The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-31 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Charles and Henry Harridge,
one of whom was charged with having stolen, the other
with having received, a quantity of quinine and other
valuable drugs, the property of Mr. Hodgkinson, drug-
gist, of Upper Thames-street, well knowing they had
been stolen, were brought up for final examination.
Mr. Clarkson, for the prosecution, said that Mr. Slip-
par, the chemist of Leather-lane, who had given evidence
against the prisoners, had been instrumental in bringing
them to justice ; that when his suspicions became ex-
cited he had communicated with the wholesale druggists
upon the subject of the sale of the drugs, and been occu-
pied in the task of investigation, the difficulties of which
arose from the fact that Henry Harridge had in his deal-
ings assumed the name of Humphries, and thus avoided
the suspicion of being the brother of the other prisoner,
who had been in the employment of the prosecutor, and
through whom the property must have been obtained.
The prisoners, upon being asked whether they wished
to defend themselves at that moment, said they would
reserve their defence for their trial.

The prisoners were then committed for trial,

William Randall, the alleged proprietor of common
lodging-houses in Swan-ally and Sun-court, was charged
by Mr. Tyrrell, the solicitor to the City Commissioners
of Sewers, with having omitted to supply the tenements
with water, in compliance with the new Sewers Act,
which inflicts a penalty of not exceeding 51. for every
violation of its provisions.
The defendant pleaded guilty, but declared that he
was a yearly tenant, and held the houses at the will of a
lady, and he knew nothing of the existence of such an act
of Parliament as that upon which he had been summoned,
or of the obligation to supply a drop of water to the in-
habitants.

The Lord Mayor—Have not notices been served upon
all lodging-housekeepers to supply water ?
Mr. Tyrrell—Certainly, upon every one of them.
The defendant declared that he could not read a word
of print, an assertion which his language and appearance
by no means supported.
The Lord Mayor—This regulation has been made to
prevent common lodging-houses, which have been fre-
quently the sources of infection and disease, from caus-
ing any further contamination, and I can fine you 301.
for your neglect on these several occasions.

The defeiidant—l assure your lordship that I have been
a serious loser by those tenements, and that there shall
never be any cause for future complaint.
The Lord Mayor—As this has been the first complaint
of the kind before me, I shall not at present inflict any
penalty, but shall order that the summons stand over a
few days, in order to ascertain whether I shall altogether
remit the penalties, a consequence to which your strict
attention to the directions of the act can only lead. If
you do not immediately proceed to the correction of the
evil, I shall certainly fine you to the utmost.
Mr. Hicks (the deputy of Castle Baynard ward)
appeared to complain of the conduct of Mr. Pocklington,
one of the inspectors of meat. Several of the most re-
spectable salesmen and butchers of the City attended to
give evidence in support of the complaint.
Mr. Hicks said he had sold an ox which had been sent
to him from the country to a butcher, who had purchased
it with the intention of having it boiled down ; that Mr.
Pocklington bad seized the body as stinking meat unfit
for human food, and wanted to send it to be destroyed
to a person who would have made a profit of it, and
would have made no return, so that the poor feeder in
the country would be the loser of the little advantage
derivable from the beast, which was called a casualty. It
was in vain that he expostulated with the inspector upon
the subject, so that he considered it necessary to appeal
to the Lord Mayor. upon the examination of the beast
by the best judges, it was found that the meat was fit to
be used as human food, so that there could be no excuse
at all for seizing it, and it was unnecessary to observe
how injurious the practice of condemning good meat
would be, particularly as the weather was calculated to
affect meat by the shortest delay.
Some parts of the beast were here exhibited, and,
although it was not prime meat, it certainly was very
far from deserving the bad character given of it by the
inspector.

Mr. Pocklington said he considered the meat to be
bad. He had no doubt that the beast had been phy-
sicked, and he would leave it to the College of Physi-
cians to decide whether physicked joints were not calcu-
lated to communicate disease to the people who partook
of them.

Mr. Hicks said that the meat smelt of turnips, upon
which no doubt the beast had been fed, but no man with
a nose or an eye could pronounce it to be stinking. He
had sold it to be boiled down for dog's meat, but since
he had seen and examined it, he must pronounce it fit to
be used as human food.

The several salesmen and butchers who attended here
presented, themselves to give evidence, but
The Lord Mayor said it was wholly unnecessary to
swear them, and pronounced the meat to be different
from the description given by the inspector. His lord-
ship thought it would be satisfactory to test a few of the
joints by a culinary process, and the suggestion having
been adopted, there appeared to be no ground for the
opinion pronounced by the inspector.
Mr. Hicks, who had returned the price given to him
for the body to the man who had purchased it, subse-
quently sold it for a considerably larger sum as meat fit
to be used as human food.

The Lord Mayor requested that the press would
acknowledge his receipt of 101. from the Mercers' Com-
pany for the poor-box.

GUILDHA T,L.-111r. William Schaza Lindsay, of
Austin-friars, appeared to several summonses, charging
him with having entered into a contract with the com-
plainants for providing them with passages to Port
Philip, by the ship W. Lindsay, appointed to sail by
the Ist of December inst.; unlawfully making default in
providing such passages at such time in such ship ; and
not providing complainants with passages, with an equally,
eligible ship, to sail withal ten days after the Ist of De-
cember inst., against the statute.
Mr. Lutwyche, the barrister, appeared for the com-
plainants, and stated that he was desirous to save the
time of the Court, and therefore proposed to take all the
four summonses at one hearing. This having been
agreed to, the learned gentleman proceeded to state that
the complainants sought to recover the amount of money
they had paid for their passage, and the sum of 101. each
compensation for non-fulfilment of a contract, in which
the defendant undertook to furnish them with a passage
to Port Philip. The W. S. Lindsay was an iron ship,
built at Newcastle, and f•om the manner in which it had
been advertised, one of the present complainants had
come all the way from Canada for the especial purpose
of sailing in her ; and others had come from other,
though not such distant places. The ship sailed on the
7th of December, but on reaching the Downs she was
pronounced not seaworthy by her owner, and she ac-
cordingly returned to her port of clearance. Her com-
pass was found to vary on one side from 1 to 21
points, although perfectly correct on a level keel,
and she did not answer her helm as readily as was
expected. An offer had been made by Mr. Lindsay,
bat as it was considered inadequate to the loss and in-
convenience of the parties, they declined it.
Sir Chapman Marshall said he was advised that the
complaint did not come under the 44th section of the act,
as the ship had proceeded to sea, and the voyage was
therefore begun.
Mr. Lutwyche said that as the ship had returned to
her port of clearance, it could not be said that the com-
plainants had obtained their passages to Port Philip, when
the ship proceeded no further than the Downs.
Sir Chapman Marshall said he should be much better
satisfied if the parties could come to an amicable ar-
rangement.
Mr. Lindsay stated that the W. S. Lindsay cost him
just one-third more than any other ship of the kind he
had had built, and was three times more efficient for
emigration purposes than any passenger ship hitherto
used. Due notice was given to all parties that the ship
would sail on the 6th, instead of the lst of December,
and she sailed on the following day, and as soon as he
heard of the variation in the working of the compass,
he started at midnight for the Downs, and inquired of
the captain and mate if there was any danger in proceed-
ing to sea. •They expressed their readiness to go, but
as the pilot said there might be extra danger in a heavy,
sea, he (Mr. Lindsay) felt there was a heavy respon-
sibility upon himself, and would not risk the lives
of the passengers or the property of the under-
writers, by allowing the W. S. Lindsay to pro-
ceed on her voyage. He therefore, at great pecuniary\
loss to himself, ordered her into port again,. teat he
might feel at ease in his own conscience ; nott;ithstand-
ing this heavy loss, for it was a very heavy loss, I.e de-
termined not to compensate the passengers so detained
upon the scale of is. p• day, according to the act, but
to compensate each one according to his means. One
poor man who had a sick wife he had given 101. to, and
other cases he had dealt with in a similar manner, and
he had offered the present complainants 21. 15s. each,
being at the rate of 4s. per day ; but as they had chosen
to bring him into a police-court he was now determined
to abide only by the magistrate's decision, and that, too,
strictly, unless indeed they could show that Theirs were
cases of peculiar hardship.
Sir Chapman Marshall then retired with Mr. Alder-
man Copeland and the chief-clerk, to consider the pre-
liminary objection, and on returning into court, Sir C.
Marshall said they were of opinion that the 44th section
did not apply to the matter, and as the summonses
were founded upon it they must dismiss them. If the
gentlemen were dissatisfied with the decision, they could
apply to the Court of Queen's Bench under the 11th
and 12th Vict., cap 44, sec. 5. Mr. Lindsay's conduce
under the circumstances was of a nature highly honour.
able to him.

BOW-STREET.—William Marks, a young man em-
ployed as a town-traveller for a linendraper, was charged
before Mr. Hall with uttering a forged Bank of England
note for 51.

James Cockerell, an assistant at Messrs. Bull and
Wilson's, linen warehousemen. 52, St. Martin's-lane,
stated that the prisoner came to his employer's shop on
Friday afternoon, the 17th inst., at about half-past he
o'clock, and, after exhibiting some patterns of cloth,
purchased two yards of one kind, and two of another
description, which, together with a few other articles
ordered by him, amounted to 3/. 10s. He tendered a
51. note in payment, and witness gave him the change,
previously, however, requesting him to endorse the note,
which he did by writing "J. Johnson, 37, Great Queen-
street," but no person of the name or description resided
in the house. Last week his attention was drawn to
a case at the Mansion-house, where a prisoner was
undergoing examination before the City magistrates,
on a charge of having forged several bank-notes.
Consequently, he went to the Mansion-house on
the morning of the 23d instant, to see if he could
identify the supposed Johnson. The prisoner in the
City case proved to be another person ; but on looking
among the spectators in the body of the Court, he saw a
man whom he immediately recognised as the customer

who tendered him the 51. note, and that person was the
prisoner. Witness pointed him out to Monger, a City
officer, 39, and when he had done so they observed the
prisoner leave his companions in the body of the Court
and work his way slowly to the door, through which he,
was making a rapid exit, when he was stopped and ap-
prehended by the constable.
Anthony Monger corroborated this statement. When
he had taken the prisoner into custody, and told him
what was the charge against him, he said, " Oh, I know
Messrs. Bull and Wilson, and have had dealings with
them."

The prisoner declared his innocence of the charge,
and called a relation to prove an alibi, but the attempt
failed, as the witness spoke to a different day altogether.
John Smith, a draper, of Bermondsey-street, who had
employed the prisoner as a town traveller, gave him a
good character. He also stated that he did not think
the endorsement upon the bank note was like the pri-
soner's handwriting.
The inspector of notes at the Bank of England having
proved that the 51. note in question was a forgery,
Mr. Hall committed the prisoner for trial.
Thomas Scaniong, a tailor, was charged with a crimi-
nal assault upon a little girl, named Elizabeth Ilford, 11
years of age.

The prisoner, who was already cohabiting with an
elder sister of the child, committed the assault during
the absence of her parents, whom he had previously
seen leave the house together.
Mr. Hall fined the prisoner 51., and committed him to
hard labour for two months in default.

WORSHIP-STREET.—Charles Norton, the conduc-
tor of a Kingsland omnibus, appeared to a summons,
before Mr. D'Eyncourt, in which he was charged with
an assault upon Mr. James Wilkinson Kirin, a mercan-
tile clerk, residing at Albion-cottages, Dalston.
The complainant stated that, on the evening of Christ-
mas-day, he entered the defendant's omnibus in the
City, accompanied by his wife, servant, and two children
in arms, and on getting out at Grange-walk, Dalston,
he handed 'him a shilling as their fare for the journey.
The defendant, howevtr, who had evidently been drink-
ing rather freely, having allowed the shilling to fall to
the ground, witness picked it up for him, and again
placed it in his hand. He then proceeded in the direc-
tion of his residence, but was overtaken by the defend-
ant, who again demanded his fare, alleging that he hAd
not received it. On telling him that he had already
paid him, the defendant instantly assailed him with the
epithets of "liar, hound," and other opprobious expres-
sions, and, seizing him by the collar, declared that he
would shake it out of him. He succeeded, by a power-
ful effort, in breaking from him, but was followed by the
defendant, who caught hold of him again and dragged
him by main force to the ground. The defendant at the
same time fell with him, and while they were struggling •
together a policeman made his appearance, and the
conductor at once required him to take witness
in charge for an assault ; but some of the bystanders
having interfered and explained the real facts
of the case, the officer refused to interfere. Witness
then hastened home with his wife and family, on reach-
ing which he intimated to the defendant, who had
accompanied them to the outer gate, that he resided
there, and that he might take out a summons against him
if he thought proper to do so. Witness then turned
away, and. was about to enter his house, when he was
alarmed by a sudden outcry from his wife, whom he had
left at the gate in altercation with the defendant, and on
hastening back she complained that thelatter had struck
her in the face, and directed his attention to her mouth
and gums, which were bleeding. Witne§s, however, had
abstained from taking out a summons for a double as-
sault, as he wished to. save his wife from the inconven-

--- • ience and annoyance of appearing as a witness at a police
court.

Mary Peats, the complainant's servant, corroborated
all the material parts of his evidence, and stated that on
getting out of the omnibus, she distinctly saw her master
hand a shilling to the defendant, with the observation,
" There are four of us, and that is your fare."
A young man, named George Barton, stated that
while standing at the corner of Grange-road, at the time
in question, he heard the dispute about the fare, and
saw the conductor suddenly seize hold of the gentleman
and pull him to the ground. On the arrival of the po-
liceman the defendant charged the complainant with
having assaulted him, but witness felt satisfied that he
had not done so.

The police-constable above referred to, but who has
since left the force, was next examined, and stated that
on reaching the spot he was desired by the conductor to
take the complainant into custody for knocking him
down ; but as he did not witness any assault, he declined
to do so. The defendant had evidently been drinking
freely at the time, but the complainant was perfectly
sober.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Lewis for the
defence, in the course of which he stated that shortly
after the transaction he was requested by the complain-
ant not to furnish the conductor with his name and
address.

The complainant assured the magistrate that he had
given no such instructions, and that he could have no
possible object in doing so, as the conductor accompanied
him home and obtained the required information
Inspector Tarleton also stated that shortly after the
occurrence the complainant had voluntarily attended at
the station-house, where he left his name and address in
writing, in the event of its being called for by the con-
ductor, which had not been the case.
Mr. Lewis addressed the magistrate on behalf of the
defendant, who instructed him to give a total denial to
the allegation that he had received his fare, or that he
had committed any assault. After dwelling upon the
discrepancy between the evidence of the complainant
and that of his last witness, he called
William Harman, a tailor, at Kingsland, who stated '
that he was a passenger in the omnibus on the night in
question, and that the plaintiff, on getting out with his
family, walked away without paying the fare. The de-
fendant immediately hastened after him, and on demand-
ing his money the complainant dealt him a blow under
the chin which nearly knocked him down. The com-
plainant appeared greatly excited at the time, and
although the defendant had certainly been drinking, wit-
ness considered that he was quite capable of discharging
the duties of his situation.
James Games, a horse-keeper, stated that he was pre-
sent during the latter part of the altercation, and saw
the gentleman strike the defendant, after which a strug-
gle ensued between them, and they both fell to the
ground.

Mr. D'Eyncourt said that, after the marked discre•
pancy which existed between the statements of the com-
plainant and the policeman, he considered that he should
not be justified in convicting the defendant of the charge,
and should, therefore, order the summons to be dismissed.

WESTMINSTER—SamueI Rogers and Mary Blecller
were charged with the following impudent trick to obtain
money.
Mr. John Maule Sutton, resident surgeon at the Con-
sumption Hospital at Brompton, stated that at a little
before eleven that morning he was called by the por-
ter, and informed that two persons wished to speak
with him. He went into the hall and found the pri-
soners, when the female presented him with the following
note :

"Dear John—lf you can assist this poor woman, pray
do. It is a most distressing case—in haste,
"Your affectionate mother, "E. Sutton."
Hearing, by the prisoners' account, that they came from
Greenwich, which was his native place, and thinking that
his mother meant by " assistance" giving the male pri-
soner, who appeared to be troubled with a very
violent fit of coughing, or the female professional
advice or medicine, particularly as the man had a bot-
tle in his hand, he accordingly inquired what he
could do for them, when the male prisoner replied
that his (Mr. Sutton's) mother would have given him
more but that she had so little silver in her purse,
necessarily implying by this figure of speech that she
had - given some pecuniary assistance, and that
he still wanted more. Upon hearing this com-
plainant looked at the letter a second time,' and
became positive that it was not his mother's writing.
He then asked the male prisoner how long he had known
Mrs. Sutton, and what she knew of him, when he re-
plied that she had known him thirty-six years. In
answer to other inquiries the male prisoner mentioned
the name of the vicar of Greenwich, but gave a wrong
name to the incumbent of East Greenwich, when the
female, who had all through represented herself as her
companion's wife, told him he had made a mistake, the
name he had mentioned. being that of the minister of a
dissenting congregation. Finding inquiries about Green-
wich unpleasant, the male pxis•ner shifted the ground,
by stating that he had a son in the 31st regiment, and
was desirous of going to Gosport to see him that night
by the coach, and wanted a trifle to make up the amount
of the fare. Complainant asked him to show him what
money he had got, when he replied that he had not got
any about him, but had paid 7s. at the booking-
office at the corner of Albemarle-street, Piccadilly,
to secure his place. Complainant told him that
he would accompany him there, and if he found
his statement correct he would make up the required
amount. Both thanked complainant, and the
woman presenting the bottle before spoken of said,
"And pray, sir, have the goodness to give my poor
husband a little stuff to take to Gosport, for his
cough ;" and then another violent fit of coughing de-
veloped itself. Complainant left them to change his
coat, as he stated, in order to accompany them to Albe-
marle-street, but feeling a strong notion that they would
take the first opportunity to bolt, went to the gate
porter and told him not to allow them to pass, and had
scarcely done so when they hastily left the building to
escape, while they thought he was getting ready to ao-
company them to Piccadilly. Complainant told them
he should give them into custody, when both of them
declared they had not asked for anything, but they sub-
sequently admitted they were not man and wife, and
that their story about Gosport and the 7s. was, with the
rest, all a fabrication. Complainant was induced to
bring forward this charge owing to his relations at
Greenwich having been imposed upon some time ago by
some fellows going there with a well-told tale, and also
in consequence of repeated frauds practised upon bene-
volent ladies in the neighbourhood of Brompton by per-
sons going about begging linen and other things under
pretence of coming into the hospital.
Mr. Broderip—The cough seems much better now ?
Mr. Sutton—Very much. (Laughter.)
Mr. Broderip asked the defendants what they had to
say ? Male prisoner—I'm sure I could not have said I
had a son in the 31st, because he is at sea. I leave got
the dropsy very bad, your worship.
Mr. Broderip—lt was a cough but scarcely an hour
ago, and now it is turned into dropsy. Why you asked
this gentleman for stuff for a cough ? Male prisoner—
Yes, I've a cough, too, your worship. Here he made a
desperate effort to get up one, but his lungs would not
be convulsed, and a failure was the consequence.
The woman said nothing.
- Mr. Broderip observed that there could be no doubt