The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-20 00:00:00

r--" Mr. HALL said as there was no evidence against
Nindon he might be discharged.
Bagnali said he had constantly- been in the company
of the others, and had lately lodged in the same house
with Turton, and when he obse.rved he was about to
take hint into custody he ran away..
Mr. HALL said that not only by the admission of
his parents, but from an account he had received from
Tuthill-fields Prison, the prisoner Mould bore a moat
wretched character.

Bagnall knew the prisoner Collier to be an associate
of thieves.

The prisoner Turton declared. he knew nothing of
the cheques, and that he had called because Mould
wanted to do something for him.
_ _

Mr. HALL then ordered them to be brought up
again on Monday next, with the exception of cilindon,
who was discharged.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

(Before Mr. WALESBY and a Bench of Magistrates.)
APPEAL DAY. -- WEDNESDAY.
William Anderson appealed against a conviction of R.
E. Broughton, Esq , a police Magistrate,
Mr. Clarkson appeared for the appellant, who was the
landlord of the Eldon Arms, Queen-street, Moot fields.
The conviction was " for knowingly and wilfully permit.
Ong drunken and other disorderly conduct in the house."
The following was the evidence adduced by the police
in support of the conviction :
Inspector Robinson. of the G division, deposed that on
the 11th of July, about ten minutes after two o'clock,
A. M , he went to the house and was admitted into the par-
lour, where he saw seven persons, three of whom were
drunk. There was not any rioting. They were merely
speaking loud enough to be heard outside. The landlord
did not seern quite so courteous as usual, but he would not
swear he was drunk.
Mr. MeWilliam—Will you swear that you think he was
drunk ? Witness—l will.
Sergeant Hammond, G division, deposed that he accom-
panied the het witness to the house on the night in ques-
tion, and that he heard singing in the parlour. On enter-
ing they found seven men, three of whom were asleep.
On awaking them they appeared to have been drinking.
One of them, the drunkest of the three, soon after svent
to his house, a short way off, and, taking the key out of
his pocket, went inside. They were merely merry in the
parlour. The landlord was very abusive to the inspector,
and complained of their knocking so loudly at the door,
and :making so much noise before he was able to let
them in.
The CHAIRMAN—You say the landlord was abusive.
What was the language he made use of ? Whness_.
When the inspector told him that the three men
were drunk, he replied they were not drunk, and if they
were, it was their duty to take them into custodt.
The CHAIRMAN —Did he (the landlord) say anything
more? Witness—That was all.
The CHAIRMAN—What did the inspector say in reply?
Witness—He said he would not take them into custody.
The CHAIRMAN—Did the landlord use any violent ges-
ticulations ? Witness—No. He spoke rather loud.
The Cneinsfeer—Speaking rather loud 1 Why, I am
speaking rather loud now. Did you see; nothing else?
Witness—l did not.
That was the evidence adduced in support of tit( con-
viction.
Mr. Clark Son said lie could not for one moment believe
that the facts stated before the Court could have been the
same with those laid before the convicting Magistrate.
The CHAIRMAN said he should think it must indeed have
been a very different statement.
Mr. BROUGHTON (the convicting Magistrate, who was
upon the Bench) made some observation, which was un-
derstood to be, in effect, that the facts were not different,
and complained of the hardship of the recent Police Act,
which did not permit police magistrates to speak in their
own defence.
Mr. Clarkson—Then I unhesitatingly change my tone,
and say that a conviction granted on such evidence is a dis-
grace to the office whence it emanated.
Mr. BROUGIITON said that it was a violation of justice
that an officer of the Court should be attacked, and not
have an opportunity to say a word in his own defence. He
(Mr. Broughton) only came there to learn the decision of
the Court.
Mr. Clarkson said the conviction was bad in law upon
the face of it. but to that it was now unnecessary to refer.
It was too bad that a man should be brought there, and
even convicted upon a charge without a particle of evidence
to support it.
Tim Chairman seemed to think the case was at an end,
but after some conversation Mr. M'William (there being
only another Magistrate besides the chairman present) de-
clared that he would support the conviction.
Mr. CLARKSON trusted that there were some means
existing to prevent so gross a perversion of public justice.
Hewouid now appeal to the chairman as a member of the legal
profession, independently of his coadjutors on the Bench,
whether this conviction could by possibility be sustained.
The appellant was convicted of two offences—for know-
ingly and wilfully permitting drunkenness and other dis-
orderly conduct in his house. As to the latter, the evi-
dence before the Court was that there was no noise and no
disorderly conduct whatever. The evidence, so far from
supporting the charge, distinctly contradicted it. But one
honourable Magistrate (Mr. M'William) had said that be
would support the conviction.
After some further observations, Mr. M'William ex-
plained that the Learned Counsel had misunderstood him.
Mr. Clarkson said, that bad it been necessary, ho in-
tended to have called every one of the individuals in the
parlour at the time; and, further, by a cross-examination
of the inspector, to have shown how many times this ap-
pellant had already been brought before the Magistrates
without the police having been able to obtain a conviction.
The CHAIRMAN said the evidence, in his opinion, by no
means sustained the charge.
Mr. BkOUGHYON said he never meant to have fined the
man to the amount named in the conviction. It was
done at his own express desire, to enable him to appeal.
He intended merely to fine him a small sum by way of
caution.
The CHAIRMAN then went minutely through the evi.
dence. and the conviction was quashed.
Mr. BROUGHTON (to the Chairman)—Then you mean
to contend that a publican having three drunken men in his
house committed no offence against the statute ?
The CHAIRMAN regarded that as a kind of taunt, and
protested against the use of such language to a Judge in
the discharge of his public duty. The appellant clearly
thought that he had committed no offence, Mr. Broughton
was of a different opinion, and the Court had only decided
upon the evidence adduced.
Mr. BROUGHTON was aware that he had no right to
speak, and begged publicly to apologise for making what
he intended to be a private observation.
The CHAIRMAN complained that no counsel had been
employed in support of the conviction which had placed
him in the unpleasant predicament of having to act both as
advocate and Judge, two characters incompatible in them-
selves, and which, moreover, might give rise to a suspicion
that the merits of the case had not been fairly and impar-
tially adjudicated upon,
The Inspector would take cafe that it should be men-
tioned in the proper quarter.
CURIOUS CASE. —ST. CLEMENT DANES V. sr. MARY,
WHITECHA PEL.
Mr. Adolphus appeared for the appellant and Mr. Bod-
kin for the respondent parish.
In this case the appeal was against the removal of a
pauper of the name of John Henry from the parish of
Whitechapel to that of St. Clement Danes.
From the statement of the Learned Counsel for the re-
spondents, it appeared that the pauper had gained a settle.
meet in the latter parish by virtue of having rented a tene-
ment therein at the yearly rental of 301. This tenement
consisted of two rooms, which were over a stable in Ports-
mouth-street, belonging to and in the rear of one of the
houses in Lincoln's Inn-fields. In the course of the evi-
dence it was stated that the boundary line between the pa-
rishes of St. Clement Danes and St. Giles's runs across
the room in which the pauper slept.
Mr. Adolphus, in reference to this fact, said there had
been a decision in a somewhat similar case, which had
gone to determine that the parish in which the bed of the
pauper had been placed was the parish which was bound to
maintain the party.
Mr. Bodkin remarked, it was impossible that that deci-
sion could be maintained in all cases where such point was
in dispute between contending parishes, for he well recol-
lected an instance where the bed of the pauper had usu-
ally stood across the boundary line separating the two pa-
rishes, and it turned out that the pauper had been accus-
tomed to lay with his head in the one and his feet in the
other parish, In that case the court had held that the
parish in which the head of the pauper had reclined was
bound to support the body.--( Loud laughter.)
Mr. Prendergast begged to remind the Court that there
was also another ease—one in which the pauper's bed had
been placed in such a position as that the dividing line of
the two parishes had run as it wore from the head to the
heels—that was, lengthways of the bed. There it had
been held that the perish on which the left hand side of
the bed had been situated was liable to the maintenance of
the pauper, on the ground that the pauper's heart, which
was conceived to be the most important portion of the con-
tents of the frame of a human being, as well as the most
vied part of man, was usually on that side.—( A
laugh.) Such was the decision in that particular case, but
he sould not say what the judgment of the Court would
be in a case where a party was what was denominated a
" restless sleeper," and rolled from one side of the bed to
another ; probably it might be that the settlement would
follow the removal of the heart from the right hand to the
left hand parish.—( Increased laughter.)
Mr. Adolphus would call the attention of the Court to
another case, wherein the bed of the pauper had been so
placed, as that the boundary line had run directly up its
centre. In that czse the pauper was a martied man, and
the common course of matters would be, that the wife had
lein on one side of the line, and the pauper on the other.
It was there decided and held, that the parish in which
the pauper had been in the habit of sleeping was bound to
bear the expense of their maintenance as paupers, on the
ground that from time immemorial the prevailing custom
had been for the husband to lie on the right hand side of
his wife.—(Much laughter.)
Various other cases having been cited,
Evidence was produced on the part of the respondents,
which went to prove that the whole of the pauper's bed
had stood in the parish of St. Clement Danes.
On the other hand, witnesses were called by the counsel
for the appellant, who stated, that they had made a most
careful survey of the rooms in question, and that there
were not more than 15 inches width of the pauper's bed in
the parish of St. Giles.
Mr. Bodkin said that it was impossible to squeeze a
man's body into the narrow space of 15 inches.—
(Laughter, ) However, after so many cases had been
cited on the subject of the reposing of heads in one parish
and the kicking of heels in another, ho would leave it to
his learned opponent to hoist the present pauper into any
position he might think proper. It was sufficient for him
to have proved that the whole of the bed had been in the
appellant parish.
After
.considerable discussion, it was arranged that a