The Express.
London, England, 1846-10-08 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 8, 1846.

to counsel was untrue, and that if Use receipts
of have
counsel, w been produhced th
Wes,
ey I
are fabrications, at least as rciipecte one the ose
with those of his clerk, were not paid at 12 o'clock this day.' I now
michs,e you a copy of the declaration of the gentleman who made the
pcmnents, and call upon you publicly to retract your statements, now
proved beyond any question to be untrue. —I am, Sir,
Js V your
obedient
servant, ".s.
James Andcrton, Esq."
On the envelope was written—" An answer is requested be•
fore 12 o'clock tc-morrow."—The declaration referred to in
Mr. Yates's letter, ran thus:
I George Scores, of Lower Eaten-street, Grosvenor-pixy, In the
county of Ma:Wise', Gent., do solemnly and sincerely iketue that I
did on Monday, the sth day of October inst., pay to Sir T. Wilde, Mr.
Kindersley, and Mr. W. P. Weed, the sum cir Pis., being the
full iunount of fees respectively due to thou on account of the Irish
Society trout Mr, Alderman N% and, the soliciter in the cause, and that
I did, at the !wile time, take receipts fcc the scone, and I make this
solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the saws to be true,
Me., Si.e.—Gkolios WM." On'
Declared this oth day of October, IS46.—Jous Jousses, Mayor."
Now he (Mr. Anderton) came to the Mansion-house under
the impression that it was most tit to confirm or to retract
the accusation he had brought before his lordship. He was
ready to prove that the statement he bud sent to Sir George
Carroll's committee, and which had appeared in the public
papers, was, so tar as he was concerned, a true and correct
statement. He bad called at the chambers of one of the
counsel, and learned upon questioning one of the gentlemen
there, that the fees of his principal had not been paid by
twelve o'clock on the 6th instant, and that gentleman had
come forward to corroborate his assertion in the presence of
Alderman Wood's committee.—?'he chief clerk of the
counsel alluded to was then called by Mr. Anderton. He
said that the statement in italics in Mr. Anderton's letter, to
the effect that the fees of one of the counsel bad not been
paid by 12 o'clock on the 6:h instant. was correct.—lts
answer to Mr. Ilarris, one of Alderman Wood's committee,
the witness stated that be was not at the counsel's chamber.
between three and four o'clock on Monday, the sth inst.,
and he did not know that it was at all the practice of the
clerk of one counsel in a case to receive, in the absence of
the clerk of another counsel in the same case, the fees due
to the former. He did not know what clerks of counsel
might do, in the event of occasional absence, as regarded
briefs, but the receipt of briefs was very different from the
receipt of fees. He received a cheque for his principal, for
tees in the case from his assistant clerk, before two o'clock
on Tuesday the 6th inst.--Mr. Harris asked whether the
clerk of one of the other counsel in the cause was
present, and the answer being in the negative, said
that that individual ought to be in attendance
in order to show that the committee were perfectly justified
in the statement they had made. The assistant clerk to the
counsel whose chief clerk had been just examined, stated
that between one and two o'clock on Tuesday, the Gth inst.,
he receivA a cheque for the fees of his principal in the name
of Alderman Wood, from a young man without a hat, whom
he did not know. He did not give a receipt for the cheque.
He paid it over to the chief clerk a little before two on the
same day. Mr. Harris said he should lay before the Lord
Mayor a plain statement of facts, to which he defied the
slightest contradiction. On Monday last, at shout three
o'clock, he saw three cheques delivered to Mr. Score, the
gentleman who made the declaration before his lordship on
Tuesday. He saw that they were in accordance with the
amount of fees due to the three counsel. Mr. Score took
them, to deliver to the several counsel. It was well known
that the present time was the long vacation, and that caunsel
were absent, and their clerks were not always at chambers.
Mr. Score, upon calling at the chambers of two of the
counsel, found neither principals nor clerks, and to a female
who expressed her readiness to take care of anything left for
one of the counsel he handed one cheque, while to the clerk
of the third counsel he handed the other two cheques to be
delivered acsording to direction. Here Mr. Harris produced
receipts for the torte cheques, two of which were signed
by the clerk of one of the counsel for each of the principals,
and the third by the housekeeper to the remaining counsel,
and on each of them were the words, " Paid by me, Orig.
Score, Jun., Oct. 5, 1846." Mr. Harris proceeded. Mr.
Score, he said, returned about four o'clock, bringing with
him these three receipts, so that the cheques had been paid
for the use of counsel between three and four on Monday. If
the clerks were not all at chambers to receive them it was not
the business of Ald. Wood or his committee.—Mr. Andcrton :
The question is, whether I have told anything that was
untrue. I have produced my authority for the fact that
neither his principal nor himself had received a cheque for
the fees at twelve o'clock on Tuesday. It is that lam called
upon to retract. I ask your lordship whether I hue e not
been borne out in the statement! P.minle by the evidence 1—
The Lord Mayor : Certainly your statement is borne out.—
Mr. Harris said that both sides were borne out in their
statements. The cheques had been paid, as was manifest
to all, on the sth instant, but,lay the contingency observed
upon, did not reach the proper hands until next day, after
the hour stated by Mr. Anderton, who had made use of the
information he received to suit his own views and wishes.
It was true the statement which had been made had proved
injurious to the cause of Alderman Wood. He (Mr. Harris)
would not use any harsh comments. Neither he nor any
one of Alderman Wood's committee had resorted to any
angry or unkind words during the election, but they all re-
grctted to see Mr. Anderton deserting his old friend.—Mr.
Yates (the chairman of Alderman Wood's committee) said
he came to the Mansion-house to meet Mr. Anderton, and to
contradict the statement made by that gentleman. Before
four o'clock on Monday he hod the receipts in his hand, and
he was therefore exonerated from all imputation as to pub-
lielhing an untruth. lie had no disposition to cavil or to
quarrel with Mr. Anderton, hut he believed Mr. Anderton
had said much during the contest for which he would, upon
consideration, feel sorrow. He had night and day, during
the struggle, been engaged in the committee, and he had
abstained from personalities, however strong the temptation
and the strJund might have been. It was for the
enemies of Alderman Wood to acknowledge that from
his friends they had never heard one word of calumny,
or one syllable calculated to show the existence of animosity.
Mr. Anderton said that nothing whatever could have pre-
vented him from giving his most warm and active support to
Alderman Wood lithe conduetof Alderman Wood had been
such as to justify hint in giving him his assistance. He acted
according to the dictates of his conscience in coming forward to
prevent what ought not to take place, and he was satisfied with
the course he had adopted.—The Lord Mayor said it was his
duty to request the attendance of the gentleman who had so
readily appeared, and he was glad that an explanation had
taken place, which left both parties complete:y free from
imputation as to a disregard for truth. 1k regretted that
the mistake had occurred ; and in his opinion all the trouble
they had just been at might have been avoided if the money
had been paid at the proper time to the pr.per person.—Mr.
Anderton : Well, my lord, what is your verdict, guilty or
not guilty ?—The Lord Mayor said he acquitted all parties.
•

GUILDHALL.—A VICTIM TO Isteuzan.—Yesterday a
middle-aged man, named Farley, was placed at the bar be-
, fore Alderman Gibbs, charged with stealing an inkstand,
' the property of the Corporation of Lettlon.—lt appeared
that Police-constable Wardle and another officer on Monday
last observed the prisoner going along Tower-hill with
something hid under his coat. They stopped him, and a
large inkstand hearing the City arms was found up m him.
r It had been taken from the ante-room between the Coufts of
Common fleas and Queen's Bench that morning.—The pri-
: soner, in defence, said that he had been most respectably
connected, but declined telling who Lis friends were. The
fact was, having nothing to do, he dropped into the court
opposite to listen to the proceedings of the Revising Barris-
ter, when his attention was drawn tothe inkstand in question,
and an unaccountable desire seized on his mind to become
possessed of such an useful article. Ile accordingly appro-
priated it to his own use, and walked off ; but on the way a
' change came o'er the spirit of his dream," and he began to
meditate as to the best and safest mode oreturning it to its
right and proper place, when the officer came up and appre-
hended him. He hoped the magistrate would deal leniently
; with him, as it was the first time he had ever been guilty of
r such a crime, and he could not account how it was he had
, done so now.—Several porters and door-keepers of the va-
rious courts stated that a number of articles were constantly
missed. The prisoner had been often seen lurking about,
and been warned to be off.—Alderman Gibbs sentenced him
to one month's imprisonment.
• MARLBOROUGH-STREET. —Ronnray or THREE
HUNDRED SOVEREIGNS. Peter Hogan, labourer, was
charged with having stolen three hundred sovereigns, the
property of Bridget Walsh, of No. 1, Anil court.—The
prisoner and the prosecutrix are first cousins, and lodge
within a few doors of each other. The prosecutrix, who has
only been a very short time from Ireland, kept a sum of six
hundred pounds in sovereigns in a box in her room. The
, prisoner was a frequent visitor, and thus became possessed
of the knowledge of her riches, and their depository. On
Monday night, prosecutrix had occasion to leave her room
for a short time, but took the precaution to lock her door
and to take the key with her. When she returned,
she discovered that her box had been opened, and
that three hummed sovereigns, out of the six hun.
dred belonging to her, had been stolen. From the
circumstance of the door of the room having been un-
locked and locked again during her absence, it was
suspected some one well acquainted with the place had let
I themselves in with a duplicate key. Suspicion attached to
the prisoner, and police-constable °Mount, C 128, on Tuesday
evening succeeded in capturing him. On searching the priso-
ner
in the station-house, one hundred and seventy-five sove-
reigns were found in his hat, and in other parts of his dress
other money, amounting altogether to 218/. The prisoner,
when captured, was io a state of intoxication. Ile had
apparently contrived to get rid of 821. from the time when
he committed the robbery to the time of his apprehension.
A portion of the money had been employed in supplying
' himself with& stock of new clothes. When the prisoner was
at the station-house, he declared that all the money found
on him was his own property. The prosecutrix,
however, had the means of proving that this story
was not true, as the money. was done up in rou-
leaux of cartridge paper, made in Ireland, just as taken
from her box ; and further, the prisoner had a purse at
home, which he had also taken from the box, and which she
could swear to.—ln defence the prisoner repeated his first
story, that the money was all his own.—Mr. Hardwick re-
manded the prisoner for a few days, to make further inquiry
about the disposal of the deficiency.—The prisonsr asked to
have some of the money given to him, in order that he
might pay for legal assistance.—Mr. Hardwick refused to
listen to the application.—The prisoner thought it very hard
he was not allowed to have a trifle from such a large sum of
his own money.
THE NEW LAW OF SETTLEMENT.—The question raised
in the case of Harriet .Arundel, between the parishes of
Marylebone and St. George, as to the construction of the
settlement clause in the new act to amend the law relating
to the removal of the poor, was again brought under the
notice of Mr. Hardwick, the siting magistrate. Mr. Rana-
ford and Mr. Smith were present ,^l,l behalf of the parish of
St. George, and Mr. Messer represenwd the pariah of Mary-
lebone. The ease appears to be this: „Llarriet Arundel, a
widow, with five children, became fhogeable to St.
George's parish some months ago. She leceived tem-
porary relief, but, as her legal settlement was with
the parish of Narylebone, through her husband's

appren.icetelt,p, she was regu:aily passed to Maryle-
bone by. tne parish-officer' of St. George. The parish
authorities of Marylebone admitted the claim of settlement,
and made an allowance to the widow of five shillings a week.
This allowance she contiuued to receive although residing in
St. George's parish up to the time when the new law came
into operation some weeks ago. The parish-officers of Mary-
lebone taking a peculiar view of the first clause, ',topped the
allowance, and the poor woman was in consequence obliged
t apply for relief to the parish authorities of St. George. By
the help of some private assistance, the woman contrived to
keep her children and herself from *titivation, but her case
every day becoming more desperate, as the parish of St.
George could not relieve her, and Mar) ielsone parish would
not relieve any applicant, unless one who was a resi-
dent in the parish, and parish-officers being prohi-
bited by the statute under a heavy penalty, from giving her
any advice or assistance as to the proper mode of
proceeding, she came to this court, accompanied by Lacy,
one of the officers of St. George's, to as': the magistrate's
advice.—Mr. Hardwick promptly sent to Marylebone, and
an explanation of the refusal was forthwith volunteered by
the proper authorities. It appears that the new Oct contains
this clause, " that from and after the passing of the act, no
person shall be removed, nor shall any warrant be granted,
for the removal of any person from any pirish in es hich such
person shall haze resided for five years next before the appli-
cation for the warrant: provided always, that the time during
which such person shall be a prisoner in a prison, in a lunatic
asylum, in a hospital, or during which any such person shall
receive relief from any parish, or shall be wholly or in part
maintained by any rate or subscription raised in a parish in
which such person does not reside, not being a bend fide cha-
timid° gift, shall fur all purposes he excluded in the
computation cf time hereinbefure mentioned." This
clause had given r.se to much perplexity as to its
meaning, and several parishes have come to different
conclusions on the opinions given by different legal per-
sonages.—Mr. Rumford contended that the parish re.ief
granted by the authorities of Marylebone i.isturhed the five
years' claim of settlement. This being so. the course for
the pariah of St. George to take was to apply for orders of
removal.—Mr. Mercer said such orders could not legally be
granted. The applicant had lived for five years as required
by law in St. George's, and St. George's had a right to re-
lieve her.—Mr. Hardwick read the clause which had given
rise to the difficulty, and after looking at the conflicting
legal opinions as to its meaning, appeared at first to share
the general uncertainty. He would forward the views of
the parties by undertaking to sign an order for removal,
upon the understanding that no technical objection was to
be raised on either side, and that each consented to this pre
liminary form as a means of bringing the question before a
superior court.—This arrangement having been acceded to,
the parties thanked the magistrate and retired.
One sovereign and 10s. from J.S. have been received for
the use of Harriet Arundel.
•
MARYLEBONE.—Arrata or " HONollll."—Yesterday
Mr. It. Clarering garage, a person of considerable property,
residing in Wellington-road. St. John's-wood, attended be-
fore Mr. Rawlinson, by virtue of a warrant charging him
with having challenged Theodore Henry Shute, M.D. the
principal witness on the inquest relating to the death of the
unfl nutlet° B iron de Bode, to fight a duel.—Dr. Shute
stated that his surgery is opposite to the dwelling of &fin-
dant, from whose premises loud screams of " Murder!" pro-
ceeded on the 10th ult., between 7 and g in the evening
Similar cries hail emanated from the same house before, and
a large mob of persons had assembled.—Mr. Rawlinson :
The defendant is brought here on the charge of challenging
von ; come to that, if you please.—Dr. Shute: Well, sir, as
I was sitting in my surgery, there was a great noise at the
door, and hearing defendant's voice, I ran out somewhat ex-
cited; he (defendant) ran away to his own premises, and
there abused me, calling me a blackguard and a gallipot-
scraper, at the same time challenging me to fight at Calais
either with pistols or swords. After that, I certainly told
him that VI could get at him, I would thrash him.—De-
fendant: You spat in my face, did you not ? —Dr. Shute:
I admit that I tried to do so, hut whether I really
did spit in your face or not, I cannot tell.—
Joseph Hooper, assistant to Dr. Shute, corroborated the
greater portion of the preceding evidence.—Another witness
deposed to having heard defendant make use of the offensive
expressions imputed to him.—Defendant said that the noise
was occasioned by a family dispute, and as soon as it had in
some degree subsided, he went over to Dr. Shute, who bad
improp-rly interfered, and complained of his having caused
pill box, -s and other rubbish to be placed at his (defendant's)
dear. Ile (Dr. Shute) then rushed at him in a most furious
manner, and not only aimed a blow at him, but spat in his
face. Being incensed at this, he certainly did call the doctcr
a "gallipot scraper." Ile gave no challenge to fight a
duel, hut told him that for spitting in his face he might in-
stitute proceedings against him, not a* a police court, hut in
another way.—Witnesses were examined in behalf of defend-
ant, and the magistrate, taking all the circumstances into
consideration, dismissed the ease, remarking that both par-
ties seemed to have conducted themselves with much indis-
cretion.

CLERK EN WELL. SAVINOR STOLEN. Yesterday,
Mary Atm Allen was charged Lv Mrs. Mary Latimer, of
White Horse alley, Cow•crae, Smithfield, with having
stolen 21/. 5.. in gold and silver. The prosecutor was in the
habit of selling fish in the streets, and by her industry ma-
naged to save the above money, which she kept concealed
between the bed and the mattress. She employed the pri-
soner to assist her in her business, and having been with her
for upwards of four years, confidence was reposed in her, and
she was allowed arce•s to the apartment in which the pro-
perty was kept. On Tue,day she cot possession of the key
to enter the room, and subsequently the money. was missed.
Suspicion fell on the prisoner, who was given into custody,
when she admitted that a young man, who had promised
her marriage, had the property.—The prisoner denied the
charge, but she was remanded for inquiries to be made.

SOUTHWARK.—A slue-rialto THIEF.— Thomas Bell,
a tall well-dressed young man, and James Erems, a diminu-
tive lad, were brought before Mr. Seeker, charged with
attempting to pick a clergyman's pocket near the terminus
of tke Dover railroad. The prisoners were observed that
morning near the terminus, where a train had just arrived.
They were seen to follow up a gentleman, and the younger
of the two lißed up the stranger s coat pocket, while he was
seri ened from oh-vrvation by his tall associate. The police-
man, who witnessed the act, went up to the gentleman, who
turned out to be the minister of an adjacent church, and
questioned him as to whether he had lost anything, and the
reply was in the negative, but he at the same time said that
he was aware he had been followed by three pickpockets,
and pointed out the prisoner as two of them. The police-
man added that he knew both the prisoner to be bad cha-
racters, and took them into custody. Bell, a practised hand,
contended that there was no evidence to bring him within
the meaning of the Vagrant Act. No property had been
stolen, and the clergyman of whom mention had been
made, was not there to prefer any accusation. Under such
circumstances, therefore, he considered the policeman was
not justified in their apprehension, and also considered such
an act of violation had been committed against the liberty of
the subject, that he should seek for redress for his wrongs.—
The pri.oners were well known to many of the constables in
attendance, and Guest, the summoning officer, said that Bell
was committed some time ago for a very daring robbery,
pulling a lady's mantilla off her shoulders.—Mr. Seeker said
that he felt perfectly satisfied he was only performing a duty
to the public by committing Bell fort me months, and his
associate, against whom there was not such heavy charges,
to one month's imprisonment.

THAMES.—ATIEVIeTED SUICIDE ItY AN ACTRESS.—
Mrs. /Inas Yates, an actress engaged at the Pavilion
Theatre, was placed in the dock, charged with attempting
to commit suicide by throwing herself into the Thames.
The prisoner, who, though somewhat advanced in years,
possessed considerable personal attractions, and in address,
appearance, and demeanour was very lady-like, appeared
much distressed at the position in which she found herself.—
James Lyddart, a waterman, stated that between 7 and 8
o'clock last night, whilst waiting at the Iron-gate stairs, the
prisoner ran past the wall of the Tower toward the river, and
hurried on towards the water's edge, and was about to cast
herself in, when witness, who had pursued her, seized her
by the arm, and prevented her. She fainted suddenly
away, and there was some difficulty in recovering her again.
iglip 141 H, took the prisoner into custody. She was at
the time in an excited state, and, from incoherent words which
she uttered, he was led to infer that she had had a quarrel
with some person whom she lived with.—The prisoner said that
a person whom she knew had grossly insulted her, and rush-
ing wildly away from him she cared not where, she made
towards the water without being aware of it. She had not
the slightest idea of self-destruction, and would have got a
boat to escape in but that she was too agitated for utterance.
—Mr. Ballantine asked the prisoner whether she could find
any respectable persons who would become bail for her fu-
ture good behaviour.—Mr. White said that the prisoner had
dealt with him for several sears, and he considered her a
very respectable woman.—Mr. Ballantine, addressing the
prisoner, said he could reach the feelings by which she was
actuated ; but she had been about to commit a most serious
offence as regarded the laws both of God and man.—Mrs.
Yates said she had been seventeen weeks out of employment.
She had contracted a few debts amounting in all to about
M., and one of her creditors so grossly insulted her that she
was driven to desperation.—Mr. Ballantine, who seemed to
feel deeply for the unhappy lady's position, accepted the rc-
cossnizancer of Mr. White and herself to be of good be-
haviour for twelve months, on which she was discharged.
WOOLWICH.—Gisoss OUTRAGE By AN OMNIBUS Puo-
PRlETOH.—Yesterday, JoAn Monyard appeared to answer a
summons, charging him with assaulting Mrs. Sarah Gordon,
whO with her husband, got into the defendant's omnibus,
about 2-5 minutes to nine on the night of the 24th
of September, for the purpose of going to Greenwich. After
waiting in the omnibus for nearly half an hour, during which
time it was being pulled off the curb, and going back for
passengers, and finding it was not likely to go on, Mr. Gor-
dtm expressed a wish to get out, but was informed he should
not do so unless he paid his fare. Mr. Gordon, upon that,
attempted to gct out of the omnibus by force, but the door
was slammed in his face by the defendant ; he ultimately
succeeded in getting out, and upon Mrs. Gordon attempting
to follow him, she was also treat d with great violence by
the defendant, who slammed the door violently against her,
inflicting some serious bruises upon her arm and
leg, from the effects of which she suffered a considerable
time. The complainant then called for the police,
and upon an officer making his appearance, the defendant
gave Mr. Gordon into custody; but on going down to the
dockyard, refused to prefer the charge.—Mrs. Gordon and
the Rev. Charles Box corroborated the former Bitnem, and
deposed generally to the deft adult's violence —For the de-
fence, Henry Matteson, the driver of the omnibus, was
called, but he prevaricated so much that Mr. Traill
indignantly ordered him to stand down ; and, in convicting
the defendant, remarked, that, although the case was one in
which he should have been quite justified in inflicting the
full penalty, he should not do to, as the defendant was evi-
dently a person who would give parties who proceeded
against him as much trouble as be could. He should only
impose a fine he could not appeal against, and therefore