The Express.
London, England, 1864-03-03 00:00:00

BOW.STRKET.

Jacob Brans, a watchman in the employ of the Pneu-
matic Despatch Company, was brought up on remand,
kkanged with stealing a pewter pot, the property of Mr.
Smiled, of the White Hone, High Holborn, and also with
dealing coals from a shed in Bull Inn-gate•yard, belonging
to Mr, lambert, the ecachroaker, of Long•acre.
Mr. Smeed, as an illustration of the wholesale way in
whisk pot stabling is mrried on, said that a few days ago
his premien, on his return from collecting pota which had
been lent, reported that be bad "got all in. Surprised at•
t►is unusual statement, Mr. Smeed reminded him that the
number oat wee half a and asked if be had counted
them. Tbe patinas nepW, " All right ; (cot them all
ia but ten." To lose only tea in one naming did not seem
to him worth mentioning.
James Goss, the fermata at Mr. Lambert's face y. in
Bull Inn-gate, stated that coal bed for a long time pest been
frequently missed from the shed, but he had no suspicion ,
of the prisoner. The letter being a watchman was *ap-
posed to be the last person open to such au imputation.
The shed had no communication with a dwelling•house.
The primmer pleaded guilty to stealing the coals.
Mr. Healy said the oses must go before a jury. He had
no parer to deal summarily with a charge of breaking and
metering.
The prisoner was committed for trial.
CLERIC EN WELL.

Mr. William Pimm, photographer. of 68, Eastoo-road,
was summoned before Mr. Barker, at the instance of Mr.
Henry Baker, the district surveyor. of St. PRAMS, to show
cause why he had not given notice in writing of his intention
to make an addition to his houae two days before be coca-
mewed the work, whereby he had incurred • penalty not
exceeding 201. The same defendant wee also summoned for
doing certain' things contrary to the rules of the act, as also
far omitting whim things, and Mr. William Henry &e-
-clair, of No. 70. Easteuroad, photographer, was alsosum-
moned for • similar offence. These proceedings were takes
under the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, and the raked
of complaint was that both of the defendants had erected at
the back gardens of their honor two buildings, sub of
two dories, oostrary to the provisioes of the act. Mr. Pimm,
by not giving notice to Mr. Baker, the district sur-
veyor of St. Pancras two days before his building was
commecoed, of its area, situation, height, and inteaded
use, had incurred • penalty not exceeding 20/. In
addible* to that Mr. Baker complained that the
buildings, which wore two stories high, 30 feet keg by 10
feet wide, bad been built entirely of wood-work and glass.
What the defendants had done contrary to the rules of
the act was, that they had constructed the lower story of
the addition opal' sad non-enclosed, and had eeciceed
the upper story with boudieg. and glue and had ales
covered the root externally with woodwork and glass,
sod what they had omitted to do as required by the act ,
of patiement was to eoclose the building with walls con-
structed of brick, star», or other hard and Mum.
boatible materials, and to cover the roof externally with
slates, tiles, meted, or other incombustible materials.
Such being case, Mr. Baker had served both die
&adapts ori the 4th of lest month with a notice in writing
requiring them, as builders of the houses in guineas, to
muse the things dose oostruy to the act within 48 hours
to be amended, and also to do the things which they had
omitted to do, but the defendants took no heed a the no-
tice—hence the present proceedings.
Mr. Barker said he should make an order for the removal
of the buildings complained of ; and taking into considers-
Om all the facts should make no order as to coda.
SOUTH WARM.