The Sun.
London, England, 1839-09-02 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,

.• .1,,

MAN SION-W OUSE.
CHARGE OF ATTEMPTING, TO PROVOKE TO FIGHT.
Mr. John .41e.randitr. Wilmott and Mr. William
Montague, were brought before the Lord Mayor by
Dar.iel Forrester, the officer, charged with having at-
tempted to. provoke Mr. William Nash Round, of the
office of Woods and Forests, and Mr. Thomas Prier,
of Austen. Friars, solicitor to Mr. Round, to fight with
pistols. A lady of very fashionable appearance, who
called herself Mrs. Wilmott, accompanied the defen-
dants, and remained in the justice room during the in-
vestigation. Mr. Round stated that he lived at No.
1, Surrey-place, Lower Kent-road, and that he was a
clerk in the office of Woods and Forests. On Wed-
nesday fortnight Mr. Montague called upon him and
accused him of having used certain expressions, which
he had never used, regarding Mr. and Mrs. Willman,
in fact, of baying called Mrs. Wilmott a --. Mr.
Montague called upon him to retract the expression,
apologize, or name a friend to whom he might refer.
He (Mr. Round) referred him to Mr. Prier) and told
,him that he never had made use of such an expression.
The Loan MAYOR—Did he challenge you? Mr.
Round.,—No; but he gave me, after a great deal of words
pro ailfl con, to understand that that was his business
with" rue. I considered that he came with a hostile
intention. lie called again next morning, and said
that he understood from Mr. Josiah Rolls that Mr.
Prier was a professional man, and, therefore, not fit to
be referred to on such an occasion, and I said that 1
would name no other.

Mr. Montague—As I was not a professional man I
wished the matter to be cleared up in a gentlemanly
way.

Mr. Wontner, the solicitor who attended for the de-
fendants, here interposed, and said that.his clients had
acted under a mistaken impression, and had no idea of
acting with violence.

Mr. Round—l used no such expression as that attri-
buted to me.

The LORD MA vox—What does Mr. Prier say? He
stated here that Mr. Montague directly challenged him
to fight.

Mr. Wontner—lt is all a misconception. •
Mr. Wilmott—l have not the slightest malice to-
wards either of the gentlemen, for till now I never saw
them, nor ever thought there were such persons in ex-
istence.

Mr. Round—l believe, from what was said, that they
were urged on to act in this manner. I believe the
matter began from another source.

Mr. Wilmott—Yes ; you'll find that it arose from an
arbitration which was referred.

Mr. Round—l have no doubt at all that it was Mr.
Rolls, the floorcloth manufacturer, who urged them on,
and that he made the representation to them upon which
they acted.

Mr. Prier stated that Mr. Montague called at his
office, and said that. Mr. Josiah Rolls had told him that
Mr. Round had used defamatory language towards Mr.
and Mrs. Wilmott. He (Mr. Prier) observed that Mr.
Round had, at Farningham races cautioned Mr. Rolls
against being seen in such company,if Mr. Wilmott was
the person who bad been described to him, and that the
caution was meant with a friendly intention. Mr. Mon-
tague persevered in requiring that Mr. Round should
retract what he had stated ; and witness expostulated,
and asked whether Mr.Wilmott was not the person who
had been tried for bigamy, to which Mr. Montague re-
plied in the affirmative.
Mr. Montague—l never did.
Mr. Prier declared that Mr. Montague admitted the
fact, and also admitted that Mr. Wilmott was the John
Alexander Wilmott who had figured in the Weekly
Dispatch newspaper, and that Mrs. Wilmott was the
lady who was married in Hanover-square. He (Mr.
Prier) then said that Mr. Round certainly would not
meet Mr. Wilmott, and Mr. Montague said—" There
is no stain upon my name, although there may upon Mr.
Wilmott's, and he must meet me."

Mr. Montague—lt was in defence of the lady, I wish
it. to be understood. I came forward.
Mr. Prier said, he mentioned that it was odd that
Mr. Montogue should, after admitting the stain upon
Mr. Wilmott's name, show a disposition to represent
him in a hostile way.

Mrs. Wilmott here rose and said, that she had in her
possession a letter from Mr. Rolls, denying the correct-
ness of the statement made by the complainants as to
what took place with respect to Farningham Races.
Mr. Prier said, that he afterwards heard from Mr.
Round that unless he (Mr. Round) consented to fight
he would be horsewhipped. If it had not been for the
threat, no more notice would have been taken of the oc-
currence. It had been explained that no personal hos-
tility existed, and all that Mr. Round and he (Mr.
Prier) required was security that they might go about
in safety.
The Lord MAYOR—WiII you be satisfied with their
own security ? Mr. Prier—l would much rather have
other security.
Mr. Wontner said, that the defendants had no idea
of using violence, and observed that as they were taken
by surprise it would be inconvenient to procure security
at the moment.

Mr. Wilmott said, that he and Mr. Montague had
been about the town for a fortnight, and might, if they
contemplated violence, have carried it into effect long
since, as they knew Mr. Round's address.
The Loan MAYOR—You might have known Mr.
Round's address, but he did not know where you were
to be found. Mr. Prier—l have heard that Mr. Mon-
tague killed a person in a duel at Calais, and I think it
to be rather disagreeable to go about in the apprehen-
sion of being shot.—(A laugh.)
The Loan MAYOR-1 shall require bail, two sureties
of 50/. each, and the defendants themselves in WO/.
each, to keep the peace. They might consider that
moderate, as sureties to the amount of 5001. were ge-
nerally required.—The defendants declared that they
bad not the least idea of committing violence.
Mrs. Wihnott then offered to be security for the de-
fendants.

Mr. HOLLER asked Mrs. Wilmott whether she was

PRICE 5d

, a single lady and a housekeeper ? Mrs, Wilmott re-
plied that she was.
Mr. Prier declared that she was the lady who mar-
ried Mr. Wilmott at Hanover-square. He had a copy
• of the license. There was present a gentleman from
Mr. Harmer's office who could swear to the fact. She
had married John Alexander Wilmott. Mrs. Wilmott
—My husband's name was John Napo!con Wilmott
lam qualified to bail these gentlemen. I have 2,0001.
a year. .
Mr. Wontner submitted th it the lady's bail was suf-
ficient, a proposition in which the Lord Mayor was dis-
posed to concur, but Mr. Hobler expressed an opinion
that it would be advisable to have other security.
Bail, which was approved of by Mr. Prier, was then
procured, and the defendants were discharged.
A CONSCIENTIOUS ENEMY TO TEETOTALISM.—
Mr . Gibby, the owner of a public-house, to which he is
himself a most liberal customer, was brought before the
Lord Mayor, for having kicked up a row because his
ear was bitten off by a tremendous Newfoundland dog.
The dog also appeared in the justice-room with a fine
little boy on his back. The publican, it was stated,
having determined to yield obedictice to the new law
affecting the oppressed body of which lie is a member,
kept his house closed from Saturday night till one
o'clock on. tunday, but thinking that it would be wrong
to break t. .suddenly through the good old custom of
servingtinit a prohibited time, sat down and gave
himsTotiOy up to "blue ruin and backy." Being the abit of larking when lumpy, Mr. Gibby fixed
his eye& upon a brother publican's dog as a fit subject
for a little fun, and going up to him, began to shake him
by the jowl. The animal patiently bore the insult for
some time, but Mr. Gibby, calculating too much upon
his forbearance, shook him with greater violence, when
the dog, without any more ceremony, shoved a couple
of his teeth into the ear of.his-torments, left it dangling
from the head, and then again quietly lay dcwi-n
to repose on the paVeruent. It would be supposed
that such a salutation would.Ond the interview, but there
is no knoWing the extent of the operation of a wise law
made to put a fatal termination to publicans and to
dogs. Mr. Gibby's anger at losing his ear was aggra-
vated by the recollection of the clause of the New Act.
and he attacked the dog; the dog, on the other hand,
no doubt having before his eyes the clause which is to
put an cad to his career, attacked the publican, and the
police, armed with their new authority, took the tv.o
transgressors into custody.
The LORD MAYOR (to the publican, whose head
was tied up)—You unfortunate man, I am sorry to see
that you have been punished so severely. You have
lost your ear entirely, I suppose ?
Mr. Gibby—No, my Lord, I think it will grow
again.---(A laugh.)
The LORD MAYOR—Grow again! You mean that
it was not entirely separated, and will, probably, re-
unite'?

Mr. Gibby—Yes, my Lord. The doctor fixed it on
again, and stitched it to my head with a needle and
thread. I dare say it will be all right if he didn't put
it upside down. _ _

The owner of the dog said that a quieter character
than the dog did not breathe, and that he must have
been pulled about most unmercifully before he retali-
ated. The animal was completely under the dominion
of the child upon his back.

- A person who knew Mr. Gibby said it was true the,
dog had been roughly treated. He (witnessllookeci on,
and he was struck with one peculiarity. The dog did
not at all seem to like the mouthful he had got, ,but
dropped it with apparent distaste. Witness was in the
habit of stopping to draw inferences from the conduct
of the brute creation, and the conehision he Came to was,
that as the publican was in the habit of drinking a great
deal the ear had a disagreeable flavour from being too
near the mouth.—(Laughter.)
The. LORD MAYOR thought it must be a consolation-
to the publican that he was not a teetotaller, for if the
dog happened to relish the ear he might not have left
off till he bad made a hearty meal.—(Laughter.) You
shall go without being fined notwithstanding the Act,
for you are, bitterly punished, added his Lordship, but I
beseech you to avoid excess.

Mr. Libby said it was evident that he was not drunk,
for he had a stand-up fight with the dog, and never was
undermost in the conflict. He thanked his Lordship,
but he knew that if he turned teetotaller he never
should be able to fight with man or dog again.—
(A lau2h.) The poor dog fighter then retired.
A claimant for the dog afterwards appeared, and
stated that he had lost the animal in July last ; but In-
spector Brake having in the round of his duties, ob-
served that the little nephew of Mr. Marshall, who
stated that he purchased the dog, was‘constaetly riding
him for the last three mouths ; the claim .was negatived
by Ins Lordship.

BQW-STREET
THE NEW METROPOLIS POLICE ACT.-Mr. Burke
the landlord of the Garrick's Head Tavern, in Bow-
street, appeared before Mr. MINSHULL, the presiding
Magistrate to answer the complaint of Musgrove, an
iespeetor of the F division of police, who charged him
with keeping open his house before the hour of one
o'clock at noon on Sunday last, fur the sale of spirits,
&c., and for other purposes than for the refreshment of
travellers, contrary to the provisions of the new Metro-
polis Police Act.

Mr. VIRGO, a solicitor, appeared on behalf of the de-
fenclut, and the office was crowded with persons in-
terested in the complaint, several of whom were also
summoned for similar alleged offences.
The offence alleged against Mr. Burke was proved
by Muegrove the inspector, who etated, that on Sun-
day morning at half-past two o'clock he went into the
house of the defendatjt, and he found there fifteen per-
sons, drinking, singing, and smoking.
Mr. VIRGO admitted that this evidence must be
considered sufficient to warrant the Magistrate in con-
victing the defendant, provided he should think that the
terms of the Act met the case now before him. The
statute provided that no licensed victualler should open
his house before the hour of one o'clock for the sale of
spirits, &e., on Sundays, Christmas-days, or other holi-
days, except for the refreshment of travellers. Here
there was no fresh opening of the house, which had not
been closed ; and ho contended that the Act, hi its
direct terms, constituted the offence to be a new open-
ing of the house, and not a continuation of that open-
ing which had already commenced before the Sunday.
The statute was penal, and must be construed strictly.
Mr. Mit;snum. had no hesitation in saying that the
case proved was clearly within the meaning of the Act.
The object of the Legislature was clear, and it was his
duty to endeavour to secure it.
Mr. VIRGO suggested that the decision which was
now come to would very probably be that which would
govern future cases, and that the Magistrate, therefore,
if he had any doubt upon the subject, should postpone
his judgment until the defendant should have obtained
the assistance of counsel.

Mr. MiNstium. saw no difficulty in the case. The
terms of the statute, its will as the object of its provi-
sions, were too clear to admit of any doubt, and he must
inflict the full penalty of 5/.
Mr. VIRGO pointed out that this was the first case
under the new law, and hoped that the penalty would
not be fixed at so high a sum. He pointed nut that
there was no appeal against the decision of the Ma-
gistrates.

Mr. MINSHULL regretted with Mr. Virgo that there
was no appeal from his judgment, and thought that the
introduction of a provision into the Act to give the par-
ties the benefit of the judgment of a higher Court would
have been exceedingly advantageous. He felt, how-
ever, that it was his duty to carry out the law with
vigour, and that, as there was no suggestion of poverty
on the part of the defendant, the infliction of the full
penalty was only proper.
Mr. Rhodes, of the Cider Cellars, in Maiden-lane,
who was also summoned, complained that the law ope-
rated very hardly upon those houses which were re-
spectably conducted. He had received no notice from
the police, like his neighbours, of the intention to en-
force the Statute, and he had, therefore, conceived that
he was to be exempted from its operation. He begged
to inquire how he should act in the event of any persons
being in his house, at the hour at which he was re-
quired to shut up, who had not finished the liquor with
which they had been previously served ?
Mr. MINSHULL said that he could not answer a sup-
positious case ; but that his advice would be that all
customers should quit Mr. Rhodes' house before Sunday
commenced. With regard to the notice, none was ne-
cessary ; and he could not but say that he was glad that
the police had attacked the strong.
The
o np emn arl
.t yn
oorfk
e 5 /a.
nwdi toho 4
r 6. dR.
oods tess,,
wwhaos
admittedin-
flicted
the offence alleged against him.
A similar fine was subsequently imposed in the case
of Mr. Andrews, of the Punch Bowl, in Hemlock-
court.

LAMENTABLE CASE.—
d' aged 15 years,
----:4)::iTn:ciVol)-maGmvAiititRnpa.aE14:Niber of felonies,
hwsi,t,llhere taken down against him, and he was
was charged
four of which
sent to Newgate for trial.
Mr. HALL said he never heard of a thief so young
who had committed the robberies for which he was to
answer at the Old Bailey, in so systematic a manner.
They were, it had been proved, perpetrated on the same
day, and within twenty-four hours afterwards, the arti-
cles stolen were in the hands of pawnbrokers, He in-
quired whether he had parents. The mother, with tears
in her eyes, here stepped up to the bench, and stated
that as soon as the prisoner knew how to walk and
talk, he began to commit the most serious offences, and
all the exertions of herself, of her husband, and other

Z /
G.o'
(''' '
/ 0
_ _......-
EVENING EDITION
relatives, to convince him of the error of his wets, and
t,' • • : - c ..- / lead him to the right path, were laughed at and treated
- ' - - / \
?,,,w.r... .... . ~. 1 , j ~, iv with contempt. Force as well as persuasion was used with
-______--4'-',Z., t i''' I
, ,' ;:tAioe::
was placed in Clerkenwell workhouse, his parents thinking
/.i.i......4f.:: , /IA . i . , ,f,-,,-) , f
that step would bring him to think better of his ways, and
they had the satisfaction to perceive his vicious propensi-
ties abate for a short time, but that ray of hope was now,
they fear extinguished for ever. When they flattered them-
selves that he was reclaimed, they placed him under the
care of a very respectable tradesman named Matthews,
at Stepney ; but scarcely had two months expired be-
fore he decamped with a quantity of jewellery and
wearing apparel. He next stole a watch and some
plate at the house of Mr. Jackson in Brunswick-square,'
and shortly afterwards a piece of India handkerchiefs
from a distant relative, in whose house he sought shel-
ter on one inclement night. This was eight months ago
and from that time until his apprehension by police con-
stable Bradley, 165 G, a few days ago, he had not Leen
heird of by his friends. The four offences for which he
is to be tried, were committed no longer back than last
week, the other persons whom he has plundtred having
refrained from) r osecuting him on account alibis youth.
—Mr. Hall commisserated very much with the pa-
rents, and told them that their son might yet become a
useful member of society, as it was very probable that
if a conviction takes place he will be sent to an institu-
tion for juvenile convicts in the Isle of Wight and learn
a trade.

LAMBETH-STREET.

On Saturday Wm. George Cole, the proprietor of
several omnibuses plying to and from the Mile-end
gate, was charged before Mr. Combo, with committing
a most violent assault upon the person of Thomas Hor-
soy, the conductor of a Bow buss.
The complainant stated that between the hours of
three and four o'clock in the afternoon of Monday last,
• he passed through the end of Mile-end gate, behind
Mr. Giles's Bow omnibus, on his way to town, and juil
as he went by, the defendant dreW his buss from off t
waste ground near the Blind Beggar, and galloped after
him. On approaching close to him, the defendant, who
appeared in a great rage, exclaimed, " I'll learn you to
come in my time, I'll break your b—y legs for -you ;"
And at the same time drove his horses so close to him,
that it was with some difficulty he could protect himself
from being seriously injured, and the panels of his omni-
bus from being_ driven in. On reaching Whitechapel
ehureh, the heads of the defendant's horses were so close
to the door of his buss, that he was compelled to get
down and push them away before he could let a passen-
ger out, and on his doing this the defendant lashed him
with his whip in the most violent manner, and made a
desperate effort to drive over him.
Mr. Burnell, a county Magistrate, nnd Chairman of
the Licensing Board for the Tower Hamlets district,
said he was in the omnibus of which the complainant
was conductor, and witnessed the greater part of the
transaction. For some distance the pole of the defend-
ant's omnibus was• so close to the %chicle in which Mr.
Burnell was, that. it appeared to him surprising the
defendant could protect himself from injury. At length
the complainant found it necessary to get down, and got
the horses by the head to prevent mischief ; and,in do-
ing this, the defendant not only lashed him several
times with his whip, but used the same instrument in a
most merciless manner on his horses, with the view, as
it appeared to him, of running over the conductor. - Mr.
Burnell, in conclusion, said, that such was the feeling
of the gross misconduct of the defendant at the time,
that he gave the-complainant his name, and he told him
he would attend-it this office as a witness if he took
out a warrant, as he ought to do, against the defendant.
Mr. Hoyle, a respectable tradesman, at Bow, who was
also in the omnibus of th© complainant at the time,
corroborated the statement of Mr. Burnell, and further
said, that while the defendant
,was using his whip on
the complainant's back and shoulders, he ran his vehicle
against a light cart, in which there were two respectable
females, and was as near upettintit as possible ; such,
however, was the effect; of thegshabk, that the wheel of
the vehicle came off, and both ladies were thrown out.
The defendant,,in reply to the charge, said the com-
plainant had first kicked his Ileums on- the head, and
challenged him to get'off his box to fight, before be
struck him.

Both Mr.-Burnell and Mr. Hoyle denied these as-
sertions, and said the complainant's behaviour was
marked with great propriety and forbearance.
Mr. COMBE said. that in this case he would send the
defendant to the House of Correction for a month, as
the Act of Parliament gave him the option to do so, or
inflict a penalty. 1.
Mr. Haydon, Secretary to-the Society of Omnibus
Proprietors, here came forward, and said that the de-
fendant was a young man of considerable property, and
had lately embarked upwards of 4,0001. in the omnibus
trade, and he (Mr. Haydon) was perfectly astonished
on hearing the charge, as he had known Mr. Cole for
some time, and a more peaceable or better conducted
)(mug man he was net acquainted with.
Mr. ComiE observed that the case was one which,
at least, called for the highest penalty, and convicted
the defendant in the sum of 51. or two months'imprison-
ment.

THE,USE or THE KNIFE AGAlN.—James ihrkelts,
labourer in the docks, was charged with violently as-
saulting and attempting to stab Charles Whiney, an
ostler at the Cape of Good Hope public-house, in Lime-
house, on the evening before.
From the statement of the complainant it appeared
that the prisoner was making a disturbance at the house
in question on the evening before, and on the complain-
ant attempting to remove him from the house, he drew
out a knife and struck at him with it several times, but
he defended himself so well that the prisoner only suc-
ceeded in giving him a slight scar on the chin. In the
struggle, however, the right arm of the complainant was
severely hurt, and lie received other injuries.
The prisoner, who made a rambling defence, was
ccnvicted in the penalty of 3/. or six weeks' imprisonment.