The Sun.
London, England, 1837-07-27 00:00:00

MARYLEBONE.

EXTRAORDINARY POLICE REGULATIONS.—TWO police
constables of the E division, named Sheptoe and Co/e, 1 I I
and 32, appeared before Mr. RAwLiNsoN and Lord AIoNT-
FORD to answer the following charge preferred against them
by Mr. Francis Lloyd Moore, a gentleman of independent
property, residing in Norton-street, New-road :
The complainant stated that he had been spending the
evening at a friend's house, and was returning home from
thence about two o'clock on Friday morning, when, on pass-
ing the watering-house opposite Trinity Church, he WAS as-
sailed by a number of watermen, cabmen, and other black-
guards congregated at the spot, who began to hustle him
about ; and, upon his venturing to expostulate with them
upon the impropriety of such conduct, one of the ruffians
seized a bucket of water and threw it all over him, and he
at the same time received a cut on the face and hand, and
had his coat tern. He cried out for the assistance of the
police, and in a short time the first-named defendant came
up, but he refused to take charge of the man who had as-
saulted him, alleging that he did not see it. In a few se-
conds the other constable arrived, and to him he applied.
The constable said he could not interfere unless he had
witnessed the assault, or saw blood. He (complainant) then
drew his attention to the blood on his face from the violence
he had received, when the constable said be would take the
charge, but subsequently declined, telling the complainant
that he must apply for an assault warrant against the as-
sailants it this office. The latter remedy he had been com-
pelled to adopt, and with much difficulty the parties who
had so wantonly assaulted him had been brought before the
Bench, and filled for the assault.

The defendants said that they had acted agreeably to
their instructions, which were not to take any person into
custody for an assault unless they saw it committed, or
beheld blood. They did not see the assault in this case,
and the show of blood was so trifling that they thought they
should not be justified in interfering._ C
Mr. RAWLINSON (to Inspector aMIA:CID—IS it true
that such an absurd regulation can have emanated from the
Commissioners ? If so, a person may be half murdered,
and unless the police witness the outrage the ruffian has
every facility of escape, especially if he is a stranger. The
public, especially the female portion of it, are entitled to
better protection.
The inspector said that it certainly was the practice of
the force not to take any person into custody...thaws the
violence was seen, or blood, which was considered tanta-
mount. Now, as the gentleman had shown the proof of
the assault on his face, it was the duty of the defendants
to have taken the assailants into custody on the spot, and
they ought to have done so.
Mr. ItawuNsoN—Suppose 1 fine these men, what will
be the consequence ? Defendants—We shall be discharged
from the force by the Commissioners.

Mr. RAWLINION—That is unfair. You ought not to be
tried by two tribunals. I wish the Commissioners would
investigate such matters themselves, especially as our deci-
sion is not final,and the delinquents maybe punished two ways.
Inspector—lt is for the satisfaction of the public that the
case is brought here. _

Mr. RAwLINsoN—And here it ought to finish. The
defendants do not appear to have erred much from their in-
structions, and I shall fine them Ss. each only, and I think
the punishment should not be carried further.
A remark to that effect was then made in the charge-
sheet, and the defendants paid their fines, and left the office.
VIOLENT ASSAULT.-Mr. George Wise, the proprieter
of Portobello Farm, Bayswater, was charged w:th violently
assaulting Joseph Laing, Esq., of Royal Hall, in the same
vicinity. _

It appeared that the complainant was on Sunday morn-
ing crossing one of the defendant's fields, accompanied by
three dogs. There being a number of sheep in the field,
and the complainant and his dogs having deviated from the
footpath, it was apprehended that they would worry the
flock, and cause much mischief. Under these circum-
stances the defendant approached the complainant with
angry feelings, and desired him to turn back and quit the
field by the gate he had entered. This the latter declined
to do, but made his egress through a gap in the hedge
which had just been stopped, which so exasperated the
farmer that he laid hold of the intruder's collar, gave him a
hearty shaking, and in the scuffle his face got severely
scratched.

Mr. RAWLINSON said that both parties were blameable.
The complainant ought to have left the field by the gate
pointed out, but his not doing so did not altogether justify
the assault committed by the defendant, for which he was
fined 10s.

WORSHIP- S TRH/4T.
AlnanFnoos Ass4VLT.-1 divard goocit,-a carpenter,
residing at Hackney, was placed at the bar, before Messrs.
ijapuciwpri pad GitovE, char3ed with assaulting police