The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-17 00:00:00

and Shrimpton said, " What's the price ?" I said, " It's
nuthing to do with me, that's the master" (meaning Nash).
Shrimpton bought one, and said he should like to buy
another. He said to the landlord, " Why don't you buy
one ?" He said he couldn't afford it. Shrimpton
said, " Why, it's as cheap as butcher's meat." Fred
then said to Nash, " What do you want for it ?" That
was after he had been urged to buy it by Shrimpton. Free
said it was a great deal of money for a little thing, but after
a good deal of persuasion he bought one. I was there one
night when Shrimpton tried to make a disturbance with a
tramp. They fenced in the house and went out to fight.
By the Bench—l did not go out to see it, because I didn't
want to have a row. I have never killed a head of game.
I have never been before the magistrates about game.

By Superintendent Hodgkinson—l did not tell the land-
lord and the company that Nash and I had been to Braden-
ham, and had caught three hares; nor that we Fa w Police-
constable Sworder was watching to, and if I had a stick I
should have knocked him down.

George Lacy corroborated the last witness.
John Bristowe, stone-cutter, Naphill, said—l have been
working on Mr Cartwright's premises at Naphill. As we
were sitting down having some beer he took out a straw,
and twisted it in the shape of a snare, and asked me how I
should do it. I said " Not just like that." He then pre-
tended to go to sleep. I went to cut another piece. A covey
of birds came and dropped into the barley. Ho said, "Get
your gun, and have a broadside at them." He said if he
brought some wire from Wycombe, he would go with me,
and teach me what I did not know. He went home with me
and when he saw the guns he asked me to go, and he'd
beat if I'd shoot.

By the Bench—l have beenbefore the bench for trespass-
ing, but that was 16 years ago.
Mr R. Wheeler, the owner of defendant's house, said he
was a well-conducted and respectable man.
A testimonial to the same effect was produced, signed by
farmers and residents of the neighbourhood.
The magist rates intimated that before deciding they would
hear the case against the parties for selling the hare.
Thomas Nash and James Tilbury were then charged with
unlawfully selling game to one Thomas Shrimpton.
Nash having absconded, the summons could not be served
and the case was heard as against Tilbury.
The evidence was the same as already given.

After some slight consideration, the Chairman said this
case was a most important one to the public as opening the
question as to how far the police are justified in disguising
themselves for the detection of crime. After hearing evi-
dence the magistrates were inclined to lean to the opinion
that the policeman certainly did exceed his duty in holding
cut an inducement to commit the offence. He had been sent
by his superior officer for the purpose of detecting crime,
and though the police were not engaged to act as game-
keepers, yet when cases came under their notice they were
bound to report them—in the present case the officer in his
zeal went beyond the bounds, so as to induce the first de-
fendant to commit the offence, and the origin of the transac-
tion was partly at the suggestion of the police. Free did
not attempt to move in it till at the constable's suggestion,
and although he was indemnified from the consequences,
he first set the example of violating the law, and without
applying to him any severe remarks, the magistrates did not
approve cf acts which led parties to commit offences. It
was sometimes necessary for policemen to adopt disguises in
cases where all othar means to detect crime had failed.
Under the circumstances they dismissed both cases. At
the same time the bench hoped it would be a caution to both
defendants not to do such things in future,—Butler's South
Buds Free Press,