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 circumstances :
Applicant, like others, was induced to subscribe to
the Working Man's Emigration Society, for the purpose
of being sei,t out to South Australia. lie subscribed
16/., but in cousequence 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 mouth's notice, pur-
suant to the 16th rule, for the return of his money,
but Mr. Super seat 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 Juhn 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 lower of return-
ing you the money which you say is your due. 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 cf starvation, and much
emaciated.
Mr. Corrie 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.
Applicant 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 manufacturer
in New-street, Bethnal-green, was placed at.the bar be-
fore Mr. Hammill, charged with having knowingly
uttered two forged 10/. Bank of England notes.
The prisoner had obtained cash for the notes at the
shop of ➢ir. Jacob Russell, a pawnbroker in High-
street, Shoreditch, 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.—Remanded.

LAM BET 11.—James Spicer and Elifabeth. Morton,
both well-known thieves, ware finally examined aid
commuted for trial on a charge of burglarious 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 Burney, and Mr.
Lewis Ltaslewood, directors respectively of the Cry-
stal Palace and Citizen Steam-boat Company,
for unlawfully laying, making fast, and mooring in the
inshore 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. Cattarns, 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 Watermen'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 summons, contending
ghat it did not come under the section of the bye-laws,
which merely related to the free watermen, their appren-
tices or widows ; he therefore considered that the charges
could not be 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 conservators of the River Thames
fie thought the case too important t• be settled by
summons, and penalties of 201., at this court.
Mr. Pulling said the Court of Aldermen bad 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 law, 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 before 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 ef, but there
was a difAdeity as to the law, in consequence of
which it was not carried out. It was well knotee that
the pier was a great advantage to the public, as there
had been one person previously killed and several in-
jured hi meshing the road towards the railway terminus
and hospitals. The public had frequently complained
to the steam -boat companies as to the want of adotii,
modation on the east side of the bridge, and deputations
had waited on the Lord Mayor OR the subject. His
lordship grad his clients permission to put a barge and
beat where they had, and they acted accordingly.
Mr. A'Beckett said it was net a question or public of
private convenience, but a simple 'question of law.
Inspector Griffiths, of the Thames police, 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. Cattaine,
The Inspector said that there was no obstruction at
present, as two boats could be got in easily.
Other evidence having been sddneed4
Mr. A'Beckett, in giving his uagment, said that as a
magistrate hie proeince was to administer the law as he
found it ; be had nothing to do with public edneelaiente.
He had it not only from the eitidenee of the complainaeli;
but of the defendants' witnesses) that there *at o
struetion to an axtent of net lees than fifteen feet. They
urged the conveniente to the public and, the sinalon.of
the Lord Mayor, but peither mitigated the offenee. He
regretted very much that a matter of such importance
such er t
an h e
was rot taker.betore the court which had authority
enraevaligoantionnecoesf stahreyrtihveer6;:nLifi
ttehuieldeboetisialdteorreevid,
to give them, a legal right. As the cafe stood, Lief re
him the low had been clearly violated., 044160) hi
should inflict a penalty of 20E on the defendants.
Mr. Pulling asked tee costs. The complainant Law
represented a clams of men who sustained great injury by
the stairs being /blocked up. ;There were B,oe water-
men, and each of them della take out a summons
against the defendants every day the obstruction lasted.
Mr. Arßeckett considered that he was entitled to costs
in such a case, therefore he should make the order 20s.
fine, and 50s. costs.
The next summons, taken out by Mr. Pillow, the
lighterman, against the defendants, fur placing 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 hiat in his lawful business, was dis-
missed, owing to want of Sufficient proof.
Mr. A'Beckett,. however, .contended that if the pier
was Such aliszt;batructiari.is thatitated.to be, it was the
duty of the Hatbour Master to remove it. The bye.
laws of the WatciTaeu's Company empowered him to
do so.