The Express.
London, England, 1853-10-27 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER.

William Mitchtll,c7Ficiaal/7el7;treet, Bans-place.
Sloane-street, watch rid clock maker, was charged with
detaining a watch entrusted to him for repair.
Mr. George Day said he gave defendant a watch to clean
in April, and had found it impossible to get it from him.
lie had made repeated visits weekly for it, either done or
undone, without any success.
Defendant said that complainant had a watch of his which
he had lent him, while his own was being repaired.
Complainant said that was true, but it wouldn't go, and
ho told defendant so, but still his own was not forthcoming.
Defendant put the blame upon a man in his employ/nen',
and prote3ted that he had done everything to prevent the
complainant being inconvenienced. lie had now brought
his watch. _ _

Mr. Arnold thought it was high time, and could not
understand what defendant meant by having done every.
thing to prevent the complainant being inconvenienced,
when he had given him the trouble of applying repeatedly
ever since April, had occasioned him four visits to this
court, and had rendered it nececsary for him to take a
warrant, upon which defendant had been captured.
Defendant was ordered to give up the watch in exchange
for his own, pay complainant 12s. for his loss of time, and
2s. condo.

Defendant hadn't got so much about him.
Mr. Arnold—Have you any goods to that amount ?
Defendant—Yee, at home.
Mr. Arnold—Then a di►tress warrant will issue against
them unleu the amount is paid within tt hours.
Mr. John Seymour then stated that he left a watch with
defendant, "to see bow it would go," in Novemb, r last.
He had previously been paid for cleaning it, and it only
wanted regulating. lie applied daily for it, but could not
get it of defendant.
Defendant pleaded, as before, being very much engaged,
and having a man that didn't pay proper attention. lle
had now brought the watch.
Mr. Arnold ordered it to be immediately given up, and
coats to bo paid complainant for his loss of time.
A third party stood up to state that defendant had been
two years promising to put a new case on his watch, but
he could get neither.
Defendant said this complainant had consented to'give
him a fortnight longer.
Complainant said he would not retract hie promises, but
he had some doubts evidently about defendant's keeping
hts word.

The police intimated that there were a number of other
cues against the defendant, although the parties were not
present.
Mr. Arnold observed that there had been so many com-
plaints against the defendant that he hoped the
press would take notice of the matter, in order
to put the public upon their guard against
the defendant, u it seemed to him that be made a trade of
keeping people's watches without the alghtest reasonable
excuse. What defendant did with them during the great
length of time they were kept from their owners there was
nothing to show, although it might be shrewdly conjectured.
There existed grounds for strong suspicion that his prat
tices were nefaricw, and he would take this opportunity 01
informing him that if he came within the letter of the pe•
nal law, it would be inflicted upoi him with due severity