The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-09 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANS/0 JOSE.

William Wemevir was charged with having been con-
cerned in an extensive robbery committed on the pre-
mises of Mr. Wood, carpet warehouseman.
Mr. Hobler appeared for the prosecution.
Bradley (269, City policeman) stated, that, in conse-
quence of information which ',he had received, he took
the prisoner into custody, and showing him an invoice
of the sale of some carpets, asked him whether he knew
anything about it? The prisoner, upon looking at the
invoice, in which his name appeared as the seller, said
it was a forgery. Afterwards he said he recollected
something about carpeting sometime ago, when he took
a piece of carpeting to a person in the Borough, and
that he had had it of a man named Hoare.

Thomas Cobley (K 65) was present when the prisoner
was taken into custody, and asked him whether he had
•ver received any money from a Mr. Wall, or had com-
missioned Mr, Wall to sell any carpeting for him? The
prisoner replied in the negative to both questions.
George Wall, commercial traveller and commission
agent, stated that he had sold some carpeting for the
prisoner, and the paper produced was a copy of the in•
voice he had given to the prisoner on the occasion. The
amount paid to the prisoner upon the sale of the article
was 151. 16s. 10d., deducting the commission.
Mr. 11. Wood, the prosecutor, stated that a "piece of
carpeting answering the description, both in pattern and
quantity, had been stolen from his warehouse.
The prisoner said he had met a man named Hoare,
who asked him to carry the carpeting in his cart to a
party, and he had done so without eNer suspecting that
it had boon improperly obtained.
Henry Albert, a man who had been emyloyed by the
prosecutor, was also charged with robbing the premises.
Both prisoners were remanded.
GUILDHALL.

Yesterday Dr. Henty John M'Dougell, physician,
appeared before Alderman Farebrother, to ask his advice
under the following circumstances :
Mr. M'Dougell said that his application was one not
only involving the safety of the public against ignorance
or wilful negligence, but also to protect the profession
to which he belonged from errors which if they termi-
mated fatally would materially damiigs their reputation.
The facts were these:—A short time since a patient was
sent up from the country and placed under his care,
when, instead of giving him opium, which the person
had been accustomed to take, he ordered him a sedative
of henbane and camphor water. He afterwards consi-
dered it proper to administer a double doss, and accord-
ingly wrote a prescription, which was taken to a chemist
and druggist, where one of the assistants made the
mixture up, and gave it to the messenger, having only
written the word "mixture," without saying how it
was to be taken according to what was directed in
the prescription. Fortunately on calling on his
patient the next day that person informed him
that he had not touched the medicine, as there were
no directions on the bottle, and wished him to look
at it. He did so, and at once discovered that in ad-
dition to the henbane ordered, the assistant had mixed
up a portion of paregoric, containing several grains of
opium, and an ounce and a half of spirits, instead of
camphoretted water, so that, had the dose been taken,
he should have found his patient dead, to the great
detriment of his professional character. On discovering
what had occurred, he proceeded to the chemist's shop,
and saw the two assistants, and on inquiring what the
bottle contained, one of them replied about three parts
paregoric. He then requested the party to read the pre-
scription which he sent; and, having done so correctly,
inquired why his directions had not been complied with,
when both parties treated the affair with great levity,
and said that it was " only a mistake." Under these
circumstances, he wished to know what course he ought
to pursue to make the parties amenable to the law for
such conduct, which was now of such frequent occurrence,
and which, in several instances in this country, had ter-
minated fatally through similar negligence.
Alderma❑ FAREBRuTHER asked if the prescription
was legibly written? Mr. M'Dougell replied that it was,
and any one could easily read it.
Alderman FAREBROTFIER wished to know if applicant
had been to Apothecaries' Hall on the subject? Mr.
M'Dougell said that it would be useless, as the chemists
and druggists had taken the place of the old apothe-
caries, and were not subject to any examination as to
qualification.
Alderman FAREBROTIIER asked what specific complaint
he had to make? Mr. M'Dougell replied, that his com-
plaint was, first, the making up of a poisonous ingredient;
second, that he sent too much ; and thirdly, that no di-
rection was written as to how or when it ;was to be
taken.

. Alderman FAREBROTIIER said that the last fault was
most fortunate one for his patient, as most likely if he
had taken it at night, as written in the prescription, he
might have been found dead the next morning.
Mr. MlDougell had little doubt about it, and then the
blame would fall upon him for ordering a double dose,
as from paregoric the cause of death would not be so
speedily observed as from other poisons.
Alderman FAREBROTLIER granted a summons against
the chemist for having, through gross ignorance or
criminal negligence, allowed such a poisonous com-
pound to be made up instead of the proper prescription
sent to him.

Thomas Baylis, a warehouseman in the service of Mr.
Richard Parker, in the Old Bailey, carman, was placed
at the bar under the following circumstances
:
Mr. Parker said that for some time past he had lost
a large amount of property, but could not guess who
was the guilty party, as he never for a moment sus-

petted the prisoner, who had been in his employ be-
tween eight and nine years. At last his suspicions
were aroused, and on Saturday last he obtained a search
warrant at this office, and the officer, on going to the
prisoner's house, found three sacks and some canvas
made into carman's jackets. When taken into cus-
tody the prisoner confessed that two of the sacks were
his property, and also the canvas.
Alderman FAREBROTHER asked how he was em-
ployed so as to get at the canvas, &c. ? Mr. Parker
replied that having been so long in their service he
was entrusted with money to purchase canvas for the
purpose of mendieg the tarpaulins of the carts, and
which canvas was left in his care to be given out as
wanted.
Alderman FAREBROTHER—Had any one else accsss to
the premises where the canvas was kept? Mr. Parker
—Yes, they had.
Thomas Barnes, 448, stated, that be searched the pri-
soner's house, and found the sacks between the laths of
the bedstead and the bed, as well as the sum of 251. Ile
returned to Mr. Parker's, and the prisoner was called
into the counting-house, when he at once said that two
of the sacks belonged to his employer, as he had taken
them home over his shoulders on rainy nights, and in-
tended to return them. With respect to the two jackets,
he admitted that he had done wrong in taking the can-
vas for his own use.
Alderman FAREBROTHER asked if he had made in-
quiries respecting the prisoner's character? The officer
said he had. In the neighbourhood he was looked up to
with respect, as being a sober, honest, and industrious
man, never spending his evenings in public-houses, but
going to his home after work, and taking a pride its
keeping his wife and children respectable.
Alerman FAREBROTHER said he should like to know
what the prisoner received per week? Mr. Parker re-
plied that at first he received 215., then 245., and at the
present time 265.
The prisoner denied having stolen the sacks ; al-
thouph he had done 'wrong in taking the canvas for
his jacket.
Alderman FAREBROTHER then asked Mr. Parker
what he wished to be done with the prisoner.
Mr. Parker said he wanted a remand, as ho thought
the prisoner had been robbing him for some time.
Alderman FAREBROTHER asked Mr. Parker if he
thought a jury would convict the prisoner when, in the
first instance, the only evidence against him was his
own confession to having triflingly transgressed in
making use of the sacks on a wet night, with the inten-
tion of returning them, which sacks and canvas he (Mr.
Parker) could not identify; and whether it appeared
likely that a man bearing the character which the po-
liceman had described would place himself and family in
misery for the sake of 6s. or 75., at the same time
having plenty of money in the house. He did not in-
tend to justify the conduct of the prisoner in taking even
a piece of canvas for a jacket; on the contrary, it was
extremely reprehensible, however small the quantity;
still he did not think a jury would come to the conclu-
sion that there was a felonious intent, more particularly
with respect to the sacks.
Mr. Parker said he thought the Alderman appeared
to favour the prisoner. When last at this court, against
his will he was compelled to prosecute a thief who stole
his handkerchief, only worth 61, and was transported
for seven years.
Alderman FAREBROTHER said he was not screening
the prisoner in the least. He was only putting it to
Mr. Parker, that if he were a juryman would he, upon
such evidence, convict the prisoner of a felonious intent?
Besides the cases alluded to were different. In the
stealing of the pocket-handkerchief the individual might
have committed fifty robberies of large magnitude, and
there not be sufficient evidence to convict him; but
sometimes the most trifling things sent notorious cha-
racters out of the country. With respect to the pri-
soner his was a different case, and, as Mr. Parker
wanted a remand he should adjourn the case for a week,
but certainly take bail, the prisoner in 40/. and one
surety in 201.
BENEVOLENCE.—Mr. Alderman MUSGROVE presented
a donation of 5/. from the Clothworkers' Company. at
the same time making an inquiry as to how the funds of
the poor-box stood.
The Chief Clerk said they were not in a very flourish-
ing condition, and the applicants for relief were most
numerous.
Alderman MUSGROVE said he was sorry to hear that
such was the case, as had ho been aware of it he would
have prevailed on the company to double their sub-
scription.
The amount was requested to be acknowledged
through the press.
BOW-STREET.

A person of Jewish appearance, whose name did not
transpire, was placed at the bar before Mr. Henry,
charged with stealing a case of jewels of the value of
701., the property of Mr. Wilson, of Bridge• court, West-
minster.
The prosecutor stated that on Tuesday ISet the jewels
in roes:lion, with other property, were in a box ontoitie
of the shop, and while he turned his back for two or
three minutes to go inside, the property was taken away.
From information which he had received from the police
he called at the shop of Mr. Attenborough, pawnbroker,
Crown street, Finsbury, where he identified six rings, a
brooch, and pin, value 31., as a part of the property.
The case was very heavy, and would require two men
to remove it.
Inspector Looly said that the prisoner had acknow-
ledged that he had pawned the articles with Mr. Atten-
borough.
Thomas Hughes, 52 H, said that he had apprehended
the prisoner about.si2g o'clock last night at Spit?,Welds.