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

rHE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVFNINO, NOVEMBER 30, 1864.

but try to put out the fire. My character has never been
impugned before."
The Coroner said that he:understood it to be so until this
occurrence.

The 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 lite, 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 ho would take
substantial bail for his appearance.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,—Nov. 29,

CLERKEN WELL—How PORK PIES ARE MADE.—
Mr William Johnstone, pork•pio 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
Mr 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 19th 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 moat 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. Ho
wished to destroy it.
Dr Mallard—l are medical officer 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 con-
tended that as there was an amendment to the summons
the defendant was out of court. He 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 which 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 the
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 the 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, atter hearing the evidence of Dr
Mallard, Mr Dunham, and Mr Godbold that the meat wee
putrid, he could have no doubt at all on the matter. The
last witness could not have examined the meat, and as the
scientific witnesses bad 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, lie 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 wcro allowed to stand over fur a week.

LAMBETH.--G ROSS EXTORTION BY A rOLICEMAR.-
Salm 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.

The complainant, a porter in the employment of the
South Eastern Railway Company, said that on Saturday
night last he accompanied a friend as far as the canal bridge
in the Old Kent-road, and parted with him there to go to
his residence, While proceeding along a lane or footway
leading to Surrey-square he met a female, who accosted
soonhim,
metbu
t h e
made noo
addressed him also. To her ho was
reply to her, and passed on, and
likewise silent, and passed along as soon as he could avoid
wh
her. He had not gone many paces when the defendant
another
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 *lot you have been
about, and as for the woman, she can go about her busi-
ness, for I can get her any time.,,
The witness asked
him what ha was about to take him to the station
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 childrenat home, and no one to attend them,
as he had recently lost their mother, and begged the defen-
dant would accompany him to his lodgings, that he might
see them and let them know where 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,
,6 What should I give you ? I have done nothing." The
defendant said 44 You must give me something." Com-
plainant said—l then put my hand in my pocket and said,
"I have only 2s 3d, and that is all I can give you." The
defendant said," Well, you must give me that," and en my
handing him a florin and threepence in copper he 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 ho 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 tho two first figures
of his number were 45, but the last fiance 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 defendant) had extorted 2s 3d
from me a short time before, but the defendant denied it,
and said I must be mad or drunk. Tho sergeant
asked mo if I intended persisting in the charge, and I
said I did ; and ho then told me to follow the de-
fendant 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 mc, and defendant said, " I did
take the 2s 3d; I did not ask for it; ho gave it to me out of
his free will and voluntarily." He was told to pull out all
the money he had, and be 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 he produced was not the money he was charged with
extorting, and defendant replied that the two-shilling piece
he 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 he 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--Is the man he had in custody here ?
Witness—No, Sir. I was quite aware the place where