The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-29 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

THREATENING A WlTNEss.—Christopher Webb, a baker,
was brought before Mr Tyrwhitt on a warrant, promptly
executed by O'Shaughnessy, one of the warrant officers,
charged with threatening a young man named William
Warren, residing at 9, Robert-street, Grosvenor-square.
The complainant said he was a witness yesterday in a
case in which two bakers were charged (and remanded) with
stabbing a female. After the case was over he went to
the Marlborough Head public-house, opposite the court,
when the defendant's landlord said the defendant would
fight him for £5 for giving evidence against men. He
,old the man he did not want to fight, and the defendant
then said that the first time he met him (complainant) out
he would settle him. _

The defendant sail the complainant first offered to fight
him, but this the complainant denied.
The complainant said the landlord of the Marlborough
Head heard what occurred.

Mr John Ellwood, of the Marlborough Head, was sent
for by Mr Tyrwhitt, and he stated that he heard the de-
fendant say to the complainant either that ho would pay him
out or settle him, and then some words ensued.
Mr Tyrwhitt said the defendant would have to find two
good bail in £lO each to be of good behaviour for three
months. He had tried to bully a witness who had given
evidence, and if he did so again he would be sent to the
sessions.

vv
PARISH PROSECUTION OF A BROTILEL KEEPER.—
Sarah Williams, of 32, Oxenden-street, was charged before
Mr. Tyrwhitt on a warrant for keeping a brothel.
A gentleman from the office of the Vestry Clerk of St.
Martin's attended for the prosecution, and Mr Abrams for

the prisoner.
Sergeant John Appleton, 26 C, said he knew the prisoner
as the keeper of the brothel in question.
Mr Abrams asked whether she was the occupier of the
house.

The Sergeant said she was the manager.
The representative of the parish asked that heavy bail
might be required, as it was a very bad house, and not-
withstanding the notice given :by the authorities, it had
been still carried on.

Mr Abrams complained that the parish authorities
selected only the minor houses, and left the larger ones
alone, for reasons best known to themselves. He under-
stood there were ten houses of a similar kind in the street,
and yet there was only ono selected. He apprehended
there was no distinction in the cases. _ _

The prisoner was then committed to the sessions—her
own bail in £BO, and two sureties in £lO each, being taken.

WESTMINSTER.

QUESTIONS OF RIC:MT.—PUBLIC CAUTION.—Mr James
William Lewis, timber merchant, of Manor-street. Chelsea,
was charged with wilfully and maliciously damaging a
fence at Chelsea.

Mr John Samuel Phene, landed proprietor, at Chelsea,
said he had been for a series of years subjected to a great
many annoyances respecting his property. He had recently
built a wall in a street recently formed, which wall had
been several times knocked down. He had now erected a
fence to protect it, and that was wantonly pulled down by
the defendant at an early hour this morning.
Two policemen were called in support of the charges.
They proved that defendant and two other men came out
of a tavern in the neighbourhood last night, when in con-
sequence of the defendant saying he would have the fence
down the police watched it, and saw him return with the
men, in a few minutes and cut it down.
Mr Smyth, solicitor for defendant, cross-examined the
complainant to show that the hoarding projected two or
three feet on the footway, which was admitted.
The constables also, in cross-examination, said there had
been complaints.
Mr Smyth urged that this hoarding was complained of
as both an obstruction and a nuisance. In the present ful-
ness of ladies' dresses, they either had to walk out into the
dirty road or have their clothes damaged by this hoarding.
Defendant acting upon tho generally recognised principle
that a man had a right to remove anything that obstructed
a right of way; he had certainly been present, and had at
least countenanced the pulling down of the fence.
Mr Arnold said that whatever might have been the old
notion about the right to remove, a recent decision in the
Court of Queen's Bench had thrown a different light on the
matter, which would of course influence future decisions. It
was the practice in England when roads were mended to
put up tressels on the highway in order to make the car-
riages roll down the new granite. A nobleman, consider-
ing the right of way impeded, broke down the tressels and
damaged them. He was fined before the justices for the
wilful damage, and his assertion of right was heard in the
Court of Queen's Bench, when it was decided that the jus-
tices were right, and that the defendant was not justified in
the act he had committed.
Mr Smyth said it was for the magistrate to say whether
this was malicious or wilful damage in the legal sense of

the words.
Mr Arnold said that this must not be done again. If
there were any rights in disput3 they must be advocated in
another way, and it complainant had further annoyance
after this notice the full penalty of the law would be en-
forced. As there was a notion of right influencing defen-
dant, he should not impose any penalty, but should order
defendant to pay the amount of damage, and come up for
judgment when called upon.