The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-29 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE. Edward Jones and John
James were charged before the Lord Mayor with having
uttered bad money. The defence made by one of the
prisoners caused some surprise.

Samuel Wood, a porter, who resided in Chapel-street,
Islington, said, "I sometimes assist the waiter at the
White Swan public-house in Upper Thames-street, and
was in that house on Saturday night, 17th inst., at
about eleven o'clock ; the prisoners came in together,
and James called for a pint of beer. I was then assist-
ing the waiter, and I took in the pint of beer, and James
paid me for it with a shilling, which I took to the bar
and got changed there. I then returned and gave the
change to James. Soon afterwards the same man called
for half-a-quartern of gin, which I brought, and at their
desire put it into the beer, and Jones handed me a
shilling to pay for it. I took the shilling to the bar as
before, and gave it to the bar-maid, who said it was
bad, and handed it to the landlord, who agreed in
opinion with her, and sent for a policeman, into whose
hands the prisoners were delivered.
Mr. Saunders, the owner of the White Swan, said—l
changed the first shilling which Wood brought to the
bar in payment of the pint of beer, and I put the
shilling into the till. Soon afterwards Wood came out
again, asked for half-a:quartern of gin, and•gave the
barmaid a shilling, which she at once said was bad,
and handed it to me. She then went to the till, and
took out the shilling which I had put in. There was no
other shilling in the till, and she saw that the only
shilling there was a counterfeit.
The barmaid confirmed the evidence of the publican.
V The policeman who took the prisoners into custody
said that he found in Jones's possession 4s. 4d., and in
James's a half-crown, a sixpence, and fourpence in
copper, all good money.
The Lord Mayor asked whether any of the officers
knew either of the prisoners ?
They were not recognised.
The Lord Mayor—Do the prisoners wish to say any-
thing.

JO-nes—l have nothing to say.
James—l have something to say, your lordship. I
don't believe in my own mind that either of the shillings
we gave was bad. I went into the public house on the
Saturday night, and I called for a pint of beer, gave a
shilling in payment, and had my change. Soon after
this young man said to me, " Would you like a drop of
gin in the beer ?" I said, " I don't mind," and so he
called for the gin and paid a shilling to the man who
brought it in. They then went out, called a policeman.
and gave us into custody. I am given to understand
that there is a practice, both of barmen and waiters, to
keep counterfeit coin in their possession, and when a
stranger goes in and has anything to drink, and pays for
it, then they change the coin, and when they are found
out by the master they say it is a stranger in the parlour
or the tap-room that has given the bad money. lam
told that's the practice, my lord.
The Lord Mayor said that he would send the case for
the decision of a jury, but he would accept good bail
for the prisoners. They were then committed for
trial.

John Thoroughgood was charged before Alderman
Salomons with having beaten his wife, torn a large
quantity of hair from her head, so as to leave the poor
young creature half bald, and threatened to destroy her
altogether.
Louisa Thorougbgood, who appeared to be about 20
years old, and had her baby in her arms, said—l am
obliged to come here for protection from my husband,
who ways he means to kill me. We have been married
three years, and I have been obliged to leave him three
times and go into service, on account of his cruel vio-
lence ; but he never let me rest till he got me back again.
He gave me a black eye a week before my confinement,
and when my baby was at the breast he dragged the
hair from my head. The complainant here raised her
bonnet, and exposed her head, at the appearance of
which the alderman was evidently shocked. Indeed,
the contrast between the thick glossy curls of one half,
and the plucked bareness of the other half of the skull,
was such as to raise a strong feeling of indignation
against the brute at the bar.
Alderman Salomans—You say he has frequently
beaten you. Have you ever complained of him before ?
Complainant—Never, my lord, and I would not com-
plain of him now, but he solemnly swore he would mur-
der me, and then I thought I could not delay any longer.
The defendant—l say the charge is false.
Alderman Salomans—What do you say about tearing
the hair from your wife's head ?
The defendant—The hair ? why she attacked me while
I was sitting in a chair, and her hair got entangled, and
with her own violence she pulled it out. Why, I have
the marks of her scratches. I merely defended myself.
Complainant--I did scratch his face when he was
dragging my hair away by the roots. I don't wish to
hurt him, God knows, and I will say that there is not a
better husband when it is what I call right with him ;
but that is now only from Sunday till Monday morning.
Alderman Salomans—What do you mean by what
you call right with him ? Does he get drunk ?
Complainant--I don't know how it is, but he gets be-
side himself. His employer is a wine merchant, and I
believe he is in the habit of taking more than he ought.
The defendant—The fact is she has been pecking at
me ever since this new law against cruel husbands has
come out, and she said she would never be quiet till I
had a taste.
Alderman Salomans—The object of the law is to punish
delinquency, and to make that punishment a lesson to
others. It is not very likely that a young woman would
drag the hair out of her head because her husband was
treating her in a brutal manner. This is a most serious
offence' and must be treated accordingly.
The defendant was then sent to the house of correction
to hard labour for the space of three months as an ex-
-ample to other scalping drunkards.

WORSHIP-STREET.—Timothy Ryan, an athletic
Irish labourer
brought , was up for final examination,
charged with a murderous assault upon police-constable
Archer, G 222, whereby his life had been seriously en-
dangered.
The co •
mplamant who had been in the hospital for
nearly three weeks, and still exhibited extreme suffering
and debility the effects of the injuries he had re-
ceived, stated that about two o'clock in the morning of
the 9th inst. hitsbeatetrrntieon was attracted by a violent
disturbance at
of Old-street, where he found
the prisoner engaged in 'al
desperatei struggle with ano-
ther constable, who required his assistance to convey
him to the station-house.
endeavouring
accordingly seized
him by the arm, and he was atvo.uring to force him
pavement. rimed up his heels
away, when the prisoner suddenly
and threw him on the
of him, butt irs, however,
managed to retain his hold
no sooner
recovered his feet than the prisoner again flung i
the lower' his back, and planting his feet upon his stoignalcititil upon
com-
menced jumping with all his force upon
of his person. Witness became perfectly insensible and
was conveyed on a stretcher to St. Bartholomew's
e
pital, where he remained for several days in a very pre-
carious condition.
The prisoner said he was very drunk at the time, and
did not recollect anything about it.
Mr. D'Eyncourt said that the summary powers with
which he was invested were wholly inadequate to deal
with such an outrage, and he should order the prisoner
to be committed for trial.

WESTMINSTER.— Nkuloocooloo, the chief of the
Zulu Kafirs, at present exhibiting at the St. George's
Gallery, Knightsbridge, appeared to answer a charge of
disorderly conduct.
Some difficulty arose as to the mode of making the ac-
cused acquainted with the evidence against him, which
was ultimately effected by a double interpretation, a
gentleman turning the English into Dutch, and a Kafir
who understood the latter acquainting the defendant
with what was said, and vice versa when it came to his ;
turn to speak.

Mr. Charles Henry Caldecott, son of a merchant at
Port Natal, said that his father brought the Zulus to this
country with him, and left them in his charge. On
Tuesday afternoon, defendant and four others went out
without complainant's leave into the park. He seat for
them but they refused to return, until a policeman, who
was sent for them, brought them back. When they ar-
rived at the door of the exhibition they would not go in
but stood about the door, and when defendant was
spoken to he was very impertinent, and would not
listen to what he said. As a great number of persons,
attracted by their appearance, gathered round the door,
complainant and some friends tried to push them in and
close the door, as their remaining outside caused a great
annoyance to the neighbourhood. Defendant then told
complainant (in Kafir) to look out, and lifting up his
fist told him he would strike him. Complainant tried to
induce them to be calm and go in, when defendant came
close up to him and struck him on the shoulder with
his hands. It was done in a very threateninc, way, but
did not hurt him. Defendant then drew his hand across
his face. Three or four of complainant's friends got be-
fore defendant and prevented him, or he would have
struck him again. Defendant and his party then went
up stairs into the gallery and armed themselves with