The Sun.
London, England, 1840-12-15 00:00:00

BOW. STREET.

Mr. Henry Hetherington, the bookseller in the
Strand, appeared yesterday before Mr. Hall, upon an
information, granted at the instance of Mr.
clerk in the Superintendent President's department in
the General Post-office, to show cause why he unlaw-
fully refused to pay the sum of 2d., being justly due
and owing to her Majesty, as postage of a letter re-
ceived by him.
Mr. Peacock, solicitor to the Post-office, stated,
that the proceedings were taken under the Ist Vic.,
chap. 36, which authorised the amount of postage to
be recovered before a Magistrate, having jurisdiction
where the offence shall be committed. About three weeks
back, a letter, addressed to the defendant, was delivered
to him by the letter-carrier of the district in which he re-
sides, which he broke open, and then refused to pay for
it, in consequence of which, he (Mr. P.) wrote to him
upon the schject. but he received no answer. Under
the provisions of the 3d and 4th Vic., chap. 96, a rate
was charged on letters not pre-paid, and the person re-
ceiving them became liable for the postage. It was,
therefore, his duty to contend that the defendant, by
breaking open the letter in question, incurred a right
of ownership, and consequently rendered himself liable
to the demand made upon bias.
William Goodwin, letter carrier in the district in
which the defendant resides, proved that about three
weeks back he had a letter to deliver, which was ad-
dressed to Mr. Hetherington, the postage charged on
which was twopence. He presented it to bhn in person
at his house, 126, Strand, at the same time demanding
the postage, but the, defendant, upon taking it in his
hand, said—" If the letter relates to my business I'd
pay for it, and if it does not I will not pay you." He
then broke it open, and when witness saw that it was
not anonymous, he slid he would require the postage
marked upon it ; but the defendant said that it was
auonymous, as he had no knowledge of the person
who wrote it, adding, that. if Mr. Renshaw, or
;my other neighbour had written it, he would nut re-
fuse to pay the postage, for it could not, in such case,
be considered anonymous. Witness then took the
letter back to the Post-office, and reported what had
occurred. He had since made a demand for the postage,
but it was refused.
Delenlant—llid I not also say that if the latter
came front any person I knew, I would have no objec-
tion to pay for it ? NVitna,s —Yes ; I think you

sail so.
Tbc defendant said he could not know what the pur-
port of
the letter might have been without breaking it
ovn ; and, having done so, be found it totally useles,
to him for the purposes of his business, but that it came.
f', mu Germany, and from a rrson be had no know-
ledge of. As Mr. Peacock bad mentioned the Acts
of Parliament respecting the regulation of the General
p,st, be would be gladt. to know if his property h•ip-
pen
to suffer any injury, would the Post-office autho-
rities see him justified.
Mr. IlAut. said that had nothing to do with the
question before him, and there was no use in mixing up
a subject that had no connection with the case.
Mr. Peacock offered to give every information in his
pwer whenever the defendant could spare time to call
upon him.
The defendant submitted that the letter in question
was to all intents and purposes anonymous, as it neither
related to his business or to anything that he hsd the
most remote notion of.
Mr. HA LL inquired what the subject of it might be ?
'Fte defendant said that it related to a lottery in Ger-

many.
Mr. HALL—I received another of the same kind—
( A laugh)—relating to the sale of some estates in
Hungary.
Mr. Peacock—l also got one on the same subject.
Mr. HALL said there was no doubt of the defendant's
liability, for suppose he happened to meet a person at
the house of a friend with whom he had no acquaintance,
and that he thought proper to write to him in a few
d.ivs after for the loan of 501, he would of course con.
sider such a proceeding most unwarrantable arid would
refuse it, but he would nevertheless be obliged to pay
the postage ; or another might know the defendant to
be a public man, and make a demand on him on that
score ; in such cane it was impossible to draw a line, and
it :is to protect the public that the Pent-office Act was
passed.