The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-14 00:00:00

5u8.8.,77,r SESSIONS.

(1,:,--fore Mr. :cud a Bench of

These Sessions commenced yesterday
Sessions House, liorsemonger-lane. The number of pri-
soners in the calendar is 89 ; of these 23 can neither
read nor write, 19 can only read imperfectly, 43 can read
and write imperfectly, 3 can read and write well, and 1
has received a superior education.
The Grand Jury having been addressed by the Chair-
man, retired to perform their duties, and shortly after
returned into Court with various bills.

George Williams, indicted for stealing a handkerchief
and other articles, the property of William Ranger, at
Capel, pleaded Guilty. He was sentenced to seven years
transportation, having been previously convicted.
James Draper was indicted for stealing at Bagshot a
saddle, the property of Habakkuk Robinson.
It appeared from the evidence, that on the 13th of
August last the prisoner was ta'zen into custody at
Siaines, on a charge of picking pockets. While on the
road, in custody of a, policeman named O'Toole, some
persons accosted the prisoner and asked him what he was
in custody for. The prisoner replied " I don't care
about this, but it's about something else that I am afraid
of being transported." The policeman asked. him what
he meant by that, when the prisoner said "I am afraid
about stealing a saddle at Bagshot, about nine
months since, but another man was in that
as well as myself." The policeman asked him who
he had stolen it from, when the prisoner replied—" from
Mr. Robinson. I drew the staple of the coach-house door,
and a man named Rose went in and stole the saddle."
The prisoner was taken before the Magistrates at
Felton, on the charge of picking pockets, and
was discharged for want of evidence, but the policeman
Butler stating to the Magistrates his belief that there was
a warrant out against the prisoner at Bagshot, he was
remanded for three days. On his removal the prisoner
said to Butler, "If I am taken to Bagshot, I am safe to
be transported," and he then made the same statement to
Butler, that he had previously made to O'Toole. He was
then taken to Bagshot, and committed for trial on the
present charge.
It appeared from the evidence that Mr. Robinson's
saddle was stolen in March last, and that it was found
shortly afterwards in the loft of a person, named Farn-
dale, to whom the prisoner had previously offered it for
sale, but who had refused to purchase it. The prisoner
had told Ferndale that the saddle was the property of a
man named Rose, who had employed him to sell it.
Farndale stated that he was not aware the saddle had
been concealed in his loft.

Mr. LOCKE having addressed the Jury for the prisoner,
The CHAIRMAN summed up, and the Jury found the
prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to twelve months'
imprisonment in the Guildford House of Correction,
with hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A case of some interest came on before the Lord

Mayor. A charge of embezzlement was made against
the traveller of a mercantile house in Lawrence-lane,
but as the conduct of the defendant was evidently in-
fluenced by the mere principle of securing to himself an
amount of compensation to which he considered himself
entitled, and acted upon legal advice, we omit the names
of the parties.
• The solicitor to the complainants stated that the de-
fendant was liberally paid by them for travelling in the
country for orders in their business, and that it was
' considered necessary to call him off his last journey, and
to require from hint an account of the goods and money
he possessed belonging to his employers. With their
demand for the particulars, however, the defendant most
positively refused to comply, although he admitted
that he had in his possession both money and goods
which were the property of the complainants.
The defendant's solicitor stated that his client had,
while in the country, received information that all the
clerks employed by the firm had been discharged, and
that his own fate would be similar to theirs upon his
arrival in town. Being convinced that he was, con-
sidering the nature of his connexion w;th the com-
plainants, entitled to a more ceremonious notice of dis-
charge, he determined to retain in his hands as much
property as would recompense him for the time for
which he thought himself justified in demanding pay-
ment, more especially as the complainants had disposed,
of their business to another person. It was his (defen-
dant's Solicitor's) advice to his client to give up all the
stock unsold by him, with the exception of just as much
as would be likely to cover a verdict in a court of law ;
and the defendant had declined giving an aceount of the
particulars of his account, in the belief that legal advan-
tage might be taken of it to defeat the argument of the
liability of the complainants.
The solicitor to the complainants insisted that the de-
fendant had no right whatever to detain either goods or
money of his employers. Whatever might have been the
intention of the complainants with respect to that gentle-
man, before he refused to give in his accounts, that re-
fusal would certainly cause his dismissal. If such con-
duct were to be endured, there would be no security for
any house, however extensive. The first mercantile
houses in the country would be at the mercy of their
servants, upon the pretext that the latter were appre-
hensive of being discharged without due notice.
The defendant's solicitor said that his client never en•
tertained a thought of detaining more than the small
amount requisite to cover costs. Everthing else he was
ready to give up, and he was ready also to go into. n
Court of law to show his right. The first thing he had
done upon arriving in town was to endeavour to obtain an
interview with the principals of the firm, but he never
could accomplish that object, and the customers with
whom the defendant transacted business were those,
which were made by himself. It would be monstrous to
suppose that a man engaged in such business could be'
discharged without notice; and he knew that possession
was nine points of the law.
The solicitor to the complainants stated that his clients
were ready to pay whatever claim for delay of allow-
ance the defendant might be justified in making, and
that in the present case they had both a civil and a cri-
minal remedy.
The LORD MAYOR said he considered it to be the duty
of every traveller to make weekly returns of the cash he
received to his employers, if it were for no other reason
than for the credit of the customers, who should always
appear in the ledger as having paid their accounts oppo-
site to their names. No man could be justified in with-
holding cash upon any pretext. That was a maxim of
his as a man of business. With respect to the deten-
tion of any part of the stock as security for compensa-
tion for any injury which might be made matter of dis-
pute in a Court of Law, he should deliver no opinion
upon that sort of way of securing a man's self against
contingencies.
The solicitor to the complainants said that the defen-
dant admitted that he held a sum of money, the very
course which his Lordship had so strongly condemned.
The defendant's solicitor—l should be glad to know
what specific charge you bring against my client ? The
solicitor to the complainant-21 charge him with embez-
zlement of his masters' property.
The defendant's solicitor—Can you produce a witness
as to any item ? The solicitor to the complainant—l
cannot, for he refuses to give his master the particulars,
but I have his admission as to the detention of the money,
and I call upon the Lord Mayor to remand him.
The defendant's solicitor—l deny that there is the
least ground for the accusation of a fraudulent dealing
upon the part of my client.
The Loan MAYOR—I cannot remand the defendant
in such a case. I can only advise that the whole of
the money be given up, and that the accounts be imme-
diately rendered, as business subject to irregularities of
such a nature cannot be propettly carried on. I really
think the parties had better retire and settle the affair.
The parties accordingly retired, but his Lordship was
not informed whether any arrangement resulted from
his equitable proposition.
A sturdy rough-looking native of the county of Cork,
named John Mack, who said he travelled about the world
with bits of goods to sell, was charged with having vio-
lently assaulted a policeman. .
The policeman said that as he was on duty on London
Bridge, he saw the defendant and three or four other
men who, from their gentlemanlike manner, appeared to
him to have come from the same side of the water
shoving the people off the pavement. He went up to
the defendant, who was evidently the most rebellious, in
the hope-of prevailing upon hint to allow the rest of the
public to get out of the way of the coaches, but he met
with a sort of opposition that astonished him. The de-
fendant not only abused him with words but struck and
hit him, and in the midst of the conflict between them
another of the party seized the complainant's rattle, and
broke the complainant's head and rattle against each
other. The defendant was, however, the only one of
the assailants who was apprehended. _

The statement of the jilaicer having been confirmed by
a gentleman who was passing,
The LORD MAYOR asked the defendant what he had
to say.
John Mack said that God knew he would tell nothing
but the truth. He and two men and another woman
were walking very quiet over the bridge, when somebody
pushes up against him, and as he
wasn't likely to be
knocked about without asking what for, he first civilly
put the question, but the only answer he got was from
the policeman, who caught him by the collar. Now he
wouldn't deny that Tom Walsh, who was of the party,.
did just the very thing the policeman accused of
having done, so that he felt very sore at being seized
like a thief when he was only acting like a gentleman,
and then, to be sure, as his passion was up,
he warn
particularly tender in his conduct to the man who pro-
voked him. 't very

The LORD MAvoß—But what have volt to say about
biting the policeman ? John Mack—l'aith, as he put
his finger in my mouth I didn't think he put it there for
any other purpose, and I bit him as well as I could.
The policemen said that the defendant bit him to the
bone.

The Long MAYOR declared that the conduct of the
defendant was most brutal, and ordered him to pay 20s.
to the poor man who had been so desperately assailed.
The money was paid.