The Sun.
London, England, 1855-10-13 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Oct. 12.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Charles Hart, a person of re-
spectable appearance, residing at 7, Old Fish•street-hill,
appeared before the Lord Mayor for having, as the sum-
mons stated, "unlawfully and contemptuously disturbed
the Rev. Mr. Sergrove, rector of the united parishes of
St. Mary Somerset and St. Mary Mounthaw, whilst
preaching in the church." The defendant was also
summoned for having unlawfully assaulted and beaten
Henry Mansfield, the beadle, in breach of the peace.
The defendant pleaded guilty, and added, I was not
aware of what I was dooig at the time.
The Lord Mayor—You are also summoned for an
assault upon the beadle immediately after the offence to
which you have pleaded guilty was perpetrated. What
do you say to that charge ?
Defendant—l plead not guilty to. that charge.
The Lord Mayor said the-defendant stood in a very
serious position according to the statute. His lordship
then referred to the Ist Mary, session 2, chapter 3, which
stated in substance to the following effect :—" If any
persbn of his own power and authority do or shall wil!-
ingly, and of purpose, by open and overt word, fact,
act, or deed, maliciouvly or contemptuously molest, let,
disturb, vex, or trouble, or by any other unlawful ways
or means disquiet or misuse any preacher that now is,
or that at any time hereafter shall he, licensed or auth( -
rised to preach by the Queen's Highness, or by any
archbishop, &c., in his open sermon, preaching, or col-
lation, during the time that he shall preach in any
church, &c., used or appointed to be preached in." The
next section, his lordship said, referred to the disturb-
ance of the minister while ministering or celebrating the
mass, or other such divine service, sacraments, or sacra-
mentals, and he stated that the act gave power to jus-
tices of the peace, and judges of assize, and of oyer and
terminer, and also to the Mayor of the City, to deter-
mine the question, and the punishment was imprisonment
for three months, at the termination of which the con-
victed person would be liable to find security for his
good behaviour for the space of 12 months.
The defendant —I was in liquor at the time, my lord,
and did not know what I was doing.
The Lord Mayor—l feel that the case is one of too im-
pertant a nature for ins to decide upon. I have been in-
formed that doubts are entertained with respect to the
present validity of the act I have quoted, and that by
the statute law commission it is referred to as having
been virtually repealed by the statute of the Ist of Eliza-
beth ; but, on referring to the act of Elizabeth, I find
that the important question might arise whether by that
act the act of Mary has been virtually repealed or not, as
it is clear that it has not been positively repealed.

Mr. Fawcett, churchwarien of the united parishes,
said—The church is in Upper Thames-street, and be-
longs to the united parishes. On Sunday last I was in
this church acting as parish clerk during the afternoon
service. The rector, the Rev. Mr. John Sympson Ser-
grove, LL.B., was preaching, anu about 10 minutes after
he commenced the defendant entered the church, and pull-
ing the door after him, sat dawn fora short time. He then
got up in an abrupt manner, put on his hat, and with
a loud voice asked the rector whether he could not real
without a book.

The Lord Mayor—What were the exact words he
uied ? We have been assured that he used very oppro•
brious and disgraceful words, and whatever they may
have been you are bound by your oath to tell the trutb,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—to state
the words exactly.

Mr. Fawcett-I-I did not hear what he subsequently
said in the vestry, where he might have used words of
that description. What I heard him say in the church
was " Can't you read without a book r The congrega-
tion were all startled at the circumstance. The service
was not, however, suspended. The beadle immediately
came forward from the vestibule to put the defendant
out when he heard the noise. The rector did not step,
but preached en in a louder voice. Thera was a great
commotior. The congregation was but small—not ex-
ceeding perhaps, children and all included, 30 persons.
The defendant certainly appeared to be drunk.
The prisoner—My lord, I was out of my senses at the
time, and when I afterwards learned what I had done I
wrote to the churchwardens to apologise.
The Lord Mayor—lt appears to me to be a most act-
rageous case, and would, if not met by the law, be cal-
culated to lead to great evil. The rector must attend
on Wednesday to give evidence, and I am determined to
send the matter before a higher tribunal, which will
have to decide upon the present validity of the statute
which has been placed before me. If that statute has
been virtually repealed, or if it be considered inoperative
on account o. the severity of the punishment, it as ill be
for a more competent authority to devise some new
enactment, by means of which ministers of religion may
be protected. The defendant must find two securities of
201. each, and be hound over himself in the sum of 401.,
to appear here on Wednesday.

.I;izathan B. Cox, servant to Mr. Cornish, a baker,
was brought up f, r final examination on the charge of
having embezzled several sums of money, the 'property
of his master.

It was proved that the prisoner, in many instances,
received money for which ho bad not accounted. The
system of robbery was discovered by the circumstance
of the servant of a family having called to pay what wai
due for the week, when much more than the amount
was deficient in the receipts of the house.
The prisoner had been detected before by his master,
and threatened with prosecution if he repeated the
0 &nee.
He was committed for trial.

BOW-STREET.--A young man, named Aldridge,
was charged with assaulting his wife.
His wife said she had long been subject to the brutal
ill-usage of her husband, who, from his drunken habits,
rarely had more than half a week's employment. On
the occasion in question he knocked her down and kicked
her in the eye, blackening it as it at present appeared.
She applied for a summons against him, which was duly
served upon him by the officer of the court, but he re-
fused to attend to answer the charge. Hence a warrant
waa issued for his apprehension. On the day of their
last quarrel, h€ offered her half a crown for the support
of the family, which she declined to receive. The chil-
dren were almost starved in consequence.
Mr. Henry—You ought to have taken the money,
then.

The husband—She helped herself, your worship, after-
wards to as much as she wanted.
The wife—Yes, I took 255. out of his pocket while he
was lying on the bed drunk on Sunday morning. Of
course I did ; for we had nothing to eat and drink.
Mr. Henry—Well, then, you can'tibe so badly off just
now. Do you wish him to make you An allowance ?
The wife said that was what she wanted, for she could
not live with him any longer.
It having been agreed that he should pay his wife 10s.
per week for the future out of his wages,
Mr. Henry suspended his judgment for six months, to
see if the arrangement was properly carried out.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET. James Parnell, a
'
mariner, residing at No. 4, Sampson s•gardens, Great
Hermitage-street, Wapping, was brought before Mr.
Hardwick, charged witb firing a pistol at Harry Wil-
liams, an artist, living at No. 2, Percy-street, with intent
to do him grievous bodily harm.
Prosecutor, on being sworn, said—This morning about
half-past two o'clock I was walking along Oxford-street,
when between the fire-escape station and the corner of
Rathbone-place I heard some one behind me say, "your
purse, or your life." I turned round my head and saw
the prisoner about a yard from me, and he had scarcely
said " Your purse," when he fired a pistol at me, and
ran away. As soon as I recovered from my astonish-
ment I ran after him, shouting "Police," and he was
eventually stopped by a policeman. I could not tell the
name Of the street, as I am a stranger in London.
Thomas Moore said—l am a fire-escape conductor, and
reside at 8, Arundel-street, Strand. About half-past two
this morning I was sitting in my box in Oxford-street,
when I saw the prisoner go behind the prosecutor, and I
heard him say something to him which I could not under.
stand. Immediately afterwards I saw him extend his
right arm towards the prosecutor, whereupon there was
a flash and a report, as if from a pistol. The prisoner
then ran away, and I jumped out of my box and ran
after him as far as Newman-street. Finding that I
could not overtake him I ran up Oxford-street in pursuit
of a constable, and after I had got to the corner of Ber-
ners•street I found the prisoner in the custody of an
officer. I and 53 C subsequently went up Berner's-
street, and found the pistol produced, which appeared
to have been recently discharged.
Police-constable 61 C said—Between two and three
this morning, I was on duty in Oxford-street, when I
heard the cry of •' Stop thief !" and " Police !" proceed
from the direction of Berner's-street. I ran across the
way, and saw prisoner running towards me. I stopped
him, and he said it was not he. I asked him what he
was running for ? He said it was because he heard the
cry of "Stop thief !" I detained him till the prosecutor
came up and gave him into custody.
In defence the prisoner said he met some girls the pre-
vious night, and they robbed him of his purse, which
made him in a passion ; that whenever he got irritated
he was always up to some sort of mischief, and that
while in that state he happened to meet the prosecutor,
and out of sheer mischief said " Your purse," and then
snapped the pistol in his face. The pistol was not
loaded, and had only a cap on t!:e nipple.
Mr. Hardwick said prisoner's conduct was most extra-
ordinary, and remanded him for a week, in order that the
police might find out who and what the prisoner was.

CLERKENWELL— William -Russell, an
appren-
tice,
was placed at the bar before Mr. Corrie, charged
with etealing a large quantity-of carpenter's tools, the
property of his master, Mr. Morrell.
it appeared from the evidence that the prosecutor had
for some months past been losing a large quantity of
tools, and had Lever been able to d;scover the Vat'. Hr
had discharged several men upon suspicion, and should
never have entertained an idea that the prisoner was the I

thief, if he had not the previous day, when passing a
tool-shop, seen some of his articles. The shopkeeper, on
being asked by him where he bad got them from, said
he had bought them of a young girl. The girl was a
lodger in the house, and the prisoner had given her the
tools to sell, saying that his master had given them to
Lim.

The prisoner, who had nothing to say in his defence,
was remanded for a few days.

WORSHIP-STREET. A man named Thomas
Watson was charged under aggravated circumstances
with being the manager of a common lodging-house,
which had not been approved and registered according to
the requirements of the statute.
Mr. Joseph Price, the visiting inspector under the
Common Lodging-house Act, stated that for some
time past the defendant had acted as manager of a low
lodging-house of notorious character, in King's Head-
court, Shoreditch, which bad been previously kept
by a woman named Elizabeth Evans, who at the
same time conducted two other establishments of a
similar description, situated respectively in Kent-street
and Mint-street, Southwark. The woman Evans had
been repeatedly summoned and amerced in heavy penal-
ties for a series of flagrant violations of the Common
Lodging-house Act, and on the occasion of her last con-
viction she was adjudged to be absolutely disqualified
from keeping or acting in the management of a common-
lodging house for the term of three years. It had been
subsequently ascertained, however, that the defendant
(Watson), who had been formerly connected with Evans,
had ever since kept open the house in King's Head-
court for the reception of the lowest class of lodgers in
obstinate defiance of the law, and on the place being
visited, about a week since, by Sergeant Turner, the
upper rooms were found to be occupied by a promiscuous
assemblage of thieves and prostitutes, while the kitchen
and cellar were densely crowded with inmates of the same
class and character.

In answer to the charge, the defendant, in a confident
tone, denied his liability to such proceedings, upon the
ground that he had acted throughout as a more agent in
the matter, and had nothing whatever to do with the
ownership of the premises. _ _

Mr. Hammill said that the defence he had attempted
to set up was fortunately provided for under the 14th
section of the statute, which enacted that any person
having the care or management of a common lodging-
house was amenable to its provisions ; and he should,
therefore, convict the defendant in the full penalty of 51.
and costg, or three months' imprisonment.
The defendant, who declared that he would rot in
prison before he paid a farthing, was then removed by
the gaoler.
Atter the case had been disposed of a simple-looking
young countryman, named James Cunningham, entered
the witness-box, and stated that he wished to complain
of a heartless robbery which bad been practised upon
him at the house in question, with the knowledge and
connivance, as he had every reason to believe, of the de-
fendant Watson.

It appeared from the statement of the poor fellow, that
he was a native of Alanehester, and had recently
been employed in the Government powder mills, at
Waltham, in Essex, from which place he was induced on
Saturday last to make his way to London on foot, with the
intention of entering the Army Works Corps. In an-
swer to his inquiries for a temporary lodging on his arri-
val in town, he was directed, in an evil hour, to tho
house in King's Head-court, where he saw the man
Watson, who readily agreed to provide him with a room,
and offered to take charge of his carpet bag, containing
his extra clothing and other articles, together with his
woeking tools, which he valued at 30s. He accordingly
placed the bag and its contents under the care of Wat-
son, who introduced him into a large room, where be
found several men and women, who plied him with
drink, which was sent for and shared by the land-
lord, until he was completely stupified, and on waking
no next morning, he found his pockets turned inside
out, and that the whole of his hard-earned savings,
amounting to 41. in gold and silver, had disappeared.
He immediately communicated his loss to the land-
lord, but without obtaining any redress, and on de-
wending the restoration of the carpet bag and property
which be bad left with him, he was coolly told by Wat-
son that they had no doubt been stolen by the same per-
sons who had robbed him of his money, as they were
not to be found in the room where he had placed them
for safe custody. He was unable to obtain any further
explanation in answer to his remonstrances, and was
now entirely destitute, having been not only deprived of
his money, tools, and clothing, but also been robbed of
the written testimonials he had received from late
employers, and which he would he expected to produce
efore be was anowed to enter the Army Works Corps,
although he had been provisionally accepted, and had
passed the usual medical inspection.
Mr. Hammill said that it was certainly a very hard
case, but, notwithstanding the apparent moral culpa-
bility of the man Watson, he considered there was not
sufficient evidence to support an indictment against him
as an accessory to the robbery. The situation of the un-
fortunate applicant was greatly to be commiserated, and
he would direct Hayward, the warrant officer, to explain
the circumstances under which he had lost his vouchers
of character to Sir Joseph Paxton, and present him in
the meantime with a trifling sum from the poor box fur
his immediate exigencies.
The applicant expressed his grateful acknowledgments
to the magistrate, and left the court with the warrant
officer.

John Pitz, a porter in Spitalfields Market, was
charged before Mr. Hammill with a double assault upon
a mother and daughter, named Coverly, residing in Ni-
cholas-street, Bethnal-green•road.
Mary Ann Coverley, one of the complainants, stated
that about 12 o'clock the previous evening, while in the
act of bidding " Good night" to her sweetheart at the
door of her mother's dwelling, the defendant, who was a
perfect stranger to her, suddenly crossed the roadway,
and, without the slightest act or observation from either
of the three, wilfully thrust the lighted candle in her
face. It was extinguished, and he then seized her
by the hair with one hand, striking repeated blow's
with his other fist upon her head and body,
until her screams brought her mother to the spot.
Witness produced a quantity of hair, which had been
torn from her head, and complained of considerable
pain, not having been able to sleep any part of the
night. When the mother interfered for her child's pro-
tection, he struck her a violent blow on the face, caus-
ing the blood to flow, from her nose in such profusion
that her dress was saturated with it. Fortunately a
police-constable came up at the juncture, and averted
further injury.
The fellow said in defenca that he was drunk.
Mr. Hammill sentenced him to two month's imprison-
ment for the first offence, and one month for the second,
with hard labour.

WESTMINSTER.—BETTING-HOrSES.—Chaples Cole,
described as the proprietor of a beer house, in Eaton-
street, Pimlico, was charged, with keeping a betting-
house.

Mr. Smith, Denbigh street, solicitor, appeared for the
prosecution, and stated that a short time since a sum-
mons was issued against Thomas Cole, the reputed pro-
prietor of the beer-house in question, charging him with
being the owner of the premises and permitting betting.
The defence then set up wa,, that he was not the owner
or occupier, and be was then charged with being a per-
son using the house for the purpose of betting. The
words of the first section of the act defined its purpose,
and declared that "No house, office, room, or other
place should be opened, kept, or used for the purpose of
the owner, occupier, or keeper thereof, or person using
the same, for betting ;" while the 3d section, which con-
tained the enactment respecting the offence, punishable
by summary conviction, said, "Any person who being
the owner or occupier of any house, office, room, or other
place, or a person using the same, shall open, keep, or
use for the purposes herein-before mentioned, shall be
subject," &c., and under these clauses he was convicted
at this court in the penalty of 201. He then appealed
to the court of quarter sessions, where the matter was
decided a day or two since. Although on the merits of
the case there was no doubt, Mr. Sergeant Adams, the
assistant judge, took rather a novel view of the law, and
the conviction was quashed upon the ground that it did
not aver that the house was kept open for the purpose
of betting, it not being sufficient that the appellant
" used the same" for the purpose of betting. It was
not necessary for him (Mr. Smith) to go further into
the matter, but he thought that had the learned judge
looked more closely into the third section, he might
have come to a different conclusion. As it was proved
by a person named Rousselle that Thomas Cole was
not the proprietor of the place, but that Charles
Cole, the present defendant, was, proceedings were
now taken against him as the owner or occupier of the
premises ; and he would call Rousselle, although it might
be apprehended he would have difficulty with such a
ay nter
the in
witness, to prove the occupation.
quired
convictionh o
had
de previousbeen
quashed, summons,was
upMonr. which P
worded ?

Mr. Taylor, the chief clerk, replied, "for using the
house," the summons and conviction setting forth that
he, bring a person using the house, did use the came for
the purpose of betting, with persons resorting there.
Mr. Smith observed—And it Was held to be defective
because it was not averred that the house was kept open
for and Mr. Serjeant Adams bad remarked that
were
hold the conviction good, if lie made a bet
with a friend at his club, he should be liable.
behtteintgo,
r perusing the statute, wa
Mr. Paynter said he vas e strucki with that remark.
The worthy
relating to a person ' s
. the
of opinion that the words
been introduced for usingthe
house, appeared to
have
enf the occupier keeping inptuhre-
magistrate,
pur-
pose of meeting the case
background, and letting 1. h
house be used for the pur-
poses of betting.
Mr. Smith said that was the construction that had
been hitherto put upon it.
A person named Lush then proved that he went to
.
defendant's house on two separate days,
and made beta
upon horse.racing events with Thomas t-, i.e. There was
a
andthe house, bad seen
a book kept in the bar for the purpose of entering bets.
Ile had made bets previously at
horse-racing lists there.
Cole.
In reply to questions from the magistrate, complain-
ant said he knew nothing of the defendant Charles Co.
Ffa.l never made a bet with him, nor seen him in the
beer-house.
Charles Rouselle, the barman at defendant's, remem-
bered complainant being at the house on the day in
question, but denied that Thomas Cole made any bet
with him, or was even present on the occasion.
Witness was rigidly examined both by Mr. Smith and
the magi,trate, but stoutly denied that there was any
betting-hook kept in the bar, or that deposits were re-
ceived upon horse-racing events, flatly contradicting the
complainant Lush in the whole of his account of the
transaction, in which he alleged that Ren:elle was pie.
sent and took a prominent part. Witness, however,
did remember that Lush asked him "the price of horses,"
and wanted him to bet; but he told him that he did not i