The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-11 00:00:00

ON DOCKYARD PRO-

MOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS.

THE

Yestetdny, on the re-assembling of the committee,
Admiral Rich, superintendent of the Vietualhns-yard at
Plymouth from February. IMO. Captain Dundee, superin-
tendent of the dock and victualling yard at Deptford. and
Admiral Sir Thomas Herbert, M.P., one of the lords of
the late Board of Admiralty, were examined.
The committee adjourned to this day.
CORK CITY.

Several witnesses pestertlay deposed to acts of
rioting at the Let election, which, in their opinion, pro-
vost/a Col. Citatterton's voters canting to the poll.

PLYMOUTH.
.311. MARI VX , AND GUILTY OP BRIBERY.

The committee re-assembled yesterday—Mr. Ag-
lionby in the chair.
The Chairman said—l have to report the unanimous re-
solutions of the committee upon several points:
First: " That Robert Porrett Collier, Esq., is duly elected,
as a burgess, to serve in the present parliament for the
borough of Plymouth. '
Secondly—" That Charles John Mare, Esq., is not duly
elected a burgess to serve in the present parliament for the
borough of Plymeuth.
tt That the last election for the said borough was a
void election so far es regards the said Charles John Mare,
Esq."
I have also to report further resolutions which have been
come to by the committee :
"That it was proved to the committee that the said
Charles John Mare, Esq., was by himself and his agents,
guilty of bribery at the last election for the said borough,
by promising employment and situations to the electors of
the said temough with the view of influencing their vo es.
" That it was proved to the COMllSittet• that George
Koopman was bribed by the said Charles John Mare,
Esq., and Joseph George Chtirehward, by a promise to use
their influence to obtain for him a situation in the Excise.

" That Richard Sheen was bribed by the said George
Churchward, by the promise of a situation in the Customs
for his son-in-law, William Henry Bromwich.
" That William King was bribed by the said Joseph
George Churchward by the promise of employment.
" That William Geed), being en elector of the said
borough, was promised employment for his son by the said
Charles John Idare, Esq., whilst ke was a candidate for the
said borough.
That an attempt was made by George Meanie and
Nicholas Sumpter to influence the vote of Samuel Derry
Louis Median, by the offer of an appoiatment for his son, if
he would give his vote to the said Charles John Mare, Eq.,
and the offer so made was communicated to, and adopted
by, the said Charles John Mare, Esq.
" That, on the second day of the sitting of the committee,
the said Charles John Mare, Esq., by counsel, declared that
he would no longer defend his seat; and the counsel for
the petitioners, upon that, did not proceed with further
evidence, and the reasons assigned by counsel for taking
that course appeared to this committee to be sufficient ito
justify It.
That there has been submitted to this committee a list
containing the names of twenty-nine electors who are
alleged to have been bribed at the last election for the said
borough, by the promise of employment and situations, of
which list only five cases have been investigated ; amid fur-
, ther, a list of eleven persons, who were charged with having
made the said promises.
. _

" That, considering the nature and extent of the above
allegations, this committee think it their duty to recom-
mend that a farther inquiry and investigation be made with
regard to bribery at the said election, under the provisions
of the Act of the 5 & 6 Vic., chap. 102, see. 2.
" That this committee does not see any sufficient reason
to offer any recommendation with regard to the suspension
of the issue of a new writ for the said borough."
Mr. Welsby applied for costs on behalf of the petitioners.
Mr. 81ade opposed the application.
The room was again cleared, and, on the return of the
parties,
The Chairmen said—l am directed by the committee to
report the folowieg resolutions:—
. That, in the cue of the petition against the return of
Charles John Mare, EK., the committee are of opinion
that the oppoeition to the petition was not frivolous end
vexatious. _ _ .

" That, in the sue of the petition against the return of
Robert Porrett Collier, Esq., the committee are of opinion
that the petition was frivolous and vexations."
Mr. 011,11111133, counsel, submitted that no application
with regard to eau had been made on behalf of Mr.
Collier.

The Chairman said the committee had considered the
point fully, and they wen of opinion that, as the petition
against Mr. Collier rendered an apearanee necessary, they
had full power to award costs if they thought it was frivo-
lous and vexatious. The committee then broke up.

ELECTION.

MAID STONY, MAY 10.

The precept for the new election for this borough
was not received until yesterday afternoon, and the mayor
has fixed Friday next for the nomination. The agents for
the respective candidates, Mr. Martin (conservative), and
Mr. Lee (liberal), are busily engaged in canvassing, and
the contest is expected to be a severe one.

THE POLICE CO URTS.
GUILDHALL.

If. Leo iVerelleirtaber, a brandy merchant, of 14, Broad-
street-buildings, who was remanded from Baturds7 last, on
a charge of uttering a forged acceptance to a bill of ex-
change for 1281. 109., with intent to defraud 11. Valentine
Arnie, a manufacturer of eau de vie, of Angouleme, is

Francs, was brought up for further examination.
Two witnesses were called on behalf of the defendant to
prove that H. A. Weber wu not a fictitious person, u
alleged by the prosecutors. They deposed to knowing a
German of that name, whose offices were in Philpot-lane,
and that he left England about a week ago. As the signature
could not be proved, the defendant was remanded.
BOW-STREET.

Mr. Jardine gave his decision in the police cue, remanded
from Friday last, as follows:—The charges made by Mr.
Thompson against Earl, 96 E ; Sergeant Gates, 9E;
Marks, 74 E ; and Knight, 147 E, for arresting him on the
morning of the 22nd of April, and against Inspestor Hardy,
of the a division, for detaining him in custody after he had
Caen so arrested, constituted two distinct cases, on which I
shall give my opinion in the order of their occurrence.
With respect to the affair of the picture, as between Mrs.
Burroughs and Mr. Thompson, it will be sufficient to
state that, taking Mrs. Burroughs's account of it to be
literally true, Mr. Thompson's conduct in taking and keep-
ing the picture, however unjustifiable in point of law, did
not constitute a felony. Late in the evening of the
21st of April, however, Mrs. Burroughs takes Earl, 96 B,
to Thompson, and charges the latter with having stolen
the picture. Had Earl, upon this distinct charge of
felony, taken Mr. Thompson at once to the station,
he would have followed the instructions appended to the
manual issued for the guidance of the force by the Com-
missioners of Police, and could not have been justly charged
with violating his duty as a police-constable. But, instead
of doing so, be inquires Into the nature of the cue, hears
what Mrs. Burroughs says, and what Thompson says, and
then declines to arrest upon the charge. I find no fault
with him for taking this course, and I think he was quite
right in considering that it was not a reasonable charge of
felony. Nevertheless, soon after Mr. Thompson had gone
into his house, the constable, Earl—alarmed perhaps by the
threats of Mrs. Burroughs—goes with her to the Clerken-
well Police-station, and there untruly represents that he

had se Willy taken Tboaspeon into custhdy,'lmt that he had
escaped from him, end shut himself up in his house.
lam of opinion that his conduct in making this false
report, and then arresting Mr. Thompson in the mid-
dle of the night, on the very same charge which he had
a few hcurs before treated as a mere "business transaction
between the parties," mu a violation of his duty as a con-
stable, and I convict him of that offence and order him to
be imprisoned for a month. I now come to the cue of Inspector
Hardy. It is quite clear that he is in no degree responsible
for the arrest of Mr. Thompson, with which ho bad nothing
to dn. The only charge against him is founded on his
detention of Mr. Thompson in custody after the nature of
the charge had been explained to him. Of course it is
not intended that an inspector of police is to solve
nice and difficult questions as to what legally constitutes a
felony, but merely that he is to ascertain that there is rea-
sonable cause to suppose that a felony has been committed
before he subjects the accused party to further restraint.
Now, Inspector Hardy does inquire somewhat minutely
into the circumstances of the supposed offence, and
it appears to me that Inspector Hardy with the facts
ascertained before him, and with the subject of the
supposed theft voluntarily placed in his hands by the ac-
cused person, must have seen that there was no rea-
sonable ground for preferring a charge against Mr. Thomp-
son, and therefore I think he ought to have discharged
him. And I am of opinion that, by detaining him in
custody, after the knowledge of these circumstances,
he was guilty of a violation of his duty, which renders him
liable to punishment under the 14th section of the 2nd and
3rd Victoria, c. 47. lam unable, however, to discover any
motive of interest or malice which could hare led him to
commit this breach of duty; and I have no doubt that there
was no other motive on his mind than the weak and un-
founded supposition that he should incur less responsibility
by sending the prisoner before a maiistrate than by die-
charging him. Under these circumstances, although Ido
not think lightly of a breach of duty by an officer which
exposes a man, who ought not to have been chanted a; all
with felony, to imprisonment as • felon for several hours—
I do not deem it necessary to impose upon Inspector Hardy
the utmost severity of punishment which the statute autho-
rises, and I convict him in the penalty of 101.
Notice of appeal against his worship's judgment was
given on behalf of Inspector Hardy, but Earl was committed
to prison.
Ether( Samuel l'iteiter, described on the charge sheet as
a gentleman, residing at 24, St. James's-street, but whose
cane! admitted that he was the keeper of a "house o I
play," was placed at the bar on suspicion of uttering a
forged cheque for 391., with intent to defraud Meters. Ceuta
and Co., the beakers.
When the case had been opened it appeared that a wit-
ness, upon whom the defendant plied Jur a full exonera-
tion, was absent from England.
The prisoner entered into his own reeognisances in 2001.,
and found two sureties of 1001. each (one of them being
Owen Swift), to attend again.