The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-10 00:00:00

POLICE

IGENCE

31ANSIOT-HOU,%E.-FJames Brown, of Holywell-
street, Shoreditch, butcher, and Joseph, Large, who is in
plelaurschdw
uponor bbuati cl h e
tor,
ao
bide
Bd
er i
tchke-
upon a charge brought against
lane,dt he ee i
sioßn e employmentt
ob fcatlh-ge r
ebocef
cn,
p.
them, to the effect that they had stolen a check and ap-
propriated
afloorn
gthtehpe risstorneeerst in a
cart,
the proceeds.
whTelhnre. opilnr ieusomofnPtehhrresei companionsrYwseraePPge
in the road, and pointed it out ; Large took it up, and
Brown examined it, and found in it a check for 101. 16s.
6d. upon the London Joint-Stock Bank. After some
little talk upon the subject, Brown said he would get
the check changed at the bank, although the pocket-
book not only contained the name of the owner, but
there were papers in it in which his name and address
were written. The check was accordingly cashed at the
London Joint-Stock Bank, but one of the companions
of the prisoners, not considering the transaction an honest
one, went, by the direction of his father, to whom he
represented the affair, to the establishment immediately
after the payment was given, and stated what had oc-
curred. Storey, the detective officer, was then employed.
He applied to Brown, who at first said he knew nothing
about the money, but at last, with great reluctance,
gave it up. It was considered necessary to introduce
the. case to the justice room, in order that the city autho-
rities might deal with it, and
Mr. Humphreys contended, that in all cases of lar-
ceny, or taken with felonious mind, there must be an
ingredient of trespass as implied in law, or real, upon
the party dispossessed of the property, and that no
trespass could be committed without a predisposition
upon the part of the person or persons accused to pos-
sess themselves of the property. Without that ingre-
dient there could be no larceny at all. Mr. Humphreys
cited several cases which.he said were analagous to that
of his clients' and read the decisions of the judges upon
them, all of which decisions were in favour of the view
he took of the circumstances represented in the evidence.
After an argument of considerable length and ingenuity
to show that the animus furandi was not exhibited in
the conduct of the prisoners, he called upon Alderman
Humphery, who presided upon this occasion, to dis-
charge them.
___

Alderman Humphrey having caused the principal
parts of the evidence to be read over to him, addressed
the prisoner in terms of severe censure. He particu-
larly alluded to the conduct of Brown, whose years as
well as circumstances exceeded those of the other pri-
soner. It was quite evident that the intention was to
pocket the property of another person, and if one of
those who observed what took place had not named and
exposed the transaction the right owner would no doubt
have lost the amount for ever. The prisoners had not
the excuse of ignorance to plead, for the pocket-book
supplied them with all information which honest men
could require. Of their moral guilt there could be no
doubt whatever, but there was reason to believe that
there were doubts of their criminal responsibility. He
was advised, and he believed, that there would be no
chance of a conviction in the case, and he would give
the prisoners the benefit of the doubts he entertained,
and discharge them, especially as he did not wish to
have an expense incurred unneccessarily. It would,
however, be in the power of the person who had so
nearly lost his money to indict them, if he should think
proper, at the Central Criminal Court.
The amount of the check was then delivered to the
right owner, and the prisoners were discharged.
It is proper to state that Brown more then once inter-
rupted his able advocate, and said the whole cartload of
butchers had agreed to " whack" the amount of the
proceeds of the check among them.

BOW-STREET.—Charles Clements, potman at the
George public-house, Great Queen-street, who had been
remanded on several charges of arson, was brought be-
fore Mr. Henry for further examination.
Mr. Braidwood, the Superintendent of the Fire Bri-
gade attended to watch the case.
Mr. Pollard, from the office of Mr. Hobler, solicitor,
for the prosecution, stated that there was as many as
four or five additional cases of suspicion against the pri-
soner, if they could be gone into—one or more fires
having occurred at each of the houses where the pri-
soner had been previously employed.
At the first examination it was proved that two fires
had broken out at the George—one in the night of
August 23, when the prisoner called up the landlord,
and gave the alarm, and the other a few days after-
wards. The insurance-offices (the Union and Monarch)
repaired the damage done to the premises, but made no
award to the servants for assisting in putting out the
fire, a circumstance which was the subject of a re-
mark by the prisoner to a fellow•servant. At about
the same time a fire was discovered in the shop of
Mr. Hawkes, next door, where the prisoner was in
the habit of delivering beer. It transpired further
that the prisoner was formerly in the employ of Mr.
Boulter, landlord of the Bell, in Leicester-street, where'
two serious fires occurred, after the first of which the
prisoner received 8/. or 91. by way of compensation for
the alleged loss of his clothes, and for his services in
assisting to put out the fire ; but he received no allow-
ance after the second fire, because his master had reason
to know that his boxes were empty.
Mr. Braidwood, in answer to the magistrate, stated
that it had cost the insurance-offices about 3001. to re-
pair the damage caused by the fires at the George.
Emma Burton, a servant, stated that she went into
Mr. Boulter's service in April, 1851, on the re-opening
of the house after the fire. The prisoner was a pot boy
there. He received notice to quit for using abusive
language to Mrs. Boulter, the landlord's mother. On
that occasion the prisoner said to witness, " There have
been two Catharine•wheels here, and there shall be
another, for I will have my revenge." He was very
angry at the time, and he also said that the old
(meaning Mrs. Boulter) should perish in flames. Wit-
ness and the other servants were so alarmed at his
threats that they did not think it safe to sleep in the
house, and Mr. Boulter ordered him out that very
night. The prisoner returned the next morning for his
wages, and asked for a character, but his master said he
should decline to do anything for or against him.
The Prisoner—l don't recollect saying anything
about Catherine-wheels, although the gents that used
the parlour would sometimes let off such things, and I
might have meant that.

Witness—At another time he tied a piece of paper to
the cat's tail, and then set fire to it, and the cat ran all
over the house with the paper alight.
The Prisoner—That is all a falsehood ; but she can
swear what she likes.

Caroline Cameron, another servant, who was in the
same employ at the time, corroborated the last wit-
ness's evidence respecting the prisoner's threats, al-
though she declared that she never knew, and did not
know, what a Catherine-wheel was.

Mr. Henry inquired if any of the officers of the Fire
Brigade had examined Mr. Large's parlour at the
George ?
George Colf, the foreman, stated that he was called in
after the first fire, but Mr. Large showed him a bundle
of paper forced into an aperture in the parlour wains-
coting. At the second fire it was found that this paper
had been ignited, but the damage done at that time did
not extend beyond the wall. The paper was part of a
newspaper.

Mi. Henry inquired if there was anything on the frag-
ments of the newspaper to show the date of it ?
Inspector Mitchell said, there was an account of the
cab strike on some of the pieces, so the paper could not
have been a very old one.
Mr. Henry—Was any award made to the prisoner or
any of Mr. Large's servants by the insurance-offices ?
Mr. Large replied in the negative.
Mr. Henry asked if Mr. Large's fire was reported to
the superintendent as wilful or accidental ?
Mr. Braidwood said, it was not the practice to make
written reports of a fire being wilful. It had been found
to cause some difficulty, so no reports of that kind were
now received. He was informed, verbally, that it was
wilful.

Mr. Henry—There could be no legal difficulty, for
such reports would be regarded in the light of privileged
communications.
Colf, the foreman, said that he reported the fire as
" doubtful," although he had no doubt it was wilful.
Mr. Henry wished to know if any of the insurance-
offices which had been injured by these repeated fires
intended to take up this prosecution ?
Mr. Braidwood was of opinion that they did not in-
tend to interfere in the matter, although aware of the
facts, as reported in the newspapers.
Mr. Henry said it would be of no use then to proceed
further with the case. The circumstances deposed to in
evidence were suspicious, but it was possible that the
prisoner's conduct and observations might be explained
consistently with his innocence, In Mr. Large's case it
was clear that the prisoner was the first to call in the
police after the fire had broken out ; and in the other
cases, although it was strange that there had been so
many fires in places where the prisoner had been formerly
employed, the mere coincidence was not evidence of
guilt. He thought no jury would convict of the capital
charge, and therefore the prisoner must be dismissed ;
but he could be taken again at any future period if any-
thing more satisfactory and conclusive thould be disco-
vered. _ _ _ _

......_
The prisoner, who had a broad grin upon his counte-
nance during the greater part of the examination, then
left the dock.

WORSHIP-STREET. —AndrewOonnor, a man about
30, was charged before Mr. D'Eyncourt with the follow-
ing burglaries :
In Commercial-street, Spitalfields, is a coffee house
kept by a Mr. Anderson, who carefully fastened up his
place at 10 at night, when he returned to bed, with direc-
tions to a private watchman to rouse him at 3 the next
morning. This the watchman did, and upon descending to
his bar Mr. Anderson found the shop in much confusion, his
till'out of the counter, emptied of its contents, and flung
upon the floor. The thief must have been tolerably
dexterous, as no noise had been beard during the night,
and, though no great amount of money had been actually
carried off, it was manifest that the burglar must have
been alarmed by the watchman's knocking, as a large
sum remained untouched in a room closely adjoining.
Tethilliulebhagcalkirttdo, of
fromthe
which
it coffee-houseis s
eapbaurtast
eudpboyn
a Spitalfieldsw al
sur-
mountedwafriooni wci:ebect,thli spiked iron rails, and, as it was plain, the
premises had been entered from the rear, an alarm was
Andrews, a constable of the H division, ran
aboutaouhs e
his o
him,fe ethewt
hbaeanncdkb,
deamountedsaw
wa across
rboes
st
prisonerh
te
hwe a l ,
randis
burial-
grounde with great rapidity, although he was barefoot.
The officer could not follow
him, or he would have been.
spiked upon the rails,the
buthe
phruisrorineedrrjouustndasthoetdhreefprpoend
exclaimed in alarm
front
from
theh
top
,ofantheagzates into the street. The prisoner
, It is not me at all," but afterwards
confessed that his shoes had been left in the churchyard,