The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-21 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, AUGUST 21, 1851.

would tend a Post-office odor kr 4/. 12.. to redeem some
goals he had pl. dgcd to witness ; the value of the goods
was 41. 2s. Oa the next mart ing witness received the order
and the duplicates, and immediately packed up the good.,
and directed them to Ridley
.Franz, Oxford-street, South-
ampton, enclosing Ss. 6d. in stamps, balance of the
account. On presenting the order at the Post office he was
told he had better bring it another time.
William Hillier, clerk in the Southampton Post-office
stated that on the 30th of July he issued an order for 25.,
and sent with it 3 !ester of advice the same night. The
order was made able to Charles Attenborongh, and the
name of the remittee given as Ridley Franz. Witness
Gould not say whether the defendant was the man who ap-
plied for it. The order produced was the one he issued,
value 2.. It had since been altered, and made of the appa-
rent value of 41. 12s.
John Parker, of Queen's-road, Pimlico, pawnbroker, stated
that on July 30he received a letter containing au order
At N. 13s. 6d., and a request that he would send goods of
that value, which had been pledged at his establishment by
Ridley Franz, to the Crown and Sceptre, St. Peter-street,
Canterbury. On presenting the order at the Post-office, he
was refused payment.
Henry Debenham, of Queen's-road, Pimlico, stated that
an the 30th July he received a letter from prisoner, re-
questing him to send two suits of clothes which he hail
Pledged there, on receipt of a Post-office order for 2/. 128.64„
to 26, o:ford-street, Southampton. The ordeewasenclosed,
but payment refused at the Post-office.
Henry Barber, clerk to the Post-office, Canterbury, stated
that he issued, on the 30th July last, two orders of the re-
spective sums of two and three shillings. Those produced
by the two last witnesses were issued by him. They had
since been altered. The one issued for the sum of 3s. had
been altered to appear of the value of 21. 13s. 6d. That
issued for the sum of 2.. bore the figures 21. 12s. 6d.
Parsons, assistant to Mr. Ilardman, pawnbroker, 32,
York-street, Westminster, stated that some time back the
defendant pawned two suits of clothes for the resapectivo
sums of 'Lis. and U. 15s. In July last he sent witness a
Post-office order for the money, with a request that he
would send the clothes on receipt of it. On presenting the
order he could not get it cashed.
George King, in the same establishment, stated that he
received a letter a few weeks hack from defendant, re-
questing him to send some goods he hail pledged with him
to 28, Oxfordsstreet, Southampton, in exchange for a Post-
office order for the sum of 3/. 2s. 6d., which he enclosed.
Payment of the order was refused at the Post-office.
George Norwood, clerk at the lost-office, Dover, said the
order. produced by the two last witnesses were issued by
his, in .duly last. The figures had been altered trots 3s. to
31. 2.. 6.1. and from 21. to 31. They were made payable
to Mr. 11.1rdinari, 32, York-street, Westminster, and the
person who applied gave the n.uneof Ridley Franz.
Mrs. Harriet Churchill, of Oxford-street, Southampton,
stated that the prisoner lodged at her house from the 20th
July, till Friday, the 25th. Witness had not seen him since.
A short time otter ho had left, witness received the letter
produced, containing the stamps. It requested that she
would send to Canterbury any letter directed to her for him.
Soon alter a letter Caine for him, which she forwarded.
Daniel Peak, the officer connected with the Post-office,
stated that from information communicated to him, he, on
the 12th instant, apprehended the prisoner at the Crown
and Sceptre, St. Peter-street, Canterbury. Oa takin; him,
witness asked prisoner whether he was not the man who
procured an order et Southampton for 2s. Prisoner re-
plied that he wee not going to answer any of his qu‘a-
time. ]fitness found on him memoranda relating to the
pledged property.
The prisoner was fully committed.
SOUTHWARK.

.....
Lieutenant Bradshaw, of the Royal Artillery, was sum
mooed for committing as assault on George Richard-on, a
guard in the employ of the South-Eastern Railway Com-
pany.
Mr. Church, the solicitor of the railway, appeared for the
prosecution, and called
George Richardson, who said he was guard of the W'ool-
wich train on Friday evening, the Sth of August, and it
was his duty to accompany the train to Woolwich. lie
there saw Lieutenant Bradshaw with two dogs, one of
which he put in the dog-box, and said he wanted another
Mr the other. In fact he said he wanted separate boxes.
Witness told him there was no other dog-box, and there
was mean for it where the other was. Defendant replied
that the dog should not go there, as there was no ventila-
tion. There were four laths in each door, and frequently
three or four dogs were placed in the dog-boxes. The de-
fendant then seized hold of one of his dugs and attempted
to put it in a first-claw carriage. This witness prevented,
and immediately afterwards Lieutenant Bradshaw endea•
soured to place the dog in a second-class carriage, among
the soldiers. The time was nearly up for the train to start.
Witness took the dog away trim him, when he struck him
over the month, and once on the breast. It was an ordinary
train, chiefly occupied by the soldiers.
Lieut. Bradshaw—Did you not touch my epaulettes.
Witness—l merely assisted in taking your dog away. I
never assaulted you.
Lieut. Bradshaw—How could I strike you when I had
the dug in my arms ?—My coat was actually torn, your
worship ?
George William Graves, a constable employed by the
South Eastern Railway, said that he was on duty on the
'platform about 9 o'clisek on the evening of the Bth inst. I
The defendant had a dog with him, which he attempted to
put over the door of One of the second class carriages. Wit-
ness culled the guard's attention to it, and when the latter
came up, the defendant said he was determined to put the
dog in. The complainant said " You must not ;" when we
(witness and the guard) both caught hold of the dog, and
put it on the platform. Witness saw defendant strike the
guard on the mouth once, but there was very little blood.
When witness came up, Lieut. Bradshaw said, " I give the
guard in charge fur stealing my dog." Witness replied,
"No, you must be given in charge for assaulting the
gaited." Mr. Weatherhead then came up and went to the
officer's carriage, and asked which had assaulted the guard,
when defendant called out, "I did it. What of it?"
Limit. Bradshaw never complained of his uniform being
torn at the time.
In cross-examination witness said there was a general
scuffle, and he could not say which side he was when the
defendant struck the guard.
Mr. A'Beckett—Do you mean to say that no hand was on
Lieutenant Bradshaw ?
Witness—l swear he never complained of any damage to
his tiriforin.
Lieutenant Bradshaw—l was grossly assaulted by the
guard, and did not discover that my epaulette was torn at
the time.
Alfred Maddocks, Superintendent of the South-Eastern
Railway, said he saw the defendant and his servant with
two dogs on the evening in question. Lieutenant Brad-
shaw refused to pay for the dogs, but shortly afterwards his
servant paid for them. Witness went up to the carriage to
see that the soldiers were all in, when he saw the defen-
dant uttemptirig to push the dog through the upper part of
the carriage. There were two dogs, one of which was put
in the dog-box; but defendant persisted in putting the other
in the carriage allotted to passengers. Witness did not we
the gu ird assault or annoy the defendant. Lieutenant
Bradshaw at first attempted to put the dog in a first-class
carriage, but the officers and two civilians prevented hint
from doing so. The train was an ordinary one, and, accord-
ing to the bye laws, no dogs could be conveyed unless by
the usual way.
Mr. George Martin Miller, a clerk in the City; Charles
Wallis Tumer, a clerk in the Superintendent's office; and
David Irast, an interpreter in the employ of the Railway
Company, gave similar evidence.
In answer to the complaint, Lieutenant Bradshaw said
be had just come to London with a portion of his regiment
for Woolwich. His servant paid for the dogs, and ought
to have Christian attention, especially when he paid more
than Christian fare. He asked his men whether they
would have the dog, and on their replying in the affirma
tive, he was about to place the dog among the soldiers,
when the guard seized him by the epaulette, and nearly
pulled him backwards.
Reuben Ward, servant to defendant, said he saw Lieut.
Bradshaw attempt to put the dog in the carriage. The
guard took hold of him and pulled him back. Defendant
never struck the guard. He must have seen it if he had.
Lieutenant Bradshaw here explained to the magistrate
the peculiar reasons why he could not possibly allow the
dogs to be put in the box. The railway company had
only one dog-box, and he was requesting the guard not to
pat them together. The soldiers were an quite contented
to receive the animal, and it being_ a train specially em-
ployed, he considered the guard had no right to interfere.
He denied striking the guard intentionally.
?dr. A'Beckett, after hearing the whole of the evidence,
said he was sorry that the railway company should be com-
pelled to bring a gentleman in defendant's condition before
him on such a charge. He had not only broken the bye
laws of the company, but actually assaulted the railway
officer in the execution of his duty. He should, therefore,
under all the circumstances, fine him 61.
Lieutenant Bradshaw—But, sir, the railway company
had only one dog box, and I could not put both my dogs
togetrer.
Mr. A'Beckett—Your Me is settled. Have you any
further evidence to bring against the guard, as I see you
have summoned him.
Lieutenant Bradshaw—l have not. Had I known the
railway company was going to produce so many witnesses,
I could have produced quite trudicient to support my case.
Mr. A'Beckett—Then I dismiss that summons, and grant
a certificate to the railway company.
Lieutenant Bradshaw then paid the fine, and leg the
court, protesting against the magistrate's decision.

Henry Bragg, a wOoli;vriei., was charged by the police
with neglecting to provide his wife with proper necessaries,
whereby her life was endangered.
Mr. Symons, an inspector of the B division, stated that
the imminent peril in which the unfortunate woman's ex-
' istence was placed, had induced the police to inter-
fere and apprehend the accused. A communication
had been made to them on the previous night of
her lamentable condition, upon which, on applica-
tion to the parish authorities at Kensington, medi-
cal aid was promised that morning, but finding that no at-
tention was paid to the cue, they had, in consequence of
the apparently dying state of the poor woman, secured the
attendance of Mr. U. Pearse, the police division surgeon,
who had promptly visited the case, and whose evidence
would show the deplorable state in which he found her.
Mr. G. Pearce, of Regent-street, Westminster, surgeon,
said he was requested by the police to visit the poor crea-
ture between twelve and one that day. She was much
emaciated, and scarcely able to articulate. He had her
turned over, and then discovered extensive bed sores upon
her person, all over her back and hips. The floor of the
room had just been washed when he got there, and fresh
plasters placed on her wounds, and be wee informed that
the bed she bad been lying on bad been burnt. There was
a little jelly and some medicine by her side. He learnt that
the jelly bad been brought by some Sisters of Mercy who