The Sun.
London, England, 1840-09-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23. 1840.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

A girl aged 17, named Ward, her brother, quite a
boy, and a girl about 18, named Holows, were brought
before the Lord Mayor, charged with having run away
from the house of a publican at Sheerness, the father of
the two former.

The father said that his son and daughter had run
away from home on Monday morning, and be caught
them, with the assistance of the police, just as they were
about to go in a steamer to Hull, in company with
Holmes, who had lodged in his house. He did not
mean to give his Lordship any trouble about his chil-
dren, whom he meant to take home at once, but the po-
lice had thought proper to require that he should appear
at the Mansion-house.

Police Sergeant Williams said Mr. Ward's daughter
tad so extraordinary a tale about the cause of her de-
parture from her father's house, that the Inspector con-
sidered it necessary to let the Lord Mayor hear the cir-
cumstances.

The LORD MAYOR asked the publican whether his
children were not dutiful ? Mr. Ward said that he had
had a great deal of trouble with his daughter, who had
" ticed" her brother away from home. She had unfor-
tunately fallen in love with a drummer who belonged to
a regiment which had been quartered at Sheerness, and
which had lately gone to Hull, to which place she was
lollop ing him ashen she was stopped.
Sergeant Williams said the girls both stated that they
left the house of Mr. Ward because they were disgusted
at the permission given to sailors to introduce their tern-
porary wives to its most private apartments, and also
because " ready wives" were kept there, of whom
Holmes refused to become one.

Mr. Ward—l deny the truth of that statement.
The LORD MAYOR—Do you allow persons indis-
criminately to occupy your apartments? Mr. Ward—
It's none of my business to ask any questions. I aint
curious if people come in. I know nothing about their
business, but let my rooms to any one at all, for my
house is a public house, my Lord. You'll mind that—
it's a public house.
The LORD MAYOR—DO you mean to say that your
house is kept in en orderly manner? Mr. Ward—
Orderly ? Yes. These is no disorder. I never ask
questions, and people go in and out as they choose.
Sergeant Williams said the publican admitted that
his house was not as it had been described to be, and
defended the plan upon which it was conducted upon
the ground that it protected those of the sex who were
rather particular.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Ward—l ask no questions. Now my daughter
pretends all this nice objection because she wants to
go atter the drummer, who is in Hull ; acid it makes
me quite mad to think of this drummer, he's such a
low connexion.

Mr. Hobler said a man who kept a house of such a
kind could not reasonably expect that his daughter
would meet with a more eliglble husband.
sergeant Williams stated that the daughter declared
that if her father took her home, she would contrive to
escape, for she would not stay in such a house on any
account.

Holmes said that she had come away with Mr.
Ward's daughter and son, because she did not fancy
being a sailor's wife, according to the system described,
at the publican's request, who told her that she could
not stay except she was companionable.
The LORD MAYOR—Do you mean that you were
expected to be the wife of any of his customers ?
Holmes—Yes, my Lord. There were three girls of the
kind in the house, and he wanted me to be the fourth.
Mr. Ward said he had not required anything of the
sert, and he should have nothing more to do with Miss
Holmes.

The LORD MAYOR—And what do you do with this
poor boy ? Does he go to school, or is he at any trade ?
Mr. Ward—No, my Lord, I can't say he is—he is but
a child.

The LORD MAYOR—And so you have him at home,
idling amongst these sailors and women ? Mr. Ward
No, he an't idle.

Boy—Please you, Sir, I plays upon the fiddle.
Toe LORD MAYOR—It is evident that you neglect
them both. Your daughter is a witness to those degrad-
ing scenes, and your son scrapes the fiddle in the tap-
room. I trust that you will look better to them. His
Lordship then asked the son and daughter whether they
wished to go home.
The son at once consented, and the daughter said
that she bad no objection, but she would rather go to
service. Mr. Ward, however, assured her that she
should have no cause to regret her consent to return,
and father and children left the Mansion House.
Holmes, who said she bad an aunt at Islington, de-
clared that she rejoiced at her departure from Sheer-
ness,
and was taken to her relations here by the direc-
tion of the Lord Mayor, who considered the scene a
very unfavourable sample of the morals of Sheerness.
A young man, named Thomas Charles Lynn, was
charged before Alderman Hooper, on Monday, with
having robbed his employers, Messrs. Robins, No. 139,
Houndsditch, umbrella and cloth-cap manufacturer.
Mr. Christopher T. Robins, a partner in the firm,
stated that the prisoner had been in their service for
the last two months. Between two and three o'clock
on Saturday, witness having, on examining some um-
brellas in the packing warehouse, found that a wrong
ticket was affixed to one of them, desired that the pri-
soner should be called to give an explanation. The
prisoner attended, and turned round for the purpose of
getting another ticket, but the light having shone upon
his coat-pocket, betrayed the light-coloured selvage of
a piece of silk which appeared to fill the pocket. Wit-
ness suspected that the prisoner had been stealing some
of the property of the firm, and told him not to mind
the ticket, but that he might go to his dinner. The
prisoner accordingly went into the street, and witness
followed, apprehended, and brought him back to the
shop. A policeman immediately afterwards searched,
and found in , his pocket forty-eight yards of
puce coloured figured silk, and some other silk
inside his trousers. There were also found upon
him twenty•two ivory umbrella mountings, and
eleven Coquina umbrella and parasol mountings, all
the property of the firm. The property found upon
the young man was worth at least 101.
Patrick (Policeman No. 443) stated that after having
take❑ from the prisoner the above-mentioned property,
he went to the prisoner's lodgings in Buckle-street,
Whitechapel, and found in his room the sum of
10/. 18s. The prisoner said that he was very sorry
for what he had done, and begged tnat his master would
forgive him.
Alderman HOOPER—Do 3ou wish to say anything
now ? Prisoner—Nothing at all.
Committed for trial.

him, and having obtained one went to the hospital,
where it was at first thought that the small bone was
broken. The surgeon bound it up with splints, and I
was unable to get out of bed till yesterday. I can't
use my arm yet.
Mr. Head—What became of the chairs at last?
Complainant—Mr. Kellett's son put them on his
shoulders, and ran away as fast as he could, turning
round and laughing at me as he went along.
In reply to Mr. Kensett, comp:alnant said—l did
not run into the street after your son ; I went no further
than the door. I did not abuse you in the street, but
in the passage. I called you a shabby vagabond, as you
arc. Six years ago you promised to send me a sove-
reign, but although you only let me have 10s. you en-
tered 1/. in the book.
Mr. Head—The fact is, Sir, the complainant's son
purchased these two chairs of Mr. Kensett, who,
having met with a customer for them, wanted them
again, and, as it seems, has by most extraordinary means
obtained them.
Complainant's evidence was, for the most part, cor-
roborated by her daughter-in-law. and Matthew Rose,
the owner of the house, the former of whom mentioned
that she had heard repeatedly her husband say that Mr.
Kensett, for whom he had worked, owed him 3/. ; and
the latter set forth that when complainant interfered
to prevent the removal of the chairs Mr. Kensett took
bold of her round the body and held her in a very unbe-
coming way.
Mr. Kensett to Rose—Where is the man Sparrow
now ?
Rose—l can't tell. The chairs were left in my
charge, and I looked upon them as mine, for rent which
was owing to me. They were removed into Sparrow's
apartment last Saturday.
Mrs. Rose further said that on the landing there was
a great scufll.• between Mr. Kensett and the corn-
pldinant, and she every moment expected that some of
the windows would be smashed. Ttie woman was
struck and pushed about shatrieluily, and when 'oung
Kensett got into the street he put the chairs on his I:ead
and laughed, crying out, " Come along, father."
Mr. Kensett—You swear I struck In t, do you ?
Mrs. Rase—Yes ; you struck her up stairs and clown
stairs too.

Mr. Kensett made a statement, from which it ap-
peared that the elder Sparrow and his son had bern in
the employ of him (Mr. Kensett), and that the latter
having overdrawn his account, had left his work un-
finished ; the consequence of which was, that a number
of chairs which were to have been done at a certain time
were returned on his (Mr. liensett's) t, ands, together
with soma rosewood couches. upon which the younger
Sparrow had also been engaged. The latter had been
brought before Mr. Rawlinson for neglect of duty,
when he (Mr. Knisett), not wishing to be harsh with
him, consented to let the warrant stand over, on a
promise being given that the unfinished work should
be completed in fourteen days. He took the
two chairs home, but neglected to return them, as
per agreement, and as he (Mr. K.) understood that
they were about to be seized by the landlord for rent,
he thought himself justified in obtaining possession of
them, and accordingly took his son with him tar that
purpose. It had been said that Sparrow had pur-
chased the articles for 31., by which it was meant to be
inferred that he looked upon them as being his, on the
ground that that amount of wages was due to him.
Such, however, was not the fact, as he (Mr. K.) would
not, in the event of the proper completion of the ar-
ticles, have been indebted to him more than a few
shillings.
Mr. HARDWICK—What do you say to toe assault
sworn to?

Mr. Kensett—She flew at my son, and I only took
hold of her to remove her. I used no more force than
was necessary ; and, if what I did is looked upon
as an assault, then I must plead guilty to have com-
mitted one.

Mr. Kensett then called his son, who stated that the
complainant struck him (witness) on the breast, telling
him that he should not take the chairs. He did not
see his father strike her, nor did she complain at the
time that he had done so. She was much excited, aed
called his father a brute, a rascal, and a vagabond.
Complainant here put in a certificate, which went to
show that she was an out-patient of Middlesex Hospi-
tal from a slight bruise on her right arm. The paper
in question was dated the same day (yesterday), and
complainant exhibited her arm. which certainly was not
much discoloured, and said that it was in a very swollen
and painful condition when she first went to the institu-
tion in question ; the splints which were hound on by
the surgeon were not removed till yesterday morning.
Mr. H AILDWICI told Mr. Kensett that he had been
guilty of a trespass. and had altogether adopted a most
unjustifiable and illegal mode of gaining possession of
the chairs. There could be no doubt whatever, from
the evidence adduced, that he had committed a serious
assault, for which, if the parties had taken the case else-
where,
he might perhaps have been mulcted in a heavy
amount.
After some further remarks on the part of the Magis-
trate and Mr. Read, the later of whom begged that the
matter migl►t not be decided summarily, Mr. Kensett
was held to bail for his appearance to answer the charge
at the Sessions.

THE REGISTRATIONS.

MARYLEBONE.

Yesterday morning, at ten o'clock, Mr. Falconer, the
Revising Barrister, resumed his sitting at the Court-
house, Marylebone.
Messrs. Ivimey and Allen again appeared as the rip-
presentatives of the " Borough of Marylebone Reform
and Registration Association," to defend the Liberal
interest, and Messrs. Greenwood and Rook that of the
Tory party.
On the Learned Barrister taking his seat, he said
there were several cases of considerable iraportance, in
which he bad deferred his judgment, and he thought he
had better decide upon them prior to entering into any
other business, inasmuch as many cases might transpire
in course of the revision, to which the same decisions
would apply.
Mr. FALCONER then proceeded to give judgment in
the case of Sir Henry Webb. He said he found that
in the parish of St. Marylebone there was but one rate
made in the year for the relief of the poor, extending
from January to the end of the year, and that it was
raised by two half-yearly collections. The rate (or 1839
did not contain the name of Sir Henry Webb, the
person rated for the house occupied by him was Mr.
Jeringham, and he wis rated as well as on the year
1839, for the year 1840. On the 16th of July, 1840,
a claim to be rated was served on the part of Sir
Henry Webb. At this time the arrears of the last
half year of 1839 were due and unpaid. No tender
of the arrears due was made when this claim to be
rated was made. It was contended that the tender
WAS not necessary, and that, it necessary, Mr. Jering-
ham, having authorised the Collector to obtain the
amount of the rate at the .bark of Messrs. Wright,
there would have been no arrears due on July 16, it
an application to the bank had been made, as it might
have been, before the 16th of July. It is said that all
that is requisite under the 27til and 30th sections of
the Reform Act is, that there should be a tender of
such arrears only as are due, of rates made during
the twelve months' occupation ending the last day of
July last, and which would have been payable by Sir
H. Webb on the 6th day of April last. In the pre-
sent case, no rate had been made between the Ist day
of August, 1839, and January, 1840, and there-
fore it was not necessary that he should
have been on that rate, or hare paid any
part of it, and that .the rate of the first
half year of 1840 was not due on or before April the
Gth last, and therefore no part of the rate of this year
needed to have been paid in July ; and that, as it was
not requisite that he should have been on the rate of
1839, the non-payment of any part of it by Mr. Jering-
ham did not affect his right to be registered. This
view of the case, however, could not be sustained. The
30th section entitled persons to put themselves upon
the rate for the time being. This they could not have
done previous to the Reform Act being passed, but in
order to avail themselves of the power given by this
section, it is expressly stated, " that they shall tender
the full amount of rate or rates if any be then due ;"
that is, due when the claim to be rated is made. It
appeared that there were arrears due when this notice
of claim to be rated was given, and he (the Learned
Barrister) could not avoid the consequences of the plain
and distinct words used in this section of the Act.
There was no tender of the arrears when the
claim to be rated was made, and the claim to
be rated was therefore insufficient. By this deci-
sion Sir H. Webb would not be affected in a future
registration, if the landlord did not pay those arrears
on or before the 20th of July next. He is liable to pay
the rates from the time his name is put on the rate, and
if paid by him for this year on or before July 20th next,
the non-payment of the arrears of last year on or be-
fore July 20, 1841, by Mr. Jeringham, would not dis-
qualify him. The effect of the non-payment of the
arrears of Mr. Jeringham at this time is the conse-
quence of the provisions of the 30th section of the
Act. The claim of Sir H. Webb to be registered must
be disallowed, and the fact that the collector might
have obtained the amount of the rates due by Mr.
Jeringham at Messrs. Wright's, would not affect his
decision. To make an efficient claim to be put upon
an existing tate, there must be a tender of arrears then
due, such tender cannot be made without inquiry, and
inquiry should have been made of the overseers, or of
the collector. Had this been done, the arrears would
probably have been paid, and his name have been placed
on the Register.

The above decision applied also to the case of Henry
Hays, Joseph Seymour, Thomas Boulter, Wm. Broad-
hurst, and several others deferred for judgment.
Mr. FALCONER then gave judgment in the case of
Edward Clayton, who claimed as the landlord of No. 3,
Upper Rath bone-place. He did not reside there, but
reserved a back workshop with a right of entrance, and
a single room on the third floor, in which he occasionally
slept. He kept no servant himself, but paid the ser-
vant of the sub-tenant occasionally for services rendered
him.
The Learned BARRISTER said in cases similar to the
'present the decisions of Revising Barristers and Com-
mittees of the House of Commons were too numerous
to justify him in varying from the conclusions esta-
blished. He, however, felt great difficulty, inasmuch as
by such an occupation as the present the tenant of the
greater portion of the house was prevented from being
put upon the register so long as the landlord occupied

- -
the smallest particie thereof. Under all the eiretimstances
he should have hesitated to have placed the claimant's
name upon the register, if the cases already determined
were not too many to justify his rejocting them. The
effort that had been made in cases like the present had
been to preserve or support the vote immediately under
discussion, and the effect of the decision in support of
the vote upon the tenant of the greater part of the pre-
mises, and who is constant occupation of them, and
whose interest in the premises is equally important with
that of the landlord or of any joint tenant, has been en-
tirely disregarded. The claim, which of course decides
many others, was admitted.
Mr. Thomas John Burgoyne, the late returning officer
for the borough, Mr. Thos. Burgoyne, Mr. John Charles
Burgoyne, and Mr. Joseph Wm. Thrupp, were objected
to by the Reformers upon the ground that in their joint
occupancy as partners of the houses Nos. 21 and 22,
Stratford-place, there was not a sufficient interest on the
part of each to qualify them to vote.
Mr. Thomas John Burgoyne was called by the Tory
agents, and stated that the houses were leased to him
alone ; and as he found, under the Reform Act, that
partners must either be tenants or lessees, he did not
wish to press the right of his sons. The house No. 22
was occupied by him and his partners as a place of bu-
siness, and, although his property, it was underlet to the
firm for the term of their partnership.
Mr. FALCONER said that did not prove that there
tvas a joint interest in the premises on the part of every
one of the partners. The Reform Act distinctly speci-
fied that partners must either be owners or tenants,
which was not proved in the present case, as referred
to the witness's two sons. He should allow the objec-
tion in all the three cases, reserving to Mr. Thrupp, if
he thought proper, the right to produce the lease, in
order to show that he had a distinct interest.

With this reservation the three names were expunged.
Mr. Frederick Grace and Mr. John Frederick Grace
were objected to, on the part of the Reformers, as the
joirt occupants of the house, No. 14, Wigmore•street.

It appeared that the house had been leased in 1827 by
a Mr. Fenner to Mr. Crace, sen„ and a Mr. Clarke ;
latterly Mr. Clarke had assigned his interest in the pre-
mises to his (Mr. Crace's) son. The lease was for 28
years, and the son took part in the business.

Mr. FALCONER said this case was somewhat similar
to one where a landlord holds possession of a house, and
sub-lets a portion of it. The lease having been made
originally to Mr. Crace, sen., he had exclusive posses-
sion agi;inst his son, and therefore the objection was a
va i l one, and he must ailow it.

Tae name of John Frederick Cracc was accordingly
expunge 1.
Sir Benjamin Hall, Bart., MT., the Member for
the borough, was objected to by the Tories, upon the
ground that he had not paid the assessed taxes for his
house, No. 65, Wimpolc-street.
Mr. Ivimey opposed the objec'ion. It was prove 3
that there were twelve months Queen's taxes due, and the
name of the Hon. Baronet was expunged.

The name of Lord Like and Lord William Fitzroy
were also expunged ; the former upon the ground that
he was a Peer of the Realm, which species of objection
was first introduced by the Tory party, and the latter
upon the ground that he let his house furni4ed.
There were no other cases of general public import-
ance, and the Court adjourned at 5 o'clock till this day,

From Henry Cowper, Esq., of Tewen.waters,
Herts, to Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, 39, Albemarle-street,
Piccadilly, and 76, King William-street, Bark of England.
—Gentlemen, having been deaf for many years, I uas
induced from recommendation to try your Invisible Voice
Conductors, and I have great pleasure in telling you that
they enable me to hear persons in company and at a place of
worship most distinctly; and is consequence of the great ad-
vaivage which I have derived, I have recommended many
persons to you, and I am happy to state that their report is
similar to mine, most favourable. The Spectacles and Hand-
glass which you have sent me are very excellent, and suit my
sight precisely, and surpass anything of the kind I have ever
tried ; the transparency of which is so brilliant, that although
I have passed my bath year, the 22d of May last, yet they en-
able ni e to read, &e., by candle- light with the greatest ease
and comfort to myself.—Gentlemen, I return you my best
thanks, and remain your most obedient servant, HENRA
CowrEa.-22d of June, 1839.—The Messrs. Solomons state
that there are numerous persons in London and in the country,
as well as in Ireland, assuming the name of Solomons, who
have endeavoured to imitate their Invisible Operative Voice
Conductor and newly- invented Spectacle Lenses, but the ma-
terials being a secret to themselves, and the various mode of
their application to the eye and ear not being known to them,
their spurious imitations have therefore been found to be use-
less. The Messrs. S. have no connection with persons of
the same name : their valuable inventions are solely confined
to their Establishments, 39, Albemarle-street, and 76, King
William-street, Bank.
MORTUARY LA w.—The West Kirk Session
of Edinburgh, in the plentitule of its high. Wouldandsanetitno-
nious wisdom, has forbidden Sunday burie s.they
condescend to propound a regulation upon the sinful prat_
tice of dying on Wednesdays? Let them come to some
arrangement with the other faculty to stop that, and they
may perchance arrive at the root of the evil.

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZL:TTL.

WHITEHALL, SEPT. 21.
The Queen has been pleased to present the Reverend
George Thomas Marsh, Clerk, M.A., to the Rectory of
Foxley, in the county of Wilts, and diocese of Gloucester
and Bristol, void by the promotion of Doctor Philip Nicholas
Shuttleworth to the See of Chichester.