The Sun.
London, England, 1864-11-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 30, 1864.

where all traces of path entirely cesied, and an un-
trodden region of forest and torrent lay before them
which it was necessary to traverse in order to reach
Fort Kamloops, where alone they could obtain suc-
cour. They struggled through this difficult region
for 23 days, living on their slaughtered horses and
the small quantity of flour remaining of their stock,
and seven days afterwards they arrived in an ema•
ciated condition at the fort, where they were hospi-
tably received by Mr Mackay. With regard to the
practicability of a road being taken across by the
route they had come, Lord Milton believed that few
engineering difficulties existed of any importance ;
but it would have to be made throughout the entire
route between Edmonton and the valley of the
Thompson. From Edmonton to Jasper-house the
surface is slightly undulating; the lower ground
swampy and every where covered with thick forest.
From Jasper-house through the main ridge of the
Rocky. Mountains the valley is for the most part wide
and unobstructed except by timber, the ascent to the
height is very gradual, and the descent, though much
more rapid, neither steep nor difficult. From Tetei,
Jaune's Cache (on the west of the main ridge) the only
route lies along the narrow gorges of the Thompson,
where the bottoms of the ravines are generally level.
The great advantages of this line are that it lies far
removed from the United States' boundary, passes
through a country inhabited only by friendly ln•
diens, and forms the most direct communication
between Canada and the gold regions of British
Columbia.

Mr Dallas (late Governor of Prince Rupert's
Land), Mr Crawfurd, and Lord Milton took part in
the discussion which followed the reading of the
paper, and the President, in returning thanks to the
authors, called attention to the map of the country
exhibited, in which Mr Arrowsmith !had been
enabled, through the new data supplied by Lord
Milton and Dr Cheadle, to fill up many voids that
recently existed.
The next paper was " On the New Country of
North Australia, discovered by Mr John Macdouall
Stuart.' by Mr STUART. This was a brief ac-
count of the fertile region between the centre of
Australia and the mouth of the Adelaide River,
which had been explored by the author in his jour•
ney across the continent. The climate was healthy
and the laud well adapted for European settlers if
Malays and Chinese could be introduced as a labour-
ing class, in which there was no difficulty. The
Adelaide River had 40ft, of water at a distance of
80 miles from its mouth, and its entrance formed a
szcure harbour. In concluding, Mr Stuart said he
should avail himself of his privilege as a discoverer
by giving a name to this region hitherto known
only as North Australia. He proposed calling it
Alexandra Land, after her Royal Highness the
Princess of ',Vales.

but try to put out the tire, l‘ly character has never been
impugned before,"

The Coroner said that ho:uuderstood it to be so until this

occurrence.

Tho Coroner said that if the jury believed that in a
struggle resulting from an attempt on the part of Samuel
Withers to take liberties with the deceased she was set on
fire, and so lost her life, Withers should be held responsible
for her death ; but if they believed Withers's statement
that the occurrence was accidental, they should say so by
their verdict.

The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against
Samuel Withers for feloniously killing and slaying Mary

Deacon.

The Coroner then issued his warrant for the committal
of Mr Withers to Newgate, but said that he would take
substantial bail for his appearance.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,--Nov, 29,

CLERK EN WELL—Hove PORK PIES ARE MADE.—
Mr William Johnstone, pork-pie manufacturer, of 140,
Essex-road, Islington, was summoned before Mr Barker,
on the following information laid by Mr Robert Dunham,
inspector of nuisances, acting under the authority of the
Vestry of St. Mary, Islington, for having had a quantity of
veal and pork deposited on his premises for the purposes of
sale and of preparation for sale, and intended for the food
of man, the same being unsound, unwholesome, and unfit
for the food of man.

Mr Layton appeared for the Vestry of Islington; and
Air Lewis, of Ely-place, for the defendant,

Mr Layton said this was a summons under the Nuisance
Removal Act, 1863, under which, if the offence was proved,
the defendant was liable to a penalty not exceeding £2O, or,
at the discretion of the magistrate, without the infliction of
a fine, imprisonment for three months. As this was not the
first offence of the defendant, the Vestry would certainly
press for the infliction of the full penalty. 'The defendant
was fined £l5 on the 25th of October last for a similar
offence.

Mr Robert Dunham deposed—l. am inspector of nuisances
to the vestry of Islington. On the 10th November, about
half-past 10, I visited the premises of Mr Johnstone, whole-
sale pork pie maker, 154, Essex-road, and examined them.
He has a bakehouse at the back. In the bakehouse I found
two men making pies from meat which was in a tub cut in
small pieces. I examined it, and found it of a dark colour
and putrid. In the passage swung on hooks I found a piece
of back fat, six pieces of veal, and a hand or shoulder of
pork. It was putrid, the veal very much so and damp. The
pieces in the tub were cut from larger pieces. I seized it,
and left Mr Godbold in charge of it whilst I went for Dr.
Mallard,who also inspected the meat upon his arrival. On a
bench in the passage I found a number of pieces of flare or
hog fat. I examined these singly, and then handed them
to Dr Mallard, who also examined them. They were in a
state of decomposition, some pieces much worse than others,
I seized the whole of it, as in my opinion it was unwhole-
some and unfit for food of man.

By Mr Layton—When I seized the meat the defendant
asked to be allowed to destroy it.
Mr Barker—How were they filling the pies from the tub?
Witness—The men were putting their hands into the tub.
Mr Godbold—l am in the employ of the vestry, and I
examined the premises in question. I saw some pieces of
veal, a shoulder of pork, and some hog fat. It was stinking,
and unfit for human food. I saw the defendant there. He
wished to destroy it.
Dr Mallard—l am medical cilicer of health to the vestry
of Islington. I have examined the meat, and it was totally
unfit for human food. I saw the joints and the stuff in
tub. The whole of it was unfit.

Cross-examined by Mr Lewis—l have found haunches of
venison "high" and game also, but fit for human food.
Mr Lewis addressed the Court for defendant, and cosi-
tended that as there was an amendment to the summons
the defendant was out of court. Ho was charged with
having the meat far sale, and for preparation for sale. There
was no evidence to show that the meat was for sale. It
might have been in preparation for the making of pies;
the mere fact of having the meat whioh might be made into
pies was not'sufficient to convict the defendant.
Mr Barker—l do not think your objection valid, You
can appeal, Mr Lewis, if you like.
Mr Lewis—The meat was bought of Mr Currier, and it
was then fresh.
Dr Mallard re-examined—l took some of the veal and
pork home to examine. I manipulated the meat in th©
pan, and I was perfectly satisfied that it was putrid.
Mr Currier deposed—On the 18th inst. I sold some pork
to defendant—it was then fit for human food, lam a meat
salesman. I also sold some flares of pork, fresh and sweet.
In muggy weather in a few hours veal and pork would
become bad.

By Mr Layton—l do not know where I bought the meat.
I do not know if tho meat I sold was the same as that seized
at Mr Johnstone's.

Two witnesses in the employ of the defendant were
called, who stated that they considered the meat in ques-
tion perfectly sound.
Mr Barker then said, after hearing the evidence of Dr
Mallard, Mr Dunham, and Mr Godbold that the meat was
putrid, he could have no doubt at all on the matter. The
last witness could not have ex twined the meat, and as the
scientific witnesses had examined it, he could not entertain
any doubt but that the meat was in a state unfit for human
food. The defendant was before him the other day, and
that bad made him (Mr Barker) more careful in this case.
He should inflict the full penalty, as he looked upon the
case as being essentially a poor man's question, and one
which greatly affected him. He should not be doing his
duty if he did not inflict the full penalty under the act, of
£2O, the alternative being three months' imprisonment.
Mr Barker made an order for the payment of the amount
within 28 days.

Several summonses against tradesmen for offences of a
similar character were allowed to stand over for a week.

LAMBETH.—GROSS EXTORTION BY A POLICEMAN.—
Salem Charles Lowe, a constable belonging to the P divi-
sion of police, was charged before the Hon. G. C. Norton,
by direction of the Commissioners of Police, with extort-
ing 2s 3d from Henry Joseph Knight to discharge him
out of custody.

oapmfarrpi
teaennddyw with him they® to go to
The complainant, a porter in the employment of the
said that on Saturday
'as far as the canal bridge
niSniogut
hht South
loaEsl
tad shit eie re
an:
tc mßailwayo
a pda,nai
and
his residence. While proceeding along a lane or footway
leading to Surrey-square ha met a female, who accosted
him, but ho made no reply to her, and passed on, and
soon met another who addressed him also. To her ho was
likewise silent, and passed along as soon as he could avoid
her. He had not gone many paces when the defendant
came from behind, overtook him, and placing his bull's-
eye light in his face, said, " You must come along with
Me to the station house. I know what you have been
about,
for and I
a can ge
she can go about her busi-
ness,
him what he was about to take him to the station
s for thet her-s voianna any tune,"
titue."
The witness asked
for, and the defendant replied, " You know for what
as well as I do." They then went together in the direction
of the station house, and as they reached the turning leading
to his lodgings he was about to turn off, but the defendant
would not permit him. Witness then told the defendant
that he had four children at home, and no one to attend them'
as ho had recently lost their mother, and begged the defen-
dant would accompany him to his lodgings, that he might
see them and let them kilriw whore he was, and then he
should go with him to the station. The defendant said "If
you have four children, so have I, and the worst of it is that
I have no bread to give them." They walked along as far
as Thurlow-place, when the defendant said, " Now, what are
you going to give me if I let you go ?" and he replied,
" What should I give You ? I have done nothing." The
defendant said "You must give me something." Com-
plainant said—l then put my hand in my pocket and said,
" I have only 2s Bd, and that is all I can give you." The
defendant said," Well, you must give me that," and on my
handing him a florin and threepence in copper ho said,
" Now go about your business, and get home as fast as you
like." On getting home I told my landlord how I had been
imposed upon, and he asked me if I should know the con-
stable, or could recollect his number, and I said I certainly
should know the man, and recollected the two first figures
of his number were 45, but the last figure he kept from my
view by shifting about. We then went in search of the
defendant, and found him in the act of taking another man
to the station house for a similar offence, and the man was
begging and praying to be allowed to go home to his wife
and family. I then saw a police sergeant, 32 P, and told
him that the constable (the de'endant) had extorted 2s 3d
from me a short time before, but the defendant denied it,
and said I mast be mad or drunk. The sergeant
asked me if I intended persisting in the charge, and I
said I did ; and he then told me to follow the de-
fondant and himself to the station, and to watch
and see that the prisoner dropped nothing on the way.
While going along the defendant kept his hands in his
pockets, and rattled money, and was told by the sergeant
that ho must take his hands out of his pockets and walk
along properly. On reaching the station I charged defendant
with extorting 2s 3d from me, and defendant said, " I did
take the 2s 3d ; I did not ask for it ; he gave it to mo out of
his free will and voluntarily," He was told to pull out all
the money he had, and he took from his pocket a shilling,
two sixpenny pieces and three penny pieces. He was then
reminded by the sergeant who took the charge that the
silver ho produced was not the money he was chat god with
extorting, and defendant replied that the two-shilling piece
ho had left folded up in his cape in Surrey-square.
The witness was cross-examined by a solicitor on behalf of
the defendant, but nothing favourable to defendant was
elicited.

Sergeant George Hull, 32 P. confirmed the testimony of
the last witness, in so far as his own interference in the case
related.

Mr Norton—When you first saw the defendant I under-
stand ho had a man in custody.
Witness—Yes, your worship.
Mr Norton—Did the defendant say what the nature of
the charge was ?
Witness—Yes, Sir; he said it was for indecent conduct
with a woman in a mews close by.
Mr Norton—Did he say what became of the woman ?

Witness—He said he had allowed her to go.
Mr Norton—ls the man he had in custody hero ?
Witness--No, sir. I was quite aware the place where

the alleged offence took place was on private property, and
therefore that he could not be detained or locked up for it;
but I told him to follow us to the station-house to hear his
statement. On reaching the station-hcuse I found he had
disappeared, and I do not wonder at it, for he was begging
hard to be let off when I first came up to the defendant and
him.

The witness Hall further said he accompanied the defen-
dant, after the charge was taken, to Surrey-square, and
there found the florin in a piece of the bark from one of the
trees, and close to where the defendant's cape was placed.
The defendant, he said, had been about four months in the
force.

The defendant's solicitor addressed the magistrate, and
wholly denied the charge of extortion ; he attributed his act
of folly in taking this money from the complainant as one of
extreme good nature, and claimed much credit to his client
for his conduct in admitting his offence, and stating where
the money was, but for which the charge could not have
been established against him. Ho concluded by saying he
should leave the case in the hands of his worship.

Mr Norton remarked that he very much regretted having
such a case to decide. For 32 years he had had the oppor-
tunity of witnessing the conduct of the members of the
police force, and could conscientiously say that in a force so
numerous there were few black sheep. He was sorry to say
the conduct of the prisoner was exceedingly black, and it
was ridiculous to say the act was not one of extortion. It
was not only an act of extortion, but one of the worst that
had ever been brought under hisnotice, and for it he should
commit the prisoner to one month's imprisonment and hard
labour.