The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-31 00:00:00

complainant, in fixing the date of the raffle ,as in Oct.
1856, had made a mistake, as he was now satisfied
that it came off in Feb., 1857. These matters formed
the topic of goseipoing eenversation in Portsmouih ;
and the defendant occupying a higher position
in society than comp.
lainant, it was considered he
had gained the verdict.'
in both actions upon the
truth of his own staternee
its, thereby imputing per-
jury to complainant, and ducnaging his position most
materially.
Evidence having been given for the prosecution,
Mr. Ribton applied for a remand, on the ground
of the absence of a material vi,'-ness, which was
opposed by Mr, Sleigh, and refuse d by Alderman
Rose.
Mr. Sleigh delivered a very energtetiee address on
behalf of the defendant, and stated theft, after call-
-
ing two or three witnesses, he would ask' e`he alder
man to dismiss this charge with such oboe.
vations
as would send defendant back to the place :he had
come from with his character and reputation as un-
sullied and unstained as when he left it.
Some evidence as to defendant's statements at the
trial, and to his high iliaracter' having been taken,
Alderman Rose said he had gone very carefuily*
and anxiously through the case, and he considered
it a most important inquiry. He was bound to say,
after nearly eight hours' careful attention to the
facts, that the conclusion he had come to was that
the evidence did not support the charge, aq
le
although the witnesses for the prosecution wou'
appear to have made out A strong case, their evi-
dence was altogether so conflicting as to preclude
the pi ospect of a conviction if sent before a jury fov:
trial. Taking also into consideratiten the peculiar
features of complainant's bill of particulars, that he
shifted the date from the 30th of October' to the loth
of February, and his antecedents, he did not think
his position in Portsmouth would suffer by the re'
suit of the cross actions. Under all these circum-
stances he felt bound to dismiss the summons, and
in doing so said defendant would leave the court
without the slightest imputation on his character.
Mr. Ribton, who had several times offered to
abandon these proceedings even at the eleventh
hour if the defendant would admit that the witnesses
had convinced him he was at the horse rafite, asked
the magistrate to bind the vrosecntor over to peer
secute the defendant at the Old Bailey Sessions.
Mr. Sleigh said he was quite .aware that such 11,
course was open to the prosecution under a recent
statute, but miter the very patient investigation he
did not expect such a proceeding- would have been
deemed necessary.
Mr. Ribton said his client's re putation was a
stake, and he therefore pressed his a,uplication.
The prosecutor and the witnesses
ingly bound over to appear at the Old ,Bailey at th°
next sessions. Were accord-

WORSHIP-STREET.—Mr. G. Mittel?, an eat-
ing-house keeper, in the Old-street-road, St.
appeared before Mr. Knox to answer a claim Pa"
by the London Fire Brigade for having oxtill-
guished a fire in one of the chimnies of his prem.
Mr. Beard attended in support of the claim.
One of the fire brigade attached to the station eA
Whitecross-street said that on the 25th Feb. last he
was called to defendant's shop, and took with hira
small engine, drawn and worked by hand ; that he
saw fire issuing from a chimney there, and a sweep
was in the kitchen raking out one of the furnace!
—that he then went to the top of the house, founai
the soot alight in the chimney, and extinguisho
the fire by pouring two pails of water thercon.
84 G added to the above testimony that he per;
ceived flame from the chimney just in the act eil
dying out; that there were a great number 0'
sparks ; that this continued for about half an hour,
and that the engine was sent for.
Defendant, in reply to this 'evidence contended
that there had not been an actual fire ; the fact W 9
that he had a steam boiler, and although the chiin-
ney was swept regularly once a month, sparlte.
would at times be emitted from it. These Ncer°
however so indistinct as only to be seen in clear
bright weather. There was not any danger to be
apprehended from such a trivial circumstance,
which could not be avoided.
not proved his claim to award on the
Mr. Beard put it to the court whe:her be had
pzrt of the
fire brigade.
Mr. Knox, after some questioning, observed that
he felt some difficulty in coming to a deeibPll'
Was it always a case for the engines whl
fire was seen issuing from a chimney.
If so, there were numberless instances of s
connected with factories that had fallen under hie
own observation, on which, to the best of his All
lief, the question bad not been entertained.
persons must know that it was common to obs
erve.
even flame issuing from factory chimnies, and
was not to be supposed that a claim of award could
be established because any idle person chose to 0n
after an engine for the sake of insuring a vial'
gratuity. He would however remand the hearing
for the attendance of some skilful persons upon the
matter.