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

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS-MONDAY.

Before Mr. WALESEh and a full Bench of Magistrates.)
The calendar contained a list of 56 prisoners, of whom
33 were charged with felonies of a trifling nature.
In the case of Wiliam Scabs, the shipowner, Jeoffreb
Scabs, the master of the Emerald Isle, and William
Cowell, the shipowner and linen-draper of Liverpool,
whom it will be recollected were charged with an assault
at the Brunswick Pier wharf, on the 19th of last month,
upon Captain Patterson of the Railway steamer, and Mr.
Dyer, the Pier Master,
Mr. BALLANTINE prayed the Oourt to discharge th.e
recognizances of the prosecutors in consequence of the
defendants having consented to pay ten guineas to the
Dreadnought hospital-ship, five guineas to the widow of
a late servant of the Railway, and the costs of the pro-
secution, in addition to acknowledging themselves to
have erred.
It will be remembered that the defendants attempted
to leave the Railway steam-packet without tickets, and
that led to the assault.
Mr. PRENDERGAST, for the defendants, concurred in
the application, which was granted.

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 mare 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 him an account of the goods and money
he possessed belonging to his employers. With their
demand for the particulars, however, the defendant most
p ysitively 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 OWR 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 account of the
particulars of his account. in the belief that legal advan-
tage might be taken of it to defeat the argament 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 a
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 male by himself. It would he 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—l 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 Lora) Miyon—l 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 properly 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 lie travelled about the world
with bits of goods to sell, was charged with having vio-
lently assmilted 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 coma 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 him 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 officer 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 him 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 wasn't very
particularly tender in his conduct to the man who pro-
voked him.
The Lotto MAYOR—But what have you to say about
biting the policeman ? John Mack—Faith, 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 LORD 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.

KINGSTON POLICE.
The following case will serve as a caution to, the
gentry living in the neighbourhood of the metropolis,
and may prevent them from being imposed upon by de-
signing persons :
Mary Anne Jones, a young woman, respectably
dressed in a suit of mourning, was brought before Sir
Richard Frederick, charged with obtaining, by false pre-
tences, five sovereigns from Miss Combe, the sister of
Mr. Henry Combe, of Cobham.
A professional gentleman attended in support of the
proceeding against the defendant.
Mary Coleman deposed that she was lady's maid to
Miss Combe, and on Thursday last the defendant came
to Mr. Combe's residence, and gave her a paper, or peti-
tion, to show her mistress. The petition represented
that the defendant's father had carried on the business
of a builder at Cobham for fifteen 7,years, and that, by
his death, his family had been reduced to a state of great
distress, and one child, eight years of age, being blind,
some benevolent persons were endeavouring to get up a
subscription, in order that it might be placed in some
asylum. She showed the petition to her mistress, who
said, that if the petitioner was known in Cobham, doubt-
less some of the respectable inhabitants would assist the
subscription, and she should then herself be happy to
do so. The defendant being told this, went away with
the petition, and brought it back shortly after-
wards, when the signatures of several influential
persons, with sums of money attached to their
names, appeared to be appended to it. Among
the signatures were those of several of the
principal tradesmen, Mr. Saunders, the brewer,
and also that of Mr. Currie, a gentleman of for-
tune, residing in the neighbourhood. She showed the
document to her mistress, who immediately gave her
five sovereigns, which she handed over to the defendant.
The witness . added, that shortly after the defendant had
gone away, one of the parties. whose names had been
affixed to the petition, came to the house, and on the sub-
ject being mentioned, the fraud was discovered.
Mr. M. Currie deposed that the prisoner called upon
him, and upon her making a representation similar to
that spoken to by the last witness, he gave her five
shillings. The signature to the paper and the pretended
amount of 21., represented to have been paid by him,
were both false.
Witnesses were then called, who proved that the tale
of distress told by the prisoner was a pure invention, and
that no such persons as herself or the pretended family
had ever resided in the parish of Cobham.
Sir RICHARD FREDERICK asked the prisoner what
she had to say in answer to the charge ?
She replied that a woman who lived in London had