The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-05 00:00:00

no option but to find as they did, whereas the evidence
clearly entitled the Crown to a verdict. The learned counsel
pointed out at some length the nature and object of the Foreign
Enlistment Act under which these proceedings were taken.
The LORD CiIIFF BARON said one of the great objects of
the Act was to prevent any hostile vessel being fitted out
as to make a pert of this country the point of discharge.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that did not appear to be
the view of the Lord Chief Baron, as shown on the short-
hand writer's notes. His lordship seemed to imply that a
vessel might be constructed Messrs. Faucit's yard, for
instance, for the Fedora's, and one in Mr. Laird's yard for the
Contederrhtes, and that as soon as they got out they might
engage and endanger the public peace.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that might be one of the

mischiefs that would arise.
The ATTORNY- GV.,iERAL thought that such a mischief
never entered the mind of any human being,

The LORD CHIEF BARON —Not only is it not impossible.
It is a fact—it is true.

The Court adjourned shortly after for refreshrutnt..

On the learned Judges taking their seats, the Lone
CRIEF BARON addressed the Attorney-General and said
they had considered the wetter while out of court, and they
were agreed that from what had been stated there was mat-
ter fit to be discussed. You may, therefore, take the rule
on the terms announced. If It was desirable to put it
shortly on the ground of misdirection or of incompetent
direction, you could do so.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that would not be war •
ranted on the ground of misdirection by himself, or on the
ground that although there might have been no positive
misdirection, yet there was a want of information as would
enable the jury to form a proper opinion. He might take
a rule.

THE LORD CHIEF BARON—Perhaps you had better take
it on the terms I mentioned.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that was exactly what
he had been asking for. He had no more to say.
Rule nisi granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A SCENE AT A CAFE —ASSAULT BY GENTLEMEN 05
A REFRESHMENT HOUSEKEEPER.—Mr. John Cellars, of
10, Sussex-terrace, Camden-town, gentleman, and Mr.
Richard Dixon, of 3, Bayswater-terrace, Bayswater, gentle-
man, were charged before Mr. Knox, with behaving in a
disorderly manner at the Cafe Riche, 226, Piccadilly, and
assaulting Mr. John Nicholls, the manager, and William
Smith, the waiter.

Mr. Nicholls said that half-past two that morning his
attention was called to the door of the cafe by hearing the
waiter say " You can't come in ; we are just closing," On
going to the door he saw the two defendants struggling to
force their way in, the defendant Cellars thrusting his
umbrella at the waiter, and saying that for two or three
years they had wanted to serve him (Mr. Nicholls) out.
Cellars then said that ho was Captain Gordon, of the 16th
Lancers, that he would kill a dozen such men as the waiter,
and that he was -if he would not be served. Cellars
then caught hold of his (Mr Nicholl's) collar, and bumped
his head against the door-post, the defendant, Dixon, at
the time pushing the other defendant in.
In answer to Mr. Knox, the complainant said the de-
fendants were both drunk.

Win. Smith, waiter at the Cafe Riche, said that on telling
the defendants he could not admit them, they pulled biro
about, tore his coat, and nearly drove him through a pane
of glass. The defendant Cellars acted like a madmal39
said he was Captain Gordon, of the Lancers, and that be
would fight witness, or anybody else.

Cellars asked the waiter whether he did not hear hinl
abused, and the waiter said ho did not.
Harn, 344 A, having given evidence,

Cellars admitted taking a glass, but said the account of
the assault was exaggerated, but there was no doubt 130
had taken a glass too much.

Dixon said he might have been a little more elevated
than usual.

Mr. Knox said he did not sympathise much with night"
house keepers in the Haymarket, bat at the same time
there must not be breaches of the peace. Why did the
defendants not go away when they were refused admissioar
Dixon said he wanted to reason with the landlord.
Mr. Knox—What I a drunken man reason.
Cellars was then fined 205,, or 14 days, and Dixon Ns.)
or seven days.

THAMES.
A VlRAGo.—Elizabeth Reed, a very disorderly arid
drunken woman, 30 years of age, was brought before 31r•
Partridge charged with assaulting and wounding Elizabeth
Williams, who came into court with a surgical bandage
round her head. Her clothes were stiffened with blood.
The complainant said that she had a quarrel with the
prisoner some time ago, and had forgotten all about it.
This morning at 1 o'clock she was standing at her door,
and the prisoner came up to her and said, "I'll have sane
faction," and struck her a tremendous blow on the forehead
with a tea-cup and knocked her down. She was seriously
wounded, and her head was dressed by a surgeon.
Timothy Cox, a police sergeant, No. 45 K, found the
complainant bleeding profusely from a wound on her fore-
head. On taking the prisoner into custody she offered hint
a bribe to let her go. Both women lived next door to each
other in Palmer's-folly, Ratcliff-highway.
Mr. Partridge sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned for
one month and kept to hard labour.