The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-28 00:00:00

GUILDHALL.

The innkeeper at the Blossoms-inn, Lawrence-
lane, was summoned before Mr. Alderman COPE-
land yesterday, at the instance of the Rev. Dr.
Farrington, of the Rectory-liouse, St. George's-in-
the-East, for neglecting duly to deliver to him a
basket brought to the inn by coach on the Gth
and not delivered to him until the 12th.

A solicitor, who appeared for the defendant, called
on the Rev. Gentleman to produce the address
affixed to the basket, which he did. It was di awn
up in these words :--" The Rev. Mr. Farrington,
Rectory-house, St. George's, Middlesex." The
solicitor then proved by the porter and another wit-
ness that the basket was carried about the parishes
of St. George, Ilanover-square, and St. George,
Bloomsbury, both on the sth and 7th ; the third St.
George's in Middlesex, not occurring to the mind
of the porter. All the mischief arose from the vague-
ness of the direction.

The Rev. Gentleman thought the porter ouaht,
with such an address, to have tried St. George's-in-
the•East first.

Mr. Alderman COPELAND felt some difficulty in
deciding on this case, and would take the opinion of
a brother Magistrate (Mr. Alderman Ansley) then
in the private room.
The Alderman returned in a moment, and said,
that upon asking his brother Magistrate what parish
was intended by the address, which he exhibited to
him, he at once said St. George, Hanover-square,
and he (Alderman Copeland) must therefore dismiss
the complaint.
The Rev. Gent. then pressed a second complaint
for not making out a ticket to be delivered with the
basket. He said that the porter, after being re-
peatedly asked for the ticket, and where he came
from, at length produced a blank one from the Blos-
soms Inn.

The Solicitor had hoped, after the explanation
that had been given, the Rev. Gent. would have
been satisfied there was no wilful neglect. The pro-
prietors of the inn were sorry for the delay that had
occurred, and would take care lie should not have
reason to complain again. He could make no de-
fence to this charge. . .

The Alderman fined the defendant ss. on this com-
plaint.
The Rev. Gent. then preferred a third complaint
for demanding, in respect of the porterage of the
basket, 18d., being more than the defendant was
entitled to charge. Ile said the porter first asked
for 18d., but when questioned about it, reduced his
demand to 10(1., but complainant did not pay him
arty thing.
la reply to a question from the solicitor, the Doc-
tor admitted the porter complained of having had
some trouble to find him out. His house is in
Cannon-street, East.
The solicitor said the porters had conceived, that
having had so much trouble through the vagueness
of the address, they were entitled to charge some-
thing extra ; their porterage to the two p.►rishes in
the we,t would amount to Is. 113,, and to this was
to be added the 10d. for the distance to the right
of St. George.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND said if he admitted the
propriety of this, the porters would discover a
vagueness in many addresses, and parcels would be
hawked all over the town, merely to increase the
porterage. At the same time he did not think he
ought to convict the defendant under the circum-
stances of this case : he therefore dismissed the
complaint.
John M' Grath, a young man about 20 years of
age, was charged with committing wilful damage
at the shop of Mr. Bowtell, the bootmaker, in
Cheapside.
Committed to hard labour for two months.
BOW-STREET.

On Tuesday morning three females were charged
before Mr. MINSHULL, by Serjeant Lovegrove, of
letter F division, who stated, that on the preced-
ing night he observed them in Long-acre behaving
in a riotous and disorderly manner. When he first
observed them they were standing in a door-way, in-
viting the male passengers to join them. He cau-
tioned them to move on, at which they became vio..
lent, and loaded him with abuse. With the assist-
ance of a constable, he was at last obliged to con-
vey the defendants to the police station. The ser-
jeant added his belief that they were all common pro-
ritutes, and, as two of them were known to be such,
the Magistrate ordered them all to be committed for
seven days to the House of Correction. The woman
who was not known as a prostitute, said her name
was Jones, but declined to give any further account
of herself than that she was a married woman, and
her husband was a tradesman in the city. She
denied in general terms the conduct imputed to her.
But Serjeant Lovegrove having positively sworn that
she was in the company of two known prostitutes,
that she was intoxicated at the time, and, moreover,
that he heard her speaking to several men as they
pa.sed the door-way, the Magistrate could see no-
thirg in the case of the third female to exempt her
from the punishment awarded to the other two, and
she was sent to the House of Correction accordingly.
Yesterday morning a respectable-looking man
came before Sir R. BIRNIE, and stated that his
name was Oliver, that he was a freeman of the city
of London, and carried on the business of a ladies'
shoemaker in Bishopsgate-street ; and, further to
prove his respectability, he produced his banker's
book. He then stated, that he was husband to the
female who gave the name of Jones, and who had
been committed, by Mr. MINsHuLL, on the previous
day, as a common prostitute. He declared that she
was perfectly innocent of the charge, arid could not
have behaved in the manner described by the con-
stable, who, he alleged, had taken her into custody
by mistake. She had been, he said, to visit her
grandmother, a very old and respectable inhabitant
of St. Martin's-lane, and was on her return home
through Long acre, when, hearing the dispute be-
tween the officer and the two females, she stopped
from curiosity, and was taken into custody with the
other females.
Sir R. BIRNIE referred the applicant to Mr.
Minshull, by whom the case had been disposed of,
and who soon after took his seat upon the bench,
when Mr. Oliver repeated the statement he had
already made, adding, that he felt the imprisonment
of his wife not only as a very great hardship, hut
a serious loss to his business, as she was in the habit
of attending in his shop during his absence, and he
had no other person upon whom he could equally rely.
Mr. i‘lfsellum, was extremely sorry to find a re-
spectable man placed in such a situation. He, how-
ever, had acted upon the evidence of the police con-
stable, and had no other alternative than to send the
three women to prison as prostitutes.
M. Oliver declared that his wife was no pros-
titute, and said it was a cruel thing that a re-
spectable married woman should be thus stigmatized
and sent to prison with two abandoned females, on
the mere assertion of a police constable. It was
quite impossible, he added, that his wife would
have acted irs the manner described. She had left
the house of her grandmother but fifteen minutes,
when she was seized by the constable.
Sereartt Lovegrove here came forward, and was
strictly questioned by Mr. Minshull with reference
to the transaction of which Mr. Oliver complained.
He repeated that the woman who said her name
was Jones was in company with the ether two;
that she 'aa in 4 state of intoxication, and that he
distinctly heard her crying to different men as they
passed, " Come here, my dear."
Mr. Oliver—lt is quite impossible that my wife
could have acted thus, This officer, your Worship

(pointing to Serjeant Lovegrove) declared to me
last night in presence of a witness, that he had not
described my wife as a prostitute.
Mr. INTlNsntm, expressed some surprise, and
asked Serjeant Lovegrove if he had said so.
Serjeant Lovegrove said no such thing.
Mr. Oliver appealed for the truth of his asser-
tion to a young man by whom he was accom-
panied, and he corroborated what Mr. Oliver had
said.

Mr. MlNsllum. had already decided the case, and
could not try it twice over. The officer had in the
first instance sworn positively to the truth of what
he had advanced, and he was ready to be sworn
again. If the female was quite innocent, why had
she not declared whose wife she was, and sent for
her husband to prove her respectability, instead of
which she gave another name.
Sir R. BIRNIE observed, that the circumstance of
her giving a false name looked certainly very
suspicious.
After again repeating his belief that his wife had
been falsely charged, Mr. Oliver requested an order
to see her, which Mr. Minshull most readily granted,
and Mr. Oliver and his friend retired.

PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK.
Austrian Bonds" I— Neapolitan —
Brazilian Bonds '711,,y I,', % Peruvian Bonds I9N
Buenos Ayres Bonds — Portuguese Bonds (3034 1
Chilian Bonds — Prussian, Old
Colombian Bonds — Ditto, New
Ditto, 1824 24%14 %, Russian —
Danish 75Y6
,Spanish, :821 113434
Greek Bonds 35 6 1823 —
Ditto, 1825 36 '7 6% 7 French Rentes, sp. c. —f. —c.
Guatimala — I --- Exchange —f. --.
Alexican Bonds — -- 3 per cent.
Ditto, 1825 — Exchange —f. —c.