The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-05 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS-April 4,

The April Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the
county of Middlesex commenced this morning at the
Sessions House, Clerkenwell-green, before Mr. Bod-
kin, Assistant-Judge, Mr. Payne, and a bench of
magistrates.
The calendar contains the names of 130 prisoners
committed for trial, of whom 103 were indicted for
felony, and 27 for misdemeanor.
The Assistant-Judge, on the Grand Jury being
sworn, briefly addressed them, and explained to
them the nature of their duties, and they retired to
their room. _ _ _

Charles Pottinger, who has been remanded for
several sessions, having been convicted of a serious
assault upon Henry Hunglesin, au omnibus con-
ductor, xv,,s brought up for judgment.
Sentence had been deferred in this case to ascer-
tain if the prisoner's friends would make the prose-
cutor any pecuniary compensation for the injuries
he had sustained, but they refused to contribute
anything.
The prisoner said months ago the prosecutor had
been offered £3 down and an I 0 U for £2, but he
refused the offer. _ .

The Assistant-Judge eentenced him to be impri-
soned and kept to hard labour for three months, he
having been in prison since the beginning of Jan.
Alfred Stevens, 29, clerk, was indicted for steal-
ing the sum of £5, the moneys of William Honour,
in the dwellinghouse of James Pownceby.
The wife of the prosecutor in this case, on the
evening of March 17, went to the Duke of Clarence
publichouse, in the neighbourhood of Stanhope-
street, Hampstead road, in company with her son,
to fetch some beer for supper. She had in her purse
a sovereign, a £5 note, and a sailor's ticket of leave.
She took the sovereign out of her purse to pay for
the beer, and in doing so she dropped the other con-
tents of her purse. After she had been gone some
time the prisoner entered the publichouse, and was
seen to pick up something from the front of the
counter, which he banded to the barman, telling
him that it was a sailor's ticket of leave. A wit-
ness named James Joh❑ Ridler was in the house at
the time, and saw him pick up a Bank of England
note, and when the prisoner left the house he fol-
lowed him and told him that he had got a £lO
note. The prisoner said it was only a £5 note;
and on being advised to go and give it up to the
barman, as the note belonged to two sailor boys, he
said he should not do so, as it was just what he
wanted, and that it would enable him to get some
clothes to go into the City to look for a situation.
He was subsequently taken into custody by George
Madgett, police-constable 74 S, on the cherge of
stealing the note, when he said it was all gone but
is 6d, as a botcher had robbed him of £3.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced him to be impri-
soned and kept to hard labour for two months.
George Carey, 22, barman, was indicted for steal-
ing the sum of 25., the property of James Drake, his
master.

Mr. Cooper prosecuted ; Mr. F. H. Lewis op
peared for the prisoner.
The prisoner pleaded guilty to the indictment.

From the statement of Mr. the prosecutor,
it appeared that he is landlord of the Pigott Arms
Tavern, East India-road, Limehouse, and the pri-
soner was in his service for a fortnight as barman,
he having obtained the situation by representing
that he had lived for twelve months in the employ-
ment of Mr. Blyth, of the Herculus Tavern, but this
was a false representation. From the time the
prisoner entered the prosecutor's service his ordi-
nary takings were reduced by about 255. a day.
Between £l3 and £l4 was found in the prisoner's
possession, and Mr. Cooper applied that that sum
should be given up to the prosecutor. The prisoner
was engaged at a salary of £25 a year, with board
and lodging, and he was promised an advance to
£3O a year if he suited.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced him to be impri-
soned and kept to hard labour for twelve months.
At the last sessions Ann Murray was indicted for
maliciously committing damage to the amount of
£5 to a pane of plate glass, the property of George
Horner. At the trial it was stated that the eister
of the prisoner had been to the London Plate Glass
Insurance Company, in Ludgate hill, and paid £3,
on condition that they would not prosecute for this
offence; but, notwithstanding, a prosecution was
commenced against her, and she was acquitted by
the jury. The Assistant-Judge made acme strong
remarks on such a proceeding at the thzie, and
thought that the matter ought to be inquired into,
as it looked like compounding a misdemeanour.
To-day a professional gentleman attended the
court and said he had waited upon the secretary of
the company and informed him of his lordship's ob-
servations, and suggested to him that he ought to
return the £3 he received from the prisoner's sister
for the damage done, but for which she was after-
wards prosecuted. The secretary, upon this appli-
cation, replied that if the Assistant-Judge should
send for him he might then return the money, but
not without.

The Assistant-Judge again strongly commented
upon the case, and after communication with the
magistrates on the bench, said he had not the power
to send for Mr. Williams, the secretary, but if he
had any regard for himself or the credit of the com-
pany he would attend without being sent for, and
explain why he received the money and why he
would not return it.

The matter then dropped, and:so stands for the
present.

Important to the Sporting Fraternity.

At the Marylebone Police-office yesterday, before
the night charges were disposed of Mr. fain, a
solicitor, said he wished that a case in which he had
been retained should be kept back till three o'clock,
as his witnesses could not possibly be there till the
time mentioned.

Mr. Yardley, after looking at the charge-sheet,
asked Mr. Pain if he had a substantial ground of
defence if the case were adjourned till three o'clock•
Mr• Pain—According to my instructions I have.
Mr. Yardley—lf the facts as set forth on the
charge-sheet are proved against your client he is
liable. I say nothing more now. You wish for
an adjournment till three o'clock.
It may be here stated, as explanatory, that the
defendant, Edward Bilbrough, alias Napper, has
been in training for the last two or three weeks at
Finchley, where his " casual locality" becoming
known, Mr. Webb, inspector at Hampstead, gave
information to Scotland-yard that defendant was on
his ground training for a fight with Hitching, for
£25 a side, to come off this day (Tuesday). Sir
Richard Mayne, after communicating with the law
officers of the Crown and the Home Office, issued
his orders for the arrest of the defendant. The case
is rather a novel one, as the police have taken upon
themselves to apprehend a man without a warrant
who is " knowingly" and " acknowledgedly" train-
ing for a fight, likely to cause a disturbance or
breach of the peace.

At three o'clock the defend nt surrendered to his
bail, accompanied by Mr. Pain, his solicitor.
Sergeant Thomas, of Scotland-yard—From in-
formation I received I visited the Five Bells,Finch-
ley, in company with a fellow sergeant. After we
had some refreshments, and had sat there awhile,
the prisoner carte in with two friends. Dinner was
brought in for them, and whilst they were par-
taking of it defendant asked one of his friends,
" How is Hitching getting on P" The answer was,
"Very well." I asked if he (defendant) wits tke
man going to fight him (Hitching). Defendant said,
" Yes ; I am going to fight him next Tuesday."
Mr. Yardley—Going to fight next Tuesday ?
Thomas—Yes, sir.
Mr. Pain—Are you quite sure that was the day
he mentioned ?
Thomas—Yes.
Mr. Yardley—Did you tell him that you were a
police sergeant ?

Sergeant 'Monne (who wears, as is customary
with Scotland yard officers, a moustache, and dresses
in plain clothes), said—No, sir.
Mr. Yardley—Not when you took him into cus-
tody ?

Thomas—l did not take him into custody.
When was he taken into custody P—On Saturday
night.

By whom ?—Another officer can speak to that.
Henry Beard (detective sergeant 29 A)—l went
with last witness to the Bells at Finchley. Defen-
dant and his friends came in, and after they had
been talking a little while, I said to defendant, ‘• I
suppose you have heard of the fight announced in
Bells B;:fc for £25 a side." He said he had, and I

-
asked him if his name was Napper. He said he
knew Napper.
Mr. Yardley—Did you take him into custody then ?
Beard—No, sir. He was taken the next day.
Mr. Yardley (without calling for any defence on
the part of Mr. Pain, or the witnesses he might have
in attendance) said—l am only sorry that anything
in this case should give me cause to enable this man
to fight to-morrow, but I cannot come to any other
conclusion than that he is improperly in custody
(His worship read the 64th clause in the Metropolis
Police Act, which saya_i, Be it enacted, that it
shall be lawful for any constable belonging to the
metropolitan police to take into custody without
warrant, all loose, idle, and disorderly persons wheel
he shall find disturbing the public peace, or whom
he shall have good cause to suspect to have Com-
mitted, or being about to commit any felony, misde-
meanour, or breach of the peace," &c.) This means
any person or persons in my opinion who are about
immediately to commit an offence. The pers°ll.,
before me is wrongly in custody now. If he had
been properly brought before me I could have
ordered him to find bail for his being of good bes
haviour, and preventing a breach of the peace. At
present he is wrongly in custody.
Inspector Williamson (chief at Scotland-yard)''
I took him into custody upon authority.
Mr. Yardley—By whose authority ?
Inspector Williamson—Sir Richard Mayne's.
Inspector Webb handed the authority for pri-
soner's apprehension to his worship.
Mr. Yardley—l can only go upon my own
opinion, and I may say upon my own judgment. In
this my opinion is that you ought to have applied
for proper process, by having a warrant, if there
were tangible grounds for it.
Inspector Williamson—l took him into eustodY•
Mr. Yardley—l am not blaming you. You acted
upon orders. I am not saying you did not act with'
out instructions. I have had put into my hands
documents from the two law officers of the Crown.
It is satisfactory, when my opinion is consistent
with theirs, but in this case my opinion differs from
theirs, His worship then again referred to that
portion of the act which says, " being about to coin'
mit a breach of peace," and said it all pointed to an
immediate breaking of the peace. It don't spent
of " a" or "any" remote disturbance likely to be
caused. The law as it is enacted is for an imtne'
diate and not for an impending breach. There in
another reason in regard to this case where the
liberty of a subject should be taken into considers'
tion. This morning when application was made to
me to allow the defendant to be at large, upon his
saying that he could not have his witnesses present
till this afternoon, I am convinced now that in doing
so I was right, for when a man is taken upon
warrant it is not absolutely so strong as being taken
into custody without process. When the defendant
was here this morning he was not properly on his
defence. (To Defendant)--Now, understand we,
if you fight this battle to-morrow you will be liable
to indictment ; so don't you go there. Mind yon,
also, if you are found there you can be taken into
custody.
Mr. Pain (solicitor) said they did not intend to
fight.