The Express.
London, England, 1867-04-27 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURT&

CLERKENWELL.
On Thursday a poor working-man applied to Mr. Cooke
for an order compelling the parish authorities of St. Pan-
cras to grant him an order to bury his child, stating that
it had died on Saturday last and the corpse was now begin-
ning to smell. He also stated that he had been out of work
for some time, and that the officers told him that he ought
to be ashamed of himself to come to the workhouse on such
an errand, and that he was strong enough to pay the
money.
Mr. Cooke granted the order asked for, and directed that
the applicant should take it to the assistant relieving over-
seer at once.

The applicant attended again yesterday morning and
said that on Thursday both be and his wife went to
the Vestry-hall and saw Mr. James, who refused
to take any notice of his statement or of the
magistrate's order. As the smell from the corpse
was getting very bad, and the place in which he
resided (Draper's-place) was only a few feet wide, and
almost every room was occupied by • single family. be
was afraid that some contagion would break out, and he
therefore went next morning, and again saw Mr. James,
who said that he would not give him an order to bury
the child, and when be showed him the magistrate's order
he said he did not care for all the magistrates in the
metropolis, and that he would not give him an osier.
Mr. Flowers directed that Willoughby, one of the war-
rant officers of the court, should go to the vestry, and
direct that Mr. James should attend before him.

Mr. Jamesattended, and said thathe could not attend
to the matter on Thursday, and next morning when the
applicant came, he told him that if he could not bury the
child himself he had better apply to his friends. The
man said that if he did not give bun an order he should go
to the magistrate ; and what he told him was that if he
did go he had better confine himself to the truth. When
the man left he sent • messenger after him to tell him
that he had given directions that a coffin should be sent,
but the man would not return.
_ .

Mr. Flowers—Then I understand that you have given
directions to have a coffin supplied to the applicant.
Mr. James—Yes sir. The applicant was very hot.
The applicant—l beg your pardon ;be did not lay any-
thing about giving me an order. He said that he did not
care for all the magistrates in London.
The magistrate having said that he hoped the order had
been given, the matter dropped.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Jain Clarke, 21, Haherdaaheretreet, City, a journey-
man tailor, was brought before Mr. Knox charged with
" using belisviour towards Mr. Henry Meyer, of the firm
of Messrs. Mortimer and Meyer, tailors, No. 36, Conduit.
street, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace."
Mr. Sleigh appeared for the complainant, and Mr.
Edward Lewis for the defendant.
Mr. Henry Meyer. of the firm of Mortimer and Meyer,
tailors, Conduit-street, stated he employed between 80
and 100 workmen. The defendant was employed by him,
but with others bad struck work for some days. His
house was watched bickets, who followed customers to
their houses and workmen also. About nine o'clock that
morning he went out and saw the defendant with others
in the street. The defendant pointed offensively at him
with his thumb, this was to the picket, and also winked
his eyes. The defendant followed him to various
places. He stopped and spoke to two of the men, and
the defendant passed him. He went to the Albany, and
was followed by the defendant. When he left the Albany,
by the Piccadilly entrance, the defendant was there.
Asked the defendant if be was following him. The de-
fendant said he was doing nothing. A police-oosetable
being near he called to him, and in the hearing of the de-
fendant he asked him if he could prevent the man from
following him. Felt insulted and annoyed at the defend-
ant's conduct, the defendant having pointed at and
winked at him three times.

Cron-examined by Mr. E. Lewis—Could not say that
the police-constable saw the defendant's offensive conduct.
Mr. Knox said that was an important admission. Mr.
Lewis evidently meant to contend that the defendant we
wrongfully in custody. Under the clause of the Police
Act, the offence must be in sight of the constable to justify
his receiving a person into custody.
Police-constable Pike, C 51, said he saw the defendant
look at the complainant in what appeared to him to be an
offensive way. He saw nothing more.
Mr. Knox said he must hold that the defendant was
wrongfully taken into custody. But before discharging
him he would tell the defendant that without doubt he
bad broken the law, and that to follow •penion about for
hours was contrary to law, because likely to lead to •
breach of the peace. The defendant had escaped through
an irregularity in his capture, but he would tell him that
he had grave doubts whether an indictment of a far more
serious character would not lie against him. The act of
1859 was for the protection of workmen, but it would not
protect them if they followed persona about to their an-
noyance. Those parties who persisted in such con.
duct rendered themselves liable to an indictment
for conspiracy at the quarter sessions. He would reverse
the case, and suppose that masters acted in the way work.
men now act—that they followed workmen to their places
of work and got them removed from their employment,
thus reducing them and their families to starvation.
Could anything be more heinous or indefensible ? Work-
men bad full right to put their own price on their work,
but they had no right to put pressure on their maiden to
compel them to pay them their own rate of wages. He
was sorry to say that journeymen tailors were far too
numerous at that court in cases of drunkenness and
assaults, the effect of which was that their wives and
children were sometimes reduced to destitution, and then
they came to that court for relief from the poor-box.
Mr. B. Lewis remarked that only one side of the cue
had been heard.

Mr. Knox would admit that this was so, and that his
remark might be taken u having only general application,
but he repeated that while admitting the right of work.
men not to work for particular masters if they thought fit
unless they got their own rate of wages, it was illegal to
put pressure on masters to compel them to accede to their
wishes. The defendant must be discharged, as the proper
course would have been not to give him into custody but
to get his name and address and take out a summons.
A second summons for a similar offence against Jeresnak
Mack was discharged without being heard.

The Nowntmoott-aitaztt DurrußßANciss. —At
the Bridgewater Oouaty Police-court yesterday, the Rev.
James Hunt charged Mary Ann Langford and Mary
Grace Stone (two married women), William CareY, George
(alias Turpin) Bitch, and Albert Fear, with being guilty of
certain riotous behaviour in Northmoor-green Church on
Good Friday last during the performance of Divine service.
Mr. Merlyn Fryer, of Exeter, appeared to prosecute ; and
Mr. Reed appeared for the defendants. Just after
Mr. Hunt commenced to give evidence, • consultation
took place between Mr. Reed and Mr. Fryer, after
which the former gentleman said that he had
advised his clients, in order to promote peace
in the pariah, to plead guilty, and they were
willing to be bound over to keep the peace. Mr. Fryer, on
the part of the complainant, consented to this arrange.
ment, and the defendants were accordingly bound over to
keep the peace for six months, each in their own surety
of 101., and another surety in • like sum. Joseph Lang.
ford, jun., was next charged with assaulting the Rev.
James Hunt and Sophia Cottey, at Nortlimoor-green, on
the 24th of March, by riding a donkey spinet them, cud
compelling it to kick them. This defendant was also
bound over to keep the peace for six months, in one surety
(that of his father) of 201. Mary Ann Langford and
Mary Grace Stone were next charged with indecently as.
smiting Sophia Cottey in Northmoor-green Church en
Good Friday. The witnesses for the prosecution were
Sophia Cottey, the Rev. James Hunt, and Henry Richards
(the sexton), who deposed that after morning prayers the
defendants pulled Cottey from her seat near the harmo-
nium, inside the chancel rails, threw her down, lifted her
clothes, and " smacked" her. Afterwards they pushed her
outside the church, and threw her down amongst the
graves, and then again beat her. Cottey exhibited her
arm, which was severely bruised. For the defence •
labourer named Samuel Lowe was called, who said the
affray commenced by Stone walking up to Cottey, and say-
ing to her, " If you mean to preach another sermon,
Sophia Cottey, speak a little louder," when Cottey took
up some portion of rotten egg from the harmonium and
threw it in Stone's face. Stone then said to Cottey,
" You'd better come out of it," to which she made no
reply. The defendant loogford then came up, and took a
hairy from Stone's arms, whereupon Cottey milled off Lang-
ford's bonnet. Shortly afterwards witness saw Cottey 's
crinoline catch in the harmonium, and she fell down the
altar steps. He swore that neither of the defendants threw
her down or struck her. The bench considered the case
proved, and fined the defendants 40e. and wets, and the
chairman remarked that in any future case of the kind the
offenders would be punished by imprisonment. Mr.
Hunt said he should charge Lowe with perjury. Samuel
Fear and John Fear, two boys, were next charged with ma-
liciously breaking windows in Northmoor-green Church,
but the only witnesses Mr. Hunt brought into court in
support of the charge were two little boys, aged respec-
tively seven and eight years, and the magistrates refused
to swear them. This case was, therefore, dismissed.
Sophia Cottey wan also summoned for assaulting Mary
Grace Stone in Northmoor-green Church on Good Friday,
by throwing • rotten egg in her face, but this summons
was withdrawn.— Western Deily Press.
CIRYHTLL PALACE. ONE SHILLING Dal.—
FRIDAY, Arlin. 26.—Admission ea payment, 3,061 ;
ditto by season tiskets, 1,&521; total visitors, 4,913.