The Express.
London, England, 1846-10-17 00:00:00

qhiab Di reftemie exempla ...—,
nake oneti itOugfit le be tared on.
Ctimbirsietion:fit
4/7oltrox aebie,

-maw tie INUIIIOL
- -1
. _ illbgicliikis is whaf
Mr, lilitatGßlON has - iaved hi a dad at Worship-
street, reported in our paper of'Thuriflayi • •
William Scott was charged with drunkenness and obstructing the
police. Inspector Julian, IC division, deposed that while passing as
horseback tbrouah Wlute-strect, Ilethaal.frreen. *bora, after twelve
o'clock on Saturday night last, be observed a crowd of persons 38100.
bled in front of a public-liouise, the majority of *horn wen latest.
Wed. Having desired them to disperse, he again proceeded on Ws
numbs, bat returned shortly afterwards, and found the gripper
straggling t latently to dieengnie himself from n policeman who Ad
ham in charge. He was emoumited in this I...anal:KV by a large mob
who surrounded him, rind, apprehending an immediate rescue, wit-
ness sprang his mule for asniAtonoc, which arrived soon afterwards,
and the prisoner wassecured. The Inspector added, that be himself
gave no directions to the constable to arrest the accused.
Here the prisoner is said to have been in charge,
when the Inspector first appeared on the scene.
FttAzen, 121 (K division also), found the crowd
hissing and booting the Inspector, and threatening to
drag him off his horse. The prisoner was prominent
in the row, and he took him into custody. Here islio
mention of any previous arrest of the prisoner.
The prisoner denies the charge; brings forward
householders of the neighbourhood, strangers
to him, to testify to his sobriety; and declares
that the Inspector's overbearing and intemperate con-
duct was the cause of the whole confusion.
This is the householders' evidence:

Mr. Henry Jackson, an undertaker in Winchester-etreet, Bethnal- I
was then called, and stated, that while standing at the door of
green,
ahouse. with hie wife on the night in question, Inspector Julian sud-
denly turned the corner of the street upon horseback, and advanced
at full gallop down the road. The prisoner was standing at the time
quietly conversing with two or three other persona, when the inspec-
tor rode in amongst them, and caused his hone to curvet and plunge
so furiously, that in the rush or the crowd to save themselves from
the animal his wife was flung down by them, and fell heavily upon
the pavement. The inspector pursued this extraordinary line of con-
duct for some time, until a large crowd bad collected, and several of
the adjoining shopkeepers ran out and advised him to dismount from
his hone, as he was manifestly so much intoxicated that he could
scarcely retain his seat. Witness did not observe the prisoner take
any part in the tumult, end considered that his behaviour was both
orderly and inoffensive, and that he was perfectly sober.
John Sorrell stated, that he was present at the closing of a public
house called the Woodman, in White-street, at the time spoken of, and
while not more than about a dozen persons, who hadj ust left the house
and were collected in several little groups, were conversing together,
the inspector rode up to the publican's door, and, addressing a polices
man who was standing with his beck against a shutter, told ltim to
go in and see that the house was cleared. The policeman answered
that he had already dose so ; when the inspector demanded to see
Mr. Hayward, the landlord, who directly appeared, and told him
that all the company bed left the house several minutes : to which
the Inspector replied that he was as bad es they were, and he
would make them all move off instantly. The inspector then
struck his spurs into the horse, which reared in the air, and in
descending came so close to Mr. Howard's shoulder that he believed
it was struck by one of the animal's fore feet. He then turned the
horse round, and, while the persons who bad been engaged in
conversation were separating, rode in amongst them like a mad-
man, driving them from one side of the street to the other,
and loudly exclaimed, "Beck all of you, or I'll run over you."
The result of this conduct was the greatest confusion and con-
sternation, end the assemblage of persona, which had not before ex-
ceeded a down at the utmost, quicJtty Increased from the adjoining
streets to 100 or 120, and a scene of indescribable tumult and indigna-
tion ensued, everybody crying " Shame " upon the inspector, and
accusing him of being drunk. The prisoner was standing quietly by
at the time this charge against Aim arose, when the Inspector, who
had ridden out of the street, returned, pointed him out to a police-
man, and exclaiming "That's one of them," ordered him to be taken
into custody, which the constable had previourly, be thought, no
Intention to do, but then, of course, followed hit instructions. Wit-
nese felt satisfied that the prisoner was perfectly sober, but the
inspector appeared so drunk he could scarcely sit on his horse ; end
he could bring forward, if necessary, a greet number of housekeepers,
a list of several of whose names he had then in his possession, to
establish that fact.
Mr. Thomas Saris, a surgeon, of Winchestersitreet, who witnessed
the whole of the transaction from his door, also deposed that the
prisoner appeared to him to be sober, and that though he could not
take upon himself to state that the inspector was drunk, he could
scarcely believe that any person in authority could have acted in so
capricious and violent a manner if he had ben in • state of sobriety.
No mention is here made of the prisoner's precious
apprehension by the police. This fact, testified to by
JULIAN, is never mentioned by any one else, and is
inconsistent with the evidence of the witnesses.

A Mr. BLAKE, a watchmaker, had made a separate
charge against the inspector.
Mr. Thomas Blake, a watchmaker, next stepped forward to make
a distinct complaint against the inspector, and stated that, as he was
coming out of a public-house, called the Britannia, about an eighth
of a mile from the scene of this disturbance, he found the pavement
so obstructed be the horse of an inspector, which was standing across
It, that be wad scarcely get by, and that the moment he appeared
he inspector addressed him in a harsh tone with, " What shall Ido
for you ? ' and drove on his horse so furiously, that before he had time
to get out of the way the head and neck of the animal were forced
over his person, and he had a very narrow escape of his fife. On reco-
vering himself a second attack was made upon. him by the inspector,
and he w-as oompoUed to rush into an adjounort chandler's shop for
protection. lie immediately proceeded to the station-house, ACCOM-
panted by four or five witnesses, to lay aeoinplaint against the officer. ,
No proceedings, we may mention by the way, have
followed this complaint. Hitherto the witnesses tell
a consistent story.
Now for the other side of the picture, as drawn by
the police :
In reply to this evidence for the defence, Inspector Julian called
Sergeant •Graves, who received the charge at the station, and who
stated that the prisoner was positively drunk, and that the inspector,
who conversed with him for ten minutes on the routine business of his
office, appeared to be perfectly sober. Two other sergeants ant threw
private constables were also examined, and each of them deposed, in
the most positive terms, to the ;arm: cffert, and that the prisoner had
been very violent in the street.
Here is manifest perjury either on the part ofl
the Bethnal-green housekeepers or the police. The
case turns on the credibility of the witnesses, and
their credibility on dehors evidence or inherent pre-
sumption. There is no use in calling more policemen.
They will probably go on, ad infinitum, in the same
story. The Dagenham murder case revealed their,
readiness to perjure themselves, and their notions of
the necessity of being " all in a tale:* The reputa-
tion of the K division is at stake. JULIAN may
reward FRAZER, 121, and even serjeants are not
beyond inspectorial favour. The witnesses for JULIAN
are all of a trade, and a trade proved to be not
very scrupulous in the matter of perjury. They
live in the atmosphere of every-day oaths,
administered in an unintelligible manner, and taken
with a wink. No place is so likely to breed
and encourage irreverence of such sanctions, as
the police or assize court. Oaths, in such places, are
the merest matters of business. On the other hand
we have, among the householders, an undertaker and
a surgeon (who, though they may be popularly con-
sidered members of two branches of one profession,
are of two trades by the Directory), and a watch-
maker ; men of probable substance, intelligence,
and respectability ; strangers to the prisoner ;
who testify in the teeth of the police state-
ment. The watchmaker not only gives evidence,
but has made a charge against the inspector on his
own account. The account they give is consistent
with itself, and probable. The whole story of JULIAN
rests on one fact, the arrest of Sulam before the in-
spector's appearance, which is not mentioned by
FRAZ Ell or any one else. Without this fact, JULIAN 'S
interference is unexplained. Why is not the police-
, man called who is said by JULIAN to hare first taken
SMITH into custody ? He would have settled this
fact : a very material one, under the circumstances.
Of the two stories, then, we maintain that, by the
laws of evidence and the weight of inherent probabi-
lity, the householders' version should outweigh the
policemen's. But, setting them on a par, what fol-
lows? Why, the case should be dismissed. What is
Mr. BROUGHTON'S verdict? We will venture to say,
one which no lawyer, no simple-minded unprofessional
man, could have anticipated:
" Mr. Broughton, in delivering judgment, said that he had devoted
great time and attention to this case, which was certainly at great im-
portance to the public, as in producing en exculpation in the defence,
the conduct of an officer of 15 yew,' standint in the force, awl from
whom the utmost forbearance and discretion might be expected, was
impugned; but the eridence adduced on either side leas so conflicting
and contradictory ne to render it somewhat difficult to come to a
satisfactory determination upon it. He should entirely (mac out of
consideration the allegation of intenspera nee and riolenee against the
inspector, as that was not then ',triunity before him for adjudication,
and simply confine himself to that against the occused; and as the
po
pr ndiratiny ',eight of testimony had decistrely, in his mind,
esttc-blillied the fact of the pri.loncr's intorieation. tic should concirt him
of that offence; but as he had already been subjected to a cotunderable
period of oonfinement and inconvenience, he should impose upon him
a much lighter amount of penalty than he should feel otherwise called
upon to inflict, and that was, that be pay a fine to the Queen of
or in default be committed to the tiOill4 of Correction for ace week."
_ _

Mr. BROUGHTON convicts, leaving out of considera-
tion the allegations against the inspector'. But Mr.
Buotunvos has no business to do anything of the
kind. The charge against the prisoner is inextricably
mixed up with-those allegations. JULIAN and police
say, SMITH was drunk and violent. SMITH and
householders say, JUL! kN was drunk and violent.
" SMITH tens drunk," says Mr. BROUGHTON ; " but
I won't say whether JULIAN was so or not." But un-
less you determine thatJULIAN was not so, you haven()
business to believea word which he or the policemen say.
You must settle this point before you have a right to
move a step towards a settlement of the other. Yon
cannot ignore the doubt as it affects SMITH, because
you cannot clear it up as it affects JULIAN.
Mr. BROUGHTON has, he declares, given care and

attention to the case. We cannot conceive care and
attention employed to worse purpose. lie has brooded
over the affair till he has riven birth to a reductio ad
absurdum. His verdict is sheer nonsense; and this is a
case where rigid justice and strict logic were peculiarly