The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-28 00:00:00

to complain of the conduct of the police. Mr Addison had
been dining with several friends, and they were parting at
the corner of Rupert-street, when they were most unneces-
sarily interfered with by the constable. He (Mr Lewis)
would not say that the gentlemen were quite so quiet as
they might have been, but still 'there was no noise calling
for the interference of the police. He would not deny that
there was some chaffing going on, and that the constable's
hat was knocked off, but not by Mr Addison, who took no
part in the matter, when the constable rushed at Mr Addi-
son and seized him by the collar, and thrust his knuckles
into his throat, and then Mr Addison said, " It you do not
release me—you are choking me—l will strike you," and
Mr Addison then did strike the constable. He considered
there had been great CXCBSS on the part of the constable, and
he was only struck by Mr Addison when he was nearly
throttled—the constable being the aggressor.
Mr Lewis then called several gentlemen, who bore out
the statement he had made, and all of them denied that
Addison knocked off the constable's hat—that the constable
had behaved in a very insulting manner, and interfered
without any reason. Some of them said they heard Mr
Addison complain of being nearly choked. One of the
gentlemen said that when he went to the station after the
defendant was locked up, he (witness)
was kicked and
pushed about in the passage of the station, and his hat
knocked off by about half a dozen constables, the constable
Roffey having also kicked him deliberately while on the
way to the station.

Mr Tyrwhitt said he thought it an unfortunate act on
the part of the constable. If decent persons were part-
ing with each other at the corner of a street it was too much
interfering with the public for the police to interfere with
them. The constable had acted with rashness, bat he did
not impute bad feeling to the constable. He would not say
anything harsh against the constabl., because he knew
what a difficult duty they had to perform, and what confu-
sion there generally was in such cases. Hs should dis-
charge both defendants. Mr Hutchinson appeared to have
done nothing.

Mr Hutchinson said he had not interfered in the matter
at all, only wishing to clear his house.

WESTMINSTER.
DISGRACEFUL INTRUSION,—John Anderson, a man in
porter's clothing, was charged with being drunk and as•
saulting the police.
Police-constable 336 B stated that he was on duty last
evening in Cumberland-street, Pimlico, when he was called
to remove the defendant. who was conducting himself very
offensively at a lady's house. The lady had just arrived in
a cab with some baggage on the roof, and when the cab
stopped defendant seized a box and insisted upon carrying
it into the house. He was told again and again that his
services were not required, and requested to put down the
box, but he would not, and carried it into the house. The
lady then gave him twopence, although his services had
been unsolicited, when he declared he would not leave the
house under sixpence for his services. When witness re.
moved him he resisted, and kicked. The defendant was in-
toxicated at the time.

Defendant said he gave his services, and one of the ladies
at the houbo asked him to carry a box up stairs. He denied
that he had kicked the constable, and said if one of the
ladies was called she could show that he did not.

The lady, who had returned with her luggage, and an-
other who was present, were both called and examined.
They said that defendant had insisted upon forcing his way
into the house, that they refused to allow him to carry a box
upstairs, and he then conducted Wcaself as described. One
of them saw him kick the constable.

Mr Arnold said that defendant's conduct had been very
reprehensible. He had insolently forced his way into a
lady's house, and then demanded money for his services.
Considering this misconduct and the penalty for the assault
he should fine defendant 20s, and in default commit him for
14 days.