The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-29 00:00:00

POLIC INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 28.

GUILDHALL.—CONFLICT BETWEEN AN ATTOR-
NEY AND THE POLICE.—Mr Salomon Spyer, a soli-
citor, was summoned before Alderman Humphery,
for unlawfully resisting two officers, named Totting-
in the performance of their duty.
also cross summonses against the offi-
halm,hearnedwDasycl',
cers for assaulting Mr. Sayer.p
Mr. Sleigh, instructed by Mr. Beard, conducted
the complaint for the police ; and Mr. Lewis on
behalf of Mr. Spyer.
John Tottiogharn, 173, said—l was on duty at
Wilihm-st recta New Bridge-street, on Friday after-
noon last, to keep people from going to the scene of
the late fire at Sir Charles Price's premises, when
the defendant came across from. Earl-street, and
wanted to pass down William-Street, as he said,
for the purpose of going to the Temple on business.
I directed him to Tudor-street as the nearest way
while William-street was stopped, and told him
that our orders were to let no one pass, but he per-
sisted for some time in going through William-
street, and expressed such a strong determination
and was so violent that I was obliged to take him
to the police-station.
Cress-examined—The defendant said he was in a
hurry to got to the Temple, and I told him the way
by Tudor-street was equally near.
Alderman Humphery—lf he was so very urgent
to go to the Temple, why did he attempt to go
through William-street, when the other way would
not have made a minute's difference to him?
Mr. Lewis—Ho had a consultation with counsel
in the Te:nple, and to have gone round would have
been a loss of ten minutes in time.
Alderman Humphery—Not by the way of Tudor-
street ; but I have no doubt Mr Spyer wanted to see
the fire.
Mr. Lewis—Nothing of the kind, sir. However,
sir, you have now heard one of the officers, and per-
haps you will say the case bas proceeded far enough.
Mr. Sleigh—On behalf of my clients, I must ask
for a judicial decision.
Wm. Dyer, 163, corroborated the first witness,
and added—We did not allow any one to pass un-
til after the property rescued from the fire had been
secured in the yard where the fire occurred, except
the persons employed at the gas works and those
residing at the houses adjoining.
Jones, 169, gave similar evidence, and
Sergeant Dearlove, 45, proved that the instruc-
tions issued to the police were to keep the public
from passing through William-street until fuether
orders, and that the constables were only acting in
obedience to those instructions in preventing the de-
fendant from forcing his way through.
Mr. Fogo was called to show that it was for the
protection of property and for facilitating the fire-
men's exertions in extinguishing the fire that the
thoroughfare irr-criesion was closed by the police.
Mr. Lewis—Surely, sir, if my client is willing to
withdraw his corn plaint against the police the whole
matter may be allowed to drop here.
Mr. Sleigh—l do not ask for any penalty, but I
must ask for a conviction, to show that the police
have not acted improperly.
Alderman Humphery—The police must be pro-
tected in the performance of their duty. I have
no doubt the defendant felt it very annoying to be
taken to the police-station, but he brought it all
upon himself
Mr. Lewis--Mr. Spyer is a most respectable gen-
tleman, and I do think that, as he is willing to ad-
mit that the police were in the strict performance
of their duty, both complaints might very fairly
be withdrawn.

Mr. Sleigh—l have known Mr. Spyer for some
time as a most respectable gentleman? and I say

again I do not wish for a single farthing in the shape
of a penalty.
Alderman Humphery—That is all very fine for
you barristers to be buttering over your opeonent
because he is an ittorney. (Great laughter, in
which the learned counsel heertily joined.) I be-
lieve the police have only performed their duty.
Defend int—The first witness gave a very fair
account of the matter, sir.
Alderman Humphery—There is no oocasion for
any penalty. The case is proved, and although the
police were rather sharp on defendant they were
only obeying their instructions, and he, as a soli-
citor, ought to have known better than to have
interfered with them as ho had done.
The alderman's decision was received and regis-
tered as a conviction, although no penalty was
enforced, and the summons against the police was
abandoned.
A COMPLICATED CASE.—Mr. Mieheel Edensor
Heatbcote, late a cornet in the 11th Hussars, was
brought before Mr. Alderman Humphery, upon a
warrant issued by Mr. Wright, one of the magis-
trates for the county of Stafford, charged with
obtaining a sum of £3O, by false pretences, with
intent to defraud Mr. George Prince, an hotel-
keeper in the same county.
Mr. George attended on behalf of the prisoner,
who had been arrested upon his appearance at the
Bankruptcy Court, and stated that his object in
coming before this court was to ask the ma ,istrate
to accept bail for the prisoner's appearance before
the magistrates at Stafford. He said there was not
the remotest ground to justify his apprehension on
such a charge, and explained the circumstances out
of which it arose. He said the prisoner had in-
curred a debt with the prosecutor for board and
lodging and money lent to the amount of £6O, for
which he gave a cheque upon Messrs. Cox and Co.,
his army agents. That cheque was presented and
dishonoured, there being some derangement in his
eccount at Messrs. Cox's that prevented them pay-
ing it, and the prisoner shortly after became a
bankrupt and had obtained his protection order.
Mr. Prince had, however, adopted the present
course to recover his debt, and instead of proving
his claim in the ordinary way he was seeking to
obtain a preference over the.ot her creditors.
Alderman Humphrey asked if the prisoner had
any effects at Messrs. Cox and Co.'s at the time he
drew the cheque.
Mr. George said if he had not it was not his fault,
for on selling out of the 11th Hussars a sum of £450
should have been paid to his credit at the time he
drew the cheque ; but as there were some regi-
mental debts amounting in the whole to about £2O,
the colonel of the regiment withheld the payment
of the whole sum of £450 until they were settled.
Messrs. Cox and Co. had honoured his cheques to
the amount of about £2,000, and would eventually
have paid the one is question had it been presented
at the proper time, for the £450 was afterwards
paid into his account, and a balance of £3OO was
eventually paid into the Bankruptcy Court.
Alderman Hum phery asked to see the cheque,
which was accordingly produced, and upon exa-
mining it he expressed his surprise that it bore no
endorsement to show that it had been presented
and dishonoured, or that there were " no effects" of
the prisoner's in Messrs. Cox's hands. He was
astonished that the magistrate at Stafford should
have issued a warrant for the prisoner's apprehen-
sion upon such a piece of paper as that which had
been produced as the dishonoured cheque. He
should not have issued a warrant under such cir-
cumstances. He regretted, however, that he had
no power to accept bail for the prisoner.
Mr. George asked the magistrate to go into the
case at once, and then he would have the• power to
bail the prisoner.
Alderman Humphery said he should be most
willing to do so if the witnesses were all present,
but in the absence of some one from Messrs. Cox's
he could not go into the case.
Mr. George said his client belonged to one of the
highest families in England, and it would be a most
serious matter to him to be detained in custody on
such a charge.
Alderman Humphery said he was quite aware of
the position of the prisoner's family, and, looking
at the evidence of the cheque, he should have been
most willing to have taken bail for him.
The prosecutor, through the agency of a friend
who was entrusted with the warrant by the county
magistrate, expressed a wiliingness to accede to
the liberation of the prisoner on bail, although it
had been already intimated that recognisances
taken in that way would be informal, and therefore
valueless.
Mr. Hamilton, the chief of the detective depart-

ment of the City, objected to anything like infor-
mality until the prisoner was regularly discharged
out of his custody. He was at present responsible
for him, and he must detain him until he could
hand him over to a recognised authority.
Alderman Humphery, having previously backed
the county warrant, directed Pavia, the officer *ho
apprehended the prisoner, to take him down to
Stafford.