The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-03-16 00:00:00

UNION HALL.

•
CAUTION TO ' oR9l—lietteulay, Wiliam
Everett, the collector at the gate called the Borough Sunda y Toll,
in Kent-street, was summoned to appear at the office, for illegally
demanding and taking a toll for a horse and chaise.
The complainant, a Mr. Ross. stated that on Sunday last he paid
toll at the Newington gate, on his way into town in bis chaise, and
received the ticket of the day, marked " 0." He proceeded for-
ward, and subsequently on his arrival at the gate of which the de-
fendant is the collector, toll was demanded, although he (Mr. Ross)
told him that he had paid a short time before at another gate.
However, the defendant said it mattered not, for he must have the
turnpike money before he suffered him to go through. Complain-
ant, conceiving he was liable, accordingly paid the toll, and had
gone about twenty yards on the road, when, on looking at the
ticket he had previously taken at the Newington trust. hr perceived
that an imposition had been practised up, n him by the detendent,
for the ticket marked with the letter " 0" cleared him through the
" Borough Sunday Toll," as well as most of the turnpikes which
allotted in that neighbourhood. He instantly returned to the de-
fendant, produced the ticket, and demanded back the toll that he
had paid. The defendant refused, saying, "We never return
money at the gate." Complainant told him that he should be
summoned for the imposition, but the toll collector laughed at the
threat, and, in a sneering way, began to spell his name, in order,
as he said, to prevent any mistake when taking out the summons
against him.
The defendant, who seemed to have all the law relative to turn-
pikes at his fingers' ends, admitted that he had demanded and re.
ceived the toll in question from the complainant; but, added he,
handing the Act of the 6th of the present King, cap. 24. to the
Magistrate, " Yov will perceive by this," turning over the differ.
cnt clauses in that Statute, " a Magistrate is not empowered to in-
flict an; punishment for such offence."
Mr. SirtinEY perused the Act with attention, and lamented that
it did not authorise him to inflict any penalty upon an individual
against whom a case was made out, as in the present instance ; the
section of the Act merely specifying the regulating of the toll in
question, but awarding no punishment to the collector in the event
of his demanding and taking a toll to which he had no claim. In
a subsequent clause in the same Act, which the Magistrate read, it
appeared, that although the public had no security against imposi-
tion by the foregoing section, yet in this the tax-collector had ample
remedy against the public; for, if the latter attempted to evade the
toll, a penalty of forty shillings was enacted, to be inflicted for
every such offence.
Mr. KING, the Magistrate, remarked that the defendant had
been summoned to the Office a short time since for a similar of:
fence. He regretted exceedingly that no Act could reach the de-
fendant, who might with impunity demand and take toll of the
same individual, in passing his gate, twenty times a-day, without
fear of punishment.
The defendant now expressed his regret that he did not return
the toll to the complainant when In: !eked fur it, which he attribut-
ed to the hurry of the moment.
Mr. SW ARE T, in condemning the conduct of the defendant,
which he did with peculiar emphasis, observed, that as the Act did
not give him power to inflict any punishment for such offence, he
(the Magistrate) should not consider he was doing his duty to, the
public if he did not Endeavour to suppress, if possible, so gross an
imposition that all were, he said, liable to, in cue such a man as
the defendant was allowed to retain the situation; and in order to
show the Commissioners of the trust that they had an unfit person
placed at the above gate, a representation should be instantly made
to them of what had occurred at the Office relative to the transac-
tion.

31r. Staples, the Chief Clerk, immediately despatched a letter to
the Commissioners, containing a statement of the above facts.

ST. B4RTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL.

EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS.

COBONER's INQUEST.—On Tuesday evening, at a quarter
past seven o'clock, T. &HELTON, Esq., the Coronet for London,
and a highly respectable Jury, assembled in the Committee-res to
of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, to inquire into the death of Mrs.
Vary Alcock, aged 37, who came by her death under the follow-
ing extraordinary circumstances:—
Mr. Wm. Alcock, the husband of the deceased, stated that he
was a watch-hand maker, and resided in 3loneyer-street, Hoxton
New Town. Last Sunday ten weeks he went out about three
o'clock in the afternoon, leaving his wife in good health and
spirits. He returned home about ten at night, and on going into
the room he found the deceased sitting on a chair by the fire,
on which was a saucepan, with her head resting on the bar of the
stove. Ile instantly ran to her assistance; and on examining the
side of her head, found her cap and hair a little singed, but could
perceive no wound in the head. She afterwards went to bed, quite
sensible, and 'witness took no further notice till the next morning,
when she complained of pain in the part that was injured. He
then called in a doctor, who prescribed proper applications, and
she remained at home for three weeks, doing very well ; when one
day, finding she did not come home, he became uneasy, and, on
inquiring, ascertained that she had got admitted into the hospital;
" and," said the witness, "I am very sorry she ever did—it was
against my inclination, for I am sure It bas been the cause of her
death."

Coroner.—What has been the cause of your wife's death ? ex-
plain yourself. You neglected her by not sending for surgical
advice sooner than you did.—l did not consider the injury she had
sustained was of any consequence, which was the reason I did oot
call in a doctor the same night the accident happened.
Coroner—But why do you say that by your wife being admitted
into the hospital it caused her death ?-11ecause the young boys
that walk the hospital actually cut her skull open, and examined
the contents of the head whilst she was living, and she only lived
one day after. I went to see her on Friday and was refused talmis_
shin for two Mum ; and when I went into the ward where my prior
wife was lying [here he burst into a flood of tears'', I found her
insensible from agony ; she attempted to speak to me. hut her
tongue had ceased to act ; she squeezed my hand, and her counte-
nance indicated that she had something she wished to commuei-
cate. pier head had been cut in half, and the settings of her scull
were to be seen on the bed-clothes, and, to appearance, it seemed as
if sonic carpenter had been sawing a plank. The witness added,
that the operators were standing shoat her with their blue aprons,
sleeves, lac. and he was so shocked at the sight that he could
acarely remain in the room. Nut content with mangling her whilst
living, they hail mutilated the body since death, " and," continued
he, " when I get the corpse away, I will certainly cause an investi-
gation into the affair. I say again, that I ant sure they have caused
her death."
Coroner—l have no doubt but the surgeons trepanned the skull,
in hopes that it would prove beneficial to the patient could not
be very beneficial to sever the head in half whilst the patient lived ;
the object was to explore the contents of the skull before life was
estiuct. lam sure that it caused her death. lam certain her days
were shortened by her coming here.
Cortimir—lt was the surgeons' duty to trepan the skill, and no
doubt the/ vrcre of oph:lon it would be the means of saving her
life. Do you kho* how your wife came to be in the situation you
found her ?—She told me she fell forward in a fit. She had an
apoplectic lit some time before that.
114. Lawrence Joseph, one of the house surgeons of the hospital,
stated that the deceased was brought into the house on the :10M
January last. Re examittal her, and found she had experienced
some severe injuries on the right side of the head ; all the soft part
was destroyed, and the bone also to a considerabe extent, perhaps
two-thitels of the right aide. Site was quite sensible. She went on
releraiily well for some time, but witness never entertained hopes of
her recovery. She complained of pains in her head. citivtly at
night. but eventually she was never free from pain ; at length, her
vital powers were exhausted ; and, on Saturday, she became quite
insensible, and died at night.
Coroner—Did you inquire the cause of the accident of the patient
herself ?—I can't exactly teculleet. I might or I might not; in all
probability I did.
Coroner—You might, or you might not; in all probability you
did 1 W hat do you mean by that P Is that a proper manner to
give evidence P You way have a deal of emelt Of yourself,