The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-13 00:00:00

MARYLEBONE VESTRY.

G. Daniel, Esq., in tho absence of the rector, was
called to the chair.

PROPOSED COUNTY PRISON AND LUNATIC ASYLUM.

Mr. JOSEPH inquired if the vestry had received any
information respecting the steps proposed to be taken by
the Middlesex magistrates, in refereac:, to the County
Lunatic Asylum, and the new prison about bei❑g built.
Sir P. LAURIE said, that he was not at the last meet-
ing of the magistrates, but his nephew was, who in-
formed him that there was a deal of mysterious secrecy
in their proceedings. It was however clear, that Sir
James Graham was opposed to their views regarding the
silent system. He (Sir Peter Laurie) looked upon the
silent system as the most dreadful punishment that could
be inflicted. It had failed in Ame.ica, and would also
fail here.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. ELLIOTT having spoken upon the subject, it
was intimated that the vestry would receive the earliest
information of the final decision of the magistrates upon
the County Lunatic Asylum, and the proposed altera-
tions in the prison discipline.

NOMINATION OF CHURCHWAIMENS.

The following gentlemen were nominated church-
wardens for the ensuing year:—Mr. Charles Elliott,
churchwarden for the parish on the part of the vestry;
Mr. W. Elridge for Trinity; Mr. C. Carr for St. Mary s;
and Mr. Stephen Grange for Christchurch.

POLICE IN TELLIGEN CE
MANSION-ROUSE.

IMPORTANT DECISION WITH RESPECT TO STEAM
VESSELS.—On Saturday, Captain Rose, commanding one
of the Greenwich steam vessels, was summoned before
the Lord Mayor for having acted on board without
having a license from the Waternien's and Lightermen's
Company. Tho question comprehended the important
one of overcrowding steam vessels to the great danger of
the lives of the people, and the interest excited was pro-
portionably great.

Mr. NeWb-en, the solicitor to the Watermen's Steara
Uoat Company, attended for the defendant.

- - -
Mr. George E. Nias, Gracechurch-street, printer,
stated that on Monday last he went on board the Prince
,if Wales steamer at London-bridge, and observed that
they had not got the number of passengers which the
vessel was authorised to carry painted on the boat, in
conformity to the rules and regulations passed some
time ago by the Court of Aldermen. He paid fourpence
for his passage to Greenwich, and he observed the de-
fendant acting as captain while he was on board. The

trip the vessel took was from Hungerford-marketto
Greenwich. Witness inquired at the Watermen's and
Lic4htermen's Hall and found that the captain was not
licensed.

The witness, upon cross-examination by Mr. New -
bon, said the boat was not overloaded on the occasion,
but his determination to proceed had arisen from the fact
that a short time ago he had been on board a steamer
which was most dangerously crowded, and that not
having had evidence enough to prove his case against
that vessel, he had resolved, in order to prevent future
danger to the public, to prosecute the very first vessel
which he should find acting in opposition to the rules
and regulations ; and the vessel named in the summons
was the first. lie took up the case upon purely public
grounds, and would be regulated as to his future opera-
tions by circumstances.
Mr. Bangan, clerk of the Watermen's and Lighter-
men's Company, stated that Captain Rose was not li-
censed to use a steam-boat in the river for the purpose
of conveying passengers. The captain was a freeman
of the Company by servitude, and had been made free
on the 11th of December, 1834.
In answer to a question from Mr. Newbon, Mr. Good-
man (the chief clerk) stated that the date of the bye-
laws passed by the Court of Aldermen was Sept. 29,
1845, and the date of the settlement of them by the
judge was Dec. 22, 1845.
Mr. Bangan, in cross-examination, said that no licence
had been granted to any captain since the passing of the
rules aid regulations, neither had any been applied for,
neither had the Court of Watermen taken any steps to
carry out the rules and regulations.
The above was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Newbon said he at once admitted that the defend-
ant was not licensed under the regulation alluded to,
but he submitted that laws, in order to be efficacious,
ought to be general,•to cause a beneficial operation ;
and in the present case there had been one vessel, and
that belonging to a small and newly-established com-
pany, marked out and selected for prosecution, at the
same time that it was well known that long-established
companies were constantly acting in opposition to the
arrangements made by the Court of Aldermen.
Mr. Nias (the prosecutor) declared that he knew
nothing whatever about the circumstances of the com-
pany to which the steam-boat belonged. His object
was to prevent the calamities which every one who had
any feeling and thought anticipated from the overcrowd-
ing of steam-vessels.
Mr. Newbon said he had no reason to doubt that Mr.
Nias was actuated by the best feelings; but it was
really too bad that all the other vessels should be al-
lowed to escape, and one which was, perhaps, the best
regulated on the Thames, should be shot at.

The LORD MAYOR said it was his duty to listen to
any charge brought under the Act, and that if Mr. New-
bon chose to bring charges for similar offences against
other steamers, his oorapligns elmild be ottuded t 9 114 h
*Tull likierity.

Mr. New bon said the fact was, this Act and the laws
and regulations were considered to be a mere dead letter.
They were completely inoperative, How was it possible
that the captain of a steam vessel could prevent the
public from rushing into his vessel? When the Black-
wall railroad brought down 500 or 600 passengers, who
was to prevent them from rushing on board the steamers
in waiting? If the City would be so good as to supply
the vessels with policemen to prevent the overcrowding,
the thing might be manageable, but under existing cir-
cumstances it was altogether impracticable. He was
aware that some remedy was necessary, but to attack a
new company for the purpose of trying an experiment
was quite unfair and ungenerous.
The LORD 31Aroa intimated that the case was
proved.
Mr. Newbon said the company had no alternative but
an appeal. The case must be laid before the Court of
Queen's Bench.
The LORD MAYOR—I consider the case established,
and I shall thank you, or any other gentleman, to supply
me with similar cases; and you may depend upon it I
shall convict upon every one which is so well proved.
The defendant was then fined in the penalty of 405.,
or seven days' imprisonment in the House of Correction.
The defendant appealed against the conviction at once,
mid entered into bail accordingly.
DISGUSTING CASE.—A man, named Michael Adams,
who stated that he was a printer, was charged with
having exposed himself before three very youthful
females on Saturday morning. Three distinct cases
were proved, and the defendant said he had been out
drinking the whole of the night before, and knew no-
thing about the matter. lie argued, too, that the chil-
dren had followed him, and not he the children, and that
of course, if anybody appeared to be culpable, he was
not the person.
The LORD MAYOR sentenced the defendant to be im-
prisoned in the House of Correction for fourteen days,