The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-15 00:00:00

CENTRAL

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAms.)
George Bailey, aged 23, a brickmaker, was indicted
For assaulting, and robbing Hannah Robson, on the

Queen's highway. It appeared that the prosecutrix,
the wife of Henry Robson, lived at Hackney, where
she carried on the business of a laundress. On Mon-

day, during the course of the last month, as she was re-
turning home with a bundle upon her head, the prisoner
emerged from a lane, knocked her down and beat
her, and endeavoured to get the bundle from her, mak-
ing use of very abusive language. She gave an alarm
and a policeman speedily arriving took the prisoner into
custody. The policeman corroborated the testimony
of the prosecutrix. The Jury found the prisoner guilty,
and Mr. Justice Williams sentenced him to be trans-
ported for 15 years.
UTTERING FORGED CHEQUES.—Elizabeth Ballard,
stated in the calendar to be 38 years of age, but who
appeared considerably older, was indicted for uttering a
forged cheque for 151. 10s., with intent to defraud Wm.
Carruthers.
Charles Blake, barman, at the Mason's Arms, Upper
Berkeley-street, the landlord of which was Mr. Carru-
thers, stated that the prisoner came to the Mason s
Arms on the 11th of June, and ordered half a dozen of
stout to be sent to Mrs. Daniels, No, 5, George-street,
Portman-square, and tendered a cheque for 151. 10s. in
payment. He gave her the change ; he handed the
cheque to his employer the following morning.
Cross-examined by Mr. PRENDERGAST—IS sure the
cheque produced was the one presented by the prisoner.
William Carruthers, the master of the first witness,
received the cheque from him, and sent it to his bankers,
Claude, Scott, and Co., by whom it was returned. The
cheque produced is the one returned by the bankers, but
he will not swear it was the one given him by Blake.
Blake, on being re-called, swore positively to the
cheque.
Mrs. Daniels, residing at George-street, Portman-
square, the lady of J. F. N. Daniells, Esq., deposed that
her husband was now on his way to China. He never
kept any account at Coutts's, on whom the cheque was
drawn. The cheque produced was not in his hand-
writing. She was not acquainted with the prisoner.
A clerk in the house of Coutts and Co., proved that
the cheque was not in the hand writing of any person
named Daniels, who kept an account with them.
Mr. Whitmore, a house-agent, also proved that the
cheque was not in the handwriting of Mr. Daniels.
Mr. PRENDERGAST addressed the Jury for the pri-
soner, and contended that the identity of the cheque
was not clearly proved, neither was there any evidence
to prove that the prisoner knew the cheque to be
forged.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS summed up, and the Jury
found the prisoner—Not Guilty.
The prisoner was again indicted for forging and utter-
ing a checque for 151., purporting to be signed by the
Rev. Dr. Penfold.
John Bird deposed that he was in the employment of
Mr. Hitchings, landlord of the Stags Inn, New Caven-
dish-street. On the 28th of March last, the prisoner
came to his master's and ordered one bottle of rum, two
bottles of brandy, and one of gin, for the Rev. Dr. Pen-
fold, 15, Dorset-square, in payment for which she ten-
dered a cheque for 151., he gave the cheque to his
master. The same evening the goods were sent to Dr.
Penfold's house.
Thos. Hitchings received the cheque produced from
the last witness, but could not identify the prisoner as
the person to whom he had paid the money. He took
the liquor to Dr. Penfold's house, who told him that
the cheque was a forgery.
The Rev. Dr. Penfold swore the cheque was a for-
gery. He never authorized the prisoner to sign it, or
to order any spirits of the publican. He kept no ac-
count with Coutts and Co., on whom the cheque was
drawn.

A clerk from Coutts's proved that no person named
Penfold kept any account at their house.
Mr. PRENDERGAST addressed the Jury for the de-
fence. The Judge summed up, and the Jury found the
prisoner Guilty.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said he understood that a
great many charges of a like nature could be preferred
against the prisoner, and sentenced her to transporta-
tion for life.
William Davies, 28, a waiter at a tavern, convicted
of stealing 15 sovereigns, 36 spoons, and a great quantity
of other valuable property belonging to Samuel Orchard,
his master, was sentenced to 15 years' transportation.
Thomas James, aged 18, Michael .May, 18, and Ed-
ward Rynard, alias Banelt, 17, were indicted for steal-
ing one-half ton of lead, two cwt. of copper, and one
brass-cock, value 191., the property of Henry Dodd.
The. property, which had been stripped from several
houses belonging to the prosecutor, was traced into the
possession of the prisoners. The Jury found the pri-
soners Guilty. A former conviction baying been put
in against May, he was sentenced to 14 years' transpor-
tation, and James and Bane to 7 years each.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION HOUSE.

CONVICTION UNDER THE LONDON AND WESTMINSTER Fists
SUPPLY Au r.—Yesterday Mr. James Read, an extensive fish
salesman at Billingsgate, was summoned before the Lord
Mayor by Robert Crawley, a fish hawker, for having sold
a greater number of soles in one lot than the Act of 42
Geo. 3, cap. 88, sect. 3, allows.
Robert Crawley stated that the poor hawkers, with
whom the town abounded, suffered extremely from the
system adopted by the salesmen in Billingsgate market,
as had been shown a few days ago to his Lordship, who
wished to hear clear evidence of the fact in order to check
the monopoly. He had gone to the defendant's form on
Saturday last, accompanied by his brother, and seen soles
in pots and pads exposed for sale. A fishmonger bought
one pad for 15s. and two pads for 30s. The regulations
in the Act of Parliament directed that of large soles there
should not be more than twelve pairs, of small soles
not more than twenty-four pairs, in one lot, and in the pre.
sent case each pad contained considerably more than
twenty-four pairs.
Mr. Martin, of the house of Alderman Brown and
Martin, solicitors, attended for the defendant, and asked
Robert Crawley whether he kept a shop ?
Robert Crawley replied that he did not. He formerly
kept a shop, but that was knocked down by the monstrous
fish monopoly.
_ _ _ _ _

Mr. :`,lartin—You are the informer in the case. Do you
not know that the informer is entitled to a moiety of the
fine, if any be inflicted? Robert Crawley—l am aware of
that ; but I do not wish for the informer's share of the pe-
nalty. My object is to hive justice done to myself, and
the numerous other poor hawkers who strive for their bread
in the streets, and are prevented by the system from getting
it. I have my brother here to give evidence as to the fact.
Thomas Crzwiey stated that he was present at the de-
fendant's form, and saw several lots of soles exposed. There
were several persons bidding ; but the defendant, upon
seeing him and his brother, did not say anything to the
biddings. At last the defendant upon being bid t 53. a pad
for the fish said, " Take them away ;" and they were taken
away. Witness followed, and saw that each pad, which he
was sure would hold 36 pairs, was full.
The Loan MAYOR—Can you swear that any pad con-
tained more than 24 soles? Witness--I can swear that
one ped would hold considerably more, and that it was full.
The LORD MAYOR—That will do. Have you any fur-
ther evidence?

Robert Crawley said that he and hi, brother were the
only persons who witnessed the sale.
Mr. Martin—We do not wish to take advantage of the
want of proof in this case. We are anxious to :et the
matter at rest; and I admit on the part of the defendant
that the pad did contain more than 24 pairs of soles—very
likely it contained 60 pairs.
Robert Crawley—l waive all claim to my part of the pe-
nalty, and beg to be examined as a witness. I can swear
that I saw more than 24 pairs of soles in the pad.
The Loan MAYOR then ordered, upon the condition
preferred by the informer, that he should be sworn, and he
accordingly testified to the effect stated upon being exa-

mined.
His LORDSHIP then asked what Mr. Martin had to say
against a conviction and the infliction of the penalty of
20/. upon Mr. Read for having sold more soles in a lot
than the Act permitted ?
Mr. Martin said that his client was a salesman in fish,
in an extensive way of business, that he frequently had to
sell upwards of 18,000 fish from five o'clock in the morn-
ing till twelve in the day. It was therefore indispensably
necessary that he and the other salesmen should sell in
lots greater quantities than the regulations according to
the Act directed. If such were not the case the public
would not have a supply. But at the same time that the
sale, under these circumstances, deviated from the speci-
fied regulations, any person could purchase one fish at the
market price, and not the slightest injury was done to any
individual. The salesmen were determined to resist the
Act.
The LORD MAYOR—And I must enforce it.
Mr. Martin then contended that the penalty of 20/. did
not apply to the limit of the number of fish in each lot,
but to the refusal of the salesmen to sell fish in smaller
quantities, or by the single fish, at the market price, and
that therefore the Lord Mayor had no power to inflict it in
this case.
The LORD MAYOR—I think I have a power, by the 4th
section of the Act, which, in my opinion, refers to the of.
fence of selling in lots containing more thanuiateceirmtapinosnsuibmie-
ber of fish, as well as to the obligation to sell fish in small
quantities.
Mr. Martin repeated that it would be q
to supply the town if salesmen did not sell in lots con.
taining much larger quantities than this, and which the
change in circumstances made quite obsolete and imprac•
ticable.
The LORD MA yox—l f this cahisoo:un
hw,
ceeaasrnnietdaaotpent e in which I
toan
appealcxi
jeprecf
appeal,
exercise
maann
iiiemycaoi
decision,
choose,
hu
or jurisdiction,
ph;layt
tuotth etairsleethwarwos anrisi
above, lshall convict.

cot,ider it hut fair to mention to your
Lordship that I hay, ti,ken the opinion of the Attorney.
General on this subji et. ui )(anr p Nr r to
i Met the pen,lty, ine,tioticd th 4th iee!io-, -end he
stat,s it to be his opinion that the I,enAly of 201 ,p01,e4
only to the offence created by the 4th section of the
Act of Parliament, and does not extend to those
enacted by the 3d ; that the sth section authorises
the Magistrates to sentence to pay a fine, or suffer im-
prisonment, persons who may -offend against the 3d
.hut a eniivieti"o- adiu „ p•,,ty t.•
n! , • , •

•
PEACE OFFICERS.—Betwixt two hundred and
three hundred of the most respectable inhabitants, rrer-
ti,'",-i, it, Per;h. en oiled last week,
,:ti the -uo..va.cfathg."
;Y it
Au aoda,ional nuolbec b (,;:c .
this week. —Edinburgh Advertiser. agai •
nst the Magistrate granting the warrant of distress.

C'CtiOn• ht. ••• ~,trt knit