The Sun.
London, England, 1852-10-26 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION HOUSE. —A. Campbell was charg,4l with
having robbed Michael Thrry, n young Irish tailor, Of
five shillings, the first money ever earned by the indus-
trious boy in this country, in which he has been a very
recent importation.

The prosecutor said—The prisoner, who is a tailor as
well as myself, lodged in the same room, and befote I
went to bed about three months ago, he pre,sed me to
lend him the money I had, but as I wanted it myself I
refused him, and I put it for safety under my head. In
the morning I found that my money and my cap were
gone, and that the prisoner, who bad never got into his
bed at all, was off along with them.
The landlord of the house in which the prosecutor and
the Driioner lodged said—l heard the prisoner ask the
lad for the loan of money, and as I knew the poor boy
wished to keep his first earnings in England, for good
luck, I told my wife to lend Mr. Campbell a shilling,
which she did. In the morning we found that the rob-
bery had been committed, and I was told by the magis-
trate to give the thief into custody whenever I saw him.
We never laid eyes on him since till yesterday, and then
he was charged, and had the impudence to deny that he
was a rogue. _

The prisoner said there was not a word of truth ht
the statement that he had either wanted to borrow or to
,steal, and that the whole charge was mere spite against
him because he refused to stay in the noisy quarter in
which he had lately resided.

Alderman Hooper—And what did you do with the
boy's cap ?
The prisoner—That was not worth a bawboe. don't
know what became of it.

Alderman Hooper (to the prosecutor)—What was the
cap worth ?
The prosecutor—A shilling your honour.
Alderman Hooper—We have the prisoner's own ac-
knowledgment that he stole the cap.
The prisoner—No your lordship ; I only clapped it
on my head for fear of catching cold, as I was leaving
the room. (Laughter.)

Alderman Hooper—There is no doubt at all that you
robbed this poor lad, and if you do not return him the
money and pay him for the cap, you shall go to prison
fur seven days.

The prisoner—It's very hard upon me to have to pay
for what I did'nt ever receive. I've no objections to
pay for the cap, but not the money.
Alperman Hooper—Young man, I dare say he will
procure the money you have lost ; and if so, it shall be
sent to you,
The prisoner was then locked up.

MAR LBOROUGH-STREET.—ABoTTLE OF SMOSE.
—Mr. Henry Lloyd, who described himself as a retired
tradesman, of No. 11, Ship-street, Brighton, summoned
Inspector Lister of the C division and two police-con-
stables before Mr. Broughton, and charged them with
the following offences :—lnspector Lister was charged
with having fraudulently kept back a sum of 301. from a
sum of 5151. taken from Mr. Lloyd when brought to the
station-house on a charge of drunkenness. Police-con-
stable C 133, was charged with perjury, and another
constable, C 101, was charged with an assault.
Mr. Herring appeared for the complainant, and a very
long discussion took place as to the charges being enter-
tained by the Court.
The circumstances which led to the present proceed-
ings were these:'-- A few days ago, Mr. Lloyd was found
at an early hour in the morning in the company of
several prostitutes, and apparently not sober. He was
taken to the Vine-street station-house, and detained for
some hours. Before being placed in the cell, ho gave into
the inspector's hands all the money in his possession,
which, on being counted up by the inspector, was
stated to amount to 4851. in notes and 41. in gold.
Mr. Lloyd was taken before Mr. Bingham, and on the
evidence of police-constable C 133 and the inspector fined
ss. for being drunk. His money was tendered to him as
4851.; he refused the amount, alleging that the sum in
bank notes was 5151, and not 4851. Some short time
after this, the whole sum of 515/. in notes, was handed
over to him. Feeling himself aggrieved at the decision
of the magistrate, as ho asserted that he was not intoxi-
cated, and at the conduct of the police, Mr. Lloyd laid
magistrate,
a series of complaints before the Commissioners, who
referred the case to this court, and accordingly the three
charges of attempted fraud, perjury, and assault, were
gistr, a
brought forward against the defendants.
said,nd b
witeh
should respect
ttboertehfeordeenrieafloosef in-
toxication,to that referred to a case already decided by
re-open the evidence.
anoMthr.er Broughtonate

Mr. Herring then said, he would go on to the ease
relating to the alleged fraudulent witholding of 30/. by
the inspector. Mr. Lloyd had mentioned at the station-
house that he had over 5001. in his possession, and he
had also declared in court that the sum was larger by 30/
than the amount named by the inspector as having been
taken from him. The magistrate, Mr. Bingham, told him
if he thought he was entitled to 301. more to go to the
Comity Court. When he left the court the notes, stated
to amount to 485/. were offered to him by the inspector,
provided he gave a receipt in full. This ho refused to
do, and after some further parleying a friend of the
complainant's was requested to count the notes, which,
having done, the sum of 515/., and not 4851., was found.
As the constable Sayes had sworn that the sum taken
from him at the station-houso was 4851., Mr. Lloyd had
charged the constable with perjury ; and as the in-
spector had only given up the whole sum when he found
Mr. Lloyd was determined to make a stir about the
matter, Mr. Lloyd had telt himself justified in preferring
the present charge.
The Superintendent of the division (tfr. Otway) said
a few words from the inspector in the way of explana-
tion would sot the whole matter right.
Mr. Lloyd said he felt satisfied that bad he not for-
tunately taken the numbers of the notes, and given the
neverinspector
have
seento his
understand 3 that he had done so, be should

After a good deal of evidence as to what took place
in court, and befora the magistrate, had been gone
through,
Inspector Lister said this was the explanation he had
to offer. That Ithe notes were in two parcels, one of
which appeared to be a parcel of twelve 5/. notes. Ile
had reckoned this last parcel as 60/., but when the notes
were counted by Mr. Lloyd's friend it was discovered
that only six of the notes were 5/. notes, and the re-
maining six notes were 101. notes. It was the mis-
take on his part in counting notes as 51. which wore
101., that made the difference of 301. But the whole of
the notes, 20 in number, had been tendered to Mr. Lloyd,
in the belief that the total sum was 4851., instead of
5151.
Mr. Broughton.—Than, although you would have
been satisfied with a receipt for 4851. yet Mr. Lloyd
would actually have received 5151. ?
"'lnspector
Lister.—Yes, your worship.
The witness who had found out the mistake, and Mr.
Herring, the complainant's solicitor, readily admit tad
that they were perfectly satisfied at the time with the
explanation of the inspector.
Mr. Broughton said there was not the shadow of a
shade of imputation on. the inspector. The case was
clearly one of miscounting, which might have happened
to any one, and there was no pretence to charge the
inspector with based. Tie dismissed the complaint, and
the inspector would leave the Court without a stain
upon his character. As for the charge of perjury, no•
thing could be wore trumpery than the evidence to sus-
tain it. The constable had seen the notes counted, had
heard the inspector name the sum, and had sworn to
tile sum named by the inspector. Be dismissed the
charge at once. The other charge of assault had refer-
ence to the charge decided by his coadjutor, and he
should therefore not entertain it.
The charges were all dismissed.

LAMBETH.--John Chamberlain, conductor of one of
Balls' Norwood omnibuses, was charged with plundering
1 his master.
Mr. Balls, jun., deposed that on the evening of that
day week ho was at the Elephant and Castle when one
of his omnibuses drove up from Gracechurch-street, and
he noticed it was quite full. He knew this fact from a
person applying to the prisoner for an inside seat, and
his saying that it was quite full inside and out; the
person so applying getting on the monkey board, while
the prisoni-r himself stood on the back step; and t` is
would make twenty-two passengers, the fares of whom
would amount to at least 163. In the return made for
this journey by the prisoner the passengers were made
out at 93. 6d., and only this amount was paid to Mr.
Balls, so that by this journey alone the prisoner must
have pocketed at least es.
In his cross examination Mr. Balls said that the pay-
ment to drivers in his employment was one guinea a
week, and to conductors eighteen shillings. Besides
this, however, they were allowed the boot and the par-
cola, which averaged from 33. to 4s. a day.
Sergeant Somers declared that on taking the prisoner
into custody on Saturday night he told him that it was
for robbing his master of half-a-crown (that being the
sum which Mr. Balls was in a condition to prove, be
yond which he paid in.) The prisoner then cdmitted
that he had taken ono Norwood passenger for which be
had not accounted, but said it was his wife. Ho subse-
quently denied that the passenger was his wife, and said
he unfortunately forgot to make a return for an addi-
tional shilling.
The attorney who appeared for the defence admitted
his fears that his client was driven in the moment of
temptation to make free with his master's money. He
then wont on to say that there was not an omnibus pro-
prietor is the metropolis who was not perfectly well
aware that the paltry pittance which they allowed their
conductors-18 shillings a-week—was not sufficient to
keep themselves and families passably decent, end that
therefore they were conscious they must make use of
some of their money.
Mr. Balls declared that he for one never entertained
such an idea, and if he had, such conductor should not
long he a servant of his. Mr. Balls also denied in a most
emphatic manner that he ever winked at or countenanced
the practice of the conductor, giving as much as two or
three shillings a day out of the passenger money to the
driver.

Mr. Elliott remarked that if money had been given by
the conductors to their drivers, it must be for the pur-
pose of shutting their mouths, and preventing their dis-
closing their dishonest practices. There could be no
doubt whatever that the prisoner hai Leen carrying on
a wholesale system of rubbery, and ho should therefore
send him for trial.

George Welk, another conductor in the serv:ce of Mr.
Balls, was also charged with robbing his master.
The prisoner acknowledged that he had omitted en-
tering a shilling on one of the up journeys on Wednes-
day last, but it was satisfactorily shown he had not only
omitted ono, but several, and tho extent to which his
robberies and those of the last prisoner were carried,
must have been most ruinous to their employer.
The defence in this case., as in the hit, was the small-
ness ut. wages, and the prisoner being obliged to give his
coachman a certain allowance daily.
Mr. Balls again denied his knowledge of any such

practice, when the prisoner apnealEd to severed persona
in the body of the court, and =lied if it war, not so.
I Three or four voices were heard. One exchaixcd,'• I
allowed my coachman, when I was in work, hal', a-crown
a day ;"" And I," said another, "alloweJ mine t4iir o shil
linns ;" while a third declared that his allowance to his
driver averaged 3s. 63. a-day.
At the reqneAt of the prisoner's so:icitor, the case was
adj,:urEed for a week, and the prisoner remanded.