The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-15 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Richard Haswell, a carpenter, residing at Warwick-
street, Pimlico, was charged before Mr. Knox with being
drunk and disorderly, and annoying Dr. Charles Handheld
Jones, of No. 43, Green•street, Park-lane, and also with
assaulting Police-constable John Haylor, 315 A.
Police-constable James Rapley, 314 A, said—About half-
past six yesterday evening I was on duty at the Victoria-
gate, Hyde-park, when, hearing a cry of "Police," I went
in the direction of the sound, and on going across the
carriage drive I met a gentleman (Dr. Handheld Jones),
and he complained of prisoner running after him and
annoying him, and on the prisoner coming up he said
that he would give the gentleman into custody. I asked
him what tor, and he made no reply. I thee asked
the gentleman what the prisoner had done, sad he
said that the prisoner had come very close to him, and
that he did not know whether he meant to rob him
or what his object was. I told the prisoner to desist from
annoying the gentleman, or I should lock him up ; and he
then became so violent that I was compelled to take him
into custody ; and it required the assistance of two other
constables to get the prisoner to the station, and on the
way be assaulted one of the constables by getting his hand
down his collar and nearly choking him, and while the
constable was getting his hand released the prisoner bit
his finger, and afterwards threw him on the ground.
Mr. Knox—Was the prisoner drunk or sober?
Constable—Drunk.

Mr. Charles Handfield Jones said—About half-past six
yesterday evening I was going to take a walk round the
Serpentine, and had got about 100 yards from Clarendon-
place, when I heard footsteps behind me, and the prisoner
came alongside, and began to mumble something about me
being • gentlenuin, giving me—from what he said—the idea
that I had given him some kind of affront. He then came
closer to me, and, not being sure what his intention waa,or
whether be had any accomplice, I kept on my guard ; but
afterwards as the prisoner kept getting closer to me I ran
and met a constable, and told him what bad occurred, and
that I would charge the prisoner. All that the constable
states then took place, except that I did not see the pri-
soner bite the constable. I consider the prisoner was pug-
naciously drunk.
Police-constable John Haylor, 315 A—l went to the as-
sistance of the first witness, and after going about 200
yards with the prisoner he seized me by the collar and
almost choked me, and on getting his hand away he bit my
finger, and afterwards threw me on the pound, and then
behaved so violently that we were obliged to send for
another constable. The prisoner was drunk.
Prisoner—l only resisted when the police told me that
I had to walk three miles to the station. _ _ _

Mr. Knox—What induced you to follow Dr. Jones!
Prisoner—l wu on my way home, and had not had
much to drink.

Mr. Knox—What business had you to interfere with a
gentleman walking in the park at such an hour? A gen-
tleman is walking quietly along, and you behave in this
outrageous manner, and when he appeals to a constable for
protection, and the constable simply does his duty, you
assault him. If you think gentlemen can be interfered
with, and the police knocked about with impunity, you
are mistaken, and you will be committed for a month with
hard labour. (To Dr. Jones)—Dr. Jones, you have done
tho public a service by bringing the prisoner here.

Henry James CunninglaTais,sri; was stated to be living
on his means, was charged before Mr. Arnold, ona summons
under the 24th and 25th Vic., cap. 97, sec. 51, with having
maliciously and wantonly done damage to the amount of
90f., whereby he was liable to five years' penal servitude.
Mr. Chubb (Dean and Chubb), Gray's-inn, prosecuted ;
and Mr. Daly, barrister, instructed by Mr. Child, of Sloane-
street, defended. . _ .

The ease for the prosecution was, that, at 1.30 in the
morning of the 22nd of October, the defendant ran at the
rate of 13 miles an hour down Lancelot-street, Brampton-
road, which is opposite the premises of Mr. Stewart, mil-
liner and furrier, 101 and 103, Brampton-road; at the top
of his speed he was unable to stop himself, but leaped up
the kerstone, and came into violent contact with the
venetian blind of Mr. Stewart's shop ; the blind was
broken, and also the plate-glass, and the bill for repairing
it was 401. Ga., the extra amount in the IMllllllOlla being for
consequent loss of business. Defendant was taken into
custody, but liberated. as be expressed his regret at what
had happened, and offering, when of age, to recompense
Mr. Stewart ; it was contended that the wantonness of
suoh an act as running at that pace, to the risk of property,
should be taken as " malice " within the meaning of the
act of parliament. The plate-glass was insured ; defendant
was described by a constable as having deliberately
ran at the window, and struck it with arms, legs, and
shoulders.
The witnesses admitted in cross-examination that de-
fendant was sober, and said it was an accident. He said,
Boding he could not stop himself he put up his foot to
prevent his seriously injuring himself.
Mr. Arnold said the defendant was charged before him
with unlawfully and maliciously doing damage exceeding
5/., whereby, as it had happened between nine at night and
six in the morning, it became an indictable offence under
the 24th and 25th Viet., the punishment being five years'
penal servitude withoutnalty or power to make com-
pensation. He could not for one moment see how the
defendant was actuated by malice, as the prosecution
endeavoured to show, and it was quite clear that it wns
necessary satisfactorily to make out that it hod been done
with malicious and wilful intention, which argument was
overcome by the evidence the prosecution had themselves
given respecting the accident. It was improper and
foolish to be running at that speed, but the damage had
been done by accident with the foot, as he had been en-
deavouring to check himself, end though upon the facts a
civil action would lie, he felt sure that no jury could say
the defendant had brought himself within the section of
the act of parliament ; the summons therefore must be
dismissed.