The Express.
London, England, 1846-09-21 00:00:00

POLI CE.-SATURDAY.

MANSION HOUSE.—Founenv or STOCK ON THE
BANK or EN(;txxi).—A man named J. Jones was brought
before Ald. Gibbs, in the custody of D. Forrester, charged
with having forged a transfer of stock, which was deposited
in the names of G. Edwards and his wife.—Mr. H. Fresh-
field, one of the solicitors to the Bank of England, stated
that the sum of 31. 10s. per annum, standing in the Long
Annuities, in the names of G. Edwards and his wife, bad
been taken out by the prisoner, who represented 0. Edwards,
with whose wife he lived, and for that purpose forged the
name of Mr. Edsrxrds —G. Edwards, of Much-park, Co.
ventry, stated that his wife formerly lived in Ebury-street,
Pimlico, and that her name was Sarah. He had not since 1810
transferred any stock in the Bank of England. The writing in
the transfer hook of the Bank was not his. Ile did not authorise
anybody to sign his name. Had not seen his wife these four
vears. Had written to her, but had received no answer.
Dad been told she lived with the prisoner, hut did not know
anything about him.—S. Cculdry, of Ne. 10, Eccleston-street,
Pimlico, had known the prisoner twelve years, and had
known Mrs. Edwards, the wife of the witness 0. Edwards,
about twesty years. Saw the prisoner in the beginning of
August at hi. (witness's) dwelling with Mrs. Edwards. Be-
lieved that the name "George Edwards," in the Bank
transfer book, was the prisoner's hand-writing.—Ald. Gibbs
asked whether the prisoner wished to account for the trans-
fer in the books?—The prisoner : No; it will be all found
right —The prisoner was then remanded till Friday.
GUILDHALL.—Mr. Dasent, an oculist, who was re-
cently the principal surgeon at an eye dispensary near Cha-
ring-cross, was summoned to show why he should not be
adjudged the father of an illegitimate child. The defendant
did not appear. The leaving of the summons at hie last
known place of abode was proved. It was taken in by the
servant at No. 11, Pall-mall, who said he could leave it, but
he was then in the country.—Louisa Shepherd, the mother
of the child, stated that it was born on 6th Sept., 1846, and
defendant was tee father of it. She stated that she was a
milliner, carrying on business on her own account at the
west end of the town, and having a complaint in her eyes
she was recommended by some friends to consult the defen-
dant, as being a clever man in his profession. She went to
the dispensary, and in a short time was invited by him to go
to his private house. After that visit she was obliged
to seclude herself for shame, and to relinquish her busi-
ness. He assisted her with a little money, both before and
after the birth of a child. When the heard he had married
a lady of fortune, she refused to go to his house for the
allowance; he refused to pay any one else, and she was
blitzed to resort to the law. She put in some of his letters,
and one promised to.settle 251. a year on the child, but with-
out being bound by deed to do so.—The corroborative evi-
dence was the testimony of Mr. Horder, a solicitor, in
Howard-street, who had been in treaty with defendant as to
the settlement on the child. He had prepared a bond, which
defendant approved of, and made an appointment to execute
it, but did not keep it —The magistrate had no doubt about
the case, and made an order for the payment of half a crown
a week, and costs.
MARYLEBONE.—Iurentsro A BATH.—J. Barden, 49,
Great Queen-street, Westminster, a respectably-dressed
middle-aged person, was charged with having wilfully
injured one of The public baths recently established in
George-street. Bammteadroad.—W. Gordon stated that
he prepared the bath for the prisoner, and upon his going
into it it was all perfect, but upon witness going in after the
prisoner had left, he found the bath and room besmeared
with some black substance. He had the prisoner brought
hack, but he denied all knowledge orthe occurrence, and he
also denied that he had any bottle or anything about his per-
son that would cause the injury complained of.—Neagel,
3 S division, stated that be took the prisoner into custody,
and upon his going to search him at the bath-house, he
threatened to punish him (witness) for such an indignity to
a person of his respectability. On searching the prisoner he
found upon him a bottle.—T. Harris estimated the damage
done to the bath and room at 41. He believed the damage
to have been caused by some strong acid having been put

into the water.—The prisoner, in reply to the charge, said
that Gil. worth of paint would cure alt the damage done to
the bath. The contents of the bottle found upon him was
elixir of sulphur, which he always used when he was in a
bath. He had used it at several other baths, and no com-
plaint was ever made acain‘t him for h .ving done so.—The
defendant was fined 41., which was paid.

CLERK EN WELL—IMPUDENT ROIIREKT.,----TWO
flashily-dressed swell-mobs men were charged with picking
the pocket of a lady named Clarke.—Mr. H. Merrick, of No.
8, Earle-street, London-road. an officer of the Police-court,
said that between three and four o'clock on that (Saturda )
afternoon, he was riding in a cab down Pentonville-hill, and
saw the prisoner, with two 'ANT men, hustle the probecu-
iris. Believing them to be thieves, having before seen
them together endeavouring to pick pocket•, he called out
to the lady to look after her pockets, at which instant the
prisoners and their companions mode a rapid retreat. He
pursued them, and having collared the prisoners he endea-
voured to Reis:, another of the gang, when Hawley gave him
a clean hack fall, and the accused parties in custody ran
down a court about 100 yards from the spot, followed quickly
by him. He there saw them ascend a wall, over which he
followed them into a house adjacent thereto, where they
were found, and given into custody.—The prisoners, who
are well known as " men about town," were remanded.—
They declined to make any defence.

_
WORSHIP-STREET.—Seators Case OF ASSAULT.—
D. Green, resident at Hackney, was re-examined betbre Mr.
Broughton, the magistrate, upon a charge of committing a
violent and dangerous assault upon Mrs. Hannah Newton,
a respectable inhabitant of the same neighbourhood, who was
carried in and out of court in a very feeble condition, in con-
sequence of an injury to the spine. From the eomp!ainant's
statement it appeared that, on Saturday, the 11th, she went
to the prisoner's house to demand a goat's chain which had
been taken from her little Loy, but the prisoner refused to
give it up, saying that her boy had a book belonging to his
son, and he insultingly ordered her tc get out of the house.
As she slid not instantly obey this mnndate, the prisoner
started up and seized her by her arms with such violence that
be dug his nails into them, and made both arms bleed. He
then forced her against the weed and clasping her round the
waist, threw her down upon the ground and kicked her. She
received several severe kicks on the lower part of her back,
others upon the lower part of the abdomen and other parts of
her person, from which she had since suffered most severely.
A person, named Thrcby, and a woman, had co:ne from out
of the back room, and, as they were all about her, she could
not say from whom she actually received the kicks. At
length she was thrust out into the street, and two females
picks €1 her up and led her home. She had since been, and
was still, under surgical treatment for the injuries she had
sustained.--Mr. Harrod, the divisional police surgeon, said
the complainant was injured on the lower part of the spine,
the breast bone was slightly indented, the abdomen injured,
and her arms contused, as site had described. She
must have sustained great violence from kicks and blow.,
stud suffered severely.—The prisoner, being called on for hie
defence, said he had nothing to say, but begged the magi-
strate to have mercy on him for the sake of his family.—Mr.
Broughton said the compiainant had sustained injuries which
would probably deprive her of health and strength for the
remainder of her life, and the case was of too serious a nature
for summary adjudication. He therefore committed the pri-
soner for trial.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.— A LADY Snort.trrEn.
—Ann Wition, a well-dressed woman, was charged with
stealing 30 yards of silk, value 131., from the shop of Messrs.
Allison and Co., mercers, Regent-strect.—G. Nicholson, an
assistant to the prosecutors, said the prisoner and another
female came into his employers' shop about five o'clock on
Friday, and asked to see some silk goods. From their man-
ner and appearance he hat his suspicions, and he kept a
sharp watch on their movements. He gum the prisoner take
Up a length of silk, and conceal it beneath her cloak. He
then went round to her, and the prisoner, as soon as she saw
him approach, dropped the silk on the ground. The pri-
soner was given into custody.—E. Casey, ano:her a-sistant,
said he saw the drop from the prisoner, who hid it ap-
parently concealed beneath her cloak.—ln defence, the pri-
soner said she was a stranger in London, having only come
from Ireland a few days ago. She went with a friend into
Mt ssrs. Allison's shop to make a purchase, and while looking
at the goods, a piece of silk fell from the counter on the
floor; she was immediately accused of attempting to steal
the silk.—T.he value of this defence was shaken when it was
ascertained that the same prisoner had a few days pre-
viously gone into a tradesman's shop in Oxford-street, and
had stolen about 30/. worth of proTerty ; but, on the trades-
man getting back his goods, she had not been prosecuted.—
The prisoner was fully committed.

SOUTHWARK. IMPORTANT TO RAILWAY TRA-
VELLER/I.—Mr. T. Robsw,, a merchant, residing in Three
Crown-square, Southwark, was charged before Mr. Clive,
who sat for Mr. Cottingham, with refusing to deliver up his
ticket at the South-Eastern terminus ; also with assaulting
C. Brown, one of the railway servants. Brown stated that,
on the arrival of the mail train from Dover at four o'clock
that morning, ha was employed in collecting tickets. On
opening one of the first-class carriages, he raw the defendant,
and asked for his ticket. He exhibited a second-class ticket,
but refused to deliver it up, although he paid 25., the differ-
ence of the fare. He told the defendant the ticket must he
given up, and showed him a copy of the regulations. The
defendant, however, refused to give it up, and threatened to
strike any one who interfered with him. Witness then went
to the superintendent, who ordered him to take the defen-
dant into custody. He then told the latter the orders he
had received, and was about to put his hand upon him, when
the latter seized him r nand the waist, and they both fell to
the ground. Other officers were called, and the defendant
was taken to the station-house.—J. Maynard, one of the
porters at the station, said that he heard the defendant tell
the policeman that he would not give up his ticket to any
person bat the secretary. Witness told him the secretary
would not he at the station until ten o'clock, and that he had
better give up the ticket. He saw him throw down
Brown, and strike hint on the breast while be wason the
ground.—The defendant contended that he had been grossly
ill-used by the railway authority, who knew him perfectly as
p, ram frequently travelling on the line. On the present
occasion, he took a return ticket for Tunbridge Wells, and
on the arrival of the train at the latter place, his ticket was
taken front him by one of the company's servants, who went
away and did not return to him. He made his complaint at
the station, but they refused to convey him unless he paid
his fare; the station clerk at the same time told him not to
give up the ticket at the London-bridge terminus unless he
had a receipt, which could be shown to the secretary, who
would order the money to be restored, lie considered the
company's servants were to blame in not returning him his
ticket, after presenting it in the usual manner. lie lost sight
of that man while he was looking after his luggage.—The
witness, on being re-called, acknowledged that the defendant
made a similar statement to the above at the terminus.—Mr.
Clive, after looking at the Act of Parliament, said the ears-
pany's servants wt re not justified in giving the defendant into
custody. They might have proceeded against the defendant
by summons before a magistrate, as he was known to the
authorities, having given his card of address, even if the officer
did not know him, he was not justified in taking the defend
ant to the station-house. He should therefore order his im-
mediate discharge.—The defendant expressed hie intention
of entering an action for false imprisonment against the above
company.

WESTMINSTER.—RIGHT OP TUE POLICE TO ENTER
III?. Horses OF LICENSED VICTUALLER/4.—A question of
some interest to licensed victuallers arose before ?dr. Burrell,
upon a complaint made by the police against 1). Crow, the
proprietor of the Three Elms, St. Anne-street, Westminster,
who was charged with refusing to admit Poliee-serjeant
Loom, and detaining him three minutes at the door. The
question which was raised by Mr. Buncombe, the solicitor to
the Licensed Victuallers' Society, was, bow far the police
had a right of entry into the house of a licensed victualler ?
Mr. Buncombe said, that this information was laid under
the 4th and sth Wm. 4, c. &5, entituled an act to amend an
act passed in the Ist of Wm. 4, to permit the general sale of
beer or cider. The act of 1 Wm. 4 applied only'to beer-shop
keepers, as appeared by the preamble. By the /th section of
the 4 and 5 Wm. 4, it was enacted that it should be lawful
for constables and police-officers to enter into all houses,
which should be licensed to sell beer or spirituous liquors, to
be consumed on the premises, when and so often as such
constables or police-officers should think proper, and if any
persm having such licence as aforesaid, or ally servant in his
employ, should refuse to admit such police-constable, he
should for the first offence forfeit 5/., and that it should he
lawful for any magistrate upon the second offence to adjudge
that such offender should be disqualified from selling beer,
ale, porter, cider, or perry, for the space of two years, or for
such shorter time as the magistrate should think fit.—Under
these words it was contended that the act only applied to
persons who sold beer, and not to those who sold spirituous
liquors, and bad received their licence under the 9th of
Geo. 4. c. 61, as licensed victuallers. It was manifestly the
intention of the legislature to confine the powers of entry
given to the police by the 7th sec. of 4 and 5 Wm. 4, to those
who sold beer, cider, &c., and the words " spirituous
liquors " used in the first part of the section must have been
inserted by mistake ; this was evident by the latter part of
the section, where it was stated that upon a second offence
the magistrate should have power to disqualify the
offender from selling beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry.
No allusion was here made to spirituous liquors or wine.
Under these words the magistrate could have no power
to deprive a licensed victualler of his licence to sell spi-
rituous liquors, so that, in fact, a magistrate could not enforce
the penalties for the second conviction: the clause would
thus be inconsistent. Under these circumstances, it was

suite clear that the clause could not be held to apply to
licensed victuallers, but only to beer-shopkeepers. The
pewee. given by this section were calculated to inflict great
injustice; even the Police Act contained no such clause.
There was one instance in which the police had entered the
house of a most respectable licensed victualler at night, and
had actually obliged him and his family to turn out of bed,
in order that they might search the house.—Mr. Burrell said
he had paid the greatest attention to the argument that bad
been used, which was very ingenious, but nut strong enough
to over-rule the express words made use of in the first part
of the section. If, however, Mr. Duneombe's client was
desirous of appealing, he would inflict a fine above 3/., in
order that the appeal might be made under the Police Act.
—Mr. Buncombe said his client was not rich enough to
desire the expense of an appeal.—Mr. Burrell then fined the
defendant 10s., which was not enforced. . .

A MILITARY PRIVILEGE.—A case appeared under this
head in our paper of Wednesday last, in which Eliza Briggs
was charged with being disorderly, a private in the Guards
participating in the offence. She was taken into custody
while the soldier was allowed to escape, on the ground, as
stated by the serjesnt of police, that it was contrary to
orders to take a soldier into custody under such circum-
stances. In reference to this case the authorities have issued
the following memorandum:
"To see the °niers relative to soldiers, and that the spirit of there
and the course followed by the police u, that soldiers for mere drunk-
enness and disorder, such as does not amount to an offence, shall nabe
taken into custody by the police, but notice is to be sent to the regi-
ment in order that the soldier may be taken away by his own superiors.

Thin is, in effect, more than is done in similar neon r f civilians, as
for same iininkennew, or such disorder, a civilian would not be taki n
iota custody, nor any interference used by the pulite, except to get
the party quietly home, if known. The scrjeunt in the wise reported
did not act in obedience to the orders, as the soldier, by interfering/
with the eon,table in the exerntion of Aix duty, causing a mob to
assemble, and acting as he is represented to have done, committed
nffi,nres for which he *nigh! t hare been token into nutody. The
serjeant is reported also to hove stated what In contrary to the orders,
as to the not taking into custody a soldier whom he saw commit an
assault. The Commissioners have suspended the serjeant kw his
ignorance of the orders, and neglect of duty on the occasion.
(Signed) " R. M."