The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-25 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL—Mr. Arthur Macnamara, the well-
known omnibus proprietor, appeared to an information
calling upon him to show cause why a distress warrant
should not issue to recover a penalty of 10/. upon a con-
viction in this court about eighteen months ago, for
having an omnibus illegally constructed, which convic-
tion had subsequently been confirmed at Quarter Ses-
sions, and in the Court of Queen's Bench.
The City Solicitor attended for the complainant, Mr.
Roe, the summoning officer of this court, and Mr. Pub
ling, the barrister, appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Roe, having been sworn, stated that he served
the summons upon ire defendant personally on the 20th
of the present month.
Mr. Pulling—Do you lay the information in this case,
Mr. Roe ?

—The City Solicitor objected to that question being put
to Mr. Roe, as the information was merely calling upon
the defendant to show cause why a warrant should not
issue.

Mr. Pulling said his object in asking that question
was to know if Mr. Roe really was the informant ; and,
if so, to show that information given by any person but
the Solicitor for Stamps was invalid according to the
statute under which these proceedings should have been
taken.

Alderman Wilson said he could not allow Mr. Roe to
be examined upon matters that took place prior to the
conviction upon which the present information was
issued. The case had been litigated now for about a
year and a half, and they could not go into the merits
of it again.
Mr. Pulling then asked that the conviction, or a copy
of it, might be produced, in order that he might know
what offence his client was charged with.
The City Solicitor said the conviction was in the
hands of the clerk of the peace, and as it was on record
it was not necessary to produce it.
Mr. Pulling said he wished for the conviction, to
show it was null and void on the face of it.

The City Solicitor said such an objection should have
bean made at the proper time.
Alderman Wilson was surprised Mr. Pulling should
make such an objection, when he knew that the case
had been tried in several courts, and the original con-
viction finally confirmed.
Mr. Pulling said it was only just that a man should
know what offence he was to be punished for.
Alderman Wilson said it was too late to question the
♦alidity of the conviction, the defendant was only required
now to show cause why he had not paid the fine.
Mr. Pulling further objected that the conviction was
drawn in error, inasmuch as it had been drawn according
to the form of Jervis's Act, which exempted revenue
cases, instead of being drawn under the Stage Coach
Act, which contained a proper set of forms. The forms
in these two acts were essentially different; and, inas-
much as the conviction was wrong in that respect it
could not be enforced at all, the rule of law being that
where a conviction was wrong in any part, it was void
altogether. It did not merely adjudge but directed also
execution, therefore a warrant was unnecessary, as by
the form of conviction, though informal, the defendant
could be taken in execution upon it.
Alderman Wilson said that was the customary form,
but it was never contemplated that it would be acted
upon without a warrant of distress issuing previously.
Mr. Pulling also objected to the warrant on the
ground that every facility had not been given to the de-
fendant to pay the money. The conviction ordered half
of the penalty to be paid to the Queen and the other
half to the informer. Now, there was no difficulty in
complying with the first part of that order ; but there
was with the latter, for if Mr. Roe was the informer,
the conviction was bad on the face of it ; and if not, how
was he to know who was, when he was not allowed to
examine Mr. Roe on that point ?
The City Solicitor said it was too late to urge such an
argument now.

-Mr. Pulling said it was lawful to argue against the
conviction of a judge at any tinge.
The City Solicitor : Yes, and against your own con-
vict*, too. (Laughter.)
Mr. Pulling said he had nearly finished.
The City Solicitor said that expectation had induced
him toAlisten so quietly, in the hope that he would soon
run out. (Laughter.)

Mr. Pulling repeated that the conviction might be
acted upon the same as a warrant, and then set down.

Alderman Wilson said no officer would act upon it
without a warrant. He did not see any good reason
why a warrant should not issue.
A warrant of distress was then ordered.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—John Pittman, alias
Mr. Edmund Vinten, yeoman, and William Johnson,
alias Malcolm, 'alias Bean, alias Mr. William Killick,
miller, Rochester, were brought before Mr. Hardwick,
charged with having obtained large sums of money from
gentlemen connected with Kent by means of a petition
falsely representing that the bearers had been large suf-
ferers from the recent floods, occasioned by the overflow-
ing of the Medway.
Sir Thomas Maddock, M.P. for Rochester, said the
prisoner Pittman, and another man not in custody.
brought a letter to him at the Clarendon Hotel, which
contained a statement of alleged losses sustained by a
farmer named Balcombe, near Rochester, in consequence
of the recent floods. This memorial purported to be
signed by a number of respectable inhabitants of Roches-
ter and the neighbourhood, who had various sums as
contributions placed against their names. In addition
to this memorial, the following letters were handed to
him :

" St. Margaret-street, Rochester, Dec. 6, 1852.
" Sir Thomas—Under the painful circumstances which
the accompanying memorial will fully explain, I venture to
address you on behalf of the family of the afflicted Mr.
Balcombe, whose melancholy situation calls for sympathy.
I have certainly taken more than ordinary interest in this
affair, having known the family many years in this city,
and at the request of the bearer, Mr. Balcombe, jun., who
leaves home this evening for London, in order to make
some arrangements in connection with this case, I beg to
submit for your charitable consideration the documents in
his possession. Trusting the motive which actuates me
will be deemed an apology, I have the honour, Sir Thomas,
to remain respectfully,
" D. BAXTER LEWIS, Town-clerk, Rochester."
"The Rev. J. W. Sheringham presents his compliments
to Sir T. H. Maddock, and at the earnest entreaty of the
bearer, Mr. E. Vinten (a respectable farmer in this parish),
begs torecommend to hisnotice the accompanying memorial,
signed by the civic authorities of Rochester. If claims of
a more pressing nature do not prevent Sir Thomas from
contributing, he (Mr. S.) can assure him it is a case merit-
ing ample sympathy. The Rev. J. W. S. takes more than
ordinary interest in the bearer's welfare, inasmuch as Mr.
Vinton is a person of exemplary habits, and has a large
family dependent on his exertions. opes this will be
deemed a sufficient apology for intrusion.
" Sir. T. H. Maddock, M.P."
Believing the statement in the petition, and having faith
in the authenticity of the letters handed to him, he gave
the men 101. Shortly after this he was informed by the
Mendicity Society he had been imposed upon, and that
the petition and letters were forgeries. Pittman was
the man representing himself as Vinten ; the other man,
not in custody, was Balcombe.

Webb and :John Horsford, two of the Mendicity So-
ciety's constables, proved that they apprehenAd the two
prisoners in the Blackfriars-road. A card was found in
their possession, which had the names upon it of " Mr.
Edmund Vinten, yeoman, Rochester," and "Mr. Wm.
Killick, Rochester."
William Horsford, of the Mendicity Society, said he
had known both prisoners for a long time as common
begging-letter impostors. Johnson had been repeatedly
convicted. From infbrmation sent to the Mendicity
Society, it was ascertained that the prisoners and an-
other man had been going about with petitions, and col-
lecting a great deal of money from gentlemen connected
with Kent.

The prisoner, Pittman, denied being the person who
obtained the money from Sir Thomas Maddock.
Mr. Hardwick said the prisoner had been clearly
identified, and therefore he must be committed for three
months to hard labour.

William Horsford said he had a charge to make against
Johnson for obtaining 101. from the Hon. F. Villiers,
M.P. Johnson had been already convicted for obtaining
money from various noblemen and gentlemen, among
whom were Lord Saltoun, Sir H. Meux, and Lord
Edward Hill. The following letter would prove the
nature of the fraud :

" St. Margnret-street, Rochester.
" Hon. Sir,—Under the painful circumstances which the
inclosed memorial will more fully explain, I venture to ad-
dress you on behalf of the family of the afflicted Mr. Bal-
combe, whose melancholy situation calls for sympathy. At
the request of Mr. Balcombe, jun., who leaves for London
to make some arrangements connected with his family af-
fairs, I beg to submit the inclosed memorial for your
charitable consideration.

" I have the honour to be,
ter "D. BAXTER LEWIS."
Isir. Le • jun., of Rochester, proved that both let-
ts,
eries purporting to be written by his father, were for-
The Prisoners were remanded for the attendance of
Mr. illiers, till Monday next.
Catkerine Johnson was charged with having been
concerned with others in committing robberies of jewel-
lery, to the amount of 1,500/. or 2,000/., at the shop of
Messrs. Hunt and Roskell.
The robberies were supposed to have been effected by
a person representing himself as the husband of the pri-
soner, and who contrived to effect the robberies at vari-
ous times when he is the shop as a customer. The
poner was apprehended as she was about to start by
railway for Dover
Remanded till Friday.
The sum of 2/. has been r„ •
„I. erfe
d per Mr. Superin-
tendent Otway, from 111, for the poor-box.

WORSHIP-STREET•—James Wells, an athletic and
Mr.
fellow, was placed at the bar, before
Mr. Hammill, charged with havi
violently assaulted
Wiadsor-terrace,
Mr. John Willis, a cabinet-maker,
City-road, with the supposed intention of committing a
highway robbery.
The prosecutor stated that while passing through
Shoreditch on his way home, between one and tZ,,,
o'clock that morning, he was suddenly encountered by
the prisoner and two other men, one of whew civilly
accosted him, and requested that he would oblige him
with a light from a cigar that he was smoking et the
time. Before he had time to comply with the solicita-
tion, a simultaneous rush was made upon him by the
three men, which caused him to stagger back into the
road, and at the same moment the prisoner struck him a
heavy blow on the temple, which knocked off his hat and
felled him to the ground. He instantly started up, and
on demanding what they meant by such conduct, the
prisoner dealt him a violent blow under the eye, which
knocked him down again and partially stunned him.
At that moment the prisoner and his companions
were apparently alarmed by the sound of ap-
proaching footsteps, as they made off at a rapid
pace, but witness proceeded after them and saw them

commence a similar attack upon another gentleman,
whom they also surrounded and knocked down at
a short distance from the spot. Witness then crossed
over to the opposite side of the street, where he fortu-
nately met a policeman, under whose directions he has-
tened after his assailants, but the instant they caught
sight of him, the prisoner darted across the road, and
grasping him tightly by the throat forced him back
against the wall. He was proceeding to further acts
of violence, when the constable whom witness had just
spoken to, suddenly made his appearance, and after
a desperate resistance the prisoner was apprehended and
secured.

Mr. William Frederick Ellis, a professor of music, re-
siding in Fountain-place, City-road, stated that he' was
returning home from a concert at the -time in question,
when he met the prisoner and his two confederates,
who commenced hustling him in a suspicious manner,
and on demanding an explanation of their conduct, he
received a violent blow from the prisoner, which
stretched him on the pavement. The blow was
delivered with such force that he was completely stupi-
fied, tnd before he could recover his feet he was joined
by one of his friends with whom he had spent the
evening, and at whose appearance the prisoner and his
companions instantly started off. In consequence of the
stunning effect of the blow, witness was unable to pro-
ceed in pursuit until the whole of them had disappeared,
but he shortly afterwards met the last witness and a
policeman, from whom he ascertained that the prisoner
had been lodged in the station-house.
On being asked if he wished to say anything, the pri-
soner sullenly replied that he would rather reserve his
defence.

Mr. Hammill said, that it was a very aggravated case,
which was replete with suspicion against the prisoner,
and ordered him at once to be committed for trial.

SOUTHWARK.—Arthur Gallafant, in the employ
of Mr. Lewis Ash, an engineer' in Herbert's-buildings,
Southwark, was charged before Mr. Combe with robbing
his employer to a considerable amount.
The complainant stated that the prisoner had been in
his service for the last three years, and having latterly
suspected his honesty, he gave information to the police,
and on the previous night he was taken into custody in
the act of leaving the premises. When searched, there
was found in his possession several tools of an expensive
description belonging to his employer, which he had pur-
loined from the workshop where he was in the habit of
working. On a subsequent examination of the prisoner's
house, a further discovery of stolen property was made
of upwards of 350 new files, brass taps, and other ma-
chinery belonging to turning lathes, to the amount of
more than 501. The prisoner, it appeared, had been for
some time making preparations to go out to the diggings,
and for the purpose of carrying out his intentions and
procuring the money necessary for his outfit and defray-
ing the expenses of his passage to South Australia, he
commenced robbing his employer, although he was in
the receipt of excellent wages as a journeyman engineer.
The prisoner, who declined saying anything in answer
to the charge, was committed.
Mary Gorman, Catherine Sullivan, Catherine Roach,
and Mary Reddington, were brought up for final exami-
nation, charged with knocking down Mr. William Ward,
a wine merchant, and robbing him of a watch and chain
on the Queen's highway.
The additional evidence was that of policeman 123 M,
who stated that on the night in question he saw all the
prisoners together in the Borough-market, and he told
them to go away. They then all ran towards Winches-
ter-street, and a few minutes afterwards he went after
them and observed the prosecutor lying on the ground
exclaiming that he had lost his watch and money. Ob-
serving that he appeared in liquor, he took him to the
station-house. The following morning Reddington gave
such information as led to the apprehension of her fel-
low-prisoners, and the recovery of the watch and guard
in the room occupied by them. Reddington had given
the above information on her fellow-prisoners in conse-
quence of their having refused to give her, as she termed
it, her " regulars," that is, a share of the plunder, she,
by her own account, having been present when the
offence was committed.
The prisoners were committed.