The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-01 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARYLEBONE.—George Geary and Anne Geary,
who admitted they were brother and sister, the former
a tailor, residing at No. 10, Draper's-place, Burton-
crescent, and the latter in Drummond-street, Euston-
square, were charged with conduct of a grossly criminal
nature at eleven o'clock on the same morning in the
Regent's-park.

Tiae evidence of two park constables tended strongly
to establish the charge.
The prisoners were remanded.

SOUTHWARK.—John Reece, 28, French polisher,
was brought before Mr. Cowbe charged with criminally
assaulting Esther Young, and Thomas Buckley, 22, ser-
vant, was charged with being accessary to the same, at
13, Broadwall, in the parish of Christchurch.
The evidence imputed the most infamous conduct to
the first-named prisoner, and he was remanded.
Buckley was discharged, it being doubtful whether he
was cognisant of the offence charged against the other
prisoner.

LAMBETH.—John Price, of John-street, Hatcham-
park, and Anne, his wife, were charged with pawning a
quantity of table and other linen, belonging to different
families who have entrusted them with the property to
be washed.

From the evidence it appeared that the prisoners have
been in the habit of advertising for the washing of fami-
lies at a cheap rate, and in this way have managed to
get a great deal of work. For several weeks successive
applications have been made at this court for summonses
against them by persons who could not get their pro-
perty out of their hands, and it having at length been
discovered that the property was pawned, warrants were
granted and placed in the hands of Lockyer, the officer,
who after much stratagem, succeeded in apprehending
the prisoners on the night before.
The pawnbrokers not having attended with the pro-
perty the prisoners were remanded.

THAMES.—AIfred John Brewer, a lad aged seven-
teen years, was again charged with committing a rape on
the person of a girl named Elizabeth Johnson, aged 13i
years.

The girl, who is of diminutive stature, with an old-
looking face, has been so ill from the effects of the vio-
lent and criminal outrage committed upon her by the
prisoner, a strong and hearty lad, that she was in a pre-
carious condition for several days, and has been under
medical treatment ever since the alleged offence was
committed. It appeared from her statement that the
prisoner's mother, a widow, is the owner of several cows,
and keeps a dairy at 56, Church-lane, Whitechapel.
The girl's mother formerly lived in the neighbourhood of
Whitechapel, and was on intimate terms with Mrs.
Brewer and her family. The girl had been in the prac-
tice of calling at the dairy when she took home her
mother's work with messages, and had known the pri-
soner five or six yearn. On the evening of Saturday the
11th ult., the girl called at the dairy with a message
from her mother to Mrs. Brewer, who was not then at
home. The prisoner invited her into the parlour, when
he locked the door and extinguished the light, and pro-
ceeded to assault the girl, who screamed aloud and
made a very long and determined resistance. He
used her with brutal violence and stifled her cries,
and succeeded in effecting his purpose. He then gave
her twopence, and told her to go home and not say
anything to her mother. The girl reached her
mother's dwelling in a most exhausted condition, and
the next day presented such alarming appearances that
her mother questioned her and asked whether Alfred
(meaning the prisoner) bad done anything. Mr. Lilly,
a surgeon, of the Bethnal-green-road, was called in, who
found the girl in a state of complete exhaustion from
the extensive hemorrhage which had taken place. There
were unmistakeable proofs that the girl's person had
been recently violated, and that she had sustained con-
siderable injury. Mr. Lilly had no doubt that, when
he was called in, recent intercourse had taken place,
and that the violence used towards the girl had been

very great. The prisoner cross-examined the girl, and
repeatedly insisted that the girl was a consenting party,
and that the first intercourse took place in a cow-barn on
Thursday evening preceding the Saturday in question,
while her brother was in the loft above, and he then gave
her 2d. to buy two pies for herself and brother, and gave
her brother some wood to carry home. On Saturday even-
ing the girl called again by appointment, and she con-
sented to accede to his wishes on his giving her a penny
before and another penny after, to which he acceded.
He also gave her some boiled milk. The girl was strictly
questioned by Mr. Yardley, and most solemnly and dis-
tinctly denied she was a consenting party. She did call
at the cow-yard on the Thursday evening previous to the
outrage upon her with her little brother, who was ten
years of age, and she saw the prisoner there. He pushed
her by the shoulder into the cow-barn in play, and she
ran out again directly. Nothing else occurred. On the
Saturday following the prisoner abused her person with-
out her consent. She screamed out, and a bird on the
table screamed too. She did not receive a penny from
the prisoner previous to the intercourse, but he gave her
2d. afterwards. She did not receive any boiled milk, but
the prisoner gave her sone of his tea. She was very
much terrified when the prisoner put out the light, and
did not know what he was going to do.
The prisoner reiterated his former statement, and called
a young woman, named Sarah Ganum, his cousin, who
could only prove that the girl and her brother were on
the premises on the night of Thursday, the 9th February.
Mr. Yardley said he had put the question to the girl
again and again whether she was a consenting party, and
she had most positively sworn that she was not. Under
these circumstances he had no alternative but to commit ,
the prisoner to Newgate for trial.

DOW-STREET. William Augustus Dunnett, a
young police-constable of the F division, No. 97, ap-
peared before Mr. Henry to answer a complaint pre-
ferred against him by Elizabeth Mortimer.
The complainant stated that she was the wife of a
printer and lived at 115, Half-paved-court, Fleet-street.
At a quarter to four o'clock on Saturday morning, on
finding that her husband had not returned home, she
rose from her bed and went out to look after him. She
was proceeding along Wych-street, when the defendant
accosted her, saying, "Where are you going, my dear ?"
She turned round hastily and said, " Oh, it's you, Mr.
Policeman, is it ?" He then said, "I beg your pardon,
I thought it was my sister." She expressed her doubt
about this and passed on, but he followed her and asked
her if she was offended, adding a coarse expression unfit
for publication. She crossed the road to avoid him, and
spoke to a man who was standing at his door about the
defendant's conduct, asking him, in the hearing of the
latter, if the police were employed to protect or to insult
respectable women in the streets. The defendant then
came up and threatened to take her into custody. She
told him that she would take care to have him reported,
and looked at his number with that view, upon which
the officer actually dragged her to the police-station,
where he charged her with making a disturbance in the
streets. The inspector on duty refused to take the
charge, and she was set at liberty ; upon which she
made her complaint to the Commissioners of Police at
Scotland-yard.
In answer to the charge the defendant said that he
was first spoken to by the complainant, who said,
" Holioa, old fellow." He thought she had been drink-
, ing, and that was why he took her to the station-house.
He denied using the language imputed to him.
The defendant underwent a very searching interroga-
tion from the bench, and was at last compelled to admit
that he did use an expression almost as filthy as the one
mentioned by the complainant. He did not make this
admission, however, in his report to the commissioners,
and Mr. Henry detected other discrepancies in his two
statements of the occurrence.
Mr. Henry said the defendant was evidently guilty of
a very serious violation of his duty as a police-officer--
for, apart from the improbability of the supposition that
the complainant had invented the whole story, there was
the reluctant admission of the defendant himself that he
had used an expression of the most disgusting eharacter.
Even a prostitute was entitled to protection from such
insulting conduct, and the police must be taught that
any offence of this kind would be visited with severe
punishment. His worship then committed him to hard
labour for three weeks, which would be followed, of
course, by his dismissal from the force.