The Sun.
London, England, 1840-10-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1840.

POLICE INTELLIGENC',.

George Meadows, engineer on board the Falcon
steamer, plying between London and Gravesend, ap-
peared yesterday before Mr. Hall, to answer the com-
plaint of Henry Steer, steward, belonging to the same
vessel, for having threatened to knock out his brains.
Tne complainant -said he went in fear of his life, in
consequence of the repeated threats made by the defen-
dant ; and he was directed by his employers to make
application at this Court for protection. On the 15th
September, while in the fore-cabin, the defendant came
to him with his cot, threatening, that if ever he left it
again in his way, he would smash it to pieces with the
sledge-hammer, and knock his brains out. As this was
the fourth time, during a very short period, he had
shown a disposition to do him bodily harm, it would be
necessary to prevent him breaking the peace, for which

he had no just reason.
Mr. George Walton, Upper St. Martin's-lane, con-
firmed the complainant's statement, adding that when he
interfered, the defendant threatened him also. He was

•
perfectly sober at the time.
Mr. HALL inquired how long the defendant had been
employed in the vessel ? The complainant said since
April last, but during the last two months he had
become so violent in his threats, he was
_yesterday

discharged from his situation, which would long since

have occurred, but engineers were scarce.
In answer to the charge the defendant said he consi-
dered that he was a chef officer in the vessel as well
as the Captain, and happening to lose the key of his
cabin when the vessel arrived in Gravesend, being
compelled to procure another, he found, on his return,
that the complainant's cot was designedly thrown in
his way, which caused him to insist that it should be
removed, or he would break it to pieces with the
sledge-hammer. The complainant was very abusive at
the time, and he bad every reason to suspect that the
whole crew were unfriendly to him.
Mr. HALL doubted if the defendant could claim
equal authority on board as the Captain.
The complainant said that such was not the case,
as his business was entirely confined to the engineering
department.
Mr. HALL said he was obliged to infer even from
what the defendant said, that he was much inclined to
quarrel with every person on board, and-he should call
upon him to put in sureties, himself in 401., and two
others in 201. each, to keep the peace for the next six
months.

REFUSING TO PAY POSTAGE. Mr. John Piper
Bernard, a surveyor and architect, residing at Formosa
Cottage, Eden-grove, Holloway, appeared upon the
information of Mr. Inglis, belonging to the Superin-
tendent President's Department in the General Post-
office, which was laid under the 43d clause of Ist Vic.,
chap. 36, to show cause why he refused to pay the sum
of 41, due and owing from him to her Majesty, being
the duty of postage which he refused and ne,glected
to pay.
Mr. Peacock, Solicitor to ,the Post-office, said that
he had received instructions to prefer a complaint
against the defendant for refusing to pay the sum of 4d.,
being the postage of a letter which had been directed
and delivered to him through the usual channel, in the
month of August last. The letter-carrier was present
to prove the delivery.
The defendant admitted that it had been delivered
as directed to him at his residence, and he declined to
pay the postage for it, as he maintained it was no letter,
but a printed circular, and it might as well have been
from some quack doctor who wished to advertise his
pills, or from the notorious Ady, but he did not intend
to deny the fact.
The postman having proved the delivering of the
letter to the defendant according to the direction,
Mr. Peacock observed, that if such resistance was
suff2red to be made to the postage of letters, the Post-
office authorities would find it impossible to carry on
their business, which was of such public importance.
The defendant said that for ought he knew, the Po=t-

office knew bow to issue printed circulars in the same
way Mr. Ady did for the purpose of increasing the
amount of postage.
Mr. HALL reminded the defendant that the letter '
had been delivered to him at his residence, although '
it was only a catalogue of certain flowers and other
things which were for sale.
The defendant said he had consulted with hi 3 soli-
citor upon the subject, and he was adsised to refuse
paying such a postage, as he considered it an imposition.
Mr. HALL inquired if any application had been
made by letter far the postage ? Mr. Peacock replied.
that he had communicated with him, but he refused
to answer his letter.
The defendant said that on taking the letter in his
hand he instantly refused to pay for it, saying it was
not for him.
The postman said that when the defendant refused
to pay, he (postman) put a wafer in it, telling him he
would take it back to the Post-office, but that he should
mark on the back of the letter the reason why the post-'
age was refused.
Mr.'l-14.m.-Did you understapk,why lle.,rused to
receive it? Pesti:nen—A-ie.:aide riti otl;34eti4n:,isktit We
had opened it. ~ :- . , , ,- ~-, J. 1_,.. . , -: -
Mr. HALL said that it was bo'uricommon thing' fdt'a
person to go to the Post•offiee for the purpose of repri:-
seating sueh a circumstance, and he would be attended
to with the greatest courtesy ; for he had repeatedly re-
ceived letters, which, upon showing that they had no
connection with his official duties or his private concerns,
redress was instantly afforded.
.. Mr. Peacock.—ln such case as when the communica-
tion is of a scurrilous nature, the Post-office invariably
grants redress.
Mr. HALL was quite sure that the letter in question
was intended for the defendant, and addressed in a pro-
per manner to him, and the fact of his having opened it
was an acknowledgment of the ownership, .
The defendant said, that seeing it was a printed cis-
cubs, and although it was intended for him, the Post-
. office ought to have taken it back, as they frequently do
valentines and the like.
Mr. Peacock—That's purely an act of grace on their
part, and in this instance 1 don't think the Post-office
.authorities would listen to any application, as.the letter
did not appear to be sent for the purpose of annoyance.
The defendant said that although he was load of
flowers it was well known he was not in the habit of at-
tending such sales, and it might be done to annoy him.
He had repeatedly been imposed upon in a similar way,
and, us the letter related to a " rig sale," he would
have nothing to do with it.
Mr. HALL said that if the Post-office acted in such
cases, the receiver of a letter from a person petition-
ing for a situation, who was not known to him, might,
on the same grounds, refuse postage ; and he did not
see that the defendant had made any answer to the
complaint.
Mr. Peacock had no authority to point out to the
defendant any course to pursue, and his duty was only
to lay the case before the Court.
The defendant said he attended to resist the postage
upon principle; and, if he had the power to appeal to
the Sessions, he would not mind to spend 201. upon a
subject which he considered of the utmost importance.
Mr. HALL, on looking over the Act, said thare was
no appeal clause to meet the ease.
' Mr. Peacock regretted that the defendant had not
answered the letter which he had written to him
upon the subject on the 25th August, or the Post-
master-General would have been applied to.
The defendant said that some family matters had
interfered, and he had overlooked answering the letter.
Mr. Peacock had no discretion upon the subject,
but to apply that the law be enforced.
Mr. HALL then ordered the defendant to pay the
sum of 4d. with costs.
Defendant—Suppose I refuse to pay what will be the
consequence?
Mr. HALL—Then I issue a warrant of distress, as
I am empowered to do, for any sum not exceeding 20/.
Mr. Peacock—All I can do is not to apply for a dis-
tress-warrant for seven days, and in the meantime the
defendant can communicate with the Postmaster-Gene,
ral upon the subject.
The defendant returned thanks for the indulgence,
and withdrew.

WORSHIP-STREET.
CHARGE OF ARSON.—George Burton, a decent
looking working-man, was charged before Mr. Grove onsuspicion of having wilfully and maliciously set fire to tie
premises of Messrs. Williams, M'Neil, and Co., the
extensive felt manufacturers in Lamb's-passage, Bun-
hill-row.
Mr. Humphries, who attended for the prosecution,
stated that the premises of Messrs. Williams were
totally consumed on Tuesday night last, and a very large
amount of property was destroyed. The persons em-
ployed upon the premises left for the night some hours
previously to the discovery of the fire, but, before doing
so, they made their usual careful survey of the place,
and ascertained that they left every thing in safety.
om that and other circumstances that had transpired,
scarcely any doubt was entertained that the conflagra-
tion was the act ot an incendiary. It appeared that the
fire broke out in a warehouse upon the ground-floor,
beneath the windows of which, next to the street, seve-
ral barrels containing pitch and oil were deposited, and
an evil disposed person might easily have ignited them
by throwing a lighted combustible through tne window-
panes, one of which was broken. The prisoner at the
bar had been for some time in the service of Messrs
Williams, but he was discharged on account of miscon-
duct. He continued, however, to occupy apartments
in Lamb's-passage, immediately adjoining his late master's
factory. The Learned Gentleman then stated to the
Magistrate the grounds of suspicion upon which the
prisoner was apprehended.
A number of witnesses were examined, when the pri-
soner on being asked it he had anything to say, declared
his innocence.

Mr. Humphries said that he had no other evidence
to offer at present, but he submitted that a sufficient
quantity had been adduced to warrant the suspicions
against the prisoner, and to justify his committal to
prison on the charge.
Mr. GROVE concurre. d in opinion with the learned so-
licitor, and remanded toe prisoner until Wednesday next.
A reward of 50/. has been offered for the apprehen-