The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-02 00:00:00

MARYLEBOINE.

Henry Peacock was placed at the bar before Mr.
Broughton, charged with having caused the death of C.
Moore. The parties have both been employed in
Hansom's stable-yard, adjacent to the Bazaar, Baker
street, Portman-square.
It appeared from the evidence, that on the previous
afternoon, between two and three o'clock, Mr. Enims,
landlord of the Bazaar tap, while dressing up stairs,
heard a great noise below, and on hastening down, found
the prisoner and another man wrestling in runt of the
bar; he desired them to desist, and at the same time
threatening that if they did not he would go for a police-
man, as it was not a proper place fur them to pursue
Such practices in. They left off, and during the tempo-
rary absence of Mr. Emms, Moore, the deceased, was
heard to say, addressing the prisoner, " If he (meaning
the other man) couldn't floor you, I can." Mu,. re then
seized hold of him, and after a struggle they both fell.
They got up and had another close and a second tall,
and on Moore's being lifted from the floor iu a state of
insensibility, he was removed to the tap-room, where he
was laid upon a table. A surgeon who was sent for to
attend upon him speedily arrived, and pronounced him
to be dead. Death might have been caused either by
apoplexy or from the sudden bursting of a blood-vessel.
There were no external marks of violence.
The prisoner was remanded till Monday next.
WORSHIP-STREET.

Mr. William Broom, a tea-broker, in Fen-court, Fen-
church-street, was charged before Mr. Arnold with
having unlawfully refused to deliver up his ticket as a
passenger by one of the trains on the Eastern Countits
Railway, and also with resisting and assaulting the
officers of the company in the execution of their duty.
Benjamin Richardson, an inspector appointed to collect
the tickets from passengers at the Stratford station,
stated that on the arrival of the Bury train on the pre-
ceding evening, he found the defendant reclining against
the partition in one of the second-class carriages, with
his feet resting on the seat, and having requested him,
in common with the other passengers, to produce his
ticket, ho positively refused to comply, assigning as his
reason that the scat was so damp, that he was unable to
occupy it. Witness explained to him that unless he
produced the ticket, he must immediately quit the car-
riage, but he refused to do either, and he accordingly
directed two other officers to effect his forcible removal.
After a severe struggle the defendant was ejected from
the carriage, but the instant he reached the platform, he
made a violent blow at the witness which knocked off his
hat, and afterwards seized him by the hair, and continued
striking him until he was rescued by the bystanders, and
the defendant was given into custody.
In answer to the charge, the defendant said that he

certainly expressed his determination to retain the
ticket until the train arrived at its destination, in order
that he might direct the attention of the proper officials
to the state in which he found the interior of the car-
riage, the seats of which were so saturated with mud
and slush that it was impossible to occupy them. He
must also admit that ho resisted to the utmost the un-
warrantable amount of violence that was employed to
eject him from the carriage, and complained that no
application had been made for his name and address be-
fore such harsh measures were resorted to.

The witness Richardson, in answer to a question from
the magistrate, said that the defendant was requested to
furnish his name and address after his removal from the
carriage, but he declined doing 50.
Mr. ARNOLD said that he entertained considerable

doubt as to whether the company's servants were justified
in giving the defendant into custody, or even effecting
his forcible removal from the carriage without making
a direct application for his name and address in the first
instance, and preferring their complaint in the form of a
summons.

Mr. Widdicombe, on behalf of the company, caflod
the Magistrate's attention to one of their bye-laws,
which expressly authorised say collector, or other ser-
vant of the company, "to seize and detain any person
who shall commit any offence against the provisions of
the Act, and whose name and address shall be unknown
to such collector, &c., and convey him before some jus•
tice of the peace, within whose jurisdiction such offence
shall be committed."
Mr. ARNOLD said that it did not appear that any step
had been taken to obtain the defendant's name au('
address previous to his removal from the carriage, which
course ought certainly to have been adopted, and it
became, therefore, a question how far he was justified in
the resistance he offered to such a proccedinc. As the
question was ono of some importance, he should take
time to consider his decision, and in the meantime
accept the defendant's own recognizance for his appear-
ance next week.