The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-03 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

LAMBETH.—The court was crowded to hear Mr.
Elliott's decision in the case of Mr. John, Ball and Mr.
Thomas Giles, gentlemen of considerable property in
Lambeth, and candidates at the Easter election for
guardians of that parish, who were charged with unlaw-
fully altering a voting paper, with intent to affect, the
result of the election.

When the case was called on, Mr. Elliot expressed his
de4re, before giving judgment, to hear a similar charge
which he understood was to be preferred against two
other parties. Accordingly, Mr. Thomas Ardiug, shoe-
maker, Lambeth-walk, and Mr. James Hayhow, ac-
countant, of Vauxhall-street, were charged with forging
the name of Mr. James Salter on a voting paper.

It appeared that the voting paper in question was for-
warded by the clerk to the guardians to Mr. Salter, at
reside Newport-street,
sideatt e
house, L
andam Lambeth-w.
d- we
fan]
nkd. a
neilr t
sl
n. a
1 ni Salter
there,d notand
havingobtained the paper, Mr. Arding placed the initials,
"J. 5.," before the names of Doulton, Evans, and
Nash, who were three out of the six candidates. He
also wrote the name, "J. Salter," at the foot of the
paper. Mr. Hayhow was present at the time, but did
not say or do anything save give one of Doulton's can-
vassing cards to a person who was standing by.
Mr. Hobler, for the defence, made some technical ob-
jections, which were overruled by Mr. Elliott, who pro-
ceeded to give judgment in both cases.
His Worship observed that it was denied on the part
of Mr. Giles, or, at least, it was his defence, that be was
not the person who had altered the voting paper, while
in the case of Mr. B Lll it was admitted that he was pre-
sent at the time, but had nothing to do with the act.
With regard to Mr. Giles, he (Mr. Ellett) would only
say that he could not think that any person who had
heard Mis. Northam, the wife of the voter, could have
the least doubt of the contrary ;at least-he, Mr. Elliott,
had no doubt whatever on the subject. It had been
urged by coups-1 on the hearing of the case that it would
have been foolish on the part of the defendants to make
an alteration in a voting paper, knowing very well that
such alteration would render it useless ; but, at the
saute time, it should be considered that the vote,
though destroyed, was lost to their opporents. The con-
duct of the parties, he was sorry to say, was not what he
(Mr. Elliott) might have expected from persons in their
position in life, for instead of coming forward and ac-
knowledging their offence—pleading the sanction given
by Mrs. I'Vortharn to an implied authority of her bus.
band, they cast on her the stigma of falsehood. That
the defendants, Ball and Giles, had acted together in the
matt,-r there could be no doubt, and the charge against
them having been clearly proved, he felt it to be his duty
to commit them to prison for 21 days. In the sectild
case, the conduct of Arding was considerably more
aggravated, for he was guilty of forging the name of
the voter to the paper, and he felt therefore bound to
commit him to prison for one month. Then, as re-
garded Hayhow, he did not think the evidence against
him sufficiently strong to warrant a conviction under
the act, and should therefore di-charge him.
The sensation created in the court by his worship's
evidently unexpected decision it would-be impossible to
describe, and the rival parties having been punished and
neither having a triumph, each were equally crest-
fallen.

Mr. Solomon, addressing the magistrate, said he was
retained by Mr. Ball, and on his behalf he begged his
worship would send that gentleman and the others to
the common gaol for the county, which was Horse-
monger-lane, and not to the House of Correction at
Wandsworth. He had further to beg that his worship
would direct thsradeetotochlaibiemtstdwoctlniatileehstnhagtltieoemfvvhteeietgrson.ht be placed amongst the
hfibp
orursia:strio-
ihcrni misdemeanants,.le:wtrlshuflt:lllhediost,tnttioae
hotarhde of
visitingn
the
ep gaol
awoel r
wouldov er t
magistrate,dhoe
what was necessary under the circumstances.
Mr. Giles said that he had served the parish to the
best of his ability for upwards of 20 years, and was un-
conscious of having committed a single act that he should
be ashamed of in all his life. He confessed that he was
grieved to see the old persons in the workhouse at GO
years of age deprived of their necessary comforts, and
this was the reward he received for his labour.
A number of persons in the body of and round the
court here applauded the prisoner, who was about proceed-
ing, but was stopped by the magistrate.
Mr. Arding admitted his offence, but said he had
acted without thought, and in total ignorance of the law,
hodhpime hison
an
elour salwhipity wouldt forgivehe
other .aim,defendants.
or
rndat thleearset place
•
Mr. Solomon said that the prosecutors in this case
had no objection to a more lenient sentence but if
requestthat Messrs. Ball and Giles be also reduced to Arding's sentence was reduced to 21 days, he' should
_seven. days.
main as they were.
all taken into custody, and the
The defendants were
the ffaoler's room between
however, said the sentences should re.
l'es; beggared all
their friends, and fa,tni i
them,
descrip-
tion. e • Ai Elliott sent to
inq, r•
At a later hour in the ev n ,
I the, prisoners could
lane Goal to know i
sceinier.tEht:ti°ttot'ok place in .
Horsemonger-
be received as first-class misdemeanants,
reply reduced the term of
reply that they could not. He t“en
at Wandsworth ; but
their imprisonment to seven days . . friends,
I *or.; and
at-the earr..;:st request of their eo ich, .
.1.
formal
ap.
ultimately consented to accept bail for their
pearance at the court on that day week.
Ai :, GCUrt
The scan© Irai sitozethor a =IA novel oue
anants, and received a
of lustier*.