The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-21 00:00:00

DUSTMAN'S VAILS.

Yesterday at the Kensington Petty Sessions, Mr.
Williams, dust contractor, was summoned on the charge
of having refused to take away the dust of a housekeeper,
whereby he had subjected himself to a penalty of five
pounds. As an attempt to put a stop to the system of
giving the contractor's men beer money, without which
they habitually refuse to take away the dust, the case
excited much interest.

A case was proved in which a person not in the habit
of giving the dustman beer, or money in lieu, was unable,
after many attempts to prevail on them to do their duty.
The defendant said he paid his men good wages, and
had discharged at least twenty upon similar complaints.
He thought it was as much the fault of those who made
a practice of giving beer money, as the men for taking
it. He had done, and would continue to do, all in his
power to put an end to it.
Mr. Nixon, the chairman of the magistrates, said he
certainly mu-it plead guilty to the failing of giving the
men money, but he would give it up.
Mr. Bellworthy, the chairman of the Kensington Im-
provement Commissioners, said he had to blame himself
for giving them money, and for which he was rewarded
by having his dust binn emptied much oftener than it
required. It had come to his knowledge that the prac-
tice bore very hard upon poor people, who had great
difficulty in getting their dust removed, or to pay for it.
Mr. Wilson, a magistrate, said he was another guilty
of bribing the dustmen. Complaints like this could not
be looked over. Unprotected females called aloud upon
them for redress.

The Chairman said the contractor had met the charge
in a proper way, and this being the first public com-
plaint, the bench would only inflict a fine of 10s. and
costs. If others were proved, the full penalty would be
enforced.

The defendant said he would go home and discharge
every man.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.—TVilliam Morley was brought
before the Lord Mayor, charged with having attempted
to defraud Messrs. Hankey, the bankers, of the sum of
2001., by means of a forged bill of exchange.
Mr. Mullins, of the firm of Bush and Mullins, solici-
tors to the committee of bankers for protection against
forgeries and frauds, attended for the prosecution.
Mr. George Bott, of the Crown Hotel, in Rupert-
street, Haymarket, said, on the 13th inst. I received
the following letter :

"Leeds, April 12, 1853.
" Mr. Bott.—Dear Sir,—Can I trouble you to get me
the enclosed cheque cashd at Messrs. Hankey in notes, and
forward it to me at York, where I shall be staying Thurs-
day and Friday next. I shall be in London next month,
and shall stay a few days with you, being the first time
since I was with you at the Exhibition.—You will greatly
oblige, dear sir, yours, &c.,

" WM. WALKER.
" N.8.--Direct for me at the Post-office, York."
(Copy of the enclosed cheque.)
" 7, Fenchurch-street, London.
" Messrs. Hankey, pay to Mr. W. Walker or bearer,
the sum of two hundred pounds.

" ARTHUR LASCELLES."
I presented the cheque at Hankeyis,bank, and in con-
sequence of a communication with that establishment,
I addressed the following letter to Mr. W. Walker,
Post-office, York, and transmitted it :
" Crown Hotel, 57, Rupert-street, Haymarket,
April, 15, 1853.
" Dear Sir,—l have presented the cheque, as you re-
quested, but as I was advised that it would be dangerous
to send such a sum of money by post, I was advised to
pay the money to a bank at York to your credit. You
will therefore have to apply for it at the York Union
Banking Company in York, producing this letter. Hoping
you will find it right, I am, sir, your obedient servant,
" Borr.

"Mr. William Walker, Post-office, Yosk."
The Prisoner—Does Mr. Bott say that I sent any
letter to him ?
Witness—l say nothing of the kind. Ido not know
you at all.

The Prisoner—l called at the Post-office by the re
quest of another person.
Mr. Mullins--The letter just read, signed "G. Bott,'
was found in the prisoner's possession when he was ap.
prehended.

Mr. G. R. Whitworth, clerk at the Post-office, York,
said—On Saturday last this letter was at the Post-office
at York. In the afternoon of the same day a boy came
to the Post-office, and asked for Mr. Walker's letter. I
made a communication to the boy, who then went away,
and the prisoner ten minutes afterwards came to the
window and asked for a letter for Mr. Walker. In
answer to questions put by me he said that he was from
London, and that his name was William Walker. I
told him I should require his signature to the receipt,
which I put before him, and he signed the name " Wil-
liam Walker" at the foot of it. I then gave him the
letter, and said to him, "It's yours, is it not ? It's all
right, is it ?" and he said, "Yes," and took it away.
In answer to a question from the prisoner,
The witness said—l told the boy that Mr. Walker
must come himself.
Brett. (the City detective) said—On Saturday I was at
the Post-office at York, and saw the prisoner leave it,
after he received the letter from the clerk. I saw him
open and read the letter, and then put it in his trowsers
pocket. Afterwards I spoke to him in Peter-lane, York.
I said, "Mr. Walker." He turned round and stopped,
but made no answer. I said, "Is your name not
Walker?" He hesitated and
said, "No." I said,
" But you have been to the Post-office for a letter ad-
dressed to Mr. Walker. Where is Mr. Walker, then ?" 1
He said lie did not know, nor did he know where Mr.
Walker lived ; nor did Mr. Walker know where lie
lived. In answer to other questions, the prisoner said
he was to take the letter to Church' Fenton, in York-
shire ; that he had met Mr. Walker that morning, who
aik
tmbliyetwrisitearPt.iot°nsot-rito,
tsenee
athere,and pfoeucazeii- 4(01
fu he
npd slid
which
ehl
ttoolsbteer.
asked him, if he was going to York, to fetch a letter for
d
thnn teforno
writ
lieve to be a genuine cheque give by the
rlon. Mr.