The Express.
London, England, 1853-08-12 00:00:00

TEE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 12, 1853

me. I stood at the door, and I beard Connor call out, and
say he was struck and dying, and I saw be was bleed-
ing. I put my cap over his side to stop the blood. The
prisoner was then lying on his bed and trying to hide the
scissors, and I took them and gave them to the policeman,
and convirli the prosecutor to the hospital.
The prisoner said be had been attacked in the public-
heu•e by several, of whom the prosecutor was one, and he
had, in whatever be had done, merely acted in self-
defers,. _

He was committed fur trial.
GUILDHALL.

M. Jean Auguste L;Cai,dese;2l;;dl in the police sheet as
a merchant, carrying on business at 91, Londoo•wall, and
representing himself as being in partnership with Guil-
laume Carle Theophile Sange, was charged with that per-
son with uttering a forged request for god., to the value
of 1001., coosistiag of six boles of French truffles. Both
prisoners were alms charged with conspiring to defraud M.
Pierre Davies, ion., of Carpeatraa, in the sout► of France,
of the said truffles.
The depositiuss taken on the three former occasions were all
read neer, and Mr. Parry then applied for the elmmittal
of the prisoners, on the charge of forgery, and st.ited it was
his intention to indict them on the charge of conspiracy
also.
Mr. Solemons objected that the charge of forgery was not'
mad: out, as the name made use of was not that of a &ti•
tiout firm.

Alderman Moon said it appeared to him that it w•s •
name ar,unied fur the purposes of fraud, and he would,
therefore, commit on the charge of forgery.
Committed accordingly.
BOWSTREET.

The driver of cab 2,118 wu summoned for exacting a
shilling more than his fare from a lady, aced also for ne-
glecting to deliver his badge-ticket, as required by the new
act. •
The defendant pleaded guilty to both charges.
The complaint wu preferred by Mr. Jardine, the ma-
gistrate, on What of a young lady (his niece) who arrived
in London unexpectedly, from Dlinburgh, on Sunday
morning last, and was driven by the defendant from Euston-
square station to Mr. Jardine's residence is Cumberlend-
terraee. It was doubtful if the distance exceeded • mile,
but the lady paid him a shilling, upon which he told her
that he was entitled to two shillings, and he then received,
that amount.
Mr. Jardine stated that be was induced to take up the I
ease, because it was en obvious attempt, on the part of the
cabman, to get double his fare, merely because he saw that
the lady was alone, and had arrived at his house unex-
pectedly when no one but a female servant happened to be
at home.
The defendant admitted that the fare was only a shilling,
hut said be had been standing • long time at the station,
besides which the lady had two heavy boxes, fit which he
considered himself entitled to make a charge. Cabmen on
duty at railway-stations generally expected rather better
pay than other men, and he only asked the lady fur the
extra shilling—be didn't demand it. As for the ticket of
his number; it being • new regulation, he had forgotten all
about it.
Mr. Hall said the cabman's excuses were perfectly non-
sensical. Firstly, he talked about having been kept • long
time at the station, but he might just as well think of
charging for being kept on his stand. Then he suggested
that cabmen on duty at railway stations usually expected
higher fares, but the privilege of plying there wu greatly
valued, and it was a reason for reducing, rather than in-
creasing, their charges. Finally, he talked about the lady's
luggage, well knowing that he had no right to make any
charge for it whatever. With respect to the ticket, he (Mr.
Hall) was satisfied that every cabman in London knew per-
fectly well that be was bound to supply it upon being
asked.

Mr. Jardine said he had no wish to preps the complaint in
regard to the ticket, although tho man's neglect in that
respect bad given him a good deal of trouble, as he bad
been compelled to ascertain the defendant's number at the
station. Ile was also desired by the lady to say that the
man was civil.

Mr. Hall tined the defendant 200., with the costs of the
two summonses es., and the is. overcharge, or fourteen
days' imprisoment.
The money was paid.

SOUTHWARK.
Mr. John Shapley, of No. 20, Devonshire-place, Maryle-
bone, entered the court with Henry Sells, cab proprietor
and driver, badge 5484, to complain of his conduct under
the following circumstances :—Mr. Shapley stated that he
hired the cab at his own house that morning, to drive him
and a lady to the Brightoa Railway terminus, London-
bridge. Oa his way he left his watch at • watchmaker's,
to be repaired, and he afterwards stopped at his chambers
eight minutes, la Linenln's.inn, and put his son's watch in
his pocket. When they got to the railway station, finding
it very late, he beckoned the cabmen to follow him, when
he trudered him 2s. as his fare. The defendant said, " I
shall not take that. I knew I should have a trick
with you at first, and you shan't humbug me." Witness
again offered him the two shillings, when he said he would
make him a present of it. He asked him how much he
wanted, but he refused to tell him, and witness again ten-
dered him the two shillings, and told him if he was wrung
he might summon him. He was put to great inconve-
nience, having a lady with him, and he had also to com-
plain that the defendant never gave him the usual ticket.
Defendant (insolently)—You never asked me for one.
Mr. A'Beckett—The gentleman bad no right to do so.
Defendant—l thought the set of parliament recently
passed said we are not bound to give tickets to fares unless
demanded.

Mr. A'Bockett—The act of parliament ciplicitly says,
you are bound to give a ticket to a fare on entering your
vehicle under a penalty. It is not incumbent on the public
to ask for one.

Mr. Shapley—l beg to inform you, sir, that he publicly
called me at the railway station a liar, and that I had no
watch with me. I had my son's watch with me at the
time. I charge him with insolence and neglecting to give
me a ticket required by the new act.
Mr. A'Beckett asked the defendant what he had to say
in answer to the charges f
The defendant said he called the gentleman a liar,
neither was he insolent to him. All he wanted wu his
fare.

Mr. A'Beckett—lt is not a question of fart, but a chugs
of gross insolence and wilful neglect.
Cabman—Well, I never insulted the gentleman, or any
body else.
Mr. A'Beckett—Have you any witnesses, as it must not
go forth to the public that you had not the opportunity of
answering the charges or producing them.
I Cabman—l have no witnesses, and I was insolent
to the complainant.
Mr. A'Beckett told him that it was distinctly sworn by
Mr. Shapley that he had been grossly insolent to his fare,
and that he had neglected to give him a ticket. For
each offence he should fine him 40a., and in default of pay-
ment commit him for one month.

Defendant (insultingly)—Then I'll take my month.
Mr. A'Beekett—You will have two months—one month
for each offi.nce—unless you pay the penalties.
The defendant was then removed in the custody of the
gaoler, and his cab taken to the Green-yard.

LAMBETH.
The Hon. G. C. Norton was eogsged for upwards of two
hours in investigating a charge of gross cruelty towards a
little child only 20 months old. The parties charged with
the offence were Mr. James Pays, a carpenter and
builder, and Ellen, his wife, both of them persons of much
apparent respectability, and the inquiry into the distressing
case caused such a degree of interest in the neighbourhood
of their residence, Park-street, Brixton, that the court at
the time was densely crowded by persons anxious to hear
the result.

Mr. Robinson, the barrister, instructed by an attorney,
attended on behalf of the prisoners.
From the testimony of the witnesses, it appeared that
about 17 months ago the mother of the unfortunate child
who formed the subject of the inquiry had died, and the
infant at that time was removed to the country, to the care
of its grandmother, and was brought up by her from that
time until September last year, when her fat.,er, the male
prisoner, sent fur her, and she was brought to his
residence at Brixton. In the month of November last
the father got married • second time to the female
prisoner, and for some months past the neighbours
had observed several acts of ill-treat-rent both on the part
of the father and step-mother, and particularly the former,
towards the poor child ; and further, they witnessed a con-
siderable change in the appearance of the infant herself—
& change proving to all who saw her a gross negligence on
the part of those whose natural duty it was to I,ok to her
care and comforts, if not a want of proper food and nourish-
ment. At length the treatment the unfortunate child ex-
perienced became the subject of conversation in the neigh-
bourhood, and the circumstance coming to the ears of the
parish officers of Lambeth, they very properly took the
matter up, and the result was the apprehension of the pri-
soners ; not, however, before they had endeavoured to put
the child out of the way. Witnesses were called on be-
half of the prisoners, who spoke of their character for
humanity and respectability, and Mr. Rubinson also
addressed the bench at some length, and with considerable
force, in reply to the evidence. The learned gentleman
dwelt with much severity on the conduct of many of the
witnesses called to prove the charge, and whom, on their
lien showing, had witnessed from day to its, a repetition of
the grossest cruelties to the poor child, for not having at
once gone to a police-station or before a magia•rate, and
thus avert much of the alleged cruelty, and argued that
their apathy was such, if their statements were anything
like the truth, es to disentitle them to belief.
Mr. Norton observed that they had a molt patient and
pidisful investigation, and he was very sorry he could not
eon eto the same conclusions as respected the conduet of
the trimmers as the learned gentleman who had de-
fold,'L them. In these cases he hed punished the
guilty party, es he should always do, and he did
' not thin It he should be doing his duty towards the
public or, justice to his own feelings, if he did net inflict on
the male ps leaner the utmost punishment which the law
empowered L ,ins, and that was that of committing him to
prison fur sia calendar months with hard labour. The
conduct of the female prisoner was not quite so bad, and
therefore he shos ild snake some distinction in her case, on
only committing her for three mouths with hard labour,
invead of six.
His worship's jua'gment in the case appeared to give
much satisfaction to all present, except the immediate
friends of the prison's as • buzz of approbation was dis-
tinctly heard from the body of the court .as Use priseneta
were removed from the 13.7-

... - -
Joha 11411, a policeman, belonging to the South Western
Railway, wu charged with being drunk at the Waterloo
station while on duty.
The prisoner it appeared had not only been drunk while
on duty at six o'clock on that morning, but acted in the
most free and easy manner by shaking hands with the Lord
Mayor, and also tendering his hand to several noWemea aad

gentlemen starting tome the naval resister on that day. He
was frequently told to go home, and get to bed, but disre-
guided the kind advice, and was ultimately given into
custody.
Mr. Norton in con►ideration of his being discharged miti-
gated the penalty to five shillings.