The Express.
London, England, 1861-09-27 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.
Wilkie Allan, who was summoned before the Lord
Mayer as Moods; bat to answer • complaint made against
W by FraneisJames Gregory, charging bun with having
ewasaltted ivy, attended yestenlay, in accordance with
his , to hear his lordship's decision upon
the ass.

Mr. Beverly, the assistant solicitor to her Majesty's Cus-
toms, was io attendance on the part of the defendant; and
Mr. William Boodle appeared cm behalf of the complained.
The facts of the tam were given fully oa the last
examination, from which it Appeared that the complainant
and defendant were officers of the Custom., and the dn.
tentlant, in an inquiry before the commissioners of her
Majesty's Customs, swore that the complainant Gregory
had been concerned in various peculation's with him, and
said that parties were present who took a 1.4 with them.
The complainant denied this, and called the various parties
in question, who denied being present on the date alleged
by the defendant Allan.
Hie Lcodship mkt he had very carefully gone through the
whole of the depceitioos, and had come to the conclusion
that the evidence was out such as would justify his corset.
tiog the defendant for trial. If Mr. Boodle would hke to
hear his reasons he would give them.
Mr. Beverly said that he thought it would be more satis.
factory for Mr. Boodle, and for the public in general.
The Load Motor then went as to say that the case against
the defendant was supported by da witnesses, the first of
whom was the prosecuter Gregory, who was the person 'a-
mused by Allan of having committed the peculations ;.and it
we. quite natural for a person who is accused of a crime to
deny it, and that was nearly all that his evidence amounted
to. He certainly went a little further, and said that he did
not see Allan and Hamilton ; but it was proved that they
were all three together on that day. As legarded the evil-
deuce of Hamilton, Le had prevaricated a little. He first
said he would swear he was not with Allan on the 18th
April, letiO, but on being cross-examined he sail be would
not swear Le was nut with Allan, but he would swear he
did not see him, whereas it was proved in the evidence
that they were all three together. Besides that, bethought
there was not much reliance to be placed upon his °videos*,
which was flatly contradicted by the witness McCurukey
who swore that tiamiltou would swear anything to get
Gregory out of the 'IWO'. The witness Bathes was a
respectable man and a disinterested witness, and he proved
that Hamilton was employed by him in the West lodia
Dock in the evening of the 18th April, 1803, and not in the
Victoria Dock ; but on being cross.exandued he said, on
referring to his book, that duriog the day Hamilton had
been employed in the Victoria Dock. and Le sent there for
him, and he ought to have left the dock at four o'clock, but
he could not My if he Lad done so. His lordship said he
had looked at the map, moil found that it was about two
miles from the West India Dock to Bermondsey, where be
6.4 to take the barge ; and that with two men using the
tun he thought they might come that distance in an hour
and a half, with the tide in their Payout. The tide was sot at
its full until half-past twelve on that ui;l4, therefore
Hamilton might have left the West India Dock at eleven
o'clock, lied the witness Bathe had no check upon his
actions from eight o'clock, when he gave him his orders, un-
til that time, and there war time for him to be at the
Victoria Dock, defog what Allan charged him with. The
boy Gerrard was sot implicated in anyway, hut his evtdence
was somewhat different to what he gave before the COMIlli.-
ciosers, when he was asked if he had left his charge at all
on the night in question, and he said he had not, whereas
on being examioed before him be said be went into an
empty barge for about five minutes, and on being premed in
cross•eraniination he admitted that he had gone ashore
while inside the dock to get something to eat, and it was
quite clear his evidence was not to be relied upon. As re-
garded nwanbridge, he was charged by Allan with Laving
received :la. ed., which he denied. Taking into considers-
tiou all these circumstances it seemed to him that the
evident* was not such as would justify him in committing the
defendant for trial. He should, therefore, dismiss the
summons.

......
Mr. Boodle said that under those circumstances be should
apply to his lordship to bind the complainant over to pros.
cute Allan upon an indictment for perjury, at the neat sere
sions of the Central Criminal Court.
Mr. Goodman told his lordship that he snui empowered
to do so by arr.-cot art. viz, 2f2aniltl Vier.. cap. 27. which was
ponied in 18M), the tirst section of which said that--" No
bill of indictment for perjury, ice., shall be geeented to
or found by say grand jury, unless the proompator, or