The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-26 00:00:00

Curious Charge against a Police Inspector.

At the Mansion-house Police-court yesterday, John
Leonard, Inspector of the City Police, appeared before
Alderman Sir It. Carden, who was sitting for the Lord
Mayor, in answer to a summons taken out by Sergeant
Payne, the Coroner for the. City of London, charging
him with a violation of duty as an inspector of the police
force.

Sergeant Payne conducted his case himself, and said he
had felt it his duty on public grounds to take the present
proceedings against Inspector Leonard. He had occasion
some ten days ago to h.old an inquest upon the body of a man
who had committed suicide. Two letters had been found
in a desk used by the deceased man, one of which was di-
rected to his wife and the second to the coroner and jury.
The one to the wife was not sealed, but the other, which
was addressed to the coroner and jury, had been sealed,
although when it was delivered to him it had been opened,
and as he understood by the direction of the police, and it
was given to the reporters and got into the newsp Tors,
although he himself declined to give a copy of the letter for
that purpose, as he was of opinion that the contents were of
such a nature that it would be better they were not laid
before the public. He applied to Mr Alderman Finnis, but
was told by him that the magistrates had no jurisdiction
over the police.
Mr Oke (acting as chief clerk) said Sergeant Payne had
misunderstood ; Mr Alderman Finuis did not say there was
no jurisdiction, but that complaints against the police were
generally laid before the Chief Commissioner of Police and
investigated by him.
Sergeant Payne said he understood there was no jurisdic-

tion, and having ascertained that a magistrate could deal
with the matter, he had kit bound to bring it before this
Court as the proper authority.

Sergeant Payne was then sworn, and stated that he had
occasion to hold-an inquest at St Bartholomew's Hospital
on the body of a man named Charles Vie Ridout, who had
shot himself. A letter which he produced, which was ori-
ginally sealed up and addressed to the coroner and jury, was
handed to him by one of the police. He did not know whe-
ther the defendant was there or not. The letter was found
in a desk used by the deceased man, and was proved to be
in his handwriting. At the conclusion of the inquest he ex-
pressed his opinion that it was undesirable to publish such
a letter in the newspapers, but he was very much astonished
to find the next day that in a report of the inquest the very
worst paragraphs of the letter were inserted, and the com-
plaint he made was that the letter had been opened by the
police in violation of their duty, and handed to the reporter.
His object was not to punish, but to prevent such an occur-
rence in future. lie had privately seen Inspector Leonard,
who had acknowledged the opening of the letter, and ex-
pressed a wish that no further notice would to taken of it;
but he had told him that if it were a private matter ho
would be happy to let it rest, but as it was a matter in
which the public were concerned he could not do so. 111 r
Leonard had expressed his sorrow, although he certainly
did not say it was he who had opened it, but he said he
had copied it, and the reporter had it from the police-office.
Mr Wontner said Sergeant Payne was mistaken when he
said the defendant acknowledged that the reporter got a
copy of the letter from the police-office, and in answer to Mr
Wontner's question, Sergeant Payne said he understood

nit read it through as he was very busy and had not time.
Ho did not say it was indistinctly written. It was plainly
written. He road it aloud at the inquest, and there was a
reporter present. The reporter asked him for the letter to
take a verbatim copy, but he did not allow him to have it,
and the next day he saw in the papers an epitome of the
letter. Inspector Leonard called upon him and told him
that when the letter was found the man was still alive, and
that it was desirable to find the address of the wife, and the
letter was opened with that object, and he did not recollect
whether ho said they could not obtain it otherwise. He
said it was not he who opened it, and said he would bring
the man before him who did so ; but he did not require that.
Sir H. Carden asked what the summons charged the de-
fendant with ?

Serg,ant Payne said it charged him with a violation of
duty in opening a letter addressed to the coroner and the
jury.

Mr Wontner said he was not desired by the defendant to
stop the case upon any technical points, on the contrary,
he was desired to obtain all the facts and lay them before
the court, when he was sure, instead of having violated
his duty, he would be said to have acted with considerable
humanity. The deceased, it appeared, worked at a gutta-
percha factory, and ou the report of a pistol having been
heard some one proceeded to the spot where deceased was at
work, and it was then found that he had shot himself, and
wounded himself severely. He was, however, found to be
still living, and was taken to the hospital, and inquiries were
made with a view to ascertain his address, that his wife
might be communicated with, and his desk was searched
and the two letters were found, as had boon stated. The
one addressed to the wife was opened, but there was no ad-
dress there, and no one in the establishment knew where he
resided. All possible inquiries were made, and the police
actually expended 9s in cab hire in endeavouring to find it
out, but to no avail, and the letter was opened, little dream-
ing that the coroner would object to it. There was, however,
no address in the letter, and some one proceeded to Strat-
ford, whence the address was learnt from a boy who had
once delivered a letter at deceased's house. Defendant
directed the letter to be opened, thinking that it might as-
sist in discovering the whereabouts of the wife. The letter
was read by the coroner at the inquest, and what appeared
in the newspapers were portions which had been taken
down in shorthand at the time, and he was prepared to
prove by the reporter himself that none of it was furnished
by the police, The defendant had been twenty-five years
in the force, and was naturally indignant at such a charge
being brought against him ; and he (Mr Wontner) was
sure, when Sir Robert had heard all the facts, he would
think with him, that instead of having committed any
breach of duty, Inspector Leonard had used a wise discre-
tion and acted with great humanity in endeavouring by
every means, even to the opening of the letter, to obtain the
whereabouts of the poor wife, in order that she might be
with her dying husband during his last moments, he being
at the time hovering between life and death.
Mr Wontner called Inspector Everett and Sergeant Pen-
ning, who proved the facts as he had stated with regard to
the opening of the letter ; and Sergeant Fenning stated that
he, bylnspector Leonard's direction, took the two letters up
to Coroner Payne's house, and gave them to his clerk, who
took them to him and returned with them, saying that Mr.

Payne had not then time to read them ; that they were very
indistinctly written, and they must be produced at the in-

quest—and by this MrWontner showed the motive for copy-
ing the letter, which he said was to assist Sergeant Payne,
Mr Geary, the reporter who was present at the inquest,

was called, and said the letter was read by the coroner at the
inquest, and he took down some portions in short-hand, the

rest he could not follow as it was not distinctly read, and
that what appeared in the newspapers was a copy of his
short-hand notes, and he had no copy from the police officer,
nor was he aware that any copy had been taken of it.
Serjoant Payne put several questions to the witness, but
elicited nothing of any importance.
Sir Robert Carden said he had paid attention to the

evidence, and he gave Sergeant Payne credit for his desire
to benefit the public, but at the same time he could nct see
that the evidence which had been produced showed any
violation of duty on the part of the police inspector, who
was in a position to use his own discretion in many mat-
ters, and in this, as ho had always done, no had used a very
wise one. Tho man was alive, and ho had done all in his
power to enable the poor wife to be with him when he
breathed his last, and he might have lived a week, or not
an hour. He certainly thought there was no evidence of
a violation of duty. It was a very serious charge, and it
was quite right that it should be thoroughly investigated,
and he must say that it would have received a proper atten-
tion, and the facts would have been thoroughly laid opcn,
if the matter had been taken before the usual authority—
the Commissioners of Police. As tar as he could see the
defendant had only acted in the cause of humanity, and he
should dismiss the summons. In conclusion, Sir Robert
said he as quite sure if all the facts, as they had been laid
before the court, had been known to Sergeant Payne, the
summons would not have been taken out.

Sergeant Payne said ho could not have known thorn.
He did not object to the opening of the letter to ascertain
the address, but ho thought it ought to have been sealed up
again; and having thanked the alderman for his attention
to the case, he left the beuch.