The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-05 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

CHARGE AGAINST SIR TrICMAS MONCRIEFF AND
CAPTAIN ORMSEY.—OR Saturday the adjourned police
charge against Sir Thomas Moncrieff and Capt. Ormsby
was concluded. The case is briefly this :—Police Ser-
.geant Kendillon charged Captain Ormsby with having
assaulted him and with being drunk. Sir T. Moncrieff
was also charged with having laid hold of Sergeant Ken,-
dillon with intent to rescue Captain Ormsby. The
alleged assault took place on Tuesday morning, but
Captain Ormsby did not make his appearance until Sa-
turday. Sir T. Moncrieff, however, came forward, and
police Sergeant Kendillon, C 13, made his complaint.
The Magistrate's decision was postponed in order to pro-
cure the attendance of a lamp-lighter, a witness to a par-
ticular fact.

Police Sergeant Kendillon repeated his charge, which,
however, slightly varied from the evidence he had given
on the previous day. The assistance of the police had
been required by Captain Ormsby, who complained that
he had lost a gold chain at No. 6, Tenterden-street. The
chain was afterwards found by Captain Ormsby on his
own person, and an offer was made to treat the police to
gin, which was declined. Captain Ormsby, who was in-
toxicated, squared up to him and struck him on the side
of the head more than once. He laid hold of Captain
Ormsby, upon which Captain Ormsby called out to Sir
T. Moncrieff, " Capsize the rascal I" Sir Thomas Mon-
crieff caught hold of witness and made several blows.
Witness then said he should take both to the station,
and with the assistance of Police Constable Whitaker,
C 30, the defendants were taken to the station-house.
Mr. MALTBY asked if the defendants made resistance
while on the way ? . .
Police Sergeant Kendilloh said the defendants walked
very quietly. When in the station-house Captain
Ormsby said that witness and the other constable had
drunk a pint of gin each.
Mr. MALTBY then very tuinutely questioned the police ,
sergeant as to the accuracy of a statement made on a
former day by Sir T. Moncrieff, namely, that he (the
police sergeant), having an unlighted cigar in his mouth,
asked Sir Thomas for a light from his cigar ; that Sir
Thomas proffered a lght, but refused to let the sergeant
take the cigar in his fingers ; that the sergeant ob-
tained a light from the lamplighter, and then made the
remark that Sir T. Monerieff was no gentleman, but
that the lainplighter was ; that on Sir T. Moncrieff
making a reply the police sergeant called him a black-
guard ; and that when Captain Ormsby observed that
such language was improper firom a policeman to a gen-
tleman, and that the only excuse was that he was drunk,
the sergeant called him 4. liar ; to all of which the police
sergeant gave the most unqualified contradiction. The
police sergeant declared that he was not smoking at
all ; that he asked for a light in order to accommodate
Captain Ormsby, who had dropped his cigar ; that he
never tasted gin as stated ; that when he called the con-
stable to come away some abusive epithets were applied
to him, which ended in Captain Ormsby making the
assault complained -of ; that he never applied the term
blackgard to Sir Thomas MonCrieff, nor that of liar to
Captain Ormsby ; but that on the contrary Captain
Ormsby called him a liar.
Policeman Whitaker, C 30, said Capt. Ormsby began
squaring and striking at his sergeant. Witness thought
it was in a larking way, though the blows weree harder
than he should have liked. Witness interfered, and then
Sir T. Moncrieff struck at the sergeant ; ultimately
both were taken to . the station. No gin was drank at
the house No. 6, Tenterden-street ; the police sergeant
did not smoke a cigar, nor had lie been smoking, to wit-
ness's knowledge. Witness did not hear the term black-
guard or liar used by the defendant or the police sergeant:
The lamplighter was called, but he courd not say that
the police sergeant asked him to give a light for one of
the gentlemen. Did not see the sergeant smoking, nor
did he witness any assault.

Mr. MALTBY asked Sir Thomas if he had anything to
say ?-7Sir Thomas replied nothing more than what he
had stated on the former occasion. He did not see the
policemen drink gin, but Captain Ormsby told him they
had had gin. He positively declared tl police-sergeant
asked him for a light to a cigar the sergeant was smok-
ing, He recollected the circumstance more particularly,
because he told the sergeant to take a light, at the same

time reversing his cigar, and putting the lighted end into
his own mouth. He saw the police-sergeant get a light
from tre lamplighter, and after applying. it to his cigar,
said that the lamplighter was a gentleman and that he
(Sir Thomas Moncrieft) was none. Sir Thomas then
declared that the term " blackguard" was applied to
him, and on Captain Ormsby remonstrating the sergeant
applied the term " liar" to. Captain Ormsby. Defend-
ant was quite positive that he was sober.
Captain Ormsby said he saw the police sergeant with
a tumbler of raw gin in his hand, which he was drinking
in the house, No. 6, Tenterden-street. Some one came
in and said the police wanted brandy and cigars. De-
fendant and Sir Thomas Moncrieff went out and found
the police-sergeant and the policeman outside of the
house. The sergeant had a cigar, which he afterwards
smoked. The language, as described by Sir Thomas
Moncrieff, was used by the police-sergeant.
Defendant declared he was quite sober.

Inspector Baker said he took the charge. The de-
fendant Ormsby was certainly intoxicated ; Sir Thomas
Moncrieff was not drunk, but he had the appearance of
having taken a glass or two of' wine. The only remark
made by the defendants against the police was that they
had drank a pint of gin each.
Sir Thomas Moncrieff said he went quietly to the sta-
tion-house; solely because his object was t) lodge a com-
plaint against the nolice sergeant for the offensive lan-
guage he had used. . . .

Mr. MALTBY, after some consideration, said the charge
of assault against Sir T. Moncrieff appeared of so tri-
fling a nature that he should dismiss the complaint.
With respect to the double charge against Captain
Ormsby, he should fine him ss. for heing intoxicated
and on account of the trifling character of the assault,
he should put on the small fine of ss. additional. On a
recent occasion he had disbelieved the testimony of Ser-
geant Kendillon on oath, in a case of assault on the very
same spot, but as the police sergeant's evidence was now
corroborated by a policeman, he inflicted the moderate
fine of ss. By this course he left the charge of bad lan-
guage urged by the defendants wholly untouched, and
the defendants were at liberty, if they chose, to carry
their complaint before the Commissioners.