The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-25 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Tames Roberts, a city police
constable, was, at the instance of Mr. D. W. Harvey,
the Commissioner of the City Police, brought before Al-
derman Moon, charged with having committed a violent
assault upon Thomas Dunglisson, a sergeant of the same
force.

The complainant said, at half-past eleven o'clock on
Monday morning I was on duty in Bishopsgate-street,
and I then met the defendant, who was in the police
dress but was not on duty. He was covered with mud
and appeared to be under the influence of drink. I
prevailed upon him to go into the station-house, which
is close to the spot at which I met him, and the sergeant
on duty there directed me to accompany him to his
home. In going along Houndsditch he became abusive
and insolent ; said he was a Herefordshire man, and
would fight any man in the country. I begged him to
be quiet, and said how disgraceful it would appear if
policemen quarrelled, in the street. I begged that he
would go home. He refused to do so, but said " That
as I had been sent to see him home, I ought to act ac-
cording to orders, and he would follow me." I con-
tinued to walk by his side, and he suddenly struck me a
violent blow on the back of the ear and threw me down,
and nearly under a cart, and I had scarcely time to get
up when he aimed another blow at me, which, however,
I avoided. He then fell, and was ultimately taken to
the station-house.

Alderman Moon—Well, defendant, what have you to
say in answer to this very serious charge?
Defendant—The fact is, sir, that I was so drunk I do
not recollect anything at all about the matter.
In answer to Alderman Moon, who asked what sort
of character the defendant had in the force,

Inspector Fosberry said that Roberts had only upon
one occasion been reproved for insubordination ; that he
had given notice of his intention to leave the force, and
that his term of service would expire in a fortnight.
Alderman Moon said the conduct of the defendant had
been culpable in the extreme, instead of being, as was
reasonably expected, an example of propriety, and the
sentence of the court upon him was that he be imprisoned
in the gaol of Holloway for 21 days.
The defendant was then informed he was dismissed
from the force.

GUILDHALL.—Vincent Lamberger, a Polish refugee,
was summoned for an assault, and was bound over, by
Alderman Humphery, to keep the peace.
At the close of the proceedings, Mr. Holland, of Great
Tichbourne-street, came forward and said—l wish to
ask your worship how I am to proceed against Mr. Lam-
berger, for he has taken away my housekeeper, who has
robbed me of some of my goods.
Alderman Humphery—Were you living with your
housekeeper, then ?
Mr. Holland—Yes, sir.
Alderman Humphery—How long have you been
living with her ?
Mr. Holland—About 91 years, sir.
Alderman Humphery—l cannot help you ; you should
not keep a mistress.
Mr. Holland—l only do that which many in the
higher circles of society do, and I don't see why I should
be thought worse than them for so doing.
Alderman Humphery—But I have no doubt they
suffer as much as you for the impropriety of their con-
duct.

Mr. Holland—That man (pointing to Mr. Lamberger)
is a rogue and a vagabound in this couutry, for I took
him in without a rag to his back, and kept him from
starving. He lodged with me, and I now consider lam
not safe, as he has threatened to take my life with a
sword-stick that he generally carries about him.
Alderman Humphery— Very well, then ; if you will
bring him up the first time he repeats that threat with a
sword-stick in his possession, I'll punish him; but at
present I can only bind him down to keep the peace to-
wards you. With regard to Mr. Lamberger's robbing
you of your mistress, what are your respective ages ?
Mr. Holland said the lady was 3G years of age, and
he was nearly as old ; but Mr. Lamberger was only 24
years old.
Alderman Humphery—l suppose the lady preferred
the younger man. Is she present ?
Mary Hume here came forward and said she left Mr.
Holland because he ill-treated her, and she had to keep
him.

Alderman Humphery—How can you do that ?
Mary Hume—l receive an allowance from a member
of Parliament.

Mr. Holland—Yes, sir. Sir John MTaggart allows
her 501. a year.

Alderma-a Humphery—Did you live with Sir John
M‘Taggart ?
Mary Hume—Yes, sir.

Alderman Humphery—l suppose not, or he might
perhaps stop the allowance. But it was not altogether
right after living with a man nine years to leave him to
go with another. Are you living now with Mr. Lam-
berger ?
Mary Hume—Yes, sir ; but he did not take me away
from Mr. Holland. I left him voluntarily.
Alderman Humphery—Well, Mr. Holland, I cannot
do anything to punish Mr. Lamberger for robbing you
of your mistress. At present he is bound over to keep
the peace towards all parties. If you will keep a house-
keeper you must take better care of her, or put up with
the consequences attending such immoral connexions.

WORSHIP-STREET.—Two persons, of very gentle.
manlike appearance, named Richard Ball, father and
son, who were described as mercantile clerks, were
charged with riotous conduct in the streets, and assault-
ing the police in the execution of their duty. It had
required five constables to convey them to the station.
The elder defendant said that in consequence of the
density of the fog, he had been induced to indulge in
wine to rather an imprudent extent, but he trusted that
the magistrate would take a lenient view of the case, as
he had occupied a highly respectable position in the City
for nearly forty years, and had never before misconducted
himself.
Mr. Hammill said, that so far from furnishing an ex-
cuse for such disgraceful conduct, he considered that the
respectable station which they held in society was rather
an aggravation of the offence, and he should therefore
sentence the elder defendant to fourteen days' imprison-
ment, without the imposition of a fine ' • but with regard
to the other, as he had evidently acted under the perni-
cious influence of his father, he should order him to pay
two separate penalties of 40s. for assaulting the police,
or be committed, in default, for one month to the House
of Correction.

WESTMINSTER.—John Rogers was charged with
illusing his wife, who bore undeniable proofs of the
brutal illtreatment she had received. _

Margaret Rogers, the wife, who evinced throughout a
remarkable desire to screen the defendant, stated that
between two and three that afternoon, he came home
drunk and asked for money. She replied that she had
none, upon which he knocked her down and kicked her,
and then threw the dinner which she had prepared into
the street. _ _

Mr. Simons, Inspector of the B division—Did not he
thrust his hand down your throat, and hurt you very
much ? . .

Complainant—Yes ; but I only want him held to keep
the peace.
Mr. Simons—She has got marks on her arm where he
has cut her with a knife.
The woman's arm being bared, presented the marks
alluded to, there being one more severe than the rest.
Complainant reluctantly admitted that he had been in
habit of beating her in the most cruel manner for a great
length of time.
Mr. Simons said that from his knowledge of the de-
fendant and his habits, he should not be at all surpised
to find him placed at that bar for murder or man•
slaughter.
Defendant, who had conducted himself so badly by
repeated interruptions that it had been found necessary
to remove him from the court while part of the case was
going on, did not deny the charge, but he entered into
a rambling story about other matters concerning his
wife, which she denied.
Mr. Broderip observed that he should commit the de-
fendant for six months to hard labour in the House of
Correction, and further require him at the expiration of
that time to find bail for his good behaviour, for if that
were not done the end would be, from the statement he
had heard from the inspector and the marks upon the
poor woman, that the defendant would probably end his
career upon a scaffold.

THE LATE STABBING CASE BY THE RUSSIAN SAILORS
AT DEPTFORD.—From inquiries made at Guy's Hos-
pital, it was ascertained from Mr. Hilton, surgeon,
that Thomas Breslam had expired. The other man,
J. Sullivan, is doing well, but he is not out of the reach
of danger. Their four assailants were brought before
Mr. Leckie at Greenwich yesterday, and having been
identified as the persons who committed the murderous
attack, were remanded.