The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-12 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 12, 1849.:

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
Henry Solomons, of Holborn-hill, auctioneer, Mr. W.
G. White, of Bateman's-row, Shoreditch, printer, and
Mr. John Kneller, of No. 3, Eagle-street, City-road,
cabin. t maker were summoned before Aldermen Law-
rence .and F,rehrother (who happened to drop in), for
having in tl.e 4th of January unlawfully, wickwily, and
maliciously written and putA:shed, and caused and pro-
cured to be printed and published, a false, scandalous,
and malicious libel, in the form of a handbill, containing
matters and allegations that the complainant, Mr. George
Boa chile, was about selling goods the property of a
mock auctioneer. which libel was a great damage to the
character of Mr. Rowcliffe.
Mr. Buchanan, of Walbrook, appeared (in the absence
of Mr. Ballantine, the barrister) to conduct the case, and
Mr. Lewis, of Ely-place, defended &Ammons, White, and
Kn eller.
Mr. George Rowcliffe, auctioneer, of No. 20, Moor-
gate-street, said that he was the sole occupier of the
hous4, and used the lower part as sale- rooms, and let the
rest of the house out as offices. He bought the lease of
the premises from a Mr. Redgrave, who used to carry on
the same business, when in partnership with a person
named Mullins. It was after the dissolution of partner-
ship that he made the purchase; previous to that he
used to hire the rooms, and goods were sold under Mr.
Redgrave's name until within the last week, when his
name was removed from the door. On the 4th of Janu-
ary he observed two men near his door distributing bills
which referred to him.
Alderman LAWRENCE wished to see one of them,
when a copy was handed up, and ran thus:—
" MOCK AUCTION.
" 20, Moorgate-street.
" The public arc respectfully cautioned against pur-
chasing articles at the above establishment without pre-
viously examining them with the greatest scrutiny. The
numerous sales that are announced to take place from
time to time, though advertised as being genuine and
unreserved, on the contrary consist of furniture and
other goods made and put up expressly for the occasion,
being in most cases the property of a mock auctioneer.
"The fact of the proprietor's name being different to
that of the auctioneer is at once so suspicious, that it is
hoped all persons will be deterred from making any
purchases without first being satisfied as to the genu-
ineness of the sale.
" A FRIEND OF THE PUBLIC,
AND AN OPPONENT OF SHADI AUCTIONS."
Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE—HOW do you make this
refer to you? Mr. Buchanan observed that it did, so far
as the number of the house being mentioned.
Alderman LAWRENCE—But at this time Mr. Red-
grave's name was on the door, and the bills only having
the address of 20, Moorgate-street, how can the pro-
secutor swear that it was meant for himself? Mr. Bu-
chanan said he would be able to show, by the evidence
he had to produce that he was the person intended to be
libelled.

Mr. Rowcliffe then proceeded with his evidence, and
added that on the sth of January he went to the printer
(White), and asked him if he had printed the bills; he
replied in the affirmative, and said that Kneller gave the
order for them, and Solomons paid the deposit. He (the
prosecutor) had received a letter on the subject, and
several persons had threatened him.
The two men who distributed bills about the door of
the complainant swore they could not identify Mr. Sob-
mons as the person from whom they got them.
Mr. Rowcliffe was recalled, and cross examined by
Mr. Lewis, when he said that the articles were always
advertised in the name of Redgrave, who had no license.
He declined answering the question of whose property
was generally put up for sale, and said that he carried
on the business for the last four months in the same
name.
Alderman FAREBROTHER—When he brings such a
charge as this against the defendants, I think, for the
sake of his own character, he ought to answer the ques-
tion; hut, as he does not, the non• answer must be taken,
and all parties may come to whatever conclusion they
like.

Mr. Rowcliffe said that only a part of the property for
sale was his own.
Mr. Lewis—Will you say that the greater part was
not sent to your rooms by brokers for sale? Mr. Row-
cliffe—l refuse to say that property was only sent by
brokers.
Alderman LAWRENCE—Then you have never adver-
tised in your name, or removed that of Mr. Redgrave
from the door? Mr. Roweliffe—l have not; but my
name has been under the auctioneer's desk.
Mr. Lewis—And, as a matter of course, the public
would imagine they were purchasing from Mr. Red-
grave ? Mr. Rowcliffe—They might think so.
Alderman FAREBROTHER said, he recollected that
some person of the same name as complainant (he did
not say it was he, for it might be somebody who as-
sumed it) advertised a carriage and a pair of horses, the
property of a Chevalier Somebody, to be sold in Love-
lane, Stockwell. This brought a cruwd of people, who
rang his bell, and were very importunate to see his
horses. It afterwards turned out that the Chevalier only
resided in lodgings in a freehold house adjoining, instead
of being the owner of the property advertised for sale,
and that he could scarcely procure the means of buying
a dinner; he thought that was decidedly a mock auction,
and such sales were continually being carried on under
a distress or judgment, whereas in some cases the fact was
that the sale and seizure were alleged to be in different
counties, which showed the statement to be false.
Mr. uchanan said he had other witnesses, and called
a person named Moore, but he not answering, and that
being all the evidence as against Solonaone and White,
who was included in the first charge, to save time,
Aldermen LAWRENCE and FAREBROTHER came to the
decision that the charge had not been established, for
there was the fact of a person acting in the capacity of
an auctioneer under a different name, and, therefore, as
the handbill only alluded to the house, and Mr. lied-
grave's name was on the door, the natural supposition,
in the absence of other evidence, would be that it was
applicable to the last party, namely, Mr. Redgrave.
They had, therefore, come to the conclusion that the
summons with respect fo White and Solomons should be

dismissed.
Mr. Buchanan said, as Mr. Moore had arrived, he
would proceed against Kneller and White.
Alderman LAWRENCE said ho could not do so against
White, as the summons had already been dismissed, he
having been included with Solomons.
Mr. Buchanan then called
John Moore, a broker and picture-dealer, who said—
I know Roweliffe and Kneller. The latter belongs to a
society of which I am a member, and one night he said
that he had• had some words with linweliffe, and would
serve him out, at the same time showing me a bill with-
out a printer's name. I afterwards saw similar bills dis-
tributed in the vicinity of the complainant's house by
two men.
Alderman LAWRENCE—Have you the bill or proof
which the defendant showed you. Witness—l have not.
Alderman FAREBROTHER—I think, if you go further
into the case, the complainant will only prove that his is
really a mock auction.
Mr. Lewis (to the witness)—You know what mock
auctions are? Witness—Yes.
Mr. Lewis—Did Mr. Rowcliffe sell any other than his
own property ? Witness—l don't think he did.
Mr. Lewis—Have you not seen articles several times
put up for sale? Witness—l have.
Mr. Lewis—And have you not offered yourself to act
as a commission agent for gentlemen in the room? Wit-
ness—l have so, t never took a commission from Mr.
Redgrave.
Mr. Lewis—Have you not beard that the Times news•
paper refused to take his advertisements? Witness—
I did hear so from Mr. Rowcliffe; but I can't say that
that is the reason he advertises under the name of Red-
grave, although I have seen advertisements in the papers
since he informed me of the fact. He had heard that it
was in consequence of a gentleman connected with the
Times having made a purchase that the advertisements
were refused.
Proscutor—l think that the course that has been pur-
sued is not right. I have not fair play.
Mr. Lewis—Nor have the public.
Mr. Rowcliffe said his enemy was Mr. Solomons, and
the origin of the libellous bill was that Mr. Solomons
obtained leave to sell at the Hall of Commerce, and Mr.
Moxhay finding the sales were trumpery refused to let
him have the use of the room any longer, and gave it up
to him (complainant). Mr. Solomons took umbrage at
this, and hence the annoyance.
Alderman FAREBROTHER asked if Mr. Buchanan
thought there was any use in proceeding further in the
charge of libel, as there was no evidence to prove that it
was intended for the complainant, as the witness Moore
had produced no copy of the bill he saw.
Mr. Rowcliffe (with great warmth)—No, there is no
use in proceeding further, as the case was prejudged be-
fore it was heard.
Alderman FAREBROTHER—The public don't find a
respectable person using another name, and that person
having no license.
Alderman LAWRENCE—We have not been prejudiced.
We do not sit here to decide whether yours is a mock
auction or not. We only have to decide according to
the evidence whether this is a libellous publication, and
whether it relates to you. We are of opinion that it does
not, and therefore the summons is dismissed.
SO U Tli WAR K.
Elizabeth Salter, a woman of the town, was brought
before Mr. Cottingham, charged with stealing a gold
watch, gold guard-chain, and four sovereigns and a half,
from Mr. Wade, a merchant.
The complainant stated, that on returning home the
previous night, in walking along the Waterloo-road, he
met the prisoner, and was induced to accompany her to a
house in Jane-street, CornwalLroad. He had not been
long there when he missed the articles enumerated
above, and also the money, and upon the discovery he
accused the prisoner of robbing him. She, however,
denied the charge, upon which he attempted to get out
of the room, but she being a powerful woman prevented
him, and when he found that he could not get down
stairs, fearful of personal violence being reset-led to by
those in the house, he commenced smashing the win-
dows to give an alarm. He broke three or tour squares
of glass, and the prisoner finding that he was determined
upon eetting out of the place then unlocked the door, and
he descended to the bottom of the staircase. When he
got there be was met by a man and woman, who upbraided
him for breaking the windows, and when he informed
them that he had been robbed they paid, no regard to
what he said, and the former seized him, and a scuffle
ensued; whereupon a policeman came up, and the man
and woman gave him in charge for smasaing the win-
dows. When they arrived at the station-house he (com-
plainant described the circumstances of the robbery,
and the prisoner was taken into custody. He added
that he was not sober at the time, but sufficiently so to
be enabled to recollect all that had occurred.
The landlady of the house said the complainant
brought a " lady " there on the previous night, and
that soon after they had arrived he began to smash
the windows, and that was the reason she made the
charge in the first instance against him ; she did not
know anything about the robbery except what the com-
plainant said about it.