The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-17 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov 16.

BEENLEN V. HOCKIN.—THE BOROUGH OF DARTMOUTH.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Revising
Barrister for the borough of Dartmouth. The notice of
objection served on appellant did not specify the date of
the year, and the notice to the overseers had been served
on the churchwarden, who did not sign the list. The
Barrister, however, struck out the appellant's name.
Mr. GREENWOOD appeared on behalf of the appellant,
and maintained that the Revising Barrister's decision
was bad, inasmuch as the provisions of the law had been
violated in two instances by the notice.
Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE, on behalf of the respondent,
contended there was nothing in the Registration Act re-
quiring the stringent compliance with its liberal terms
demanded by the appellant. Substantial compliance
with its provisions was all that was required, and this
had been the case in the present instance.
Lord Chief Justice WILDE said, that with regard to
the first point raised—that regarding ;the date, clause 17
—in his opinion, as appled to it, did not admit of a!doubt.
That clearly showed that the Legislature intended that
the year as well as the day of the month should be
set forth in the notice. Whatever inconvenience might
arise from the compliance with the provisions of the
section, the Court was not at liberty to depart from the
evident meaning of the Legislature. The notice of ob-
jection must express on the face of it the year as well as
the day and the month; therefore he was of opinion the
notice in the present instance was bad, and that the
Revising Barrister's judgment must be reversed. Thoug h
this was
_sufficient to dispose-of the appeal, it would
be convenient that the Court should also express its
opinion on the second point. The 17th clause direct, d
that the notice of objection should be served " on the
overseers who made out the list ;" and the 13th section
required that the overseers should make out and sign
the same. Did the clauses stand alone in this manner,
there might be some reason for holding the notice to be
bad, but the interpretation clause, 101, stated that any
act to be performed by the overseers might be done by
the majority of them, and then this became the act of
the whole. He was, therefore, of opinion that the notice
now need not be served on the particular overseers who
signed the lists, but on any one of the whole, providing
the statute was in other respects complied with.
The rest of their Lordships concurred.
The decision of the Revising Barrister was accordingly
reversed.

WOOLLETT V. DAVIS.-THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH.

This was a consolidated appeal (involving 83 votes)
against a decision of the Revising Barrister for the
county of Monmouth, by which the name of the appel-
lant was expunged from the register. The point raised
was the form of notice served by the objector on the
appellant, the latter contending that the notice on:which
the Revising Barrister had acted was bad, because the
objector had not properly stated his place of abode.
Mr. COCKBURN appeared for the appellant, maintain-
ing that the notice of the objector was not in the manner
and form prescribed by No. 5, schedulelA of the Act.
Mr. KEATING for the respondent, contended that all
that the law contemplated was such a description as
would convey the description of the objector's residence
as commonly known, and that this had been done in the
present instance.
The COURT took time to consider the judgment.
LAMBERT V. THE TOWN-CLERK OF THE BOROUGH OF
NEW BARIPK. _ _ _

This appeal was dismissed because ten days' clear
notice had not been given to the respondent.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,
MANSION-HOUSE.

Three men named Bellington, Cheshire, and Thompson,
who looked like farmers, but have been long known as
victimisers of country people, alias magsmen, were
brought before the Lord Mayor, charged upon suspicion
of having robbed a countryman of seventeeen 101. notes.
From the statement of Inspector Woodruffe, it ap-
peared that a countryman named Smith, who is at pre-
sent in Edinburgh, was, on the 13th of October, robbed
of 1701., which he had just received at the Bank, and
there was good reason for believing that the prisoners,
who were known to be constantly associated together,
were concerned in the robbery which took place in
Barnard's-inn Coffee-house, immediately after the re-
turn of the countryman from the city, to and from
which he had been accompanied by one of the fellows
at the bar.

Mr. Robinson, who attended for the prisoners, re.
quested that the witnesses should be separately ex.
amined.
_.

Haywood, a City officer, and another policeman,
had followed the prisoners from Cheapside to London -
bridge, in the expectation that others of the gang to which
the prisoners notoriously belonged would join them. No
other part of the gang, however, appeared, and the wit-
nesses took the three men into custody, and conveyed
them to the station-house, where, upon one of them,
was found several counterfeit sovereigns, and upon
another some humbug bank-notes, which had the appear-
ance of being tha issue of the Bank of England, but were
manufactured in the mint of the Bank of Elegance, and
a pack of cards, which had, no doubt, been played off
upon many a poor countryman.
Mr. Robinson begged to be informed why the men
were taken into custody at all. There was no evidence
to show that the officers were at all justified in the very
unceremonious course they had adopted.
The LORD MAYOR—The inspector believes that he
can produce evidence to show that they were connected
with this robbery, and I do not intend to let them go
without giving him an opportunity of producing his
witnesses.

Inspector Woodruffe said he had no doubt of being
able to show that they were participators.
Mr. Robinson admitted that the prisoners were in a
certain line of business, not recognised in the honourable
professions, but they were not thieves—they were not
pickpockets. It would be ridiculous to deny that they
pursued a peculiar game, from the testimonials found
in their pockets. They were, however, quite away
from any reasonable imputation in the business of the
robbery.
A lad, who had been potboy at the Barnard's-inn
Coffee-house at the time the countryman was robbed,
stated that two of the prisoners had been sitting with
the countrymen, while the third was at the bar, and that
a stamp was sent sent for, and the prisoners suddenly
disappeared altogether, leaving the countryman without
his money, as it was represented in the house, but in
anxious hope of their speedy return.
The prisoners were remanded.
Bellingham, who is 62 years of age, is very clever at
imitating provincial dialects, so that he is considered a
sure card with a countryman.
Henry Gibbs and John Ireland were charged with
burglary.
Mr. J. Death, sbopman to Mr. W. G. Mott, of No. 55,
Cheapside, jeweller, stated, that between three and four
o'clock on Saturday, he heard a knocking and smashing
at the window, and saw the glass broken. Gibbs put his
hand into the window, and took out one of the three gold
watches produced. The witness ran out and seized Ire-
land in the act of taking his hand from the window.
Gibbs was stopped by another person, and was seen
throwing a watch, value 121. 155., with great violence
upon the pavement, and a watch dropped from Ireland,
value 101. ss. Immediately afterwards a third watch
was picked up by a gentleman in the gutter, on the spot
where Ireland was apprehended. The value of the third
watch was 131. 16s.
The policeman, who took Gibbs into custody, said that
prisemer's hand was bleeding at the time very much. In
-going to the station, he said it was a " case with him."
Gibbs—My hand was cut before I ever knew anything
about the business. I was coming by when the glass
broke, and a man that was there gave me the watch and
went away.
Ireland—l never saw the thing afore in my life.
Committed for trial.

John Cairns was charged with felony. Isabella Wild,
of Rosemary-lane, stated, that between ten and eleven
on Friday night the prisoner asked for a lodging, and
was shown into a room, from which a sheet and two
blankets disappeared next morning. A labourer, who
slept in the same room, and who left the prisoner there
next morning, proved that he lost a bag and three
brushes.

A policeman stated that at nine o'clock on Saturday
morning, he saw the prisoner, with the bag identified
by the last witness, offering the contents for sale to a
clothes' dealer in Houndsditch. Upon being questioned
by witness, the prisoner said there were two blankets
and three brushes in the bag, and they were his pro-
perty, and he was going to sell them. Upon being fur•
ther questioned, the prisoner said that he had slept the
night before at the Fishmongers' Arms, Wapping Wall,
and that his wife was a great drunkard, and was mak-
ing away with all his things, so that he thought he
might as well be beforehand with her in the affair of the
blankets and brushes by selling them.—(Laughter.)
The prisoner said there was no use in his saying any-

thing, as he supposed they were determined to fix the
offence upon somebody.
Committed for trial.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
John Walker was charged with stealing several silk
handkerchiefs and scarfs, the property of his master.
John Cooper, constable 84 D, said, on Saturday even-
ing he was standing in the shop of Mr. Walker, pawn-
broker, High-street, Marylebone, when the prisoner
came in, and offered four green silk handkerchiefs in the
piece for pledge. Mr. Walker's assistant asked him if he
thought this was all right. He told him he thonght not.
The assistant returned the handkerchiefs, and witness
asked the prisoner where he had got the handkerchiefs.
The prisoner told him he had purchased them at
Thrasher and Glenny's, near Somerset House, Strand ;
and that he was a carpenter, living in Holywell-street,
Westminster. He took the defendant to the station-
house, and made inquiry of Messrs. Thrasher and
Glenny, who told him that they had no hand-
kerchiefs with the same pattern of border, and
he then went to the prisoner's address, in Holywell-
street, and discovered there that he was a light porter
to Mr. Unmade, 6, Old Bond-street, where he went, and
found that they had had handkerchiefs of a similar

pattern.
Horree Ilummle, hosier, 6, Old Bond-street, said they
had had handkerchiefs exactly similar to those prcducrd

by the policeman.
Mr. HARDWICKE was about to commit the prisoner
for trial, when Mr. Hummle applied to have him re-
manded till further inquiry could be made. He said,
from a letter of the prisoner's which had been inter-
cepted, there was reason to suspect that depredations to
a much greater amount had been committed.
The prisoner was remanded till Friday, when he will
be brought up for re-examination.
Jane Stanley was placed at the bar, charged with
rioting in several houses on Saturday evening, and com-
mitting assaults and damages.
T. Wilson, proprietor of a coffee-shop in John-street,
Oxford-street, said that the prisoner came to his house
on Saturday evening, and called for ale, which was re-
fused. She sat down, but soon arose, and cleared the
table of all that was on it, cups, saucers, Sce. She was
much intoxicated, and he gave her into custody.
Richard Warren, the proprietor of the Union Tavern,
11, John-street, Oxford street, said the prisoner cane
into his house about half-past five o'clock on Saturday
afternoon. She was tipsy, and he forbade his barmaid
to serve her with any liquor; when denied, she seized a
large glass globe, which stood on the counter, and threw
it at the barmaid.
The defendant said she did not remember anything
about it.
Mr. HARDWICKE said she must pay 10s. for the as-
sault, besides the amount of the damage done, or go to
the House of Correction for ten days.
SOUTHWARK. - - -

James Brooks, a cork-cutter, was charged with travel-
ling on the South-Eastern Railway without a ticket, and
refusing to pay his fare when required.
Henry Smith, ticket inspector at the London-bridge
terminus, stated, that on the arrival of the train from
Ashford, on Saturday afternoon, the defendant was re-
quested to produce his ticket, and, on his refusal to do
so, the fare, ss. 7d., was asked of him, which he also
refused to pay. He was then given into custody.
The prisoner said he lost his ticket on the way from
Ashford, but as it appeared that he intended to defraud
the company,
Mr. SECKER committed him to prison for 21 days.
CLE 11K EN IVE L L.

Henry Mayes was charged with assaulting Mr. J,
Lines, the proprietor of a coffee-house in High-street.
Camden-town, and also with inflicting serious injuries
upon police-constable 121 S.
It appeared that the prisoner entertakied some previous
ill-will towards Mr. Lines, in consequence of his having
prevented him from smoking in the coffee-room, and
on Sunday night he knocked the complainant down as
he stood at his own door, and on the constable coming
up and attempting to take him into custody, he also as-
saulted him.
Mr. GREENWOOD sentenced the prisoner to a fine of
75., or five days imprisonment, for the assault on Mir.
Lines, and to one months' imprisonment and hard labonr,
without the alternative of a fine, for assaulting the
policeman.
Henry Wilmott was placed at the bar, on the charge of
attempting to murder Harriet Haines, wife of a plumber
and glazier, residing in Paradise-terrace, Islington.
A number of witnesses were brought forward by the
police, to substantiate the charge, from whose evidence
it appeared that on Saturday last the prisoner went into
Mrs. Haines' house, for the purpose, it was surmised, of
getting some money on account of a previous transaction
between Mr. Haines and him. A person named Gilbert,
who lodged next door, heard, soon after the prisoner was
seen to enter the house, a noise of struggling and blows,
which latter were so violent and long continued, that he
was induced to go into the house to see what was the
matter, when he saw some person whom he could not
identify escaping by the back doer, and found Mrs.
Haines lying in a state of insensibility in the hall, with
her face covered with blood, and several severe wounds
in her head. On searching the premises after-
wards, a large metal candlestick was found, with
whieh the woman had apparently been wounded,
as it was all covered over with blood and a quantity of
hair sticking to it. A hat was also found in the drawing-,
room, which it was afterwards discovered belonged to
the prisoner, upon which he was taken into custody,
when several spots of blood were observed upon his
trowsera and waistcoat. Mrs. Haines was taken as
speedily as possible to Bartholomew's Hospital, where
she now lies with'but little hopes of her recovery. No
ostensible motive could be assigned for the savage and
bloodthirsty act, as the prisoner and Mrs. Haines and
her husband were on the most intimate terms, and he
was in the habit of visiting them almost every day.
Mr. GREENWOOD ordered the prisoner to be remanded
for a week, and desired the policeman to watch the state
of the wounded female at the hospital, and if any altera-
tion for the worse took place, so as to induce a fear of
her death, to let him know of it, and he would proceed
to the hospital to take her deposition.