The Sun.
London, England, 1854-10-20 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

CLERKENWELL.—A working man, named 'Wil-
liam Buskin, of Birmingham, applied for advice under
the following circu'nstances :
Applicant, like others, was induced to subscribe to
the Working Man's Emigration Society, for the purpose
of being sent out to South Australia. He subscribed
161., but in consequence of the death of two of his chil-
dren and his being out of work he was unable to con-
tinue his payments, and he gave a month's notice, pur-
suant to the 16th rule, for the return of his money,
but Mr. Soper sent him word, after the expiration of the
month, that his case was under the consideration of the
" directors." Finding his applications for his money
were of no avail, he wrote to Sir John Shelley, one of
the trustees of the society, soliciting his interference,
and received the following answer :
" Maresfield-park, 6th Oct., 1854.

" Sir,—ln reply to your letter of the 2d inst., I must
refer you to the directors of the Working Man's Emigra-
tion SoCiety, with whom alone rests the power of return-
ing you the money which you say is your duo. This duty
does not rest with me.—Yours faithfully,
"JOHN VILLIERS SHELLEY."
Mr. Corrie advised the applicant to institute legal
proceedings in the county court.
A clergyman connected with the Scotch Church, Re-
gent-street, applied to Mr. Corrie for advice in connec-
tion with a discovery he had made the previous day of four
poor children, who were left for weeks together by their
father (a doctor) in a dreadful state of filth and destitu-
tion, and whom he (the clergyman) had found all in
one room of a house in Tunbridge-street, St. Pancras,
lying on the floor in a state of starvation, and much
emaciated.

Mr. Corti, said the proper way would be to apply to
the overseer at the workhouse if applicant would not
deem it too much trouble so to do. If the parish au-
thorities do nothing (continued the magistrate), return
here, and I will interfere.

pplicant promised to act on this advice, and left the
court.

WORSHIP-STREET.—John Crowe, a well-dressed
middle-aged man, described as a bird-cage tnanufactarer
in New-street, Bethnal-green, was placed at the bar be-
fore Mr. Hammill, charged with having knowingly
uttered two forged 101. Bank of England notes.
The prisoner bad obtained cash for the notes at the
shop of Mr. Jacob Russell, a pawnbroker in High-
street, Shorediteb, and when the forgery was discovered,
and he was traced and arrested, he said he had received
them from two hawkers. with whose address he was
unacquainted.—Remauded.

LA.MBET)I.—James Spicer and Elizabeth. Moi-ton,
both well-known thieves, were finally examined and
committed for trial on a charge of burglaripus entry into
the house of Mrs. Brown, a widow lady, No. 6, _Ken-
nington-;green, and (as respects the latter prisoner) re-
ceiving the property taken thence, well knowing it to
have been stolen.

SOUTHWARK. Yesterday afternoon, Mr.
A'Beckett was again occupied in hearing adjourned
summonses against Mr. John .Durney, and Mr.
Lewis Haslcncood, directors respectively of the Cry-
stal Palace and Citizen Steam-boat Company,
for unlawfully laying, making fast, and mooring in the
inshOro passage of the river Thames, within the port of
London, certain lighters, barges, and craft, so as to pre-
vent the free transit of other vessels, &c., near London-
bridge. The summonses were taken out by Mr. Pillow,
the extensive lighterman, of Cotton's-wharf, and James
Richard Law, a free waterman, plying at the East-
stairs, on the Surrey side of London-bridge, where the
defendants have constructed a floating pier.
Mr. Pulling, the barrister, appeared for the complain-
ants, and Mr. Cattarne, of the firm of Cattarns and Fry,
for the defendants. _ _

The case, as relied upon by the complainants, has
already been reported. On the previous hearing an ad-
journment was ordered for the production of the original
bye-laws from Waterman's-hall.
Yesterday Mr. Henry Webton, the beadle of the
Watermen's Company, was sworn, and having produced
the original bye-laws they were admitted. The bye-law
was made to preserve the free navigation of the River
Thames, &c., and imposed a penalty of 51. on all offend-
ers. It also gave the Harbour Master power to remove
all obstructions, and sue for expenses, &c.

Mr. Cattarns objected to the sunnyins, contending
that it did not come under the section ,of the bye-laws,
which merely related to the free waterm en, their appren-
tices or widows ; he therefore considered that the charges
could not he sustained.

Mr. A'Beckett asked whether the City authorities
had interfered at all in the matter, as he imagined it
would be their duty as conservatore of the River Thames ?
He thought tke case too important t• be settled by
summons, and penalties of 205., at this court.
Mr. Pulling said the Court of Aldermen had given
the defendants no sanction whatever to construct the
pier, neither had they power to do so without altering
the bye-laws. The defendants were clearly amenable
to the Jaw, and must put up with the consequences.
Mr. A'Beckett observed that Mr. Cattarns' objection
could not stand.

Mr. Cattarns, in defence, said that in this particu-
lar matter there had been no obstruction, as
stated. The whole affair had been buforo the Court
of Common Council and the Navigation Commit-
tee, when two plans for a pier at the very spot
were laid before them and approved of, but there
was a difficulty as to the law, in consequence of
which it was not carried out. It was well known that
the pier was a great advantage to the public, as there
had been one person previously killed and several in-
jured in crossing the road towards the railway terminus
and hospitals. The public had frequently complained
to the steam -boat companies as to the want of accom-
modation on the east side of the bridge, and deputations
had waited on the Lord Mayor on the subject. His
lordship gave his clients permission to put a barge and
beat where they had, and they acted ,actordingly.
Mr. A'Beckett said it was not a question of public or
private convenience, but a simple question of law.
Inspector Griffiths, of the Thames p olice, deposed to
the fixing of the lighter, &c., at night time, by the de-
fendants. When Law came with his boat to the
stairs, and wanted to get in, he could not, owing to
the barge.
In answer to a question from Mr. Ce.ttarns,
The Inspector said that there was n o obstruction at
present, as two boats could be got in easily.
Other evidence having been adduced,
Mr. A'Beckett, in giving his judgment, said that as a
magistrate his province was to adnuini ster the law as he
found it ; he had nothing to do with public convenience.
He had it not only from the evidence cif the complainant,
but of the defendants' witnesses, that there was an ob-
struction to an extent of not less than fifteen feet. They
urged the convenience to the public a nd the sanction of
the Lord Mayor, but neither mitigate,i the offence. He
regretted very much that a matter od such importance
was not taken before the court which had authority
over the navigation of the river, and if they considered
such an erection necessary the bye laws could be altered
1 to give them a legal right. As the Cave stood before
him the law had been clearly violated, therefore he
should inflict a penalty of 20s. on the defendants.
Mr. Pulling asked for costs.. The co :nplainant Law
represented a class of mea who sustained great injury by
the stairs being blocked up. There wens 8,000 water-
men, and each of them could take out a summons
against the defendants every day the obatruction lasted.
Mr. A'Beckett considerA that he was intitled to costs
in such a case, therefore ho should make the order 20s.
fine, and 50s. costs. _ _ _

The next summons, taken out by Mr. Pillow, the
lighterman, against the defendants, for platting a lighter
and landing-place in the inshore passage of the River
Thames, on the Surrey side of London-bridge, so as to
be an obstruction to him in his lawful busineek, was dis-
missed, Owing to want of sufficient proof.
Mr. A'Beckett, however, contended that if the pier
was such an obstruction as that stated to be, it wag the
duty of the Harbour Master to remove it. the bye
laws of the W4terinen's Company empowered kito to
do so,

SPORTING INTELLIGIINCE.

TATTERSALL'S - -THURSDAY.
CAMBRIDGESHIRE STAKES.

The Early Bird's downward tendency had for the last
two or three weeks been so palpable that his entire dis-
appearance occasioned no surprise. The declaration that
he would not run was received in London at 2.45 p.m.
on Wednesday, the 18th inst. All bets about him after
that time are consequently void. It is suggested by
many of his backers, who thought to "pick up the
worm" with him, that in future he be called the Decoy
Bird.

At the commencement, 5 to 1 was taken about Rattle,
and 6 to 1 betted against Orinoco ; but after the latter
had been hacked for 751., he advanced to 5 to 1, taken
to upwards of 1501., and was then backed against Rattle
for 500 even, and so strong was the subsequent demon-
stration in his favour that at the close he took up his
position at 9 to 2, whilst Rattle receded to 7 to 1, taken
anti offered. _ _ _ _

Scherz was in considerable force, and was backed for
some money at 100 to 8 and 12 to 1. Hervine was also
well supported ; at first 20 to 1 was taken to 1001., 500
to 30 was afterwards booked two or three times, and the
last investment was a pony at 15 to 1.
The odds quoted against Helena, Stonehenge, Barrel,
Prime Minister, and the Assayer were taken only to
•mall sums, Offers to lay 1,000 to 5 against Monie
Moses.