The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-03 00:00:00

130 W-STREET.

On Saturday John Harding, police-constahle No.
99, letter E division, was brought before Mr. HALLs,
charged by Peter Mallard, Esq., a county Magistrate,
with having assaulted him on Tuesday evening last.
We believe it was that gentleman's intention not
to have pressed the present charge, had the defend-
ant met with that punishment which his conduct
appeared to merit, and which Mr. Mallard had
reason to believe would be inflicted upon him, in
consequence of a communication which he made on
the subject to Colonel Rowan. It appeared that
the man, in the first instance, was dismissed, but
almost immediately restored to his situation, be,.
having brought forward three witnesses, whose tee-.
timony gave a different complexion to the statement
of Mr. Mallard, in consequence of which that gen-.
tie:flan determined to bring the matter before a jury,
who would be best competent to decide as to which
party the weight of credit ought to be given.
The hearing of the case attracted a very crowded
audience, and several Magistrates, both of the
county and city, were on the bench, the fact of the
sudden restoration of the defendant after his im-
puted misconduct having excited a strong sensation
both west and east of Temple-bar. It is right to add,
that the defendant offered to apologize to Mr. Mal-
lard, but that gentleman, upon public grounds, de-
clined to enter into any such arrangement.
..._Mr. Mallard having .been sworn, described the.
rough usage which be had met with from the de-
fendant in nearly the same words which he had used
on Wednesday, and added, that but for the illness
of his son, who had witnessed the transaction, he
would have brought him forward to substantiate his
statement.

Sarah Scott, the woman on whose behalf Mr.
Mallard had interfered, said, that on the evening in
question she was standing at the corner of Lascelles-
court, Holborn, when she saw the defendant using
a child roughly. She remonstrated with him, and
told him he was not on duty. He called her a -,
and said, " I will teach you to know whether I am
on duty or not." He then dragged her across the
street as far as Museum-street, and then brought her
back again and let her go. The people cried out
shame, and advised her to take his number.
The defendant, in reply to the charge, was about
to call witnesses, when

Mr. HALLS told him to give his o‘vn version of
the matter first. The charge against him was, that
he took the witness, Sarah Scott, into custody, and
dragged her in an opposite direction to the police
station, where it was presumed he had intended to
convey her, and that he afterwards let her go with-
out even bringing her before a superior officer That
he also took the complainant, Mr. Mallard, into cus-
tody, and after dragging him likewise in an opposite
direction from the station, let him go.—The de-
fendant said that lie took the woman into custody
for abusing him, for correcting a child by order of
its mother.

Mr. HALLS—How ! are police constables provided
with rods to chastise naughty children ?—A serjeant
of E. division said, that the defendant told the Com-
missioners that he took the woman into custody
merely to intimidate her.
Mr. HALLS—So, then, it appears to be part of a
policeman's duty to correct little children, and
frighten old women.
The defendant proceeded to state, that Mr. Mal-
lard, whom he did not know to be a Magistrate, and
did not believe to be a gentleman, had stated that
which was not the truth, He had interfered with
him most improperly, telling him he had no busi-
ness to act in that way, as he was not on duty. A
police constable was. however, always on duty.

Mr. HAus--Was he sober at the time ? Mr.
Mallard—l should certainly say, from his conduct
and the language which he used that he was not
sober.
The defendant admitted that he bad been to see
a friend, but denied that he was intoxicated, and
also that he had used any bad language.
Mr. Mallard—Why, when you came to my house
to apologise to me, you said you were sorry for
having abused and called me names.

Defendant--No : I deny that I said so.
Mr. Mallard—lt so happened, that I left the par-
lour door open on purpose, in order that what you
said might be heard by others, and I can bring three
witnesses forward to prove the fact.

The Clerk here said that the defendant had been
locked up in Marylebone watch-house the preceding
day for an assault.

Defendant—That has nothing to do with the pre-
sent charge.

Clerk—Certainly not; but it is right the Magis-
trate should know your general character.
The defendant then requested that he might be
allowed to call his witnesses.

Police-constable L 112 accordingly came forward
and said he was present at the transaction, but did
not interfere. He heard no bad language used by
the defendant, and considered that he merely per-
formed his duty.

3.1 r. HALLS Observed, that it was Unnecessary for
the defendant to call more witnesses, as he had
made up his mind to send the case to the sessions.
He would not inflict a fine upon the defendant