The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-29 00:00:00

TEE IitARON DE BODE V. THE QUEEN.

The Attorney-General having obtained a rule, calling
on the plaintiff in error to show cause why the writ he
had brought in this case should not be quashed,
Mr. Sergeant MANNING now showed cause. The
writ had been brought by the present Baron de Bode, as
administrator to his deceased father, and was objected
to by the Attorney General on several distinct grounds,
the chief of which were that an administrator could not
have a writ of error, because he was not a party to the
record in the court below ; or if he could it would be
necessary to have a scire facias, in the first instance,
to apprize the Crown that a judgment had been re-
corded, but that the fruits of it had not been en-
joyed ; and that being necessary, a scire facias could
not be maintained against the Crown. The Learned
Sergeant answered the several objections on the autho-
rity of cases in the older books, and on that of several
recent Acts of Parliament.
Mr. M. D. HILL followed on the same side.
The Attorney-General, with whom was Mr. Wadding-
ton, appeared for the Crown.
The arguments were not concluded when the Court
rose.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, N•v. 27.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr.
Justice CRESSWELL.)
THOMSON V. WEBB.

The trial of this railway case, which occupied the
Court nearly the whole of yesterday, was resumed
to-day. The defence was that the plaintiff had already
been overpaid for mapping the line, and that the plans
and sections deposited with the Board of Trade and
clerks of the peace, were so imperfect and incorrect that
the line was thrown out by the Standing Orders' Com-
mittee. It appeared that great objections were placed
in the way of the surveyors by the opposing landowners,
and that the survey could only be carried on by stealth.
A verdict NN as found for the plaintiff for the full
amount.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT, .A'ay. 2
(Before D. C. MO!LAN, Esq.)
DENNY V. FLANAGAN,

This was an action brought by a poor woman, named
Denny, whose case has been repeatedly before the public,
to recover back the sum of 10a. from Henry Martin
Flanagan, which she had paid to him for the purpose
of teeing counsel to defend her son at the Middlesex
sessions.

Mr. Flanegan, on the case being called on, handed up
to the Learned Judge a letter, purporting to be from
Mr. [lorry, the barrister. It was addressed to the chief
clerk of the court, and was as follows :

" Denny v. Flanagan.
" Dear Sir,— An intimation has been made that my at-
tendance as a witness is desired in this case. I would
willingly attend, but am so situated to-day at this court,
that I know not how to get from it. The defendant has
therefore desired me to mentioa this with a view, if con-
venient, of postponiug the case.—Yours, &c.,
" S. C. 110IIRY, C. C. Court.
" Nov. 27, 1847."

JUDG/I—Novr, Mr. Flanagan, when did you see Mr.
Horry ? Flanagan—This morning, your Honour, at his
residence.

JUDGE—Did yon see Mr. Horry writs this? Flanagan
—I did.

JUDGE—Where did he write it? Flanagan—At his
house, in Charlotte-street; and when he gave me the
letter ho told me to give his compliments to your Ho-
nour, and that he would attend any other day.
JUDGE—Now, Mr. Flanagan, you say that he wrote
this letter in Charlotte-street; do you know that he
dates it not from Charlotte-street at all, but from quite
a different place? Flanagan—He did not write the letter
in Charlotte-street at all, your Honour.
JUDGE—But have you not already sworn that he did?
Flanagan—lt is a mistake, your Honour. I walked
from Mr. Horry's house with him this morning to
Clerkenwell-green, and going along Mr. Horry went
into a cigar-shop in Amwell-street, to buy a journal,
and wrote the letter upon the counter.
The JUDGE—You have already told one untruth, and
I think this is another. I shall take care to send this
letter to Mr. Horry, together with the notes of your
evidence. The letter is not dated from the cigar-shop,
but from the Central Criminal Court.

The defendant here, at great length, gave his version
of the affair, and complained that, owing to the gross
calumnies of the press in his case, ho had lost the re-
spectable position which he once held. It was solely
out of humanity that he undertook to fee counsel for
the plaintiff in this case.
JUDGE—You don't dispute having the 10s. What
became of it? Flanagan did not say, but answered that
he kept a running account with Mr. Horry, and at the
present time owed that gentleman five guineas for fees.
He gave Mr. Hurry all the briefs he could. lle added
that he was now acting as Mr. lorry's clerk.
The JUDGE—I am perfectly satisfied that you must
refund this money, and you will be ordered to pay it on
next Wednesday week.
Mrs. Denny said Flanagan held an I 0 U for 12s. 6d.,
which was given him as security fur the remainder of
the counsel's fee, and she was afraid that he would come
upon her for that.
'rho Junci said she reed have no fears about it.

.JOUTHWARK COUNTY COURT, Nov. 27.
(Before Mr. NKATE, Deputy Judge.)
DAILEY V. BATTY AND ANUTUER.
This was a plaint entered to recover the sum of 61. Is.
The plaintiff was Mr Dailey, a theatrical printer in
the New-cut, and the defendants were Mr. Batty, of
Astley'a Amphitheatre, and Mr. Broadfoot, of that estab-
lishment.
From the facts, as detailed by Mr. Horry, who ap-
peared for the plaintiff, it seemed that Mr. Broadfoot
went to Mr. Dailey, and ordered a number of theatrical
bills to be printed, announcing a benefit to be taken at
Astley's, avowedly by himself only ; but it showed that
the benefit was to be a joint one between him and Mr.
Batty, it being arranged that the latter was to receive
two-thirds, and Broadfoot one-third. of the .proceeds.
Mr. Batty called upon the plaintiff, and sanctioned
Broadfoot's order, and ordered a number of lithographed
posters to be printed, to attract an audience. The cause
was tried in October last, when the Judge gave judgment
against the defendants, considering they were justly
liable. 'ubsequently an order for a new trial was
granted, which now came on for hearing.
The Solicitor for the defendants admitted all the
facts, but argued that there was not sufficient proof of a
joint liability, and that, therefore, the plaintiff should be
nonsuited.
Mr. HURRY'S reply was, that the orders had been
given by both, and as both had shares in the benefit,
there was a strong presumption that there was a joint
liability.
After a long discussion on either side,
The JUDGE ordered the case to proceed on its merits.
Mr. Dailey was called, and stated that Mr. Broadfoot
told him " that Mr. Batty was to have two-thirds of
the proceeds, and that Mr. Batty was to pay all ex-
penses attending the benefit."
Under these circumstances,
The Learned JUDGE said it was clear that Mr. Batty
alone was liable, and the plaint charging a joint liability
must fall. The plaintiff, therefore, was nonsuited.

SHOREDATCH COUNTY COURT, Nov. 27.
(Before Mr. Sergeant STORK.)
LONDON V. ORME&

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a book-
binder, to recover from the defendant, lately a book-
seller residing in the City-road, the sum of 2/. 10s. for
binding books.
The plaintiff stated that the goods were forwarded on
the Bth of October, to the defendant, who had loft the
City-road, to Woolwich. The direction was, "Plum-
stead-terrace, opposite the Arsenal, Woolwich."
Defendant said that the books never reached him.
His direction was Sussex-place, Plutnstead-road, Wool-
wich. The invoice of the goods was received according
to the former address, and the summons from the Court.
Plaintiff stated that he had the address from the de-
fendant's former residence, and that the books were sent
by a carrier.
Evidence was given that the books were booked, and
2d. paid for the booking, at the King's Head Tavern,
Risiti
Plgo.Nuri saidateo-street tbat if the goods were left at the
histlle
actionW Woolwich place
m s wherebit gAgainstcarrier the
carrier.started from,
,xhdoe f
addressendan

was according to that given to t lie plaintiff, and it was
admitted by def:ndant that letters and other articles
had reached him by the address, -4' opposite the Arsenal."
Defendant observed that it w• as hard upon him to lose
his goods, and then to be called upon to pay the plaintiff.
The -Learned JUDGE said the defendant had his re-
medy against the carrier.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD CO URT.

Phillip Devercll Dichman was called upon to surrender
and take his trial upon several indictments for feloniously
receiving stolen gocds.
The accused, a person of gentlemanly appearance,
and who it is stated is a merchant and a man of consi-
derable property, did so accordiurly, and was placed i❑
the dock.
This case appeared to cause a great deal of interest.
It will be remembered that a girl, named Anne Simons,
stands charged with stealing property to a very large
amount from her employers, and her father is also ac-
cused of receiving part of this stolen property ; a simi-
lar charge being also made against the gentleman who
now surrendered. The two former prisoners were ar-
raigned at the sitting of the Court, before Mr. Bullock,
when they pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Hickman was then arraigned upon three separate
indictments, for feloniously receiving a large quantity of
silk, satin, velvet, shawls, Irish linen, and other articles
of a similar description, the property of James Marshall
and another. In some of the counts the property was
alleged to have been stolen by Anne Simons, and in
others it was merely stated that he had feloniously re-
ceived the property knowing it to be stolen.
To all the indictments the defendant pleaded not
guilty.
A host of Counsel were engaged in the case. Mr.
Clarkson and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the prosecution;
Sir Frederick Thesi,:er came down specially to defend
Mr. Hickman, and Sergeant Wilkins to defend Anne
Simons ; and Mr. Prendergast, Mr. Huddlestone, and
two or three other gentlemen were also concerned is the
defence.
Sir F. THESIGER, when the case was called on, ad-
dressed the Court, and said it was one which, from the
circumstances connected with it, must necessarily occupy
very considerable time, and could not be concluded that
day, unless the Court sat to a very inconvenient hour,
and he suggested that it would be advisable not to pro-
ceed with it now, but postpone it till Monday.
Mr. Justice CALTMAN said he thought that would be
the most convenient course.
Sir F. THESIGER said, of course there would be no
objection to Mr. Hickman being liberated, upon his en-
tering into the same recognizances under which he had
surrendered that day. A similar course, he said, was
adopted in the case of M. Zulueta.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN said be saw no objection, and
Mr. Hickman was accordingly set at liberty, the re-
cognizances having been formally respited.
The remainder of the day was occupied in disposing
of cases the details of which are unfit for publication.
NE TV COURT.

At the opening of the court a treat number of the
fifty prisoners brought up for arraignment, pleaded
guilty, viz., among others, J. Sullivan, J. Desmond,
Eliza Baker, C. Garwood, J. Hemmings, J. Wilson, alias
Barrett, G. Younge, J. Little, W. Penton, J. Mahoney,
J. Morris, and J. Cheverill.
Sarah Bayley and Mary Waterman, two well-dressed
young women, were indicted for stealing twenty yards
of Orleans cloth, value 21., the property of M. J. G.
Kennard, a draper, of Woolwich.
Mr. Payne defended Waterman. There were several
charges against Waterman for shoplifting, and she seems
to have had a singular penchant for shawls.
It appeared that Bayley went to the shop to make a
purchase, while Waterman came in and stood near her,
and they appeared to act like strangers to each other,
until they confederated on the abstraction of the cloth.
Mr. I'&TNE submitted that the evidence was slight
against Waterman.
The COMMON SERGEANT said the question was, did
she by preconcert go into the shop to assist Bayley ?
The jury found Bayley Guilty, and the other prisoner
was Acquitted.
Waterman was then charged with having stolen a
shall in October last.
Mr. Whiting, a draper, living also at Woolwich, proved
that on the 12th of October Mrs. Waterman came to his
shop, and was seen to take and conceal the shawl pro-
duced, which fell from her person.
Verdict—Guilty.
The COMMON SERGEANT said there were three other
charges of shawl stealing.
Officer—There might also have been others, but the
prisoner had voluntarily confessed where the goods
were pledged.
COMMON SERGEANT—That saves her from transporta-
tion. Let ail the pawnbrokers give up the property to
you directly. His Lordship said that Bayley appeared
to have been a tool to the other, hence the sentence was,
that she be imprisoned at Maidstone for three months,
and Waterman for one year.
Eliza Phillips, aged 10, and Eliza, her mother, aged
30, were indicted, the child for stealing two silk shawls,
value 21., the property of Alexander Solomon, to whom
she was a servant, the mother for guiltily receiving and
pledging the same, well-knowing them to have been
stolen by her daughter.
Mrs. Solomon deposed that the girl was employed in
her nursery, and that sho was of good behaviour, and she
(Mrs. Solomon) was afraid that she had fallen a victim
to the enticement of her mother.
The verdict of Guilty having been recorded, and the
pawnbroker having given up the property pledged by the
mother, Mrs. Solomon humanely offered to take the little
girl back, and said she believed she would make a very
honest and intelligent servant; she feared the mother was
in distress.
His LORDSHIP said that great credit was due to her
feelings, and she should take the child home, and he
hoped she would be grateful for ever. With respect to
the mother, he was sorry she should have been so wicked
as to have enticed her own child to rob. In consequence
of her young family, and, probably coasequent distress,
the sentence was that she be kept to hard labour for six
calendar months.

Ann Davis was indicted for stealing a watch, a gold
guard chain, &c., value 61. 105., the property of William
ayne.
The evidence of Mr. Payne was quite sufficient to fix
guilt on the prisoner, and she was convicted.
There were other similar charges, but they were not
inquired into, and, and in consequence of something
being said by the officer in her favour, the Court pia
sentenced her to a " Brixton jig on the wheel " for mile
months. It was said she had much rather hare been
sent to the Botanical Garden at the Antipodes.
Henry Moss and Waller Burke were indicted, Moss
for stealing, and Burke for receiving, a grey gelding,
laid as of the value of 30L, the property of William
Neales.

The prosecutor stated that he was a publican and cab
proprietor, and he had a stable in Gloucester-mews,
Gloucester-place, Curtain-road. On the day in question
the gelding was safe in the stable at eight o'clock. A
person occupied a room over the stable, and saw a
stranger lead the animal out. From inf•rmation con-
veyed to Sergeant Brennan, that vigilant officer went to
a person named Green, in whose posssesion he found the
gelding. Green said he had purchased it of the pri-
soner Burke for 6/. 105.... and he refused to give it up
unless Burke refunded the money. Burke said he had
bought the animal of the prisoner Moss, fur -It, and
Moss asserted that he bought it in Smithfield market, at
half-past two o'clock on the day it was stolen, from a
person like the prosecutor's son.
A little boy, who :aw the horse led out of the stable,
swore very pointedly that the man whom he saw was
neither of the prisoners. Therefore, the charge against
Moss failed.

The only remaining question was, whether Burke was
a guilty receiver ? and, to show that he was,
Mr. PAYNE, for the prosecution, endeavour to prove
that he had bought the horse at a price far below what
he must have known to be its value.
The prosecutor was examined on this point. His
answers caused much merriment in the court. He
said that originally the gelding cost 141., but having
had him a considerable time, he had improved in con-
dition, and was now worth, at the very least, thirty
guineas.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—What ! Now, will you swear
that this very horse is worth more than 31. or 41. ?
Prosecutor—Ay, I should think so.
Mr. PRENDERGAST—Were you never told that it was
not worth more than that ? Prosecutor—Well, Barney
Bushell, an ogler, said so. The mention of this name
caused a shout of laughter in court.
Mr. PRENDBIGAST—Is it worth much more than
thirty guineas ? Prosecutor=--Well, it may be worth
fifty.—(Laughter.)
The JUDGE—Don't you want to lay hold of a cus-
tomer ?—(Loud laughter.)
Mr. PRENDERGAsT—Come, Mr. Nealea, now, what
would this gelding fetch in the market ?
Prosecutor (laughing)—Ay, ay, sir, that's the point.
—(Continued laughter.)
The prosecutor then vehemently informed the Court
that the gelding was " in attendance," and was ready to
be inspected by any gentleman who thought proper to
see him.
Subsequently it was agreoi that the jury should view
the animal, and say what thoy considered it tp be its
value.
The jury then retired to the court-yard, and examined
the horse. They returned and pronounced it to be their
unanimous opinion that the horse was purchased by
Burke for more than its value.

The jury acquitted the prisoners.
Alfred Dowstead, described as a labourer, but who
really was a soldier, was convicted of stealing a variety
of articles, the property of his master, John Farnaby
Cates, Esq., a military officer.
The RECORDER said this was a very bad case. The
servants of military officers were placed in confidential
situations, and were well off, for they had perquisites as
well as their pay, and it was a gross breach of trust for
the confidence reposed in them to be abused. The Court
would severely punish such cases, and as a warning to
others the prisoner must be subjected to a very long im-
prisonment. The sentence was, that he be imprisoned,
with hard labour, for nine calender months.
William Clayton, 17, a sailor, was indicted for stealing
three sovereigns and a pair of boots, and other articles,
the property of Edward Howe, in a vessel, in a port of
entry and discharge on the Thames.
It was shown that the prosecutor was the captain of a
ship, aboard of which the prisoner was employed. The
articles and the sovereigns were taken from the captain's
cabin, and suspicion fell upon the prisoner, from the fact
'of his deserting the ship directly after. Information
was given to the Thames police, and the prisoner was
found at the City of London Theatre, where he was en-
joying himself to his heart's content, with the captain's
money in his pocket, and his boots upon his feet. He
was then committed upon the charge.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The RECORDER asked the prosecutor if he would take
the prisoner again into his service?

The prosecutor- said ho would be very willing to do
so, but, in fact, ho had lost his berth in consequence
of this prosecution. The ship had gone to sea withcut

The RECORDER arked if the Marine Society would do
any think for him?

Mr. Jonas, clerk of the papers, said that inquiries
should be made if his Lordship thought proper to afford
time.

The RECORDER then ordered the prisoner to be
brought up for judgment at the next session.
7 HIRD COURT.

(Before Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK, &c.)
Joseph Arnold surrendered to take his trial upon an
indictment, charging him with having stolen three 51.
Bank of England notes, the property of George Ryan.
The prisoner was a sheriff's officer, a subordinate
under Mr. Levi, and the prosecutor was George Ryan,
who resided at Enfield. A short time ago a person ob-
tained a judgment against him, and a writ of execution
was placed in the hands of Levi, the officer, who autho-
rised the prisoner at the bar to enter possession of Mr.
Ryan's house, which he accordingly did, on the 10th of
October. The following morning Mr. Ryan paid him
the amount of the levy and the usual fees, the whole
making 13/. 10s., for which sum the prisoner gave a re-
ceipt. He left the house, but soon after it was found
that three 51 notes were missing from off the piano, in
the room where the prisoner was, and on being charged
by Mr. Ryan, and searched by a policeman, the notes
ware found upon his person.
Mr. Commissioner BULLOGIC summed up with consi-
derable minuteness, and the jury almost immediately
pronounced a verdict of Not Guilty.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Messrs. _Hawke, builders, in Billiter-street, attended
before Aldermen Hughes Hughes and Musgrove, to an-
swer an information filed by Mr. Woodthorpe, the dis-
trict surveyor, for neglecting to comply with an award
made by the official referees under the Metropolitan
Building Act, in respect to a house rebuilt by them, No.
8, Culluna.street, Fenchurch-street.
The matter was slightly touched upon in the begin-
ning of August, but the magistrates forbore to proceed,
that the defendant might obtain a rehearing before the
official referees, and an amendment of their award; but
no alteration was made, and the surveyor now pressed
that the defendants should enter into a recognisance to
amend the building as required.
The information set out the breaches of the Building
Act complained of, viz., that the party wall being built
between two houses of a different rate, should, in respect
to thickness, have been adapted to the largest of the
two houses. They were both of the same height, but
as one covered a greater space of ground than the other,
a stronger wall was required to support the roof and
fabric. The wall was only 14 inches thick, where it
should have been 17i inches thick. A chimney-breast
projected 13 inches beyond the wall, instead of not ex-
cs_eding 4i inches. The ends of certain joists and girders
were placed nearer than 9 inches to openings in the
chimney-breasts; and, lastly, a hole had been left in the
top of the wall that the water might be carried off the
two houses by the same gutter, instead of being carried
up in solid brickwork two feet above every gutter.
Mr. llopgood, the solicitor for the defendants, ob-
jected that no conviction for the disobedience of the
award could now be made, as more than three months
had elapsed since the making of it; that the order pre-
sumed a control over the adjoining premises, to enter
and make alterations which the defendants did not
possess; and that the district surveyor ought to have
constantly watched the progress of the, work, and
pointed out the deviations as soon as they were com-
menced, and while they were remediable; and not after
the party wall had been finished.
Mr. Woodthorpe replied, he had done his duty as re-
quired by law, and he was not out of time, as the pro-
ceedings were commenced within three months.
After some discussion, in which it appeared that the
adjoining house was deemed ruinous, and an opportu-
nity of complying with the law might arise, the Alder-
men agreed to adjour❑ the hearing to a time of which
the defendants would have notice.
Mr. Alderman MUSGROVE suggested some modes of
amending the faults complained of.
Charles Carr was brought up for further examination,
charged with stealing a number of elegantly bound
Bibles, Prayer-books, and Church Services, from various
suburban churches. At one of them it was stated that
he went to the parish clerk for the keys, pretending that
he was an officer under the Commissioners for Building
Churches, come to take the dimensions of the accommo-
dation afforded. The keys were given up to him, as he
had the appearance of a gentleman, and he succeeded in
carrying off a number of books.
Charles Chambers, the assistant gaoler at this court,
stated that after the prisoner's last examination he called
him, and expressed concern for the anxiety shown by an
old lady, the pew opener at Hornsey Church, who was
brought to the prison to identify him, and who was ,
grieved by the loss of a Bible bound in ♦elvet, with a
gilt cross on it, belonging to a parishioner. He said he
thought that book was at a pawnbroker's named Towns-
end. Two days afterwards he sent for deponent to the
prison, and made a further voluntary statement, that
two handsome books belonging to a Mr. Casson, and
with that gentleman's name lettered on them, which he
had taken from Hanwell Church, were pawned at
Bassett's, in Great Queen-street. Witness went there
and found them, but they proved to have been stolen
from Acton Church, in August last.
Mr. Bassett's assistant produced the books.
Mr. Casson, a retired gentleman, residing at Acton,
identified the books as his property. They were stolen
from Acton Church, with a book belonging to a neigh-
bour, on a Sunday in August, and he gave information
to the police.
The prisoner declined making any defence to this
charge.
Mr. Alderman HUGHES HUGHES said, be must send
the case to a jury. Persons were in the habit of leaving
their books at church, believing they would be safer
there than at home ; and it was lamentable to find that

they had been sacrilegiously carried away by a person
whose superior education should hare restrained him from
such a crime.

The prisoner was committed on a second charge of
stealing a Bible from Cripplegate Church.
Chambers produced a handbill, showing that a number
of handsome books had been stolen from Hanwsll Church
by a person answering the description of the prisoner.
lie also handed in a letter from the V division of police,
that such a person had stolen a number of valuable books
from Teddington Church.
—The prisoner, who is supposed to have given a false
name, and appears to be very contrite, was remanded for
further examination on the Bth December. _

Andrew Wyness, a hairdresser, in Gray's Inn-lane,
the reputed father of the child with whom Mary Ann
Huot, the capital convict now in Newgate, is pregnant,
attended to answer a complaint that he was the fatherlof
an illegitimate child of which Elizabeth Cape is the
mother, and which is now three years old.
The defendant stopped the case in limine by produc-
ing Cape's marriage certificate, showing she had married
since the birth of the child. _ _

She admitted she was married a year ago, but her
husband had deserted her.
Mr. Alderman HUGHES HUGHES said this objection
was certainly fatal.
The defendant offered to take and keep his child, but
the mother refused to part with it, and the parties were

dismissed.
The driver and conductor of Couling's Kennington
omnibus were summoned, on the complaint of Mr. Al-
derman Wilson, the former for loitering on his journey,
and the conductor for refusing to show his metal ticket,
and for not wearing it conspicuously.
Mr. Alderman Wilson stated that on Wednesday
afternoon he fund the omnibus standing in St. Mar-
tin's-le-Grand. He asked if there was room? The
conductor said there was. He got in, but could scarcely
find room to sit down. He then said to the conductor,
"You are full now; are you going on?" The conductor
said he was; but he did not more for a considerable

time, and not till another omnibus came up. As he had
loitered so long, witness got out of that omnibus into the
other. The conductor came and looked in after him,
and exclaimed, " You are a pretty gent., to get out of
one omnibus into another." Witness looked for his
number, but could not see it. The two vehicles moved
on directly, the defendant evidently dodging and loiter-
ing to annoy its opponent. This was a hindrance; and,
when they got to Bridge-street, witness asked the con-
ductor to show him his metal ticket. He said, " Yes,
sir," but jumped up on his board, and called out, "Drive
on." The driver did so, and when he had got so far
that the number could not be seen, the defendant drew
the ticket out from under his coat, and held it up for
inspection.
The driver urged that he was not liable for loitering.
The conductor had the control of the carriage.
The conductor said he did not go on though full, be-
cause his time was not up. The alderman asked to
show him the number while he was letting out a lady,
and he could not do two things at once
Mr. Alderman Wilson said he asked him after he had
set the lady down; and as to the driver's plea he should
know he must obey the law, which prohibits loitering in
preference to obeying the conductor, or he must take
the consetvences.
Mr. Couling begged to say it was the driver's first day,
and that the lowness of the fares was a justification for
loitering.
Mr. Alderman 11. llughes said he was afraid the fares
were too low, but it would not excuse loitering, and he
was sure it was bad policy to loiter. Who would ride
a short distance to save time, knowing that upon the
cheap fare and loitering system any one could walk as
far in a quarter of an hour as an omnibus would take
him in the same time ? Many customers were lost in
this way, and the low fares were made less remunerative.
He agreed with Mr. Alderman Wilson, that he
who had the control of the horses, must be
answerable for loitering, and he had no doubt the
other defendant had been guilty of the conduct
imputed to him. The charge was knot rebutted.
He was glad to find that there were Aldermen moving,
as other portions of the public did, and becoming per-
sonally acquainted with the annoyances they were sub-
ject to, He had often been annoyed too, and bad
threatened to complain, but he had not the moral cou-
rage, like Mr. Alderman Wilson, to take the trouble of
doing so. The defendants, luckily, did not know they
were carrying an alderman, and an active alderman, too,
who had frequently done the public the service to com-
plain of the misconduct of cabriolet and omnibus
drivers. He adjudged the driver to pay a fine of 55.,
and the conductor of 103., for the offences laid to their
charge.
Mr. Couling paid the fines.
BO IV-STREET.
Mr. H. Upton, of the Grecian dining-rooms, was
charged under the game-laws with selling a pheasant
without a license.
The information was prosecuted at the instance of
the Game-dealers' Protection Society; Mr. Lewis at-
.