The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-24 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

WORSHIP-STREET.—Jacob Turner, a robust mid-
dle-aged man, described as a marine store-dealer in Went-
worth-street, Whitechapel, was charged with having
brutally ill-treated and threatened the life of his wife.
The complainant, a pale careworn looking woman,
stated that she had been married 18 years to the pri-
soner, by whom she had a family of 8 children, and he
had been in the habit for a long time past of subjecting
her to such systematic ill-usage that she had been re-
peatedly compelled to obtain warrants against him, but
had always hitherto abstained from prosecuting them to
a conviction, in consequence of his threats, that if she
ventured to do so, he would certainly blow her brains
out with a pistol which he had in his possession. On the
preceding night, she was seated in her back parlour, in
conversation with a female friend, when the prisoner sud-
denly entered in a state of intoxication, and after assail-
ing her with the coarsest vituperation, and declaring
that he would not suffer her to remain another moment
in the place, instantly seized hold of her, and after
dragging her to the street door, flung her out into the
street. On remonstrating with him upon his heartless
conduct, the prisoner made a rush at her, and dealt her
two terrible kicks on the lower part of her person, which
inflicted the most excruciating pain, and caused her to
fall heavily on the payment. Before she could recover
her feet he again kicked her severely, and after striking
her a violent blow on the face, he grasped her by the
throat and forcibly dragged her along for at least 20
yards, to the end of the street. In the course of her
struggles to extricate herself from him the prisoner con-
trived to fasten his teeth in the fleshy part of her hand,
in which he inflicted the injury she then exhibited. Wit-
ness was ultimately rescued from further ill-treatment
by some of the bystanders, and instantly sought refuge
in the house of one of her neighbours, but was quickly
followed by the prisoner, who pulled off one of his heavy
boots, with he made a blow at her head, declaring that
he would have her life, but he was prevented from
carrying out his threats by the persons in the house,
under whose protection she had since remained. The
witness added that at the time he was dragging her
along the street, two policemen were present, to whom
she loudly appealed for assistance, but neither of them
took the slightest notice of her application.
Mr. Hanamill immediately gave directions for the offi•
cers in question to be sent for, and in the course of the
' afternoon one of the inculpated constables, H 108, ar-
rived in court, and in answer to questions from the ma-
gistrate admitted that at the time in question his atten-
tion was attracted by an altercation between the com-
plainant and her husband, who refused to admit her into
the house, but he did not see any assault committed on
the occasion.

Mr. Hammill—Were either of the parties intoxicated ?
Policeman—Why, the defendant had certainly been
drinking, and the wife was sober as it happened, al-
though she is a very intemperate woman and is fre-
quently intoxicated.

- Mrs. Glibbery, the wife of the office-keeper, who had
' been directed to examine the person of the complainant,
was then called, and stated that the poor woman had
sustained a dreadful bruise on her right hip, which was
perfectly black, and had evidently been occasioned by a
heavy kick of very recent occurrence. She was also
suffering from a severe injury on the groin, which was
very much swollen, and in such a tender state that she
was unable to endure the slightest pressure.
The witnesses were severally cross-examined by Mr.
Sorrell, who appeared for the defendant, but without
eliciting anything at all at variance with their testimony.
Mr. Hanimill said that it was perfectly manifest that
the complainant was suffering from the effects of extreme
violence. but as the evidence involved a charge of
neglect of duty against two constables of a very serious
description, he considered that the case required a most
rigid investigation, and should therefore order it to be
adjourned for a week, but should in the meantime accept
substantial bail for the defendant's appearance.
The requisite sureties were shortly afterwards tendered
and accepted, and the defendant was released from cus-
tody.

LAMBETH.—Mr. George Frederick Carden, barrister-
at-law, appeared before Mr. Elliott, to answer a sun►-
mons taken out against him by order of the officers of
the parish of Lambeth, for unlawfully causing to be
thrown upon a public highway known as Jonathan-
street, Vauxhall, a quantity of excremental matter and
filth prejudicial to health, and to the annoyance of the
inhabitants.

From the evidence of three of the constables of the L
division of police, it appeared that on the evening of
Friday, the 16th inst., Mr. Carden superintended the
making a hole in front of some premises belonging to
him in Jonathan-street, Lambeth, and from this hole a
quantity of liquid matter of a highly offensive kind was
emptied into the kennel to flow a distance of from 50 to
60 yards into the gully-hole. In the process a quantity
of the offensive matter had been strewn over the high-
way, and many of the inhabitants complained to the
police of the dreadful stench and nuisance which it
caused.

A lad named King was called, and said he had been
employed by the defendant, Mr. Carden, to empty the
stuff froni the hole, some of which was thick, and
emitted a great stench.
Mr. Carden said that the liquid in question was caused
by the flowing of rain and other waters from the adjoin-
ing premises into his, which were much lower, and the
remedy adopted by him to get rid of it was the only one
left to him. He, Mr. Carden, should have been most
anxious to get rid of the evil in any other way, but the
fact v% as that he had made repeated applications to the
Commissioners of Sewers and the parochial authorities,
with the view of procuring such drainage as would carry
off the superfluous matter, but from neither could he
procure the slightest assistance. He had also expressed
his willingness to those residing on the spot, and his
tenants particularly, to do everything in his power to
remedy the evil, but they all seemed to go against him.
He had also paid large sums for sewers rates, and yet
did not derive the slightest benefit from them.
Mr. Elliott remarked that there could be no doubt
Mr. Carden had caused a considerable nuisance by
emptying the stuff into the street, and for this offence
he would adjudge him to pay a penalty of 20s. and costs.
Dr. Bushell, one of the guardians of the parish, here
said he should have to apply for a second summons
against Mr. Carden, unless he caused to be removed a
quantity of dung, which was a perfect nuisance.
Mr. Carden said the heap of dung in question belonged
to a tenant of his, and therefore he had no control
over it.

Mr. Edwards, a vestryman of the parish, complained
of the parish officers in not carrying out the Sanitary
Acts, particularly at the present time, when the dread-
ful scourge, the cholera, had made its appearance in the
metropolis.

Mr. Elliott assured the complainant that he had no
power to put the law into force as he required, and thus
the matter ended.

Mr. Carden paid the penalty and expenses.

SOUTHWARK.—DanieI Murphy was brought up
for re-examination, charged with violently assaulting
Ellen Murphy, his wife, at No. 10, Potter's-place, Ber-
mondsey New-road.

The prisoner, it may be recollected, was brought up
last week, and his poor wife being in such a weak con-
dition from his ill-usage, Mr. Combe directed her to be
at once taken to St. George's Workhouse, and remanded
him for a week.

Yesterday she attended, and although in a very weak
state, she had recovered sufficiently to give her evidence
in a very clear manner. On being sworn, she stated that
on Thursday last, the 15th inst., her husband came home
in the middle of the day drunk, and took away a num-
ber of ornaments from the mantel-shelf. She followed
him to her sister's to endeavour to get the things away
from him ; but his conduct was so violent that she was
afraid of him. She went home, and hearing him enter
the house at seven o'clock in the evening, she hid her-
self under the bed to get away from his violence. He
then threw himself on the bed, and after he had been
there a short time she unfortunately coughed, when he
jumped up and pulled her by the hair of the head from
under the bed, and jumped upon her. She was under
the bed full five hours, and after he had jumped on her,
he kicked her until she was insensible. Six weeks prior
to that she had a still-born child, which was caused by
his violence.

The prisoner here declared that his wife had been
drinking, and would not give him half a pint of beer.
Mr. Combe asked her whether she was sober that
day?

She replied that she was, and she was so afraid of
him that she hid herself several times under the bed to
get out of his way.
The prisoner said she had made a mistake, and he
wrote a letter to her while in prison, asking her forgive-
ness, and she sent him a kind answer.
Witnesses were called in addition to those heard at
the last examination, and their evidence led
Mr. Combe to say—lt was one of the worst cases he
had ever had before him, and he should enforce the full
penalty of the law by committing him to the House of
Correction for six months with hard labour.
James Moss, cab driver, badge No. 3,847, was sum-
moned by Gen. Cherretre, an old officer in her Majesty's
array, for assaulting him, and using insulting
,language
towards him at the South-Eastern Railway lerminus,
L... on
Thed complainant,
a venerable looking gentleman, who
was accommodated with a seat on the bench, on being
sworn, stated that on Tuesday last he arrived from Tun-
bridge by South-Eastern Railway, about half-
potahsteroncaebmci'en, outside
saw the defendant, with several
the rank provided forde the station with their vehicles on
f eanndda
na tt once
ew eonfft
tuhpe to
ahni
km,
inTtothheethindee, station for a small port-
wards the witnessengagedwent him.
manteau. On his return, he was proceeding to-
one the porters came to
wards the defendant's eatbtoh,
ep orter thtttehle, had engaged
him, "I want you and an-
oththeedr. e.
,f,e defendant
Witnessa n and a
iscafi
tdo
fora
of the
the defendant, and he took hold of
cab door to get in, and asked the defendanta ra ticket.
Instead of giving him one, he insulted himand twisted
I him round from the cab. Witness notliking to put up with
!such uncivil conduct, proceeded to the station-master
and informed him what had occurred, when the latter
told him that he was liable to be fined by the railway
authorities ss. for the first offence, and to be dismissed
from the station for the second. The station-master
then told witness to come to this court and lay his
complaint.
to (etaohGtehneenra?l Cherretre)—You endeavoured
t i
Gl‘gleertn.eiCiria°tloinCtbhle ieerretre—Yes, I did, when he pushed me
round in a very rude manner. I did not like s
inso-
lence, and could not with justice to myself and the pub-
lie lie pass over his had conduct. I think he ought to )e
punished for the benefit of the public.
The defendant said he was engaged prior to his seeing
the complainant by one of the railway porters, and while

he was taking up a lady the general prevented her from
getting in.
General Cherretre—l deny that most positively. I
actually assisted the lady into the cab.
Mr. Combe (to defendant)—What have you to say
about the assault !
Defendant—The complainant did not come to my cab
until after I was engaged by the railway porter. I told
him then I was engaged.
General Cherretre—He did not tell me so, sir. I
called him off the rank, and to show that I had not any
particular desire about his cab, there were several others
that I could have engaged. Had it not been for his in-
solence I should not have taken the trouble to bring him
here.
The defendant denied the assault, and called Mr. John
Lloyd, a gentleman residing at Hampstead, who said he
came from Dover by the same train, and he asked the
porter to engage him two cabs for his family and luggage.
The porter returned and took his luggage, and when
outside he heard the general complaining about the cab-
man's conduct, as he had pre-engaged him. Witness
had a lady with him, and the complainant did not pre-
vent her getting into the cab, but he assisted her.
Thomas Bonner, a porter in the employ of the South-
Eastern Railway, said he opened the railway carriage
doors when the train in question arrived. The last wit-
ness was in one of the carriages, and told him to get two
cabs. He immediately went on the rank used by the
privileged cabmen, and hired the defendant and another.
The defendant gave me his ticket, and I gave it to Mr.
Lloyd.

kr. Combe said that such a practice should not be
allowed. The law says, " the driver must give up his
ticket himself to the hirer." There might be a great
many mistakes occur through such a system, and the
sooner it was put an end to the better.
The porter said that such was their practice.
Mr. Combe, after hearing other evidence confirming
the complainant's testimony, said he had no doubt that
the defendant had been very impertinent, and he
thought one job would be of more benefit to him than
another ; therefore he considered that he could act as he
liked. The defendant very likely thought that it was
more convenient for him to take a family and a quantity
of luggage rather than carry a single gentleman with
little or no luggage. Such a system could not be allowed,
and he had no doubt that the General was right, and
that there was some collusion between the railway porter
and the defendant. As to the system of the cabmen hand-
ing over their tickets to the porters, that was very bad,
and must be put a stop to. It gave the porters an oppor-
tunity of changing them, and cause great inconvenience
to the public. He should inflict a penalty of 20s. on the
cabman, with 2s. costs, and in default commit him to
prison for 21 days. He hoped that would prevent him
and his companions from acting in such a disgraceful
manner again.

The defendant immediately paid the money and was
discharged.

THE REGISTRATIONS.

CITY OF LONDON.

Mr. 141`Christie, the barrister, resumed his sittings
yesterday morning, in the Court of Common Pleas,
Guildhall.

In the list for the parish of St. Antholin, the name of
Mr. Richard Anthony Clarke, a surgeon, and one of the
late members of the Court of Common Council for
Cordwainers' Ward, was objected to by the Liberals.
His qualification was set down in the list for a house
occupied by him at No. 72, Queen street, Cheapside, his
residence being at No. 29, in the same street.
M:. Clarke said he occupied the house No. 72, Queen-
street, for his professional purposes as a surgeon, and
No. 29 in the same street for his residence. He, how-
ever, let off the whole of No. 72, with the exception of
one room on the ground-floor, which he used as a sur-
gery, and in which he saw his patients. He had his
name over the door, and although he had for several
years lived at No. 29, he shortly intended to reside at
No. 72 altogether. He had carried on his profession
there for the last 17 years.
Mr. Ledger wished to know the value of the room for
which he claimed his qualification.

Mr. Clarke said he could not tell the value, nor did he
think that he was bound to answer any such question.
Mr. Ledger submitted that there was no proof of any
qualification.

Mr. Clarke said he rented the whole of the house, and
paid all the rent and taxes for it. He let off all of it,
with the exception of that portion of it that he retained
for his professional purposes.
Mr. Sidney Smith wished to know the rent of the
house, and whether Mr. Clarke was rated.
Mr Croucher, the overseer, said the house was rated
at 551. per year, and Mr. Clarke had paid the rates for
it for many years.
Mr. Sidney Smith did not consider that it had been
shown that the room retained by Mr. Clarke for the
purposes of his profession was worth 1001. a-year.
Mr. Clarke said this place had given him a qualifica-
tion for churchwarden last year.
Mr. Ledger (to the overseer)—Would you give 101.
per year for this room, and pay taxes for it ?
Mr. Croucher—l do not think I should, but that
would greatly depend on the business for which it was
to be used.

Mr. Clarke said that he had no doubt that situate as
it was, within three doors of the new street (Cannon-
street), that he should be able to get 201. a-year for it,
and if, for further improvements, the City authorities
should turn him out, he should expect a large com-
pensation, and he had no doubt whatever that he should
get it.

The Revising Barrister said he had no doubt whatever
that the apartment was worth more than 10/. a-year to
this gentleman in his business.
_ _

.Air. Sidney submitted that the apartment could only
be considered at its marketable value.

The Revising Barrister disallowed the objection, and
retained the name on the list.
IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO CLAIMING TO BE RATED.
Mr. Willis, of Pancras-lane, claimed to have his name
inserted on the list in respect of his occupation.
The gentleman had sent in his claim to be rated on
the 23d of August, but the vestry clerk had neglected
to send it to the overseer until the 30th of August, when
a new rate was made. In consequence, therefore, of
not having claimed in respect of the existing rate, his
name had been omitted from the list.
Mr. Sidney Smith, in support of the claimant, said
that, according to the provisions of the new act intro-
duced by Sir Wm. Clay, it was unnecessary to renew
the claim beyond that of the one requiring to be put on
the existing rate. Before the introduction of that act, it
was necessary for the person requiring to be registered to
claim to be rated for all rates made during the electoral
year ; but by the new act it was settled that one claim
made to be rated was sufficient for all future time dur-
ing which the occupation continued. That was an al-
teration that ought to be generally known.
The claim was then allowed, and the name inserted
on the list.