ni. INTIM 1110NOWILL. AND Ni. JUT= WILLUne.
TATLOU O. 11.0111110 N.—ACTION FOIL TOLL.
This ease had been tried before Mr. Justice Crowder, and
• verdict entered for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of
the court upon a special case. The plaintiff represented
the trustees of a road in Cumberland, and he sued to re-
cover toUs payable at • gate near Penrith. In 1844 the
Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Act paned, and by that
act it was contemplated that the line should cross
the road from Penrith to Keswick and Grey-
stoek at a level. It was, however, thought by the
inhabitants, that great danger would attend such a nouns,
and • vestry meeting was held, and it was arranged with
the railway company, that in a subsequent act, which it
was necessary fur the company to pass, provinion should
be made for their turning the old road, and carrying it by,
a bridge over the railway. The mot stated that the new
road was to be as convenient as might be, and that the
company might erect a toll. house east of the Point at which
the new road should diverge from the old road. It was now
contended that the new road was not as convenient as it
might be, and that the toll-house was not east of the point
at which the roads diverged within the meaning of the sta-1
tate.
Mr. Cowling (with him Mr. Knowles, Q C.) appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Pasbley, Q.C., for the defendant.
The Chief Justice was of opiaian that the tollhouse was
east of the point of divergence within the meaning of the
act; and as to the point of convenience, it was not found
ia the ease, that the road was not as convenient a it might i
be, and the court had no power to draw inferences of fact.
%Seven it both pellets were in favour of the defendant, he
sat ass how it Mold help him, for the action was sit
byes railway eswiMy who had made the road, but by Maisilmie Ws
/Artomavows far the *W. tiff.
lIITITIND AT NM MINS IN LONDON.-100.-
AND • 00101011 JUIT.
PIIIIIIIIBB OF TEI COVST.
The list for these sittings contained 32 causes, of which
three were marked for trial by special juries; the only
defended case called on during the day, was an action to
recover damages for a horse that had been killed by • mail
cart having been driven against it. The case was not con-
cluded at the rising of the wort.

I. JVIITICZ CROWDS.

COURT OF
1 :mums AT Mil Marl

rAN. 19.

Were justified is dismal's, !lift WM did not, however,
impute disheseety to the pletamet bet they ormplaised of
the irregularity of his amounts, and that when they were
\
plied to by Mosses. Rogers, Lowry Roiliest& and Co.,
et Watling-street, is whose swim he sow wee, they had
given that ohmmeter of him.
Dlr. Baron Platt, in summing up, told the jury that they
would have two questions to consider. Was this a yearly
hiring ? —if so. the plaintiff would be entitled to their verdict
upon that ism; and next, were the irregularities of which
the eassissits oomplained sash es would jeetify them In
ditedadaff him t—if se, then the defeadeats wield be en-
titled te a verdict u that base. learned jude
Gelled the attention ofpon tbe jury to the irre Thegularities whicgh
11 hod bees semplained of, and said that esmatereial tr.,,,e_
Jen e_, to know this namely, that all mouse which
Chop 'ht receive from the weetemers ea tz,,,,,,,,t of the
Mew which they
_represented were the um". of their
auldsTsist sad Ilki they had. .aa e.ght to apply to their
eata4Posal as to slaw any aw:eetions from, except such
es the amass, for, the requisite expenses to enable
OM carry on the t!lele of their employers.
The jury asamitsd. tor a few minutes, and then returned
a andist for the. plaintiff upon the lint WU, as to the
yearly Wm; and for the defendants upon the second issue,
which 4..".etibid their dismissal of the plaintiff.
:or. Baron Platt said with that verdict there would be
1 ao damages for the plaintiff.

stamen might he mentioned in palliation, he hoped the ea-
\
Mose Sim UPON be galled for.
Holland said—l am now a seaman. About the Ist
November, 1854, I went to No. 33, Great P... Helen's, with
a man named Spinner. I found it 'sus the home of Mr.
Michael, who is the owner of the Ilangerton, which is a
British registered ship. t was introduced to him by
Speseer, who bad curse conversation with him, but not in
my bearing. 1 ay..t Spencer the following morning at the
Malismilitt anus. went with him to the 'fondues office.
to Mr. Michael that I would give
rhim N. to
= eells ..eelthe adimiss, to work ray passage ou as baker.
Mr, ilishoel said he had been offend 104 , awl would not
take 61., sui 1 agreed for 81., and paid If. deposit. Mr.
\Millurel refined to give me a receipt, saying it was all
*ht. On the 22nd of November I received e setter, di-
me to attend next day at Mr. Michael's Aloe, and
=peid 71 , the balance, and Mr. Michael sent me on
bead the liangenon, in the London Dock, and I worked
es bend of her es cook, from December 5 to January 5,
when eke returned from the Isle of Wight, being unsea-
worthy. He told me that government provided their own
beim, and I must go u cook.
Creel-examined—I paid the money to Mr. Michael myself,
sled I offered him U., and told him I did not want to come
leech. I paid the defendant 81. for being discharged at
lipdaah_. I did notion as &passenger.
Ms. Ellis said the money had not been taken from the
Urn es amount of hiring, bat for the purpose of re-
imbursement of the extra wages. The defendant would
Wets pay for the voyage home.
After an argument of considerable length between the
selleitors,
The Lord Mayor said he considered that a grow violation
of the law had taken place, and that much danger must ne-
flesearily arias
u fainted with rom taking
the sea. out as seamen
His lordship then fined
who were
wholly unacq
the defendant in the sum of 501. and costa.
The defendant pleaded guilty to two other charges of a
similar kind, and was fined en both charges.
GUILDHALL.
Thomas Arthur Corlett, who wee charged a few days ago
with stealing a number of money. orders, the property of the
' Electric Telegraph Company, in Lothbury, was placed at
' the bar before Alderman Cubitt for further examination.
Mr. Nobler appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. Winkweith, who appeared on behalf of the company,
said although there were upwards of 40 cases in which the
prisoner had obtained cash for money orders entrusted to
him for delivery by poet, he should now only proceed upon
two other cues in which Lady Clifton and Mr. Harrison
were 'mooned.
Evidence having been taken in the two cases thus
selected
Mr. winkworth handed in two letters, one from the pri-
soner and the other from his father, and said the directors
had considered those letters, and as the prisoner seemed
deeply penitent, they were not darkens of punishing him to
such an extent as would mar his prospects through life.
They thought it was necessary, by preferring the present
charge, to make an example of him to their other clerks ;
and having done so they wished the alderman to deal sum-
marily with the ease.
Mr. Hobler supported this appeal.
Alderman Cubitt said when it was considered that there
were upwards of 40 other oases of a similar nature he did
not think be should be justified in not sending the case be-
fore a jury. In any ease the young man had lost himself,
and it could not affect his character more by sending him
for trial than if he sent him to Holloway Prison for three
months. He fully sympathised with the prisoner's friends,
who he understood were highly respectable, and he should
be glad if he could send the prisoner from the bar without
any punishment.
The prisoner was than committed for trial.
BOW-STREET.
A question of considerable importance to the public was
discussed before Mr. Jardine, and may be thus briefly
stated :
Mr. Tomlinson, • pawnbroker in the Strand, was sum-
moned by Mr. Wood, &banister, of New-square, Lincoln's-
inn, to show cause why he refuse d to deliver up a quantity
of lines and wearing apporel, which had been illegally
pawned by a woman named Ann Wilkins the laundress
having the care of the chambers in Mr. Worid's occupation. I
The laundress had confessed her guilt, and had delivered
up the pawsbroker'e duplicates to her employers, but for
some reason not explained to the court, she had been
prosecuted; and this was the " cause " assigned by Mr.
Tomlinson for retaining the property.
The complainant contended that both under the Police
Act and the Pawnbrokers Act power was given to the
magistrate to make an order for the unconditional restora-
tion of the geode, and Mr. Wood quoted several cases from
the law report. to show that this view of the matter had been
confirmed by the judges. He also drew attention to those
clauses which made it the imperative duty of pawnbrokers
to make certain inquiries on taking in property, and which
he contended, were not complied with in the present sass;
in consequence of which he was further liable to the penal-
ties imposed by the act, although that object was not aimed
at in the present summons.
James /Warden, clerk to Mr. Wood, proved that be was
sent to the defendant's to inquire about the articles in
question, during the Christmas week, and Mr. Tomlinson
told him that the !windrow (Wilkins) had pledged a great
many things in the names ot the gentlemen who employed
her, stating that she had been sent by them, only they did
sot wish the things to be left in their own names. He said
he would give her into custody if she came again, but de-
clined to give up the property unless steps were taken to
smoke her ; although he was willing, if that course was
lei pursued, to share the loss with the gentlemen who
linbued it.
Mr. Tomlinson admitted that he had said so, and still
adhered to this defeace.
Mr. Jardine said there could be no question about the
law of the ease. He had an undoubted right to order the
pawnbroker to deliver up the property, but it was another
question whether he should feel justified in doing so, until
at least an attempt was made to prosecute the woman who
had stolen the goods. She was not out of the way—then
why was she not given into custody ? It was a matter of
public policy that the thief, in such cases, should not be
snowed to escape; or, whet would be the consequence?
In the present instant*, of course, there was no collusion,
but among a certain clam of people there would be re-
peated attempts to defraud the pawnbroker. Nothing
mild be easier than for Ann Thompoon to agree with
Mary Johnson to go and pawn her gown and then keep eat
it the way until her friend Johnson bad got the magistrate
hotel ado? the pawnbroker to give it up, the profits of the
sessisa being divided between them. If Mr. Wood
thought proper to prosecute the laundress, then the pawn-
broker would be compelled to give up the property, with-
eat neeleing a penny of his money back again.
Mr. Wood said he would prosecute if the magistrate
ordered him to do so; but he submitted that it was the
pawaluoker's place to prosecute. He would ask his worship
to emasidet the nature of the property pledged, which is-
elm:ed shirts having his name fully. marked upon them.
Sorely they ought to have excited suspicion.
Mr. Tomlinson assured the court that it was the constant'
practice of gentlemen living in chambers in the inns of
court to send their lauadreams with articles to pledge,
directing the latter to leave them in their own names; and
he had known repeated cases in which gentlemen had come
themselves, and pawned articles in the names of their clerks

or laundresses.
Mr. Jardine was rather surprised to hear this, he would
onsfess, ahh=lt he might have supposed that laundresses
frequestly sash representation. He advised a war-
rant to hese spinet the woman.
Eventually *brume was agreed to, and then Mr. Tom-
linson voluntarily delivered up all the goods except one
shirt, which was retained for prosecution.
A gentleman present complained that his laundress had
pawned all his library at the same place, but the cirouns-
Maness were not mentioned.
Two well-dressed young foreigners, who gave the names
of Louie Parfet and Grout Vincent, were brought before
Kr. Jardine sharged with begging end disorderly conduct
at the resides** of the Rev. J. T. Brunow, catholic priest,
of Lineoheesids.
The rev. acinagitleast stated that the defendants called at
his residence between twelve and one o'clock that day, sad I
requested to so* Ms. Be was not disengaged at the time,
and they were requested to wait in the hall. After a short
thus they beguiled's*/ up end down, making a noise, and
complaining of dimospeetful treatment. Witness went
down to them, and they said they had been waiting for en
hour, having called for relief. Witness, knowing that they
had not been kept waiting a quarter of that time, regard
them se improper persons to relieve, and desired them te
quit the house. They refused to go, and he then seat for •
policeman, at the same time win advising them to leave.
They then began to abuse him in strong language, and also
the catholic religion, end he was ultimately compelled to
give them into custody.
Constable 136 F said, that when he took the defendants
into his charge, one of them said that they had called for
relief which the complainant was bound to Passthem. and
had been insulted by being kept in a told age for
hour.
As:the defendants were Italians, and only one of them
could speak English—and that very imperfectly—an effort
was made to look op a translator in the district, but without
snore's, it being generally known that the Home-office does
not allow any fee to be paid out of the Treasury for such
purposes.
Under these circumstances Dlr. Jardine wee compelled to
discharge them, with a suitable caution sot to go there maw
LAMBETH.
A man dressed in the garb of a aseeksaie, who refused to
give his name, was charged with wining, sad having in his
possession a quantity of esidtig Inoismets.
Sergeant ..*ear depend that, ea the 'needing eves'il
rrges
etie d Owyhee lisafts,l
to the Mss, a 7, Ilesvey-belifiole, Illeavbse,
Welwerth, and In endsevourft to Mat as estrange by the
besk4eor, he made a slight yea whisk the edeleme
coned it, and he (Quienser) at sale assured lift. Oa
scarebing the plan they Mad a vestry/rent/Ay of tbieolindt
se are end is the etaneheesse of bon sob, end Me la-1,
formalise whisk hes leashed use, I have so
doubt whatever '
the psitsaw is we of the most lasprdous and suosseeful
asaafesimh Obese odes is Englesd, sad that he mites
as sash es 41. esil N. a less
,ssllleg Ito newallieneei
eels to tbe pewees or " ma' Qalsweer here /sip
the settles Ow* eseelitlas of bell selef. , Wadi
Oa, IS flea of oarless des, ea eiserzetype ahem,
*Ow of Paris, Oa The Weiser, whoa I task Ma Into
emboli (added the whams). said," I weeder a Ay Weer)
Rea like you shoeld take MI auk tremble fse meshing "
(essenies that the mein
pommies else* utilise, no ens
beim disoomed, would not sleet bis).
nieoner—Oilker, why didn't yea fete the eisdimisks
ben I

Clubmen—Beams' I did got think it new/sari.
Mr. Morton—Nor was it. I think the officer bas brought
quite enough against you. Viblt are you ?
Prisoner—l bare stated on the sheet what I

I'm •

tinker and general jobber.
1 Mr. Norton—Then what butinsu can a tinku bus with

plater of Paris f
Prisoner—Well, I sometimes get an odd job of jewellery
to mend, and its very handy to keep the metal from spread-
ing—(Langhter)—and as for supposing the things found In
my possession were intended as materials for coining, it is
quite ridiculous. I due say I could go to your worship's
house at this moment and find the sum sort of materials
there. I should find on the roof some lead or sine f
; I should
And some Britannia metal spoons, and also a lower pot,
which would be found suPlciently porous to answer all the
purposes of electrotyping. I should also, in all probe.-
Mlity, find a box of carpenter's tools, as gentlemen are in
the habit of keeping a fancy boa of tools, and I should not
wonder if I found an old file or two. (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Norton here referred to she act of parliament. and
found that the articles, the possession of which constituted
the offence, were not found in the prisoner's cue, except
awing tools " and the files he should take to constitute
1 .
The prisoner said files were used for different purposes,
and, therefore, his Worship should not arrive at the con-
clusion that those found in his possession were used for
coining. Quinnear, the officer, he said, was perfectly me-
red in his opinion of the law, that there was not in law any
charge against him, and he therefore called for his Jibe.
radon.
Mr. Norton remarked that if the law was not suffieient to
lipmeish a person of his character, there was not the slightest'
Issearity for the public. The law as regarded the whole Nee
*coining and passing base coin was in a most disgraceful
date. He should remand the prisoner for the attendance
0 the officers of the Mint.
WESTMINSTER.
• 101. Bank of England note has been received from
P. W. T. and Co. for Om poor-box.
THAMES.
James Webster, • seaman's boarding-house keeper, was
urged with inducing Thomas Brown to enter another
vessel after he (Brown) had shipped himself for H.M.S.
Pak.
The seaman, Brown, having been examined for the pro-
Mention,
The defendant protested his innocence, and called wit-
nesses who contradicted Brown in several important pu-
dealare.
Mr. Ingham said the ease was nicely balanced, but the
lamstag point in it was the falsehood which it had been
proved Webster had told to the quarter-master of the Esk,
when the latter made inquiries about Brown's movements.
1 Believing Webster was guilty of the charge brought against
him, he must inflict a fine of 101. and code.
The money was paid.