The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-29 00:00:00

81714 r, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 29, 1864.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

MARLBOROUGH-STREET,

PARISH PROSECUTION OF BROTHEL KEEPERS .—Conrad
Ackerman, refreshment-house keeper, of No. 23, Tich-
borne-street, and Sophia Chapman, his servant, were brought
before Mr. Arnold by Sergeant Appleton, 26 C, on a war-
rant, charged with keeping a brothel at No. 23, Tichborne-
street.

Mr. Allen, of Carlisle-street, prosecuted on the part of
the authorities of St. James's parish, and Mr. Edward
Lewis, of Great Marlborough street, defended.
Mr. Arnold, after the sergeant had stated that defendants
were the persons named in the warrant, ordered the male
defendant to find two sureties in £4O each, and the woman
to find two in £2O each, to appear at the sessions,

. _
Sophia Myers, refreshment house keeper, of 42, Great
Windmill-street, and Henry Nicholls, same address, were
also charged with keeping a brothel at 42, Great Windmill-

street.

Sergeant Appleton having identified the defendants as
those named in the warrant, Mr. Arnold ordered the female
to fled two sureties in £2O each, and the man two in £lO
each, to appear at the sessions.

The Poor-Law Board and Bethnal-green,

Last night, at the weekly meeting of the Board of Guar-
dians of Bethnal-green--Mr. Howard in the chair—the
clerk to the Board read a very important document from the
Poor-law Board, with reference to the recent inquiries into
the charges against Dr. Moore, and into the alleged death
from starvation of Sarah Dove.
The following comprises the most material portions of the
letter :

" Poor -law Board, Whitehall, March 28, 1864.

" Sir,—l am directed by the Poor-law Board to inform the
guardians of the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green,
that the Board have received the report of their inspector,
Mr. Lambert, after the recent inquiry into the several
charges preferred against Dr, Edward Moore, one of the
medical officers of the parish, and they have carefully con-
sidered the vo►uminous evidence adduced on that occasion.
" The first charge brought under the notice of the board is
that of neglect of duty in the cases of Elizabeth Mandrill
and her two children, Joseph and James.
0 With respect to Mrs. Mandrill herself, the Board find
that Dr, Moore visited her in the afternoon of the day on
which he received the medical order; and although he did
not see her again for 10 days afterwards, it is evident from
her own admission that she was out every day in the mean-
time, and when he went to see her after having been sent
for at the expiration of that period, he found her net at her
own home, but at her daughter's house, without bonnet or
shawl. It does not appear that any inconvenience would
have been caused to Mrs. Mandrill by her going to Dr.
Moore's house, and the board are of opinion, therefore, that
Dr Moore cannot be considered as guilty of neglect in having
omitted to visit her during the interval in question.
"The substance of the complaint of Mrs. Mandrill in re-
gard to the child Joseph is, that Dr. Moore only visited him
five times in four weeks of his illness, and that when she
went to him on a Friday (two days before the child's death)
and said he was very ill, Dr. Moore refused to visit him
then, and did not do so until the following afternoon. The
documentary evidence showed that the order was given on
the 15th August, 1863."
The letter then recited the evidence in this case, and then
arrived at the conclusion that Dr. Moore was not chargeable
with neglect. The case of James Mandrill was recited in
a similar manner, and the board considered that Dr. Moore
was open to censure in having given a certificate for the re-
moval of the deceased to the workhouse without having
seen him on the morning on which death took place.
The charge preferred against Dr. Moore of employing a
midwife to attend labour cases instead of doing so himself
depends mainly on the evidence of Mrs. North ; but in the
four individual instances adduced it appears that Mrs. North
was sent for by the women themselves, and there is no
proof that he requested or instructed her to attend for him.
After going through the evidence adduced in support of
this charge, the letter proceeded to notice that after Mrs,
North had made her complaint to the guardians and pend-
ing investigation, Dr. Moore addressed to her a letter written
under a feigned signature and addressed in a disguised hand,
stating that some ladies were about to establish a lying-in
hospital, and offering her a situation therein if Dr. Moore
would become security for her. The letter was purely fic-
titious, and Dr. Moore's only explanation was that he wished
to get her to his house so that before credible witnesses he,
could remonstrate with her. The Poor• law Board regarded
this explanation as being extremely unsatisfactory, the letter
being an unworthy subterfuge.
"The allegation of getting up unnecessary inquests for the
purpose of degrading the parish must be limited to the case
of the child Sarah Ward, as there was no proof at the in-
quiry that the doctor had communicated with the coroner
either directly or indirectly as to the death of any other
person. In the case referred to Dr. Moore called upon the
coroner and told him that the death had not been occasioned
by any specific disease, and both the coroner and jury appear
to have been satisfied that the inquest was necessary.
" It must be remarked, however, that the verdict of the
jury was founded upon the result of the post. mortem exa-
mination by Dr. Moore himself; and with reference to the
statement made to the coroner in the first instance by Dr.
Moore, that there was no specific disease, the attention of
the Board has been drawn to an obliteration in the medical
relief-book, from which there is reason to suppose that the
disease was, in the first instance, entered as scarlatina.

" The Board are of opinion that this obliteration, in con-
nexion with other circumstances, is calculated to excite
grave suspicions, and such as rendered inquiry necessary."
After referring to the charge of making extraordinary
claims for vaccination fees, of which Dr. Moore was ac-
quitted, it was remarked that the careless and improper
manner that the entries wore made in the books excited sus-
picion. The Board then proceeded to notice a similar charge
with regard to medical fees. No proof had been adduced that
in any specific case the claims were improperly made, and
the Board found that in every difficult case another medical
practitioner was consulted. The Board held that Dr. Moore
was entitled to the extra fees claimed by him. In alluding
to the charge of bringing contempt upon the board of guar-
dians by public appeals to charity, the Board referred to
the case of Sarah Branstone, tsud censured him for appeal-
ing to the public in place of applying to the guardians.
With respect to the charge of neglecting and refusing to
enter the attendance of his substitute in red ink, pursuant
to the general consolidated order, the Board find that on
March 7, 1861, the guardians requested Dr. Moore by letter
to be careful to comply with this important requisition,
Dr. Moore's explanation they regretted they could not
receive as consistent with the facts.
6' It is not necessary that the Board should express an
opinion with reference to all the subordinate charges against
Dr. Moore, but they cannot avoid alluding to a paragraph
in a letter published by him on 21st Oct. last, in which he
epeaksof the guardians as 'unblushing and mendacious slan-
derers.' Epithets such as these are obviously incompat:ble
with the feeling of mutual confidence which should exist
between the guardians and Dr Moore as one of their medi-
cal officers, and the board are unable to find that they are in
any way justified by the evidence ce the inquiry."
After adverting to the evasive manner in which Dr Moore
had answered Mr Giffard, in his cross examination upon a
point connected with his qualification in the year 1812, the
board proceeded to speak of the case of Sarah Dove at great
length, and went through the evidence—which has been
recently published in the reports of the inquest—at the Poor
nourishment to the woman.
slcensa mentionedr by Dr Moore in ex-
tenuation law inquiry before Mr Parnell. The board censured Dr
Moore for having omitted the days to order the relieving
right
to state that it is shown
ottehffina"cuteAaSrtnaitooronathshouefDry ta
PPeohliYirsee's theam
is, that he had reason to believe
conductnehusband was at work. With respect to
pointbthyisth
vi
d ethenx boarde h
that
tJames thinke
s i t
without employment for the last three years, and in the last
55 weeks of that period he has received upon an average at
least 16s per week ; that for three weeks before his wife's
eeta Dove, the husband, has not been
ive,
death he receivei 2s per week in addition from a charitable
lady, and that during the last winter he obtained charity
from other sources. It appears, however, that he has been
in the habit of drinking on Saturdays and Sundays, and the
result is that he has allowed his wife to
pine
away
for want
of the necessaries of life. Whilst, therefore, the husband's
resources were such as to deprive him of any title to paro-
chial relief, and while it is equally certain that he must be
held responsible for the slow starvation of his wife, it must
be borne in mind that it was with the actual condition of
the deceased that Dr Moore had to deal ; and if he found
her, as no doubt she was, destitute of the nourishment and
other comforts requisite for the proper treatment of the case,
it was his duty to have given the usual recommendation for
those necessaries,`without delay.
" The Board consider that in
of this instance Dr Moore was
guilty of very serious neglect duty; and having regard
to the several circumstances affecting his conduct esta
.
blished against him at the first inquiry, and to the resolu-
tion passed by the guardians that they had lost all confi-
dence in him, the Board feel that they have no alternative
consistent with their public duty, but to require him to re-
sign his present office.—l am, sir, yours, &c.,
(Signed) "H. FLENtaiG, Secretary."
This letter having been read, the board of guardians
passed to the consideration of another letter which had been
received from the roor-law Board, calling their attention
to a charge against Mr. nuedemon, the relieving officer,
that he had rudely pushed his way into a room where a
woman had just been confined, and roughly refused to give
anyyelief to the family or a coflio to bury the deceased child,
saying that they were a set of paupera and imposters, and
he would lock them up.
This case was adjourned,

THE YOUTHFUL RAJA" OF ULWAII f-PQ ;
y and seclusion
%—ajpootana)
ceremonial
is expected in London.
COURT CEREMONIAL OF THE AssYRIANs,
There can be no doubt that
imposing.the Court ceremonial
of the Assyrians was stately and
seems
which
acthe
predominantsffeetedfettTepriavf
observed in most Oriental monarchies. He showed him-
self.very freely to his subjects on many occasions. He
superintended in person the accomplishment of his great
works. In war and in the chase he rode in open chariot,
never using a litter, though litters were not unknown to
the Assyrians. In his expeditions he would often descend
from his chariot, and march or fight on foot like the
Meanest of his subjects. But though this familiarising
the multitude with his features and appearance, he was
far from allowing familiarity of address. Both in peace
and war he was attended by various officers of state,
and no one had speech of him except through
them. It would even seem as if two persons only were en-
titled to open a conversation with him—the vizier and the
chief eunuch. When he received them, he generally placed
himself upon his throne, sitting, while they stood to ad-
dress him. It is strongly indicative of the haughty pride of
these sovereigns, that they carried with them in their dis-
tant expeditions the cumbrous thrones whereon they were
wont to sit when they dispensed justice or received homage.
On these thrones they sat, in or near their fortified camps,
when the battle or the siege was ended, and thus sitting
they received in state the spoil and the prisoners. Behind
them on such occasions were the two fan-bearers, while near
at hand were guards, scribes, grooms, and other attendants.
In their palace halls undoubtedly the ceremonial used was
stricter, grander, and more imposing. The sculptures, how-
ever, furnish no direct evidence on this point, for there is
thing to mark the scene of the great processional pieces.—
Batainson's Ancient Oionorchies.

President Lincoln's Call for Two Hundred

Thousand Men.

The following is President Lincoln's call for
200,000 additional men
" Executive Mansion, Washington,
March 14.

"In order to supply the force required to be
drafted for the navy, and to provide an adequate
reserve force for all contingencies, in addition to
the 500,000 men called for February Ist, 1864,
the call is hereby made and draft ordered for
290,000 men for the military service of the army)
navy, and marine corps of the United States.
The proportional quotas for the different wards,
towns, townships, precincts, or election districts, or
counties, will be made known through the Provost-
marshal General's Bureau; and account will be
taken of the credits and deficiencies of former quotas.
The 15th day of April, 1861, is designated as the
time up to which the numbers raluired from such
ward of a city, town, &e., may be raised by volun-
tary enlistment, and drafts will be made in each
ward of a city, town, fit., which shall not have
filled the quota assigned to it within the time desig-
nated for the number required to fill said quotas.
The drafts will be commenced as soon after the 15th
as practicable. The Government bounties, as now
paid, continue until April 1, 1864, at which time
the additional bounties cease. On and after that
date 100 dole. bounty only will be paid, as provided
by the act, approved July 22, 1861.
(Signed) "ABRAHAM LINCOLN."