The Sun.
London, England, 1862-10-08 00:00:00

Mr. Abrams—Why, your own advocate states
that you are,
Mr. Lewis, jun.—No.
Mr. Abrams—l understood you had been con-
victed.
Mr, Lewis, jun.—No; charged, but not convicted.
Mr. Abrams—Very well, How often charged ?
Witness—Two or three times;but always acquitted
directly. I have never been convicted. (A laugh.)
Mr. Abrams—Then you have been very lucky.
A Park-constable, who said his name was Samuel
Parks, and he was an inspector of parks—(a laugh)
—deposed that on the day in question his attention
was called to the prosecutor by the defendant, who
said, pointing to complainant and another, " Keep
your eye on those two men—they are swell mobs-
men." Complainant approached the policeman and
said, " How dare you accuse me of being a thief ?"
Reimers replied, "I did not say so. I said you were
an associate of thieves." An altercation followed,
in the course of which defendant said, " Move on,"
and pushed complainant by the shoulder. He said
he was a respectable man, and he would rather go
to the station. I was surprised that he did not go
to the station, but the policeman let him go. He
came back again after that.
Cross-examined by Mr. Abrams—He did not ap-
pear excited. It was not a violent push. It was
no greater than I have often seen policemen give.
Mr. Lewis, sere, who entered the court during
the cross-examination, here observed that the police
did often push people about, but he apprehended
they had no right to do it.
Witness—l did not see the origin of the case. It
was no more than I should have done if I had wit-
nessed any misconduct.
Mr. Lewis—This class of men are more sensitive
to rudeness on the part of the police than other
people would be.
Mr. Corrie—What class of men, Mr. Lewis ?
Mr. Lewis—People who are in the parks, commit-
ting no offence, and doing no harm to anyone.
Mr. Abrams—By your own showing he belongs
to a class who have little right to complain of the
police for interfering with them. They prowl about
the parade and enclosures for the sake of accosting
and entrapping unwary persons far purposes which
I need not dilate upon. The assemblage of such
persons has become a nuisance, which has been
complained of by the inhabitants, and Sir Richard
Mayne has ordered them to be dispersed.
Mr. Lewis—Sir Richard Mayne would have no
right to order policemen to assault me.
Mr. Abrams—You would not be in the Park, as-
sembling with others for an unlawful purpose.
Mr. Lewis—l don't know. Perhaps I do.
Mr. Abrams continuing his address to the magis-
trate, contended that this was not an assault in the
meaning of the law, but that the constable was using
necessary force to remove a man who was loitering
in that place for an unlawful purpose.
Police-constable Higgins. A 569, said he was
with the defendant on the occasion in question.
Complainant was with seven or eight others known
as skittle-sharpers. The others went away, but
complainant refused to go, though told to do so
several times. DefendaLt did not call him a scamp,
but did say " I know you as well as you know me."
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—Knew com-
plainant for about six months, by seeing him about
with other suspected persons. Never knew him to
commit any offence. Generally prevented him from
doing so by warring those whom complainant ac-
costed that he was a " magsmen," and they had
better be cautious with him. Never had a charge
against him,
Sergeant Robinson, of the detective force, had
known complainant for seven or eight years as an
associate of thieves and skittle-sharps, and had had
occasion to caution persons against him.
Mr. Lewis, sen., objected to this as not being legal
evidence, but
Mr. Corrie ruled that it was.
Mr. Lewis—lf a man was a thief a constable
should not interfere with his liberty to walk abcut
in the Park.
Mr. Corrie—l think a constable should prevent
thieves from assembling.
Mr. Lewis—Then a thief must lock himself up ?
Mr. Corrie—He should keep out of suspicious
circumstances.
Mr. Lewis (to the witness)—I suppose sometimes
you are in the company of thieves ?
Robinson—Oh, very often, Sir. (Laughter.)
Sergeant Langley, of the detective force, also
spoke to the " character" of complainant, as an
associate of thieves, skittle-sharps, and magsmen.
Mr. Lewis said it would be a grievous oppression
to her Majesty's subjects if everyone whom the
police thought proper to describe as a bad charac-
ter was to be ordered about and assaulted. Still if
defendant would express his regret for what he had
done the case would not be pressed.
Mr. Corrie—lndeed I do not think he ought to
express any regret. I think he would have neg-
lected his duty if he had acted otherwise. Ido not
believe that the liberty of the subject will suffer by
what lam about to decide. It has been opened by
complainant's advocate that he is a betting man.
He says himself that he has been in several times
io custody as a skittle-sharp. It is true ho was not
convicted. He cannot give any account of himself.
He does not know his landlord's name. He has no
occupation but betting, and his friends would give
Lim money if he wanted it. Such suspicious
persons should be looked after. A thief may not
like the police to look upon him with suspicion, and
I can believe what Mr. Lewis says, that the watch-
fulness 'of the police is more annoying to that class
of persons than to ordinary members of the com-
munity. But that is one of the disadvantages of
being a thief. if the police are not to remove such
persons, or do anything that may annoy them, it
e
pwui
bl
icco, me
willt ob
et hmi sa, s tt
eh
rast
oft ht
he e tphai
re
kv es s,
and in
os tretad o
he f
police.ll
I should not have been surprised if the policeman
had taken him in custody. I shall dismiss the sum-
mons, US I think the policeman only did his duty.