The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-12 00:00:00

" 9, Tokenhouse-yard, Lothbury, London,
• September 15, 1853.
" 'Mr. Le Grand presents his compliments to Mr.
Weekley, and, in answer to his note of the 13th Sept.,
begs to acquaint him that he will call here at the time
of paying tile dividends, he will receive his and the re-
ceipt at the same time.'
" Your petitioner then went on the 20th September
to Mr. Le Grand's office, and several times afterwards,
but never could see him, and found him a defaulter, and
that your petitioner's money had never been invested in
the Bank of England.
"Your petitioner, therefore, prays that your honour-
able Court will be pleased to take the above facts into
your consideration, and grant your petitioner such relief
as you may think necessary.
"And your petitioner will ever pray.
"JOHN WERKLEY.''
No steps could be taken with reference to this case,
as the petitioner, on being called, did not answer.
Sir R. W. CARDEN—The petitioner was present at the
last, Court. He came from Margate ; and if these vari-
ous parties are compelled to attend again, I think Sir
Peter Laurie ought to pay their expenses.
The petition of Ann Kershaw, who had placed 9001.
in the hands of Mr. Le Grand to invest, and which he
had,appropriated to his own use, was then read, and re-
ferred to the General Purpo-,es Committee.
A similar petition of James and Ann Burrell, who had
been defrauded by the same broker of 625/., was then
read and refirred to the same committee.
The reading of the following petition created a good
deal. of sympathy in the court :
"To the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the
worshipful the Aldermen of the. City of London.
"The humble petition of Edward Jones, an inmate of
the workhouse of the parish of St. George in the E ist,
in the county of Middlesex, showeth, That your petitioner was in possession of 600/.
Three-and-a. Quarter per Cent. Bank Annuities, the re-
sult of your petitiouer s savings for many years, the
dividends of which your petitioner depended upon for
his maintenance and support for the remainder of his
days, lie having no other property whatever.
" That in the month of April last your petitioner em-
ployed Mr. Dan. Elley, a stock and share broker of the
city of London, to sell out 100/., part of such stock,
which your petitioner required to discharge his debts
and clear up his affairs ; and upon that occasion the said
Mr: Elley persuaded your petitioner to sell out the whole
stock, and leave the produce of the balance to him, he
assuring your petitioner that it would be as safe in his
hands as in the Bank, and that he would allow your
petitioner more interest. That your petitioner acceded
to his persuasion, and sold out all his stock, and left the
same in the hands of the said Mr. Elley, who gave your
petitioner a memorandum, of which the following is
copy :-- `Memorandum. London, April 8, 1803.—
Mr. E. Jones left with me 5001. Three-and-a-Quarter
per Cents. until the 9th Oct. next.—DAN. ELLEY, stock
and share broker. Office. Auction Mart.'
"That the said Mr. Elley has failed, and your peti-
tioner has thereby lost ail his property, and has been
compelled to become an inmate of the above workhouse.
"Your petitioner therefore humbly prays your hon-
ourable court to take his case into your consideration,
and to call upon the sureties of the said Dan. Elley for
restitution of the stock so cruelly obtained from your
petitioner.

"And your petitioner will ever pray.
"The mark >el of Edward Jones.
" Witness—F. Stone, solicitor, Wellclose-square, clerk
to the guardians of St. George's (East.)"
Alderman WIRE said the case of the petitioner did
not come within the bond of the broker. The petitioner
had trusted entirely to the representations of Mr. Elley,
that.an his money would be as safe in his hands as in the
Bank.. It was. clearly a case of loan ; but he (Alderman
"1 ) was desirous that the petition should be referred
tote)
Solicitor to examine and report.
'l'l' d accordingly.
The Lon
.1 THE CITY POLICE FORCE.
cation some time said he had received a communi-
able eminence ills:,,since from a gentleman of consider-
standing in t ie City respecting the
police force; whiel
had communicated to the com-
missioner of the for
reue,. who had informed him that he
had not the full
the corporation. Rep(itre ent of constables allowed by
thLeoid Mayor) understood the
matter had been before ,
andoce Committee of the
Court of Common Council,that that committee, by
the casting vote of their chairman had come to the con-
clusion that they could not interfere
in the matter. He
had made it his business to look
othvis
ocit.ioAnder of the
liamt, and had been in communiea
the 14 i lii the police
jeor the act of Par-
en n
l men
commissioner, and according to
Police Act, he doubted whether the Court
really had any power to interfere with the question. But
it was a matter of grave importance, and required
to
be set at rest. He bad been informed by the commis:
sioner that there was at the present moment no less a
number than 80 men deficient, and that the attempted
burglary at Alderman Carter's, on Cornbill, a few days
since, was not discovered in consequence of the police.
man on that beat being withdrawn in order to attend an
execution at the Old Bailey. He would not give an
opinion as to whether the pay of the constables should he
increased, or the standard of height should be lowered,
but he understood these were the points upon which the
question turned, a question which the police committee
and the Court of Common Council had referred to the
Court of Aldermen, under the impression that they had
no power to interfere with the question of pay. He very
much doubted whether the court had that power, and
thought the Court of Common Council fully empowered I
is deal with the question in all its bearings. If the t