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

IGENCE

MANSION-HOUSE.--.Tames Brown, of Holywell-
street Shoreditch, butcher, and Joseph Large, who is in
t
Re
appeared
u es hwo
uponrth, butcher,bail t
o oa fb Brick-
lane, abide
i theck
ah
ne
e, employmentß e tb nal.gr
eoefn
,Marp.p
decision of the bench upon a charge brought against
them, to the effect that they had stolen a check and ap-
propriated the proceeds.
Mr. Humphreys appeared for the prisoners.
The prisoners were going along the street in a cart,
when one of their companions saw a pocket-hook lying
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 Clemente, 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 81. 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 Catherine-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.
Mr. 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.
The back of the coffee-house abuts upon Spitalfields
churchyard,tilrl.l,lrii from which it is separated by a wall sur-
mwoaugnitg:l with spiked iron rails, and, as it was plain, the
zuprefilrosems:ban d been entered from the rear, an alarm was
ground with great
a constable of the H division, ran
the house to the back, mounted the wall, and
aboutea
rteath h hirsai mpf
ie,
de when t
yha,ennadl heh dart
us ag wha
across
wf
sprisonerth
be
rbeuf
rori
oiastl e:
The officer could not follow him, or he would have been
spiked upon the rails, but lie hurried round to the front
of the
from the to church, and seized the prisoner just as he dropped
p of the
that his alarm,
nei hoes hadsajd
if,
i atk! into the street. The prisoner
ot me at all," but afterwards
ceoxnclfaeismseedd
been left in the churchyard,

where they were found, and it then appeared that he
must have effected an entrance by one of the back win-
dows, and forced his body through a space over a sliding
shutter only 12 inches deep. The prisoner was trans-
ferred to the station and searched, and there, in addition
to a small quantity of money, among which was a Ger-
man coin, and numerous other articles, a box of confec-
tionery was discovered in his possession, of which he
professed to be able to give no account, but which was
directly afterwards found to be part of the produce of
another burglary committed only a few minutes before
he was taken. The police knew a confectioner named
Day lived close to the first prosecutor, and therefore
rang him up to examine his place, when, upon Mr. Day
coming down, he found that his back parlour window had
been opened, the tills from both his counters emptied of
their contents, and flung on the floor ; and, in fact, that
his house had been very industriously rummaged, as a
card, the foreign coin, and box of confectionery discovered
on the prisoner had been taken from the bottom of a
trunk in Miss Day's bedroom, she not having been at all
disturbed d uring the operation. A cigar-case also was found
in the prisoner's possession, for which no owner could be
discovered, though the police had no doubt it had like-
wise been stolen ; and the prisoner, who stared about
him while in the dock with a half-idiotic expression,
which the constables declared to be purposely assumed,
as he had both conducted himself and spoken rationally
enough till that moment, having declined any defence,
he was committed for the depositions to be taken,

THAMES.—James Merryfield, a blacksmith, living
at No. 11, Richard-street, Limehouse, was charged be-
fore Mr. Yardley with kicking Ellen Merryfield, his
wife, in the stomach, striking her over the left eye, and
threatening the life of Mary Anne Merryfield, aged two
years and nine months. The prisoner was a stout
powerfully-made man, while the complainant was of
short stature, and had a delicate appearance.
The complainant, who had an extensive wound on her
left eye, which was much aiscoloured, stated that she
had been married to the prisoner about five years. A
few days ago they were obliged to leave their lodgings
in Catherine-street, as they could not pay their rent and
their goods were seized. The previous evening her hus-
band came home about 7 o'clock in a state of intoxica-
tion, and gave her a black eye with his clenched fist.
That morning he kiched her very dreadfully below the
stomach.
Mr. Yardley—What did you say when he kicked you ?
Complainant—l said nothing. He was not undressed.
He came home about 12 o'clock, and was so intoxicated
that he lay on the bed with his clothes on. I did not
go to bed, but sat on the stairs. He can be in constant
word, and has good wages, but he gets drunk.
Mr. Yardley—What was the quarrel about between
you ?

- Complainant--I gave him no provocation. He is
often in the habit of kicking me in the same place. That
morning he snatched the child from the bed and said
that he would dash its brains out. He then accused me
of improper familiarities with a bricklayer. I observed,
it was untrue, and that I was not afraid of facing any
one upon such a charge.
Mr. Yardley—Did you feel any pain from the kick ?
Complainant.- —Yes, Sir ; I am suffering from it now.
After he kicked me I could scarcely walk, and I called
out " murder." If lam not parted from my husband,
I am sure he will murder me. He calls me awful names.
six weeks ago he seized hold of a razor, and said that
he would cut the child's head off with it. He has fre-
quently turned me out of doors, and threatens that if I
go to my mother he will buy a pistol and shoot us both.
Last Sunday we had no dinner, and but for my mother
I and my child would starve.
The prisoner said that his wife was of drunken habits
and starved the child. On Thursday night the landlady
took the child to Ratcliffe Workhouse because his wife
neglected it.

he complainant stated that when her husband came
home drunk he always charged her with being in the
same state. The landlady took the child away, as her
husband threatened its life. She was present.
The child was brought into court by order of Mr.
Yardley. Its appearance showed that it had been well
taken care of. The magistrate directed it to be given
to the mother. On being placed in her arms it turned
its head away and cried piteously. The grandmother,
who brought the child in, took it, when it became quiet.
Harriett Miller, the landlady, stated that the prisoner
and his wife came to lodge with her on Wednesday.
The prisoner had since returned home repeatedly in a
state of intoxication. He did so on Thursday night,
and soon after she was alarmed by hearing the com-
plainant's exclamations of " Murder !" That morning,
between 5 and 6 o'clock, the exclamations were renewed.
She bad not seen the wife intoxicated. She took the
child to the workhouse in consequence of the threats of
the prisoner ; the relieving officer would not take the
child in, because the father was able to support it. She
had heard the prisoner say a hundred times that he
would dash the child's brains out. On the previous day
she saw him tear his wife's gown off her back, possess
himself of her pocket, in which were 2s. 6d., and he
then turned her into the street.
Mr. Yardley—Have you ever seen her drunk ?
Witness—No, sir ; nor have I ever seen any victuals
in their room, except what I and a lodger gave her for
herself and baby. The prisoner was drunk all day on
Thursday.
Mrs. Williams, complainant's mother, said that her
daughter was most kind to her child. She had often come
to witness for protection. Witness had often given her
food, or she and her child would have starved.
Mr. Yardley—How do you account for the child re-
fusing to go to her ?
Witness—She sees her father, and it is in dread of
him.

Mr. Yardley—Have you seen at any time, any bruises
on her ?

Witness—Yes, but not latterly, as he is in fear of the
late law for the protection of women.
The prisoner said that several weeks ago she broke his
windows.

Witness.—She did not know what she was doing.
Your provocation was such as nearly to turn her brain.
She came to me that day and appeared like a woman
deranged. Last Whitsuntide, he one day, when intoxi-
her. He left her wallowing in her
took a razor, and said he would cut
off h intoxi-
cated,
it about the floor.
cruellyr
he
By Mr. Yardley.,_my _
daughter was never unfaithful
to the prisoner. It she ever was in liquor it was only
ca
blood.tde
Ha de and then used
s ed
rou
when drinking
in his company.
Mr. Yardley (to the prisoner)—What have you to
say for yourself ?
Prisoner.—l never lifted my hand nor finger on her.
Mr. Yardley—As for your assertion, I believe it
totally untrue. I have no doubt that you not only
struck her, but kicked her. lam glad that you, and
persons like you, fear the new law for the protection of
females. I hope tlat after the experience you will have
of the power of the law you will dread it the more. It
is impossible to conceive a case which more strongly
shows the necessity of such a law.
The prisoner was sent to the House of Correction for
six months with hard labour.

SOUTHWARD,_Mr. John Pillow, wharfinger and
lighterman,
of SYmond's-wharf, Tooley-street, was sum-
monedbefore Mr. Combe for unlawfully permitting and
man, whose name is unknown, to navigate a
barge, his property, the said man not being a freeman of
suffe r
suffering a
the Company of the Master, Wardens, and Commonalty
of Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames, or
entitled by law to act as a lighterman, contrary to the
by-laws of the said company.
William Savage, a licensed Waterman and lighter-
man, stated that between 3 and 4 o'clock on Tuesday
afternoon last he saw one of the defendant's apprentices
and the watchman navigating a barge belonging to the
defendant, laden with cotton, between Horselydown
and London-bridge. The apprentice was pulling one
oar, and the "foreigner " (as men not being freemen of
the Watermen's Company are called) pulled the
.other,
—he, by law, not being entitled to navigate the river
Thames.

Mr. Combe asked Mr. Pillow what answer he had to
make to the charge ?
Mr. Pillow said, that personally he knew nothing of
the circumstance ; but he had felt it his duty to meet
the summons on public grounds. In consequence of the
strike on the part of the watermen, master wharfingers
and lightermen were obliged to employ other persons to
navigate their craft.
Mr. Combe—But you must be aware that the statute
is against you; and that by the 38th clause of the Water-
men's Act you are liable to a penalty of 10/.'for employ-
ing any person to navigate your craft who is not a free-
man. What has the complainant to say respecting the
strike ?
The complainant said, that although he had worked
12 years for Mr. Joyce, a wharfinger, yet, as the whole
body of lightermen had struck for an advance of wages,
he had been induced to join them, not liking to be
singular. But he had since offered to serve Mr. Pil-
low, as the disagreements between the men and their
employers had been very nearly brought to a settle-
ment.

Mr. Pillow assured the magistrate that the inconve-
nience arising from the strike was serious to the whar-
fingers, and, unless they submitted to the unjust de-
mands of the lightermen, they must employ whomsoever
they could get to do the work.
Complainant--The strike ended on the day the
".foreigner" was seen to be employed.
Mr. Combe—The question is quite clear. This com-
plaint has arisen out of a strike for wages on the part
of the lightermen. The offence, however, against the
bye-law is proved. I shall, therefore, inflict a nominal
penalty of is. on the defendant.
Mr. Pillow said he was quite satisfied with the deci-
sion of the magistrate, but he wished to know what
course wharfingers were to pursue ? All his men were
now on strike.
Mr. Combe advised him to apply to the Court of
Aldermen, who alone had the power of altering the bye. laws of the Watermen's Company, provided the altera-
tion received the sanction of one of the judges of the superior courts. He had no doubt that if such an ap-
plication were made a clause would be immediately
introduced that would effectually put a stop to these
strikes. It could not be suffered for an instant that
these lightermen should put not only the wharfingers,
but the public generally, to such inconvenience. He was
certain that regulations might be easily made to prevent
such proceedings in future.
Mr. Pillow said his object was to expose the system
adopted by the lightermen in the use of what they con-
sidered to be their privileges. He had no to-
wards the men, but he could assure them that if they
persetvheermedseilvents orhmeirperetshneant coursethey
winjured
their would in-
juretfinalrly
em-
ployers, for the wharfingers were contemplating mea•
sures which would effectually remedy the evil, to the
detriment of the lightermen alone.
Mr.
thet°ln they are
only them
destroying and
theirthe they
ownwil
l soon
business,
and losing the goo
dis-
cover
d will of their employers. But strikes
among workmen appear to be the prevailing passion at •
that
ge
o oo n;ing