The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-17 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.---Sept. 16.

GUILDIIALL.—THE STREET- BETTING NUISANCE.—
Charles Manners, described in the police-sheet as a Com-
mission agent, residing at 492, Old Kent-road, was charged
before Mr. Alderman Besley, with using abusive and ob-
scene language in a public thoroughfare.
Mr. Louis Lewis appeared for the defendant.
George Chambers, acting inspector of the Fleet-street
station, said—The defendant was brought in yesterday
evening, shortly before six o'clock, charged with obstruct-
ing the thoroughfare in Fleet•street. The constable told me
that there was a number of other persons with the defend
ant, but he refused to move on, and I therefore took him
into custody. I asked defendant if he would promise not
to obstruct the footway again, but he said he would not
make any such promise. I after wards discharged him, with
the caution that if ho were brought there again 1 would
send him before the magistrate. As ho was leaving the sta-
tion, he began to abuse me, and called me an opprobrious
epithet, upon which I ordered the constable to bring him
hack, and I locked him up for using obscene language. He
had a friend with him, whom he called his brother, but who
is a returned convict.
Mr. Lewis—How do you know that ?

Chambers—From a constable who is now present.
Mr. Lewis—Did you not say that the evidence of ob_
struction was not sufficient, as the defendant wad waiting
for an omnibus, and had a right to do so ?
Chambers—Certainly not, for he told me he was in the
habit of making bets for gentlemen, and visiting that part
of Fleet-street, opposite the Sunday Times office, three or
four times a day for that purpose.
Mr. Lewis—Had he not a gentleman with him ?
Chambers—He had a man with him, but I cannot say
that he was a gentleman.

Police-constable Andrews, 323, said—There were a great
many persons assembled on the pavement in front of the
Sunday Times office yesterday afternoon, and the obstruction
was so great that respectable peop e had to walk in the road
to get past the Sunday Times office. I requested the defen-
dant to remove to allow the people to pass, but he said he
was waiting for an omnibus, and he should stand there as
long as he liked. I told him he must move on, and he said
with an oath he would not. I went a little way up the
street, and on my return I told defendant I should be obliged
to take him to the station, in reply to which he said I might
take him to the --- if I liked, but he would be if he
moved. I took him into custody, and after he was dis-
charged he said he would go to the pavement in front of the
Sunday limes office as often as he liked, in spite of all the
City police, and called the acting inspector a foul name.
Cross-examined—The prisoner was speaking to four per-
sons near the Sunday Times office, and there were about 40
others round them, mostly betting men. The pavement in
front of the bunday limes office is obstructed sometimes for
hours, and nearly every day, and the nuisance is so great
that the inhabitants frequently complain of it.
Mr. James Anderton, a solicitor, of New Bridge-street
and member of the Court of Common Council, gave similar
evidence of the nuisance in question, and said the obstruc-
tion arose from the exhibition of racing lists in the windows
of the Sunday Times office, and that whenever he wished to
go to Temple-bar he was obliged to go the back way, through
Whitefriars. It was a public nuisance, and a great obstruc-
tion to the traffic.
Mr. Lewis said there could be no doubt of it, but the
Sunday 7imes was the sole cause of the obstruction and
consequent nuisance.
Mr. Kirk, a tobacconist, and Mr. Granville, a taller and
draper, and one of the churchwardens of the parish, neigh-
bours right and left of the Sunday limes office, bore testi-
mony to the intolerable nuisance, day after day, of crowds
of betting people assembling in front, not only of the Sun-
day limes office, but also their own shops, to tho obstruc-
tion of the thoroughfare and their business.
Mr. Lewis said the only question he had to deal with was
the abusive language. He admitted that the epithet in
question was made use of, but the defendant applied it to his
brother, and not to the acting inspector, whom he desig-
nated as a " bumptious policeman." (Laughter.) With
regard to the statement ventured upon by that officer with
respect to defendant's brother, he thought it monstrous that
the character of a respectable man, against whom there had
never been even a breath of suspicion, should be so lightly
and so rashly assailed. He submitted that the provocation
he had received from the policeman and the " bumptious in-
specter"—(laughter)—had irritated him into using the lan-
guage he had done to his brother, who was the cause of his
losing one omnibus and having to wait for another, whereby
he got into his present difficulty, and that the inconvenience
he had already suffered would be a sufficient punishment.
George Manners, the defendant's brother, was then called
to support this view of the case, and swore that he was not
a returned convict, and that he had never been in custody
for any off3nce.
Hann, a detective, said the witness was one of a class
known as "Welchers," who take money for bets, but never
pay when they lose.
Alderman Besley said ho was of opinion that the defendant
was obstructing the footway as described, that he had le••
!Aged the police, and made use of the abusive and obscene

language imputed to him, and he therefore fined him 40s.
At the same time he recommended the police not to travel
out of the record when giving evidence, but confine them-
selves to that only which they were in a position to prove.
Defendant said he would pay the money, but he wanted
to know if he was to pay 40e. every time he was waiting for
an omnibus.
Alderman Besley said certainly, if he were brought before
him, and the evidence was equally clear on the point.
Defendant said in that case he would take a cab, and not
wait for the omnibus. (Laughter.)