The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-04 00:00:00

thi The defendant justified seder certain bye-
law alba aNallaar, which sited a penalty of 40s, in eery
ease where any passenger should commit any nuisance to
the annoyance of the rest of the passengers, and penalty of
51. in we any passenger should destroy or deface any ofthe
property in any of the company's carriages ;
and by the 107th section of the company's act, the
officers of the company were empowered to take into
ho
custody say person infringing the byeelaws, w,
when requested, should refuse to give his Saws ma
address. It was 'et up as a defence in this esser OM the
plaintiff bad committed a nuisanee by firing of gas, to the
annoyance of the paseergere, and also that he bad broken •
window and lamp in one of the CILTWarI. It appeared by
the evidence of Mr. Wallop, that ma the llth September
1848, the plaintiff, with two other gentlemen. Mr. Richard;
and the witness (Mr. Wallop), who bad been shooting
in the neighbourhood of Winchester, having dined at
of Dr. Twyneham, on retiring at nip
the house %
had taken places in • firstclass carriage to go to
Gosport. Mr. Merewether Turner, wbo during the day
had been very poorly and languid, had his gin packed up :
Mr. Wallop's gun wee not packed up. Mr. Richards had
not a gun. They had deg, with them, and tickets were
taken for the dogs to be conveyed by the train. During the
journey, after ratting Hishopstoke, Mr. Wallop put a
man charge of powder into the barrels of his gun,
and fired the gun twice at least out of the window.
who le The
ou plai
rney
n-
tiff objected to his doing so, and during the j
the plaintiff never had a gun in his hand. In the course of
the journepone of the doors of the carriage by some acc
at one of the stations became very much damaged. On the ar-
rival of the plaintiff and his friends at Gosport, Mr. Wallop
was seked to give his name, but so there were many persons
I about, he did not wish to give his name, but told the man
who asked for hie name that he would see his name on the
dog-ticket (it being usual to put the name ofWellop the passerefu snged
er
on the tickets for doze and horses), and Mr.
otherwise to give his name. He was then outside the gate,
and the officer endeavoured to pall him within. Ile re-
aimed ; until the plaintiff came up and requested him not to
resist. Mr. Wallop then requested to sea the superintendent,
and the defendant, Mears, came up, and Mr. Wallop haring
called him aside told him that he had fire oft the pun, sod
was willing to pay for it or to submit node punishment.
The superintendent then asked the plaintiff for his name and
address; the plaintiff said he had done nothing, and he re-
fused. The defendant then said that lie must detain thew.'
A warm argument ensued, and Wallop was rather we= in
his expressions. Mears said, "If they did not behave more
quietly he would putthem where other blackguards were put."
Mears then led the way to the station house, and the pliuutiff
and his two friends were locked up for the night in the
ladies' waiting-room: the plaintiff was compelled to pass
the night on a chair. About 8 o'clock in the morning they
were removed to the gentlemen's waiting-room, where they
remained until about ten o'clock, when they went to the
station hotel, under charge of constable. and breakfasted.
About twelve or one o'clock they were taken before a ma-
gistrate, Mr. Page, and the defendant preferred his charge.
Mr. Wallop at once admitted that he had fired a gun, and
that the plaintiff had nothing to do with it. He was thi n
fined 40s. and costa, which he immediately paid.
whoa Nothing
was said about a lamp at that time; but a person,p-
peared to he the defendant's attorney, talked about making
a separate charge respecting the door. Mr. Wallop tl
said that none of them hadyance, broken the door ;
said but, rather
than heed any more anno that he
would pay for the damage under protest, and he accordingly
paid 15s. Mr. Wallop said he did not observe that the lamp
was broken, nor was it discovered until the following morn-
ing, as afterwards appeared by one of the defendant's wit-
nee es.
On his cross.examinstion by Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Wallop
said that he might have fired the gun three or four times,
and Dern barrels; that on arriving at Botley the guard came
up and maid, " Gentlemen, you have bcea committing a very
serious offence, you have been firing a gun of." Wallop did
net then say that be bad fired it, but the o.hers did deny
having done so ; the witness said that he did not think that
any one of them had said that no gun bad been fired from
that carriage. At one of the *cations at Batley a gentleman
named Warner came to the carriage occupied by the plaintiff
and his friends, and complained in very severe language of
the firing of the gun ; witness denied that he had said that
what Mr. Wainer had taken for the firing of the gun was
that which had broken the lamp—the lamp was not broken
at that time. When they. arrived at Gosport some one
came up and asked fur their names, and witness referred
them to the dog-ticket. On the superintendent coming up,
having been sent for, the guard made his charge, but witness
did mot recollect the nature of the charge, but calling
the superintendent aside confessed that he was
the guilty patty. The superintendent then asked for
their name; be ( Wallop) referred them to the dog ticket ;
the others refused. The superintendent then said he must de-
tain them, to which the plaintiff replied that if he did detain
them be should bring an action spinet them. Mears then
asked if there was any gentleman in the neighbourhood who
was known to them, and who would be responsible for their
appearance in the morning. The plaintiff said he did not
knowany one. The plaintiff refused to go to the ho
that tel on
giving his word to appear in the morning, but said he
was illegally detained, and they might do what they liked
with him. A. warm lteecatien took place, in the course of
which the offensive remark was made use of, but the waives '
would not swear to the precise words, or whether the words
used by the officer were not " that he could put them in the
station-house if he liked, where they put blackguards."
When the party went before the magistrate the following I
morning, Mr. Richards gave the name of M'Kinnon, and
the plaintiff gave the name of Merewether, and which the
witness stated was the name by which he usually addressed
him, he having aesumed the °erne of Turner, buttes usually
known by the name of Merewether. He (Wallop)
paid the fine immediately out of his own putte, having told
the magistrate that he was the guilty Marty; but denied that
he had anything to do with breaking te door and window,
although he paid the 15s. under protest.
On being re-examined by Mr. Crowder the witness ad-
mitted that on the night in question be was what is gene-
rally called " merry," or he should not have done what he
did. When the gentleman came to the carriage, and com-
plained of the firing the gun, he did so in such language
that he (Mr. Wallop) told him that if he did not take care
"he would burst his boiler." When the plaintiff refused
to give his name he said he had done nothing, and advised
the witness not to give his name. The plainti did not make
use of any warm language until the word "blackguard "
had been used.
Mr. Richards, the other gentleman who was in the ear-
riage with the plaintiff, and indeed all the witnesses, both
for plaintiff and defendant, confirmed in every material par-
ticular this statement. The learned judge in summing up
told the jury that in point of law the pleas were not proved,
there being no evidence that tnone bad actually fired
the gun, or that ho had beenerned in breaking the
door and window, but they must take the conduct of all
parties into their consideration, and give their verdict ac.
cordingly. The jury, after ten minutes' deliberation,returned
a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages one farthing.
In the Crown Court the cases were not of any public
interest.

POLICE.—YESTESDAY.
BOW-STREET. MORE STABBING. henry Dunn
was charged with attempting to stab policeman Miller,
at the White Lion public-house, yerwstreet, Clare.
market, with a knife. The prisoner entered the
house in a state of intoxication, demanding to be
served with more drink, which was refused to him by the
landlord, upon which be kicked him, and behaved with such
violence, that the complainant was called in to turn him
out. Re, however, disregarded every remonstrance, and
upon complainant putting his band upon his shoulder in
order to remove him, he kicked and struck him in a violent
manner, but being at length overpowered, he was thrown
in the struggle, when he promised that he would go with the
complainant quietly to the station; he was allowed to get up,
and, instantly taking a knife from his pocket, which be
opened, he made a rush with it at his breast. The eons.
pLinant having put np his arm, warded off the blow, but
not without having his coat cut. The defendant was imme-
diately set upon by the landlord and others, and the weapon
being taken from him, he was conveyed to the station.—Mr.
Jardine committed him for trial, taking bail for his appear-
ance at the next sessions.
WESTMINSTER.-010R9 BRUTALITY TO A HOWIE.—
George Leach, a cab driver, was charged with gross brutality
to a horse. Defendant was in a cart yesterday ith two
others, driving • poor. wretched-looking hires down the
King'rroad, Chelsea. One of the party got out of the cart,
and having wetted a rag in the kennel, wiped some blood
from the poor horse's knees and nostrils, after which de-
fendant commenced flogging the animal very severely, and
in two or three minutes afterwards it stumbled and fell, ap-
parently from weakness. Defendant then jumped out of
the cart, beat the horse again with great severity, and kicked
it in the head. Some persons interfered to prevent a continu-
ance of the fellow's cruelty, when he swore that he would
serve them the same as he had done the horse, and chal-
lenged them to fight. A policeman came up, when defend-
ant ran sway, but was pursued and taken into custody.:—Mr.
Burrell fined defendant 405., or in default 14 days' imprison-
ment.
SOUTHWARK.—A HUSBAND THRILTINING TO SHOOT
ins Wire.—J. 11. Morris, a dentist, was charged with
threatening to shoot his wife. Mrs. Frances Morris stated
that she was married to the prisoner two years ago, and that
they separated by mutual consent two months afterwards.
That since that period she had been living with her parents
on Newington-causeway, but had been perpetually annoyed
by the prisoner, who evinced a strong rancour against her,
in consequence of her refusal to go back to him again. That
some time since as she was walking with him, accompanied
by a female, at night, he made an attempt on her life by
discharging a pistol at her, for she plainly beard the report
and saw the flash, but received no injury, and she sought
refuge in a house near the spot, while he ran away and dis-
appeared for some days. That he had frequently since then
urged ber to leave home and return and live with him, and
that he used to take the opportunity of watching her when
she went out to press her on the subject. Within the last
week he had annoyed her very much, and was in the habit
of lurking about her lather's house, and on the pre-
ceding night a letter was sent to the house, between
eight and nine o'clock, which she refused to
take in on perceiving that it was from the
prisoner. In a short time afterwards a loud ringing came
to the bell, and when the street door was opened, the pri-
soner inquired for her, and requested to know the reason she
refused to receive his letter. He was told would servant
that orders were given that none from him be re.
ceived, upon which he became extremely excited, expressed
his determination to see her, and swore if be did not suc-
ceed, that he would avail himself of the first opportunity to
shoot her. He further said, that he should take care this
time and take as good aim at her as the woman did who shot
the soldier in the Birdcage-walk of St. James's-park. The
complainant added, that of late she was afraid to leave the
house, under the apprehension that the prisoner would carry