The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-01 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 fur 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 51., and to find two
sureties of 201. each to keep the peace and be of good
behaviour fer 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. PAT LATER—The defendant acted for both, and
gave the shilling for both, and not for himself only. He
at first hesitated to give his address.
A printed table of the fares was then handed to the
Magistrate, and having perused it,
Mr. PAYNTER 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, Islewortb, and Brentford, to Piccadilly, Is.,
and further Is. 6d. From Kew. bridge to Kensington-
palace gates, 6d., and from the New-road to Charing-
cross, 6d., and from the Railway-bridge, Kensington, to
the Bank, 6d. 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 was enacted, " That the proprietors of every
metropolitan stage-carriage shall, on the inside of every
such carriage, 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-carriages, 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 which, it only spoke of the up fares, and gave no
down fares, except a proviso at the bottom, that " the
Hounslow, Isleworth, Brentford, and Kew-bridge om-
❑ibuses, take no short fares until after leaving the
White Horse-cellar," which was, in fact, not saying
what the down fares were, but what they were not. He
did not, therefore, think that the proprietors had com-
plied with the provisions of the Act of Parliament under
which they claimed the fare from the defendant, and the
complaint must be dismissed.
The warrant was accordingly dismissed.
GREENWICH.

After the night charges had been disposed of, a dray-
man, in the employ of Messrs. Barclay and Perkins, ad-
dressed Mr. Jeremy, the sitting magistrate, complaininz
of an ex-policeman, and asking his Worship's advice. He
said that he appeared before the Court some time since
at the instance of the toll-collector at the New-cross-gate,
for refusing to pay an extra toll demanded for driving
his team, on his return from Woolwich, with reins. His
Worship might remember that he decided that waggons
so driven 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 case reported in the newspapers, get the hearing
of the case brought on without delay, and procure them
an able lawyer to conduct the business. Ten shillings
was paid for his promised service, and ten shillings in
the hope that a full report would appear in the news.
papers. After the case had been heard and disposed of,
the party applied to his mate, near the brewery in South-
wark, and from the representations then made, his mate
was induced to pay the man another sovereign ; this he
ase
was most clearly not entitled to, and this circumstance
induced him to make the present application.
Mr. JEREMY said it was most disgraceful that persons
should
an ends te hangpny
(Iht,o)uw aboutbe the Court, and beset suitors and ob-
tain money under such gross representations. The
Secretary of State had very properly issued orders to
put
mock
taken attorneys t
op
practising cat isstiep ng a
tot
proceedings police cou r t courts,
and
equally disreputable. He would say the applicant had
better go to the Court of Requests, for obtaining the first
money. without having given value. In respect to the
sovereign obtained from his mate by misrepresentation,
the party so imposed on had better come to this Court
and obtain a warrant, and he (Mr. Jeremy) should know
how to deal with the case.

Messrs. Barclay and Co.'s servant then retired, de-
claring that ho would follow the worthy magistrate's
advice.

Mr. Ffinch then drew up a notice, which was imme-
diately posted, warning mock attorneys and touters from
appearing at the Greenwich and Woolwich Courts, or in
their immediate vicinity.