The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-18 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-Hol7SE.—John Brown, was placed at
the bar before Mr. Alderman Hunter, upon the charge
of having feloniously forged the name of William Simp-
son to a deposit receipt for 3001., and with drawing this
sum of the North and South Wales Bank at Liverpool.
A clerk from the office of Messrs. Roy and Co. appeared
for the prosecution.
The prisoner was defended by Mr. Metcalfe, the
barrister.
Mr. David Ritchie examined—l am clerk in the secre-
tary's office of the Bank of England. I produce three
Bank of England notes, one for 1001., No. 14,480, dated
Liverpool, May 28, 1852 ; one for 501., No. 85,646,
dated Manchester, January 26, 1852 ; and one for 501.,
No. 9,424, dated Manchester, January 30, 1852. These
notes were brought to the secretary's office as being
stopped. I saw the prisoner there, who claimed the
notes, and said he had received them from the North
and South Wales Bank, by signing William Simpson's
name to a document. He did not say what document.
The prisoner said his name was John Simpson, of the
Victory-road, Stepney, where he sometimes went by the
name of Brown ; and that he had given his name as

John Brown on the notes.
The prisoner at this stage of the proceedings made the
following statement, after being cautioned that it would
be taken down, and perhaps made use of as evidence
against him :—lt is my own money. Simpson put it
into the bank, and I could not get it out without forging
his name. Simpson is now away. I only did it to get
my own rights. I should like to relate how I came to
go to the bank and get the money, but perhaps Simpson
may take alarm if he knows anything of this. He has
been to Colchester and Ipswich. He placed some money
in the bank, which I have an interest in. He took a
young girl away with him from Colchester, and then
went to Chester races. He gave me this bill (the blank
deposit receipt), and I was very glad to get hold of it.
This Mrs. Simpson will tell you if she is brought for-
ward. Simpson is now in a vessel lying in Liverpool,
going to Messina. He thought to leave me without
any money, whereas we were partners together in a
coal field.
Daniel May, an officer of the City police, said—On
Friday last I was called into the secretary's office at the
Bank, and directed to take the prisoner into custody.
I heard him say that he had been to various places en-
deavouring to meet with Simpson, and that he at last
found Mrs. Simpson at Liverpool, when she gave him
the papers to go and take the money from the Bank, as
she herself had done. He further told me that he went
to the Bank on the Saturday previously, and signed the
name of Simpson for the money, but that the people at
the Bank did not like his signature ; that he then left
the Bank and went again, I believe on the Thursday
following, taking another person with him, and getting
the money. He said, "I was to give it to Mrs. Simp-
son, but as it was my money, and I had got it into my
own hands, I thought I had better keep it." I then
told him there was a deficiency of two 501. notes. He
said, "I shall not explain as to where they are." There
was another person in his company at the Bank, whom
I asked if he had any money which he had received
from the prisoner, and he gave me 201., which he said
the prisoner had given him that morning, and that the
prisoner owed him nearly the amount. I believe the
principal witnesses in the case reside in the neighbour-
hood of Liverpool. I have heard that another person is
now in custody upon this charge at Liverpool, and I
believe the information to be correct.
Mr. Metcalfe--What witnesses are resident at Liver-
pool ?
Witness—Mrs. Simpson and the clerk at the Bank.
Mr. Metcalfe—And what witnesses are resident here ?
Witness—There is the clerk from the Bank of Eng-
land as well as myself.
Henry Murphy—l am a detective officer of the Liver-
pool police. I produce a warrant signed by John
Smith Mansfield, Esq., a magistrate of the borough
of Liverpool, against the prisoner for feloniously
forging a receipt for payment of money. I believe
the prisoner to be John Brown mentioned in the
warrant. I this morning asked the prisoner if his
name was John Brown, when he replied that it was.
I then told him that I was an officer from Liver-
pool, and that I had a warrant for his apprehension.
I read the warrant to him, and told him there was
a man named Mudd in custody at Liverpool, who had
been connected with the case. The prisoner said to me
that he had given Mudd 101. to go with him to the
bank. I said to him, " Was that to personate Simp-
son ?" and he replied, " That will have to be proved
hereafter." Either two or three witnesses went before
the magistrates at Liverpool in Mudd's case.
Mr. Metcalfe—How many witnesses were there in
Mudd's case at Liverpool ?
Witness—Mrs. Simpson, a clerk from the North and
South Wales Bank, and the officer who apprehended
him

Mr. Metcalfe—ls it usual with Liverpool police
officers to ask prisoners whether they have given 101. to
one man to personate another ?
Witness—l did not ask him first.
Mr. Metcalfe—ls that the ordinary practice at Liver-
pool ?

- Witness—Yes. I very often see it done ; I very
often do it.

The clerk to the solicitors for the prosecution now
applied to Mr. Alderman Hunter to allow the prisoner
to be removed to Liverpool, in the custody of thc last
witness, in accordance with the warrant.
_

Mr. Metcalfe objected to the removal of the prisoner
from London, as it would entail upon him the heavy
expense of taking his witnesses to Liverpool and main-
taining them there, especially as there was no question,
as he was instructed, that the money in reality belonged
to the prisoner.
Mr. Alderman Hunter said he felt it his duty to
deliver the prisoner up to the officer who produced the
warrant for his apprehension.

GUILDHALL.—M. Leo Wertheimber a brandy mer-
chant of 14, Broad-street-buildings, was brought up for
further examination, relative to the charge of uttering a
forged acceptance to a bill of exchange for 1281. 10s.,
with intent to defraud M. Jean Valentine, a manufac-
turer of eau-de-vie, at Angouleme, in France.
This case has been several times adjourned to enable
the prisoner to produce "H. A. Weber," the alleged
.Lcceptor of the bill, or such evidence as would satisfy
the magistrate's mind that the name endorsed on the
bill was not that of a fictitious personage ; and yesterday
it was stated that although Weber was in Germany,
there were witnesses present who would identify his
handwriting in the acceptance.
Thos. Gibson Brewer, a solicitor, of Philpot-lane, said
he knew a person of the name of Weber, who carried on
the business of merchant for six months at 23, Philpot-
lane, under power of attorney, for a Mr. Gordelia,
against whom witness was proceeding about that time.
Jno. Wm. Muntch, a commission-agent, said he knew
Weber, and had seen him in England within the last
month. The acceptance to the bill produced was like
Weber's signature, and witness believed it to be his
handwriting. . _ _

A letter was here put in, addressed by the prosecutor
to a member of the prisoner's family, who are all highly
respectable, offering to withdraw from the prosecution
if he were indemnified for his loss, in supplying the pri-
soner with the brandies for which the bill in question
was paid, and undertaking to forego his own expenses,
if his claim for between 3,000 f. and 4,000 f. were imme-
diately complied with.

Mr; Bush, who appeared for the prosecution, said he
had not heard of that letter having been written until
yesterday morning ; but he wished the alderman to take
into consideration the motives with which it was written.
The prisoner had evidently become acquainted with bad
associates, and the prosecutor knowing the high re-
spectability of the prisoner's friends, and at the same
time taking a French view of the English law, offered
to arrange the matter without carrying the case to trial,
the French law permitting compromises of that kind.
Mr. Clarkson said he had satisfactorily shown that
the acceptor of the bill was a bona fide personage, and
the prisoner was, therefore, entitled to his discharge.
Alderman Salomons said that after the production of
the letter already alluded to, he should not feel justified
in detaining the prisoner, even if the prosecution had
maintained its ground on the allegation of the acceptance
being a forgery.
The prisoner was discharged.
Thomas Slater, a dirty and ferocious-looking little
man, about 40 years of age, was charged with commit-
ting the following brutal assault upon his wife.
Sarah Slater, who appeared in court with a couple of
black eyes, and face swollen and tinged with almost
every hue of the rainbow, and a forehead covered with
hospital dressings, said she was in her own room when
the prisoner came in, and, without any provocation,
struck her on the side of the head with his fist. She
tried to get away from him, but he followed her round
the room and struck her three times more ; not satisfied
with having inflicted severe punishment upon her, he
seized a large conch-shell, weighing several pounds, and
hurled it at her head. His aim, unfortunately, proved
too true, for the shell struck witness on the forehead
with such force that it felled her to the ground, and, on
being picked up, there was a large wound in the flesh
from which the blood was flowing in great quantities.
She was, however, taken to the hospital, where she was
soon restored to consciousness, and had her head dressed.
Alderman Salomons considered it a very aggravated
assault,
vo and therefore fined the prisorPer 51., or, in default,
months' imrisonment and further ordered him to
find substantial bail to keep the peace for a further
period of six months.

HAMMERSMITH THE RIGHT OF ADMITTING
SOLDIERS INTO A CANTEEN DURING DIVINE SERVICE
ON SUNDAY MORNINGS.-34r. Thomas Williams, the
landlord of the canteen in Palace-green, adjoining the
barracks, and near Kensington Palace, appeared before
Mr. Beadon, to answer the complaint of Inspector
O'Brian, of the T division, for having his house open on
Sundry, the Bth inst., before one o'clock in the afternoon,
for the sale of spirits, &c., the same not being for the
refreshment of travellers.

The defendant pleaded Not. Guilty.
Sergeant Bradshaw, 20 T, said that about twenty
minutes past eleven o'clock on the morning
he visited the canteen kept by the defendant,luaeestion
panied by a consteble, and saw a soldier leave the pre.
mises carrying a half gallon can containing malt riquoe;
On entering the house he found two soldiers standing .
at the bar drinking, with a full pot of malt liquor. -
The defendant interrupted Sergeant Bradshaw, and
said there were four soldiers, and not two, as he had
mentioned. His house was not the canteen, but the
suttling house for the soldiers at the barracks.
Sergeant Bradshaw said there were four soldiers, but
the other two were at the back, preparing potatoes for
cooking.
Mr. Beadon observed that the defendant had admit-
ted serving by stating that there were four soldiers in
the house, and wished to know what defence he had to
make to the summons.
The defendant said he had served the militare or the

last 17 years, and this was the first complaint ever made
against him. He was bound to serve the soldiers at the
barracks while on guard with refreshments, by the
direction of the commanding officer, and if he refused
his conduct would be reported to the Horse Guards.
He had one of the sergeants of the Guards in attend-
ance who would confirm what he'had stated.
The Sergeant was then called, and he said he looked
upon it as a matter of right that they should be served
with refreshments, and he had never known the land-
lord of the suttling-house to refuse supplying them at
any time of the day.
Mr. Beadon inquired if it was not laid down in the
Mutiny Act that the military should not be served dur-
ing Divine service ?_

The Sergeant said he was not aware of it being so.
The Defendant said he was like serving under two
laws. He had a licence from the Board of Green Cloth,
at Buckingham Palace, and another from the magis-
trates. His house was not like a canteen, for, if it was,
he would be under the control of the Board of Ordnance.
Inspector O'Brien submitted that the defendant's
house was under the same regulations as the other
licensed victuallers' houses.
Mr. Beadon said the subject was a new one to him,
and ought to be settled for the guidance of parties here-
after. He had looked into the Mutiny Act, but could
not find that any of the suttling-houses were mentioned.
He should like to know the difference between a canteen
and a suttling-house.
The Sergeant, in answer to questions, said he knew
there was a difference between them. A canteen was
not licensed to sell spiriis, but suttling-houses were. If
he saw any civilians served in a suttlinc, house on Sun-
day mornings, or during the prescribeehours, he should
make a report of it to the commanding officer. In a
canteen they cleared the place of civilians, and were re-
sponsible for the conduct of the house, while in a sutt-
ling-house the landlord was responsible, and was bound
to clear the house himself of civilians.

Mr. Beadon was of opinion the statement of the ser-
geant was the correct one, and under the, circumstances
he should not interfere with the defendant as long as he
continued to serve the soldiers at the barrcks, but if he
served civilians, that was another story. However, the
police had a right to visit the' house, and if the defendant
was found serving civilians he would certainly be punished.
He dismissed the summons, but he should like to see the
defendant's license from Buckingham Palace.
The defendant said he never served any civilians dur-
ing the prescribed hours, but only the soldiers quartered
at the barracks. He would forward the license for his
worship's inspection.
CHARGE OF WRITING A LIBELLOUS AND THREATENING
LETTER.—Mr. George Jones, a surgeon, of No. 8, High-
row, Notting-hill, was brought before Mr. Beadon, on a
warrant, charged with having unlawfully and maliciously,
published a defamatory libel upon Mrs. Elizabeth Tur-
ner and her daughter, Emma Turner, of Church-street,
Kensington.

A summons was issued in the first instance for Thurs-
day last, but on that day a professional gentleman at-
tended and solicited a postponement of the hearing until
a future day, as his client could not then attend. The
summons was then fixed for Saturday, and after the com-
plainant had waited an hour the defendant's name was
called, but he failed to answer. A warrant was then
granted, and Mrs. Turner said "that on the sth in3t.,
she received a letter by post, signed by Jones, in which
it stated that both her and her daughter were bad, and
that he should publish bills giving their true characters."
The defendant now apologised for not attending on
Saturday, and said Mrs. Turner was willing to forego all
proceedings.
Mr. Beadon said he had read the letter, and from the
nature of its contents be was bound to call upon the
defendant to enter into his own recognisances in the sum
of 251., to keep the peace for three months.
The defendant did so, and, after paying 6s. costs, was
liberated.