The Express.
London, England, 1864-12-20 00:00:00

THE ANTI•TOBACCO SOCIETY.

At the WestuUnster police-court yesterday Mr.
nem, Reynolds, secretary of the British Anti.Tobsoco
Society, 10, Camden-square, Camden-town, appeared to
a summons charging "that he did feloniously and directly
cease to be received by Mr. Charles Edward lunes, knowing
the contents thereof, a writing demanding of the said C. E.
lanes, with menaces, and without any reasonable came, the
sum et 40 shillings.

Mr. E. C. Morley, solicitor, King's Bench-walk, Temple.
conducted the prosecution ; and Mr. Lewis, sen., of Ely-
piece, defended.
Mr. Inner, a clerk in the War-office, was at the
Barnes Railway Station on the sth of December, and having
arrived a long time before the train by which he was to
depart became due, he seated himself at the end of the
platform, which was uncovered, and began smoking. A
person came op to him, accompanied by a porter
of the company, and requested the porter to
take his name and address, for infringing the
byo-laws of the company, acid he said he was an agent of
the British Anti-Tobacco Society. Mr. limes gave his name
and address, and put his pipe out at once; and after-
wards wrote• letter to thesecretary of the society aseollows:
—"Sir,—Thie morning one of your society's agents took
down my name and address, at Barnes station, for smoking.
Will you allow me to submit to you the following explana-
tions, which he will be able to corroborate. Ist. Having
more than half an hour to wait for the next train, I was
sitting in the open air away from the station, and annoying
nobody. fad. That on being requested to desist,l at once
did so. On these two grounds 1 believe that, though I have
made myself liable to your society's action in letter, I have
not done so in spirit. Hoping this will meet with your
favourable consideration, I remain your obedient servant,
C. G. INNES." To which he received the following reply :
" Dec.:.—Sir.—lshave no power to act loth' matter to which
your letter refers. I am deputed to pay the rewards offered
for the conviction of offenders as described in the bills
which are in circulation, and those who spend their time in
effort. to get the rewards would justly complain if they
were not allowed to secure that object.-1 am, sir, your
obedient servant, THOMAS REYNOLDS (Onlei&V This was
succeeded by the following " British Ants- obacoo So-
ciety. Eatatilished IS'3. 10, Camden-square, Camden New.
town, London, N.W. President, If. E. Gurney, Esq.
Vice•Prosident, The Right lion. the Earl oft Mayo, the
Very Rev. the Dees of Carb•le, Sir W. C. Trevelyan,
Banc, the Rev. Sir N. Chinnery, J. Leigh, Esq., B. Scott,
Esq., N. Janson, Esq., J. R. Jeffries, Esq., S. Morley,
Req., W. H. Ewing, Esq., H. Pesos, E.q., .1. Comp-
ton, Esq., R. Charlton, EN, G. Thomas, Eq., T.
EN., Sir W. Johnston, and R. Barrow,
I:sq. Secretary, Mr. T. Reynolds." The above was
in print. and written under it the following :
" Dee. 7, IBo4.—Sir,—l sent your letter to the gentlemen
who have offered rewards for the conviction of smokers.
1 send you on the other side a verbatim copy of their
reply ' It remains with you to decide whether the case
shall be proceeded with, or whether you pay the fine and
avoid the costs and exposnre.-1 am, sir, your obedient
servant. THOMAS REYNOLDS, Secretary. P.S. I will not
allow ace steps to be taken till Thursday morning." The
letter referred to as encased was then put in, and was
as follows :—" Dear Sir,—The reward Is offered to he given
upon conviction. If the offender confess his fault and pay
the fine, 10s., he may avoid • prosecution, and the rewards
shall of course be given, in addition to what may be ob-
tained from the guilty party. The parties are thus secured
against loss of time. The present case seems clear. If the
smoker will not arrange matters quietly, and mast be pro-
secuted, the instant he is convicted the complainant' legally
claim, and shall receive the reward, as well as the 2/. to
which the offender is liable by the laws of the railway
company."
Mr. Bolts here said be thought Pe case hail failed upon
the point that there was no absolute demand of money,
but merely a suggestion that complainant might pay. Mr.
Selfe then asked Mr. Lewis to explain to whom the 44M.
was to go.
Mr. Lewis replied to the man who discovered the offence,
which was made clear in the letter complained of.
Mr. Selfe—Nu ; be was to receive the rewards. if any
one offended against the bye-laws of the company, and
thereby made himself liable to a penalty, the fine went to
the Queen , and it was highly indecent, to say the least of
it, to induce any one to compromise an offence to divert the
penalty from her Majesty's exchequer and put it into their
own pockets. It was the phrase, "If the offender confess
hie fault and pay the tine of 40a, ' that had induced tuns to
grant the summons, as it was really asking' the complainant
I to pay them.
Mr. Lewis said that it would be given to the porters and
others. . _

3Fr:Selfe observed they had no more right to it than
either he or Mr. Lewis had.

Mr. Lewis pointed out that to sustain this offence a man
must be put in fear, and complainant had not bees.
Mr. Setts observed that on legal grounds this case failed,
because the mosey must be demanded ; but here it wasoely
suggested. It had been decided that such& suggestiou even
where it was intimated that property would be destroyed,
and the person who wrote the letter could give information
about the destruction of the property, was not a demand, not
a menace. Mr. lanes had behaved like • gentleman in the
transaction, sod so far from being menaced or in a fright,
he thought that the defendant was more likely to have
been iu a fright at these proceedings than Mr. loses
had been. and the menace must he such as to put a
man in personal fear, and Mr. lanes had not been; there-
fore the case technically failed. He did not sit that. es an
arbiter serum, to decide whether there was any propriety
or impropriety in gentlemen emulating placards of this
sort. IL must repeat he thought it very improper to
attempt to divert from the crown tines which belonged to
it when an offence had been committed, and he suggested
they had better just change their title to the Anti-British
Tobacco Society, which would confer an unmitigated amount
of good.

Mr. Morley inquired whether it was not a misdemeanour
at common law! Was it not competent for the magistrate to
commit the defendant under the lsth of Elizabeth, cap. :i
(an act to redress disorders in common informers), by which
it was enacted that if any person should, by colour or
pretence of process, or without process epee colour or pre-
tests, of any matter of offence, Lc., he should be guilty of an
offence).
Mr. Self. observed that his colleague and himself, in
anticipation of the hearing of this case, had looked closely
into the matter, and had found by the statute of Elizabeth
that it uuly referred to cases in which process might be
taken in a eupettor court. Although magistrates, by some of
the cases they Lid refined to, had concurrent jurisdiction
with the superior courts, yet this was not a Mae cognisable
in a superior court, mid therefore proceedings could not be
taken before him under the statute.
The summons was then 'hominid