The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-03 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ROBBERY AT AN HOTEL.—John Williams, a per-
son of respectable appearance, was brought before
Mr. Hard wick fur final examination, charged with
having committed several robberies at the Colosseum
Hotel, Park-road, Regent's Park.
It appeared that the prisoner went into the Colos-
seum Hotel, kept by Mr. Grace, on Friday night,
and applied to be accommodated with a bed for the
night. He was furnished with a bed, and in the
morning he left. Soon after he was gone the waiter,
William Pizzey, went into his bedroom, which was
close to the room occupied by the prisoner, and he
immediately missed his watch, which he had pre-
viously placed on the top of the drawers. On making
a further search he discovered that a quantity of
wearing apparel had also been stolen. On stating
below what had occurred, Ann Otley, the cook,
recollected that she had borrowed a watch from Miss
Grace, the proprietor's niece, the over night, which
she had left in her bedroom, which was opposite to
the prisoner's room. She ran up stairs, and on look-
ing into the room she found the watch gone. Infor-
mation of the robbery was immediately forwarded
to the police, who tent it round to the various pawn-
brokers.

Charles Thomas Yardley, of Tottenham-court-
road, pawnbroker, said the prisoner came into his
shop on the following Saturday, and offered to pledge
a watch. From the appearance of the prisoner and
the watch, witness suspected that it was part of the
proceeds of the robbery at the Colosseum Hotel, and
accordingly he detained him and gave him into the
custody of the police.
The watch was identified by Miss Qrrace, and the
prisoner was also identified as the person who had
slept at the hotel on the morning of the robbery.
The discovery of the second watch was made in a
singular way. When the prisoner was remanded he
had the watch upon his person, concealed in such a
way as to escape the search to which he was previously
subjected. The prisoner was placed in a reception-
room in the House of Detention, for the first night, and
he then contrived to place the watch beneath the saw-
dust in a spittoon in the ward. Not being aware that
the regulations of the prison required a prisoner to be
placed in a different ward each night,he left the watch
in its hiding-place when called the next morning into
the washing-room. On learning that he would not
be sent back to the same ward, be told one of the
turnkeys where he had placed the watch, with a re-
quest that he would go and get it, and keep it for him
until he was released. The turnkey found the watch
as described, which was delivered to the police. When
the watch was shown to rizzey, the waiter, he iden-
tified it as his property.
The various witnesses who deposed to the above
facts were then bound over, and the prisoner was
fully committed.
WESTMINSTER.

IMPORTANT DECISION.—About a fortnight ago an
order was obtained at this court against James Law-
rence, of No. 1, College-place, Chelsea, to remove a
nuisance. On that occasion some conversation oc-
curred between Mr. Broderip and Mr. Ryder, the
chairman of the board of guardians of St. Luke's,
Chelsea, in the course of which the latter expressed
his objection to the expenses necessary in the prose.

cution of cases under the " Nuisances Removal and
Diseases Prevention Act" being defrayed out
of the sums collected for the relief of the poor, and
having intimated that an extra officer had been ap-
pointed, and that the labours of another were mate-
rially increased, whose amount of remuneration the
board had not yet determined upon, in order to carry
out the provisions of the Act of Parliament, inquired
what amount of costs the magistrates would call
upon those to pay whose non-compliance with this
sanitary enactment rendered prosecution necessary ?
Mr. Broderip declined to give a general opinion, and
left the parochial authorities to raise the question
upon the case above alluded to, if they thought fit.
Mr. Ryder, considering that if the great burden of
the costs should fall upon the defendants, the statute
only requiring the removal of the nuisance, without
imposing any penalty in the event of the order of the
magistrates not being obeyed, there would be a
readier obedience to the law, availed himself of the
opportunity thus afforded of setting the matter at
rest, and a summons was accordingly taken against
Lawrence, to appear yesterday, to show cause why
he should not be adjudged to pay the costs incurred
in prosecution, amounting to 18s., the items of which
were, half a-guinea for the parish surveyor, Ss. 6d.
to the inspector of nuisances, and 4s. costs of the
summons and order of this court.
Proof having been given of the service of the order,
summons, &c.,
Mr. BRODERIP said—The extraordinary items con-
sist of a claim by the surveyor and inspector—both
public officers—for attendance, &c. This application
is singular, so far as the practice of this court is
concerned. The parishes of Westminster within the
district generally, whose officers have to deal with a
locality abounding in abominations, and who have
dealt with them most efficiently, have not asked for
any such fees. The inspectors of nuisances in those
parishes have been most active, and I am bound to say
that, owing to their zeal ankthe discretion of the
parochial authorities a great and happy change has
been effected. It has been urged that the expense of
carrying out this most beneficial Act ought not to
come out of the poor-rate, and that the officers
employed putting its provisions in force should be
paid by the orders of the justice. See to what this
would lead ; it would lay the officers open
to that suspicion which it has been the care of all
modern Acts of Parliament to prevent—namely, their
having a direct interest in getting up cases, anti
thereby rendering their evidence suspicious and un-
satisfactory. Again, how is to be assessed ? There

may be one hundred cases, there may be five, what is
to be apportioned to each defendant ? A great deal
might be said in answer to the argument that the ex-
pense should not come out of the poor-rate. Eren if
the parishes were to pay a great deal more for carry-
ing out sanitarylmprovements, it would be found to
be a wise economy. But the I4th section of the Act
is conclusive as to the expenses being paid out of the
poor-rate (the worthy magistrate here read the sec-
tion, which directs that persons employed in carrying
out the provisions of the statute shall be paid out of
the poor-rate.) The truth is, and I say it from ex-
perience, that the Act can in general be well carried
out by the inspectors of nuisances, who as well as the
surveyors, are salaried officers, and do not come under
the category of those whom the justice may order to
be paid. There may be particular cases, but this is
not one of them. . .

By this decision the costs at this court for sum
nionses and orders were only allowed. _ _

_ -
BEFEYOLENCE.-101. was received from the Men
cers' Company for the poor-box.

WORSHIP-STREET.

ELOPIMENT AND ROBBIIRY.—A young man named
William Smart was placed at the bar before Mr.
Arnold, charged with having stolen a cartload of
household furniture, the property of Mr. John Groves,
a poulterer, in Pool-street, Holton.

The prosecutor, who displayed much mental distress
and emotion, stated that the prisoner had lodged in
his house for four months past, and that although
circumstances had arisen which induced him to fear
that an improper intimacy subsisted between Ow
latter and his wife, to whom he had been married nine
years, and had a family of four children, nothing
occurred to confirm his suspicions until the
morning of Saturday sennight, when, upon re-
turning home from business at Leadenhall-market,
he was shocked to find that his wife had absconded,
leaving her children the eldest of whom was
only seven years of age unprotected; and that
the whole of his furniture and every article in the
place had been carried off. Having ascertained from
his eldest child that the goods had been removed in a
cart, under the direction of his wife, and feeling
satisfied that she had acted in collusion with the pri-
soner, he obtained the assistance of the police, but
every effort to trace out their retreat was unsuccess-
ful, until a few days since, when he accidentally
discovered him at a house in Tabernacle-walk, in
company with his wife, and gave him into custody ;
and he afterwards traced his property to another
house in the same neighbourhood, where nearly the
whole of it was recovered.

Police-constable Curzon, G 126, stated that he
accompanied the prosecutor in search:of the fugitives,
and while passing down the street in question he
caught sight of the wife of the prosecutor, with
whose person he was acquainted, at the top window
of one of the houses. He immediately made his
way up stairs, and having asked her where the pri-
loner was to be found, she disclaimed all connexion
with him, and denied that he was there ; but upon
searching behind a turn-up bedstead at the end of the
room, he found him secreted there, and at once se-
cured him.

Henry Niddle stated that at an early hour on the
morning of Saturday seennight he was knocked up
by tha prisoner, who told him to proceed immediately
to the house, 33, Poole-street, to remove the goods
of the occupants, who were about to change their re-
sidence. 'rho prisoner accompanied him a short
distance with a horse and cart, which he had brought
with him to execute the job, and upon reaching the
house it was loaded, with the assistance of the
prosecutor's wife, who was shortly afterwards joined
by the prisoner, and he was directed to drive to a
house in Mark-street, Finsbury, to which they both
proceeded with him, and he left them together.
At the close of the evidence the magistrate asked
the prisoner if he had any answer to the charge, but
before he had time to reply the prosecutor's wife
pressed forward from the back of the court, and with
much boldness and flippancy intimated that she would
take upon herself the whole responsibility arising out
of the transaction, as the abstraction of the goods was
her own spontaneous act, and the prisoner had taken
no culpable part in their removal.
Mr. ARNOLD commented upon the disgraceful con-
duct exhibited by the parties, and said that as a clear
case of asportation had been made out on the part of
the prisoner, he should order him to be remanded for
the completion of the case.
The prisoner was then removed by the gaoler; but
the instant he left the dock the prosecutor's wife, with
an endearing expression, caught him round the neck,
and gave him a parting kiss, to the chagrin of her
unfortunate husband, and the disgust of every one
present.