The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-10 00:00:00

POLICE iNTELLIGENCE.-April 9.

BO W- STREET.--THREATENING LORD SIIAFTES-
BURY.—A man of respectable appearance, who
said
his name was William Cole, was charged with
threatening the lives of several of the Commis-
sioners of Lunacy, and especially of Lord Shaftes-
bury. The prisoner described himself as of no
occupation, and gave his address at the Crown
coffee-house, Bridge-street, Westminster.
Lord Shaftesbury, who had signed the charge
upon the police-sheet, and Mr. Lutridge (Commis-
sioner of Lunacy), were accommodated with seats
upon the bench.
Thomas Storer, one of the messengers to the Com-
missioners of Lunacy, was the first witness. He
stated that since Friday last the prisoner had called
daily between 11 and 12 o'clock, at the offices of
the Commissioners, 19, Whitehall-place, and had
employed very violent expressions.
Mr. Henry said the witness must repeat the
wcrds used.
The Witness—He said " I will smash that --
Lord Shaftesbury ; and I will send all the --
commissioners to the hulks if Sir Richard Mayne
does not." He attracted a very large mob by his
conduct and by his singular appearance, wearing a
coloured cloth over his shoulders, and having on a
blue cap. He knocked at the door yesterday and
to day, asking who were the commissioners present,
and using the same violent conduct and threaten-
ing language.
Defendant asked whether the witness had not
told him that Lord Shaftesbury was not in town,
whereas he was now in court.
The witness had only said he was not at the
office.
The defendant asked if witness did not say" Will
you call again in the course of the day ?"
The witness might have said that. Defendant
asked him who were the commissioners present,
and he replied, " Mr. Lutridge, Mr, Gaskell, and
Mr. Proctor." The defendant then said that the
commissioners had made assertions which they
ought to be ashamed of.
The Defendant—l spoke the truth when I said
so. You yourself have made assertions that you
ought to be ashamed of.
Mr. Henry asked if the witness knew the de-
fendant ?
The witness said he had known him for about
two years. Was not aware that he had any occu-
pation, but he used to be at the Society of Arts.
Witness believed thrt he was labouring under aber-
ration of intellect. Inferred that from his conduct.
Had seen him dressed in a coloured horse-cloth,
coloured cap, and peculiar boots, striding through
the park in imitation of the seven-leagued boots,
and astonishing the people by his /sudden starts
and strange antics.
The defendant said it was not he that laboured
under any delusion, or who had so prevaricated as
to be wholly unworthy of credit. The Earl of Shaf-
tesbury was no more afraid of him than he was of
an infant child. He insisted on his right, and that
of other victims who had unjustly been confined as
lunatics, to the fullest investigation in order to a
reform of the present system. It was lamentable to
reflect on the cases of Mr. Percival, Mr. Boden, and
others, who had been subjected to this sort of treat-
ment. He (the defendant) had petitioned the House
of Commons on- the subject, and the matter had
been taken up by Mr. J. A. Roebuck, M.P., " In
my own instance," continued the defendant," " I
was pursued to the Isle of Wight, apprehended at
an hotel by two police constables, handcuffed
and dragged before a poor old, infirm, incom-
petent man named Cook, who came tottering in
to hear the charge of lunacy against me, and with-
out the slightest shadow of grounds, confirmed it.
In that case, as it will be in this, every fallacy was
cleared up by my own witnesses. If the Earl of
Shaftesbury, who really has a regard for truth,
were to act upon his own impressions, he would do
justice ; but he is misled by the statements of others.
The first thing I did on recovering my liberty was
to secure the services of Dr. Holt and another phy-
sician, and with these in my possession I claim the
right to go abroad without the interference of the
police or any other person. I consider that the Earl
of Shaftesbury has paid me a high compliment by
attending here to-day, and now I call upon him to
state what he has to say in justification of these
proceedings."
The Earl of Shaftesbury was most willing to do
so. His lordship was then sworn. He said that
personally he knew very little of the defendant,
whom he had never seen until that day. He was
sitting with other commissioners, when a great dis-
turbance arose in the street. He went to the win-
dow and saw the prisoner fantastically dressed,wear-
ing a blue cap, and with a stick in his hand,which he
was flourishing over his head as he walked up and
down. He (Lord Shaftesbury) said it must be a wan-
dering lunatic. The first witness informed him of
the particulars already stated in evidence. He (Lord
Shaftesbury) then made inquiries, and ascertained
that the defendant had been several times confined
in asylums, and was subject to strange delusions.
In fact he was a dangerous lunatic. He (Lord
Shaftesbury) then went to the Commissioners of
Police and applied for instant assistance, which he
obtained. Upon returning to the offices of the
Lunacy Commissioners soon afterwards the defen-
dant came there again, when he (Lord Shaftesbury)
gave him in custody, and brought him to Bow-street.
The Defendant—You have sworn that I have been
several times in lunatic asylums ?
The Earl of Shaftesbury—That I was informed
I know you have been in Fisherton Asylum,
huviut; been committed from the workhouse, and
that
you ea: aped.
The Defendan:—Pray,
lord, are you aware of
the character of thai asylum ?
Lord Shaftesbury—Val good. I have not visited
it myself for a long time; but 1 trust to the reports
of the commissioners.

The Defendant—Do you consider A workhouse as
a lunatic asylum ?
Lord Shaftesbury—Certainly not.
The Defendant—How many other asylums have
I been in ?

Lord Shaftesbury—l cannot say.
Mr. R. Lutridge produced the official documents,
showing the date of the defendant's reception into
the Fisherton Asylum, upon medical certificates,
June 23, 1858 ; also the notice of his escape on
April 29, 1859. He had also made inquiries at the
workhouse of St. John's, Westminster, to which he
was committed by the magistrates of the district,
and he escaped from thence on the same day, the
19th March.

Mr. Henry advised that the defendant should be
taken before the medical officer of St. Martin's, to
be examined by the medical officer.
The defendant would have great pleasure in going
there, and was much obliged to the magistrate.
He was then removed.

CLERKENWELL.—Mr. John Davey, the pro-
pm
summoned to answer
' -tor of and the person licensed to keep the Sluice-
house 1 r. yen, Highbury, was sum
g on Sunday, the
a complaint at7ainst him. of
30th March last, having
tino-pen his house for
the sale of liquors beforbeite ,
uolaw!uollney
o'clock in the afternoon,
great interest.
The case appeared to ex
appeared for the prisoner, who
pleaded Police-constable Gould, 58 N, said—On the 30th
h last, at 12 o'clock at noon, I visited the
of Marc
irLnewotisgujuilnty".
" Walk
We went up to
defendant's house, in company wit another con-
stable in plain clothes. The door was open and I
walked into the bar. The landlady said
up, if you please, into the parlour."
the parlour, and found eight men sitting there.
There were a pot and some glasses standing on the
table before the men, containing malt liquor. We
stopped there about ten minutes, and saw 18 more
men enter the parlour, who were served with liquor.
They appeared to be different parties of friends, and
seemed to come from the fields.
Cross-examined—We had a pint of ale, which we
paid for. The defendant's house is at Horusey, and
I should think it in town. There are fields around
The nearest house is about three
theminutes'
house.
walk from it. I did not say that I
was a policeman when I entered. I do not know
that the next tavern or house is half a mile from
the defends will not swear. We were
doeuftenondactsy,
that morning, but not to watch the
defendant's house in particular. I had that morn-
ing come fi orn the Hoxton police-station to the
Islington police-station, and then went to the de-
fendant's house. I was not tired. We had before
!that beau to 4 beer-houeo and caught the landlord

in the act of Sunday trading. The door 'was open
about three inches. There was no one being served
at the bar, and the customeve were all in the parlour.
They looked like gentlemen \who had come out for a
morning's stroll. I will not swear that their boots
were net wet, muddy, or dusty., Everything in
the house was very quiet and orde.rly.
Police-constable Maynard, 265 I\l-/ confirmed the
evidence of the last witness.
Mr. Mould (chief clerk)—Were you E..sked, from
first to last, anything as to whether you
were tra.-
veil ers ?
Witness—Certainly not. There was not a word
spoken about travellers.
Cross-examined—l had come that morning! from
Hoston, but I cannot say that I was tired. We
had been to a becrhouse before we visited the de-
fendant's, and had had a glass of ale there. We
caught the landlord of that house. After that we
went and caught another. We then thought \ve
had done a good morning's work.
Mr. Lewis, in reply to the charge, said that the
defendant's house was practically in the country,
being five or six miles from the General Post-office.
He contended for the defendant that he had a right
to serve persons who had travelled We, three, or
four miles. The Act of Parliament was intended to
stop the opening of houses for the ge,ne,-al sale of
intoxicating liquors, and not to stop travellers from
er, and
taking necessary refreshment. No person was in
the defendant's house who was not a trave.)l
that within the meaning of the Act of Pariih meat.
The landlord might have been deceived even if ho
had asked if they were travellers. If the magiot.rate
should be of opinion that the onus lay on the inn-
keeper to prove that the persons were travellot
an adjournment must take place, for he could prove
incontestably that such was the fact. He had the
names and addresses of the persons there ; and
where did they come from ?---the City, some from
the Gray's-inn-road, and others from a longer dis-
tance. When they had reached he defendant's
house they were undoubtedly traveller s•
Mr. Barker considered that there wars sufficient
evidence to justify him in convicting upor; the pre-
sent evidence, but declined to say on what g7ounds.
He should be quite safe in convicting upon the evi-
dence before him, and fixed the amount of the fine at
20s, with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment.
Mr. Lewis said he should give the magistrate
notice of appeal within three days.
•••=•••=.10