The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-16 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Mary Daly, a strong young
Irishwoman, who has been long known as an object of
terror in Bishopsgate-street, was charged with having
dragged about a German Jew, named Moses Sapie, by
the beard.

The poor Jew, who could hardly speak word of
English, said, through an interpreter, who understood
the language very little better, that as he was passing
through Bishopsgate-street, on the night before, the de-
fendant walked up to him, and, seizing him by the beard,
shook him like thunder. He did not wish to have any
dispute with a person of her description, but as the as-
sault was a great indignity, and as every one who wore
a beard in the neighbourhood was in danger from such a
virago, he resolved to complain to the authorities. As
soon as she saw that the foreigner was in earnest she be-
gan to kick at him, and if she had not been overpowered
would have done a great deal of serious mischief, judging
from the direction of her kicks.

The defendant said in her defence that the complainant
had disgraced her by calling her a " bloomer," and she
thought it a much greater reflection upon a woman to
say that she wore a pair of breeches, than it was upon a
man to pull him by the beard.
Alderman Hunter—That defence won't do. Your de-
lic:-.cy could not receive any great shock if you were
called a " bloomer." You are aware that we all know
you well. Besides this poor foreigner knows nothine,
about " bloomers." Interpreter, ask him whether he
knows what, a ".bloomer" is ?

_ .
Interpreter—Moses, Lord Mayor sayvot is de broomer,
(Laughter) ?

The complainant looked astonished, and shook his
head.

Interpreter—Oh, your lordship, he aint got no good
knowledge of English. He don't know nothing at all.
Alderman Hunter—Ask him whether a " bloomer"
is a horse or an elephant.
The interpreter, after having held a conversation with
the complainant in Hebrew for some time, told the al-
derman that Moses did not know whether it was a horse
or an elephant, but if it was an elephant he certainly did
not see one in Eishopsgate-street last night. (Great
laughter.)

The Lord Mayor—I sentence you, defendant, to hard
labour in Bridewell for one month, for this most gross
assault upon the poor foreigner.
A few minutes after the defendant was sent away in
the custody of the officer into whose charge she had been
given, she was brought back for having pitched into his
face right and left, and given him a stunner behind with
a heavy-soled boot.

Alderman Hunter—At the end of her imprisonment
for the first offence let her be brought up to answer for
the second charge.
The Lord Mayor requested that the press would ac-
knowledge his receipt of 1/. 10s. from C. G. for the poor
box.

CLERKENWELL.---LSainuel Burt, the driver of a
!abriolet, No. 220, appeared to a summons before Mr.
7yrwhitt, charged with plying for hire at the terminus
of the Great Northern Railway, King's-cross.
Mr. Humphries attended on the part of the railway
company.
James Beringer, cabriolet proprietor of Snow's-fields,
Bermondsey, deposed that on the 9th of December he
arrived by train from Barnet, and within the station of
the Great Northern Railway the defendant plied for
hire, and drove him to Bagnigge-wells-road. On setting
him down he told him that he was going to summon him
for illegally plying for hire within the terminus of the
Great Northern Railway, that not being a place ap-
pointed by the police commissioners.
Mr. Humphries, in an able and lengthened address,
contended that the railway terminus was private pro-
perty, and he felt confident as to the dismissal of the
complaint.
The worthy magistrate remarked that he had no ob-
jection to state his opinion, although it would differ from
that of other magistrates for whom he had the highest
respect. The important question at issue must neces-
sarily go to a higher tribunal, and would probably end
in a legislative enactment beneficial to the public. There
often arose much difficulty in construing an act of Par-
liament, but that went for nothing among well-informed
persons. As a remarkable instance, the Court of
Queen's Bench differed with the judges of the Ex-
chequer on the construction of the Vagrant Law, the
consequences of which had been, that magistrates
who are desirous to be guided by the decisions of
the superior courts are at a loss how to act, and
finally are driven to act on their own opinion, at
the risk of having it overruled by whichever court
happens to be of a contrary opinion. The decision of
the summons, to his thinking, turned on the 6th and 7th
Vic., chap. 86, sec. 33, imposing penalties on the driver
of a hackney carriage plying for hire elsewhere than
at a standing or place appointed for that purpose. Now,
plying for hire, it is said by some eminent men, can only
be legal on the regular stands appointed in public places
by the commissioners of police. From that he dissented.
Why were stands appointed at all ? Was it not to enable
the public to know where to obtain a conveyance, and
preserve order, and prevent obstruction in places requir-
ing the most convenience and free circulation ? On
looking at the acts now in force, it was to be seen that
the Ist and 2d Wm. IV., cap. 22, sec. 4, gave power
over hackney carriages, as far as regards place, in these
words—" Every carriage standing or plying for hire in
any public street or road, at any place within the dis-
tance of five miles from the General Post-office," and so
on through the sections ; but by the 33d section of 6 and
7 Vict., the word " elsewhere' is added, which he held
must be taken in its largest meaning, consistent with the
scope and object of that act and the Ist and 2d Wm. IV.
It is laid down by Baron Parke, in Berks v. Wells, and
in Re Flammers, and in other instances by learned
judges, that in the construction of a statute we should
adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used,
and to the grammatical construction, unless it be at
evident variance with the intention of the Legislature.
Taking these facts altogether, he would say that it was
quite consistent with the intention of the law that
" elsewhere" should be taken to mean " standing or
plying for hire," &c., as set forth by the Ist and 2d
William IV., and he could see no reason td believe that
the Legislature ever intended or contemplated the pun-
ishing of a " plying for hire" on private property, or,
in fact, applied those terms to any such act not done
in public places. He viewed all persons within a rail-
way company's gate, carrier's yard, a great shipping
wharf, builders' or ironinasters' works, as upon business
or permission, and he was firmly of opinion that a rail-
way company could give a standing for cabs on its private
property to accommodate travellers, with as much right
as a nobleman or gentleman could on his estate, and that
a standing was not a "plying for hire" within the mean-
ing of the statute, although they might be so far "plying
for hire" as to make them responsible otherwise for
offences against the law. He gave great consideration and
weight to the case of Paul v. James to show that "place"
in an act of Parliament will not necessarily include a
private spot which can be and is shut up at the will
of the owner ; therefore he did not consider the police
commissioners empowered to appoint stands thereon,
even though used in some respects as a "public resort."
Using those words in an unlimited sense, it had been
argued that the same authority might also fix standings
under the orchestra at Vauxhall, the drives of Hyde-
park, the pit of the Opera, or the arena at Astley's. It
appeared very clear to him that considerable inconve-
nience and loss to the public would arise unless the
cabs were under the sanction and control of railway
companies, who were liable for losses by the negligence
or misconduct of drivers, and did not seek to profit
by them ; but on the other hand their anxious de-
sire appeared to be to obtain as respectable a class of
men about them as they could to protect the public
as far as regulations and management can go. He
lamented being called on to state his views on the sub-
ject, as it was a course calculated to create prejudice,
confusion, and illiberal comments. However, he thought
it better not to adjourn the case, which he should decide
in favour of the railway company. He might mention,
for the solicitor, that an important case ii standing for
judgment on the words "county" or "place," between
the county of Northumberland and the borough of
Tynemouth, which might materially touch this question.
He regretted that parties should be hawking the subject
about in the various police courts to get the opinions of
the magistrates.
The case was then dismissed,