The Express.
London, England, 1865-07-08 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

CLEEKEN W ELL.
Javier WM onus, polkomostable 86 B divisioe, yea
charged before Mr. Barker with anlawfally assaulting sad
beaks( Hrs. Harriet Elmer, of 5, Randolph-genet, Camden-
town, oa the 23rd ult.
Mr. L Lewis prosecuted ; Mr. Winner defended ; and
Mr. Hoary Anew, prosecuting officer of the Aasodat• la-
stitution for Improving and Enforcing the Laws foe the
Protection of Women, watched the sea.
The complainant said that on the day la qnsetlon,rat
about half-pest three in the morning, she was in the St.
Paurs-road with her maim, rotundas home from attend-
ing a sick cousin, who bad sines died. As she pawed the
prisoner be said " Good morning," and her mother answered
him. Be followed and took hold of her mother, and after-
wards took hold of winesa by the arm rattier roughly.
She told him to take his bands off her, and he said, " I
am not the first man who bas laid hands on yon to-sight,
and yon are no better than you ought to be." She had a
sheep straggle to got away from him, and in that her arm
was bruised and her dress tors. She had not spoicea to the
defendant nor to any man on her way home.
Cross-examined—She might have stated that the &fen-
daht had been drinking, sod his breath smelt as if he bad.
Sbe saw the defendant at the police station on the Saturday
following, bat she did not then say that be had been driak-
Mg. We both said that it the defendant would apologies
we would forgive hint, bat be said "There is none needed."
She would not now accept his apology, as he had said that
he had seen her oat with some drunken men.
Mrs. Elmore said that the complainant wee her daughter,
sad on the day in question the defendant took hold of her
yin and trod en her boot Whilst she was doing up her
boot the defendant insulted her daughter, by taking hold of
bee by the right sm. She radiated very much, and in the
straggle her dross was teem The defendant insulted her
daughter, and said that he was not the fleet man that had
laid his hands on her shoulders that night. lithe did not say
that the defendant was drunk, though pie thought be had

been drinking. _
Mr. Walther said that no one regretted more thee his
client that he should have mistaken the young lag for
some one else be had seen that night, but that he wished
now to withdraw all imputation on her character, sad to
resider an ample apology for what he had said under mis-
takes.
The complaisant said that as the defendant would not
make ea apology at first, she would now leave the matter
in the heads of the magistrate.
Inspectors Stratford and Millard gave the defendant a
good character, and said that on the night in question he
wee perfectly sober.
Mr. Wontoer said he hoped that the magistrate would
be contest with the defendant's apology, and dismiss the

case.
Mr. Barker sold be considered the defendant had behaved
very ill in the matter, and fined him 40a. and costs, or
in default 21 days' hard labour in the House of Correction.
The Owner was locked up in default.
THAMES.

Mr. Day, • barrister, on the part of Moore, M'Queen and
Co. (Limited), who are extensive printselers and engravers,
and have their establishments in London, came before Mr.
Partridge, to make • statement in their vindication. He
said they were the proprietors of valuable copyrights in en-
tannin and prints, and their basineas came in a direct line
from Alderman Moon. They ware, of course, desirous of
Protecting their valuable copyrights, and had prosecated
Mr. John Dicks, the publisher of • cheap weekly serial called
" Bow Sells," who had caused to be connived and ierned two
wood soginvings—cos "The Return from Hawking," the
other " A Distinguished Member of the Humane Society."
which were exact copies of valuable aegraviep be-
longing to Wean. Moore, 14.`Qnsen and Co.,
and in whom the copyrights ware vested. It was
true the printed copies were not sold, but
were distributed gratis to the panne= of Bow Bells
to enhance the sale and nanee the popularity of that
journal. His clients of nurse did all they could to stop the
circulation of the printed copies, and commenced proceed-
ings against Mr. Dicks, who paid 401. as compensation to
Moore. M'Queen and Co., and undertook to stop the issue
of any more printed copies. The issue, however, still went
on, sad 11 applications had been made to pectin for com-
pensation, end five writs ieetted. It was not correct that
Mr. Clarion Harcourt, the attorney for Moen. M'Queen,
and Co., bad made 100 application, or wen issuing write
right and left as stated by his learned friend (Mr. Reynolds)
on Thursday: The writs were directed against the whole-
male dealers in Bow Bali only.
Mr. Partridge caked if the applications and write were
issued by Mr. Clarence Harcourt, the attorney complained
of by Mr. Roger, • retail vender, with the mention of
Moore, legume and Co.
Mr. Day said that Mr. Clarence Harcourt was acting for
that firm.
Mr. Partridge said the application to Mr. Rosier wee
printed, with the exception of that person's name and
address, and he was informed there were more than • hun-
dred of them issued.
Mr. Day repeated only eleven, and five writs. An attempt
had been made to prejudice Moore, 'Queen and 00., and
it was stated tthat • poor widow in • byetreet. who
realised • profit of 4s. per week by the sale of Bow Belk
had been prosecuted, and 121. demanded of her. The firm
of Moore, M'Queen, and Co. knew of uo such Oise. It was
a fabrication to give a oolouriag to the affair. It was ei-
osedingly difficult to stop the circulation of the pirated so.
pies sod protect the copyright. The preceding. adopted
by Mr. Clarence Haroourt were absolutely necessary, sad
se the prime were still issued, Moore. Ill•Qeeen and Co. had
filed a bill in Chancery to prevent Mr. Dicks circulating
any more copies of she pirated engravings. Mr. Clarence
Harcourt was an attorney of groat respectability, and his
object was not to obtain moan, but to preveat the future
invasion of valuable copyrights belonging to hie dints.
That could only be -close by letting the publiahere and
vendors of cheap aerials know they could not circulate
pirated copies of valuable severing' with impunity.
Mr. Partridge banded to the learned mused • letter he
bad received from a west-end tradesman, oompleining
inn
sharp practice on the part
of XL Claregioe Harcourt in
snatching • judgment.
Mr. Do said the letter did not refer in any way to Moore,
M'Queen and Co.
Mr. Partridge said there was no case before him. He
heard ea application f rem Mr. Rosier, a tradesman in the
district, for • warrant to arrest Mr. Clarence Harcourt, an
attorsey. That application he felt bound to refuse. Cer-
tain statements were made and poblisbed. He had beard •
statement in refutation from Mr. Reyoolds, on behalf of
Mr. Dicks, and another on behalf of Moore, M'Queen and
Co., and Mr. Minna Harcourt, and he hoped there WY
an end of the matter, as far as he was concerned.
Mr. Day was much obliged to the magistrate for his
courtesy and potions, and could only say, in cooclusioc,
that Moore, M'Qneen and Co. would not abandon their
right to protect their valuable copyright' against invasion
by the proprietors and publishers of cheap periodicals and
retail vendors.