The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-22 00:00:00

A COMMISSIONER (jumping up)-1 cm set you (to
Jowhey) right upon that point, It's the engines that
roust be paid for. Sweeps arc not mentioned in the Act.
Jowhey (doubtingly)—Are you sure of that?
The COMMISSIONER—Positive.

Jowhey—(abstractedly)—Well ; but I told the gen-
tleman as I come to put his fire out, and as he never
said a word, but let my boy go up the flue, why it's
clear that he owes me the I Is. 6d.
Toppey (to the Chairman)—l put it to you, Sir,
whether it is at all likely—whether, Sir, it is not in the
highest degree improbable that I, knowing the law
upon the subject, should instruct him to send his boy
up the chimney. For, Sir, had I clone so, I should
have rendered myself grievously amenable to the laws
of my country. Sir (very seriously), I beg to inform
you that, by the 4 and 5 William IV., sec. 35, it is
enacted that a person sending any one up a chimney on
fire shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, which, I take, this
man committed when he sent his boy up my chimney.
The CHAIRMAN (to Jowhey)—Pray who did send
for you to put out the fire ?
Jowhey—That arnt a fair question. Suppose I was
for to stop for to enkvire who it was as sent for me for
to go for to put out a fire, I say, genelmen, if I was for
to go to consult my own personal interests and con-
sarnes, and enkvire, and for to say, " Who's to pay
me for this here job ?" I say, gentlemen, if I was for
to go for to do this, your precious little vuns, and the
werry vives of your bussums would be burnt in their
werry sleep, genclmen. I always takes up these here
cases on principle, and scorns to enkvire where the
money's to come from.
The CHAIRMAN—You must prove that Mr. Toppey
sent for you.
Jowhey—l assures you that that 'ull be a werry dan-
gerous principle for the safety of this here great city.
The CHAIRMAN-If we were to admit your claim,
what security would persons have against your going to
fires without being sent for ?
Jowhey (impressively)—My respectability. I keeps
three boys and two machines, and never does nothing
wrong. My character would suffer werry much if I did.
A long discussion here took place as to whether
certain firemen, who had been at defendant's house
prior to the arrival of Jowhey, and who, the defendant
contended, had put out the fire, ought not to pay the
sweep, supposing the latter to be entitled to anything.
One of the COMMISSIONERS (a shoemaker,)—I can
enlighten you upon this point. I've been a hoverseer,
and I know from hexperience that these here fire cases
are some of the rascaliest in natur. The sweeps aint
entitled to nothing, and I move that the case be swept
away altogether—that is, I means dismissed.

Another COMMISSIONER—I cecond the motion.
The CHAIRMAN—AII you that are of that opinion
hold up your bands.
Up went the hands of all the Commissioners, to the
astonishment of Jowhey.
The CllAlRMAN—Dismissed. Call on the next case.

Jowhey (putting on his hat, thrusting his hands in his
pockets, and walking out of Court)—Well, I'm blowed
—never was done afore—this here his a sweeping law.
AN EQUITABLE SUGGESTION.—A young man,
named Jones, summoned a Mr. James for 205., under
these circumstances :—Jones was to go upon trial for
20 weeks as an apprentice. He was to have 16s. per
week during the 20 weeks, and ls. was to be stopped
weekly for the purpose of paying for the stamp of the
agreement. He was on trial during the whole of the
period mentioned, but declined being bound, and he
now sought to recover the 20s. which Mr. James had
stopped.
The CHAIRMAN (to Mr. James)—You must pay the
money back.

Mr. James—When ?
The CHAIRMAN—NOW.

A COMMISSIONER—What, pay it down all at once,
when the apprentice was 20 weeks paying it to him !
I never heard of such a thing. It's neither law nor
equity. I move that, as he was 20 weeks in receiving
it, he be allowed 20 weeks to pay it, Is. a week.
No one seconded the motion, and the Commissioner
put on his hat, and went home evidently out of temper.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE

MA/V SION HOUSE.

A man of respectable appearance named John Pyke
was brought before the Lord Mayor under the follow-
ing circumstances :

Mr. Henry Israel, who stated himself to be an agent
in very extensive business in Aldgate, said that he
went into a public house in the neighbourhood, which
Jews in commercial business were in the habit of fre-
quenting, and began to count some gold which he bad
in his pocket. There was a drawer on the table in
which lie counted the money. After he had put, as be
supposed, all the money in his pocket, he went to the
door, but soon afterwards returned. The prisoner was
smoking his pipe, and there were other persons in the
coffee room. He had not long sat in the place to
which he returned, when be saw the prisoner, who sat
near him, move his elbow accidentally against the
drawer, and immediately afterwards pick up a sovereign
which witness entertained no doubt was his, and which
must have rolled under the drawer while he was count-
ing his money. Witness at once said the sovereign
was his, and claimed it, his belief that it was his property
having been cmifirtned by the fact that upon re-counting
his cash, he found that he had :24 instead of 23
sovereigns in his possession. The prisoner, instead of
noticing the claim asked the landlo:d for change of a
sovereign. Witness then tried to get the sovereign from
the prisoner, who immediately put his hand into his
pocket, in which there was other money, and drawing it
out again with a sovereign in it, asked him whether that
was his money. Witness replied that he could not of
course swear to his sovereign, but the prisoner most
positively had it, and he would employ the police on the
occasion if it were not forthcoming. The prisoner hav-
ing insisted upon keeping the sovereign, witness re-
sorted to the threatened alternative, and the prisoner
was taken to the Station-house.
The brother of the witness stated that he saw his
brother counting the money.
An attorney's clerk attended for the prisoner, and asked

the prosecutor some questions. The prosecutor stated that
within the last two years 40,000/. had passed in the
course of business through his hands. He by no means
appeared to be desirous to prosecute, and only wished
to have the sovereign restored to him.
The prisoner declared that the accusation was unjust.
He and the prosecutor had been in conversation toge-
ther on the subject of change, and he in jest held out
a lot of paper towards the landlord, and asked him for
change of a sovereign. The prosecutor afterwards in-
sisting that he (prisoner) possessed himself wrongfully
of a sovereign, and as there was no ground whatever for
the charge, he refused to comply with such a demand.
Afterwards the landlord of the house offered to pay,
half-a-sovereign to the prosecutor if he would pay an-
other to get rid of the business, but he would not con•
sent to anything that looked like acknowledging a false-
hood.

The prosecutor said that as they were all Jews he was
unwilling that any exposure should take place, and that
all he required was the money, of which he had been
deprived. He would not have pressed the charge if
that had been restored. That too appeared to be the
feeling of the landlord.
The defendant said that he was a commercial travel-
ler for a house of great respectability, that ha was en-
trusted with considerable property, and that there were
several persons in the Justice-room, who attended to
speak to the excellence of his character.
The prosecutor denied that the prisoner had the least
claim to respectability of character.
The son of the principal in the house for which the
prisoner said he travelled, stated that the man was most
confideatially employed, and some other persons de-
clared that he was in every resptept honourable and trust-
wcr hv.
Tt.e Solicitor for the prisoner submitted that the
evidence was by no means such as would justify a com-
mittal.
The LORD MAYOR—The prosecutor swears that he
saw the prisoner take up the sovereign from under the
drawer close to which he had put out his money, and
want
more the severcign he saw was his. What do yuwant
more? What can you suppose could have influence
Mr. Israel, who appeared to be desirous that exposure
should be avoided ?
The prosecutor said that he did not wish to press the
charge at that moment—all he
wantedimpute
was his money.ute
The meant p
prisoner's Solicitor said he he
meant to say
influall
enced
Mr. ? What can you suppose could w
any bad motive to the proseeutor—
was, that the prosecutor was mistaken.
The landlord of the public-house in which the trans-
action'd to have occurred stated, that knowing
both parties to be respectable, and being anxious that
there should be no exposure, he had offered
to pay part
was said
of the money, but it was upon condition that the pri-
soner as well as the prosecutor should let the matter
drop altogether. The prisoner, however, not being
willing to make any promise of the kind, he of course
withdrew the money.
The Loan MAYOR said that he felt it to be his duty
to send the case for trial. His Lordship, however,
consented to take bail.
A man named Robert Hill, his wife, Mary Hill, and
his daughter, Caroline Hill, were charged with robbery.
John Burnet Stone, an Excise officer, stated that as he