The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-25 00:00:00

Baroas_Ma. Wrniam.

John Popp, 28, w-sorit7diiiiid for stealing a horse, the
property of William Westlake.
The prosecutor and the prisoner were cousins. The former
was a brass-founder at Bow-common, and the bone in
question was stolen from a stable belonging to him at the
beginning of the present month. The prisoner, it was
proved, had mild the animal the next day after it was stolen
for 41. 10s., and after it had passed into several hands, the
prisoner was given into custody by a relation of the prose-
cutor. On being given in charge, the prisoner said he would
make them sorry. for it.
The prisoner, in his defence, said the hone was the joint
property of the prosecutor and his mother, who were in
partnership; and that he had authority from the mother,
who was his aunt, to dispose of the horse. The business
was conducted in his aunt's name ; and he should have pro-
duced evidence to prove this had he known how the charge
would be shaped against him.
The prosecutor flatly denied this. He allowed his mother
111. per week out of the business ; and the sales, &c., did not
take place in her name but in his. The prisoner had ao
authority whatever to sell the horse.
fhe prisoner re-asserted that he had.
Hr. Witham—Why did you not bring some evidence to
that effect then ?
Prisoner—Because I did not know what they would
charge me with.
Mr. Witham asked how long the prisoner had been corn-
mined ?

-71iiit
lieeman answered for three or four weeks.
The ury having deliberated a minute or so,
Mr. ithaas said, Well gentlemen, the ens is this—the
hone is stolen, the prisoner sells it, an he now for the first
time says he had authority to sell it. He has been com-
mitted three weeks, and yet he has no evidence in support
of his assertion; besides which it is sworn that he had no
authority at all. The prosecutor is on his oath, and it is
for you to believe or disbelieve him on his oath, in the ab-
sence of evidence to contradict him.

The fury found the prisoner Gustty.
A former conviction was proved against him.
Mr. Witham sentenced him to be transported for seven
Tears.

to the ahittaion of any gentleman whom the Lord Maps.
naive' think proper to appint, and the poor foreigners
whom the lerrned ttioumel believed to be exceedingly will
conducted and'honist people, should be sent home to
Africa ; but it was only fair that the gentleman who had
taken the responsibility upon himse.f should he enabled to
secure his brother in Africa from demands which, if secu-
rity were not given, would certainly ha made.
The Lord Mayor—Certainly the statement which has just
been made is very satisfactory. I wish to know whether
Mr. Cawood will give tip whatever goods the Africans have
left in his care T..

Mr. Parry said that every thing they bad left at Mr.
Canoe i's house should be at once given up to them. The
sum, whatever it may be, which is due to them, will be
paid upon the judgment of an arbitrator, and they will be
sent back without the least expense.
The Lord Mayor—i expect that.thia arrangement will be
carried intro effect. _

Mr. Simpson, who on Saturday stated that other Africans
had earned considerable property at Cremorue Gardens,
and had been secured in the possession of it by his arrange-
ment to place it in the London and County Bank, where
part of it still lay, expressed his satisfaction at the Course
pursued upon the present occasion.
Mr. Stull, wished to go into further particulars connected
with the subject, but
The Lord Mayor said he had every reason to be satisfied
with the proposal and the positive assurance that it should
be carried into effect, end discountenanced any further dis-
cussion. . . . . . .

Mr. Parry said that although it war sometimes mid that
the City magistrates occasionally interfered with matters
with which, as magistrates, they really had nothing to do
he really believed their interposition on occasions of this
kind produced considerable public benefit.

BOW-STREET.
Philip Russell, the conductor of one of Hartley's Putney
omnibuses, wu summoned before Mr. Henry, fur wilfully
deceiving a passenger in respect to the destination of his
conveyance.
The complainant, Mr. William Fisher, a solicitor, of
D .ughty-street, Mecklenbargh-square, stated that he was
in the Strand on the 16th instant, when he saw an omnibus
with the word " Putney" inscribed on the Sank, fu letters
as large as the panel of the vehicle. He hailed it, and took
his seat inside, bat on the arrival of the omnibus at the feat
of Putney-bridge, on the Middlesex side, he was informed
by the conductor that it did not go any further. Witness
said, "This is not Putney. This is Middlesex, and Putney is
in Surrey." The defendant said, "We do not go over the
bridge in consequence of the toll." Witness told b•m that
he was bound to take him over, haying painted the word
" Putney" on the side of his omnibus. The defendant then
pointed to the words, " Putney-bridge," which appeared in
small letters on the rear of the carriage, and refused to go
further, in consequence of which the summons wu taken
out.

Mr. Lewis, who attended for the defendant, argued at
some length that there was no breach of contract, and con-
sequently no deception, and least of all a wilful deception.
On moat' of the Putney omnibuses the word bridge" wu
written within the branch or fork of the letter Y, and it
bed been decided in the Court of Chancery that the public
were compelled to read small letters as well as the largo
ones in such cases.

Mr. Henry observed that the very way in which the word
" bridge" was painted, or rather concealed, within the
line, of part of the letter Y manifested as intention to deceive
the public.
Mr. Lewis then contended that the deception, if any
ezi ted, was at Fulham, where the complainant got out of
the omnibus, and consequently out of his worship's juris-
diction.

Mr. Henry said it was quite clear that the deception com-
menced at the moment when the passenger took his seat.
Mr. Fisher, the complainant, said he had nothing to urge
against the conductor, who was merely the instrument of
his employer, in the matter.
Mr. Henry convicted the defendant, and ordered his em-
ployer to pay the penalty of 20s.