The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-30 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURT&

MARLBOROUGII.3TREET.

William Rayk was charged by Lleate;ant F. Saadi.
Dngroore, of her Majesty's Moral Canadian Rides, legit
selling indecent books and with obstructing the pubi,c
footpath.
The complainant said be was passing through Tutieu
ham-court-road, when he saw the defendant senior a
work called " The Confesional Unmasked," published bf
the Protestant Union. Hs wished to direct the aunties
of the magistrate to one or two parts, which would peon
the indecent character of the work.

Mr. Tyrwhitt, having looked at the passages, said the
book was certainly a very •'dirty book." and he should
now ask the defendant what he had to say.
The defendant stated that he got the book from thee,.
cretary of the Protestant Union. He sold it without
being aware of its contents. The complainant, however,
must have known more about the work than be dime to
avow, because in a few minutes after the purchase be
brought a constable and gave him into custody.
Mr. Tyrwhitt wished to know how the complainant came
to hit upon the indecent passages so readily.
The complainant said eh had seen in the newspaper,
amount of the seizure and condemnation of the work by
some magistrates in the midland counties. He had sot
read the work before be bought it of the defendant, aid
was unacquainted with its character, except what be
learned from the newspapers.
Mr. Tyrwbitt said it was certainly odd that the ma
plainant should know so much about a work which be hid
never read. As for what had appeared in the newspaper,
he could not take anything of the kind into &comet, os
less he bad placed before him an authentic and impartial
report of what really occurred. The work sold by the
defendant might be different to the work condemned by
the magistrates.
The defendant said he got the work from the secretary
of the Union, and his only object in selling it was to get
the price of a day's work for his family.
The complainant said he was en officer In her Majesty,
service, and he hoped be should be believed cui his oath
when he stated that he had given only four hours' atm,.
tion to the work since the defendant had been in custody.
Mr. Tyrwltitt said the work purported to he translation.
of questions asked to females in the confessional. fie
pronounced no opinion upon the accuracy of the mods.
Um, but certainly nothing could be more dirty or olnee.
tionable than the matter in the pamphlet. The de-
fendant might have known nothing about the work he
was selling. He had, however, created an obstruction
by carrying a large placard, and for that offence he wild
fine him Is.
LAMBETH.
Mr. Arthur liffnephery, of Hayes'-wharf, Tooleystreet
(son of the late Aldermen Humphere), was summoned by
Mr. Price, stockbroker, Royal Exohange-buildings for u
assault on the 20th inst., at Waterloo-bridge station. is
the occasion of the review at Wimbledon.

Mr. Wontner, men., was for the complainant, and 1k
Beard for the defendant.
From the statement of Mr. Price and other wit
nooses it appeared that be took tickets for himself, wife,
and daughter by the South Western to proceed Is
Wimbledon by the first clams. The train was full. He
managed to put his wife and daughter into a carriage and
went to the next, which appeared to be full, and aSkei
permission to enter and to stand, stating that his wife sod
daughter were in the next compartment. He was refined,
and told to sit in the lap of the ladies. The defends:
came up and be allowed bun to get into the carriage. The
other gentlemen told him what had occurred, and the at-
tendant gave him three kicks, and forced him a the steps
He was struck in the face and chest. He demand.' the
defendant's card, and be told him be wan not pante
give his card to " such a dirty beggar." He spoke Le a
police constable, and the card was given. Two ladies who
witnessed the assault were called.

Mr. Wontner, In
opening
the case, characterised it as en
outrage, and asked or a punishment that would Fern&
the recurrence of such manes.
Mr. Beard called several witnesses who were in the
train. He said Mr. Price was the real aggressor, and in.
Mated on getting into the carriage, where there were nine
persons, being more than the number allowed.
Several gentlemen were called, and from their evidence
it appeared that the complainant was excited, and waited
to force his way into the carriage, and they held up their
arms and told him it wee fulL When the defendant, who
had got out to look after the luggage of himself and bro.
ther (they were not going to the review), returned be we.
told that the complainant wished to take his seat, and h.
put rap his foot and "pushed" him off the step. It mane:
a " kick," but only a " push," and it might have km
done two or three times.
It wee admitted that Mr. Price was " chuffed" by the
party in the carriage.
Mr. Elliott considered that the cane was proved. ho
doubt a person should not force hie way into a curiae,
when full, and if he did an officer of the company couL!
be called. Nothing could justify the course that had beet
adopted, and he lined the defendant U. and coats or an'
month.
The money was at once paid.