The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-02 00:00:00

SOUTHWARK.

Charles Hallett, the proprietor of a shoe-warehouse in
Thornton-street, Dockhead, was brought up, charged
with indecently assaulting Mary Hambleton, a little girl
12 years of age, the daughter of respectable parents,
living in that neighbourhood.
From the complainant's statement, an interesting-look-
ing girl, it appeared that on the preceding day she went
to the defendant's warehouse for the purpose of pur-
chasing a pair of shoes. At the time she entered the
shop there was no person present but the prisoner, and
he desired her to sit down, in order that he might fit her
with the shoes she required. While he was engaged in
trying a pair of shoes he availed himself of the oppor-
tunity, and acted towards the little girl in a scandalous
and indecent manner.
The defendant pleaded accident as the cause.
The MAGISTRATE said that, with a view to save the
feelings of a young girl like the complainant appearing
in another Court to prosecute, he should deal summarily
with the case, and inflict on the defendant the highest
penalty the law allowed, namely .5/., and to find two
sureties of 201. each to keep the peace and be of good
behaviour fcr 12 months.
HAMMERSMITH.

Mr. Reuben Alfred Fitch, of Farringdon street, ap-
peared in discharge of a warrant issued against him, for
having on the 15th of August last refused to pay the
sum of one shilling to William Bonner, a conductor to
the omnibus No. 2,024, being the amount of his fare for
riding from Farringdon-street to the Railway-bridge,
Kensington.
William Bonner deposed that he was conductor to the
omnibus No. 2,024, belonging to the Brentford and
Hammersmith Conveyance Association; on the day in
question, he took the defendant with a lady up at Far-
ringdon-street, and carried them to the Railway-bridge
at Kensington. On their getting out the defendant
paid him only one shilling, which was only one fare.
The fare for the two by that omnibus was two shillings,
and although witness told defendant so, he refused to
pay it. Witness pointed out to the defendant that that
was a long (Brentford) omnibus, and that the fare was
stated inside the omnibus at one shilling. Defendant
looked at the fare up in the omnibus, but still would not
pay it.
By Mr. PAINTER-The defendant acted for both, and
gave the shilling for both, and not for himself only. He
at first hesitrsted to give his address.
A printed. table of the fares was then healed to the
Magistrate, rand having perused it,
Mr. PAM Tam said, he found by that table of fares,
copies of which were stuck up in each of the omnibuses,
from which it appeared that the fares were, from
Hounslow, laleworth, and Brentford, to Piccadilly, Is.,
and further Its. 6d. From Kew. bridge to Kensington-
palace gates. 6d., and from the New-road to Charing-
cross, 6d., aed from the Railway-bridge, Kensington, to
the Bank, 64 The card went on to state that was the
up fare by .all the Association omnibuses. By the Me-
tropolitan Carriage Act (6th and 7th Victoria, cap. 86,
sec. 7, it wa.s enacted, " That the proprietors of every
metropolitan i stage-carriage shall, on the inside of every
such carriwge, keep distinctly painted, in a. conspicuous
manner, a. table of fares to be demanded of passengers
by such carriage ; and the fares therein specified shall
be deemed to be the only lawful fares, and may be re-
covered by the driver, or conductor, as in the case of
hackney-ca rriages, in a summary way, before any jus-
tice of the peace ; and every proprietor making default
in the premises shall forfeit the sum of 20s. for every
offence." He, however, did not consider that the card
produced, -which was stuck up in the omnibuses, was a
sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act of
Parliament. It ought to be painted upon the omnibus,
besides w hich, it only spoke of the up fares, and gave no
down faros., except a proviso at the bottom, that " the
Hounslow., Isleworth, Brentford, and Kew-bridge om-
nibuses, take no short fares until after leaving the
White Ilorse-cellar," which was, in fact, not sayirg
what the 'down fares were, but what they were not. lie
did not, therefore, think that the proprietors had com-
plied with the provisions of the Act of Parliament under
which tlsey claimed the fare from the defendant, and the
complain t must be dismissed.
The w arrant was accordingly dismissed.
GREENWICH.
After the night charges had been disposed of, a dray-
man, in. -the employ of Messrs. Barclay and Perkins, ad-
dressedi iMr. Jeremy, the sitting magistrate, complaining
of an eat- policeman, and asking his Worship's advice. He
said that he appeared before the Court some time since
at the in stance of the toll-collector at the New-cross gate,
for refusing to pay an extra toll demanded for driving
his teem, on his return from Woolwich, with reins. His
WorsisiTp might remember that he decided that waggons
so dri rem were not liable to such a demand, inasmuch
that the Legislature could never have contemplated such
a liability. On that occasion a man named John Sed-
ger, formerly a police•constable in the R division, ap-
plied to himself and mate, assuring them that he could
get the :we reported in the newspapers, get the hearing
of the se brought on without delay, and procure them