The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-07 00:00:00

LYME REGIS.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
When the Committee resumed its sitting a number of
votes were struck off Sir Fitzroy Kely's list, on the
ground that the parties who gave them had been
influenced in some way by Mr. Attwooi.
On the vote of a man named Cooke being objected t,‘,
Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAm said he should resit that
♦ote being struck off the list.
The CHAIRMAN—CIear the room then.
Mr. Sergeant WRA.NGIIA3I—But will y )ur Lordship
hear me first?

The CHA,IRMAN—Of course, the Committee cannot
object to sit and hear you if you have anything to say.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGUAM protested that the Noblt.
Chairman appeared to him too much excited. He vva,
not aware that he had done anything to justify it, and
he must therefore insist that it was unfair that th,, Com-
mittee should simply listen to what ho had to say is a
matter of form, without allowing their judgment to bt
influenced in any way by what he might have to urge on
behalf of his client.

The CHAIRMAN, with some warmth, told the Learned
Sergeant that he did not think it was the province 0:
counsel to lecture the Committee in this way.
Mr. Sergeal:t WRANoitA3t said he did not complain
till the Noble Chairman ordered the room to be cleared
before he had time to state his objection.
Mr. HILL said it would, perhaps, save time if he stated
that it was his intention to call Mr. Attwood to prove
the illegality of this vote.
Eventually the Committee aiijourned till tomorrow
at eleven o'clock, when it was promised that Mr. Att-
wood should be in attendance.

The votes struck oil' the list placed Mr. Abdy in a
majority of 7.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD co a., 7'.
(Before the RECORDER.)
Michael ilaggarty, an Irishman, aged 23, was indicted
for feloniously wounding Ellen Kale, with intent to
murder her; another count of the indictment charged the
prisoner with grievicusly wounding, with intent to do
serious bodily harm.
From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner had
made a most savage and brutal assault on the prosecu-
trix, having inflicted no less than twenty-two wounds or
her person, and finally only desisted from his murderou•
attack upon a sailor presenting himself at the door
with a poker in his hand. The knife wits.
which the prisoner committed V• 43 wounds ha(
beets broken in several pieces 1 y the violene,
of the blows inflicted. The several broken Vcc..s of the
instrument had been secreted by the prisoner, wlm, upon
being apprehended, denied that he had committed the
off9nce imputed to him.
The jury found the priioner Guilty upon Vie scc.ind
count of the indictment.
Sentenced to be transported fir ten years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
11l AN SION- HOUSE.

Mary Jones, alias ITlrs. Johnson, was brought be
fore the Lord Mayor charged with having stolen a
quantity of silk, the property of the assignees of a
bankrupt.
Mr. Gale, solicitor to the assignee of a woollen-
draper, who had become a bankrupt, and whose ware-
house was at No. 5, Queen-street, Cheapside, appeared
for the prosecution, and stated that the messenger of
the Court of Bankruptcy had put two men in posses-
sion some weeks ago, one of whom had let the pri-
soner into the house on the preceding night to assist
the other ; the lady had availed herself of the oppor-
tunity thus afforded her of visiting the cellar in which
the silks were deposited, and winding a considerable
quantity of that valuable manufacture round her
body. She was, however, observed by a City police-
sergeant, who soon decreased her size by removing
from her person some of the goods of the assignees,
with the marks of the broker upon them, so that there
could be no mistake as to their identity.
Sergeant Sheppard, No. 96, of the City police,
said, between two and three o'clock in the morning
saw the prisoner coming from the house No. 5, in
Queen-street, Cheapside, and observing that she ap
peered to be very bulky, I stopped her, and asked
what she had been doing at that place at such an
hour. She replied that she had been to see a friend.
I told her I was not satisfied with her statement, and
perceivinT, that something was hanging down from
under her clothes, I turned my lamp to the officer on
the adjoining beat, as a signal for assistance, and he,
by my direction, took from under her petticoats up-
wards of twenty yards of black silk. I then sent
him to the house in Queen-street to make inquiries
about her there, and as she and I walked towards the
station-house I saw something banging from her per-
son, and I pulled from her several yards of primrose
coloured silk. At the station-house she said that her
name was Mary Jones, and that she resided at 12,
Watling-street. I knew that name and address to be
incorrect, and that her real name and address were,
Mrs. Johnson, York-street, Blackfriars.
Mr. Wontner, who appeared for the prisoner, asked
the witness whether he had seen any one let the pri-
soner out of the house ?
The witness said he could not see whether such was
the case.

The office r, vcho acted under the directions of the
sergeant, said—Upon going to the house, I asked who
the woman was, and a man there told me she was one
of the broker's wives. I heard one of the men in the
/Anise xay, " We must keep this dark ; we must not
know the woman."
Cross examined—l could not see who it was that
spoke of keeping it dark, but there were three men
. together the house when I went to inquire. The
silk was tied round her with a string in front.
Mr. Gale stated the men had been six weeks in
possession for the messenger.
Mr. R. J. Merrell, assistant to 111 r. Davis, broker
to the Bankruptcy Court, stated that he took as in,

ventory of the stock of the bankrupt under a fiat of
bankriiiirey; about three weeks ago. The pieces of
silk pliauceck,auktolen property had marks upon them
which ahadpul'On, and they were part of the estate.
The prisoner was remanded.
John Hatfield, Frederick Smith, and James Heild,
who are all well known to the leading members of the
police as the constant associates of thieves, were
brought up, charged upon suspicion of having robbed
a captain of a ship of a considerable sum of money.
Joseph Bedington (No. 20 of the City force) said
that, on Saturday, Feb. 26, the City police received
information that Captain Marsh, of the brig Elvira,
lying in Woolwich Docks, had been robbed of 601. in
bank notes, and 101. in sovereigns; and he believed,
from the description of the thieves, that he should be
able to produce evidence that they were concerned
in
the robbery. Upon Smith he found sir counterfeit
sovereigns or medals, which were called jacks, and
two half medals, sixpence, and a halfpenny, and a
pack of cards, longs and shorts.
One of the prisoners declard that it was the height
of injustice to take them into custody upon such a
vague suspicion. There was not one of them who
knew anything about the robbery.
The LORD MAYOR (to the officer)—Do you know
these men to be the associates of convicted thieves 11—
Hedington—l do; of thieves who are in the habit of
robbing with cards and thimbles, and other modes of
trickery of this description. Captain Marsh was
robbed by some of the gang, who pretended to be
lenling him 1001., when they were stripping him of
his money.
John Foulgel, No. 89 of the City force, said he
assisted Hedington on the occasion, and found upon
Hatfield some jacks, a thimble, and a teetotum.
The prisoners said the captain ought to be pro-
duced at once, as prison was a very inconvenient
place to abide in.
They were remanded.
Mr. H. Bowser, of 97, Minories, hosier, produced
a forged note for 51., purporting to be of the Bank of
England, and stated to the Lord Mayor that he had
taken it on Saturday morning, in his shop, of a man
who looked like the captain of a ship, in payment of
some goods. He did not like the paper, but a neigh-
bour said there was no doubt of the genuineness. It
was dated 16th of February, 18.16, Manchester, and
signed H. Hogban, and the execution was very skil-
ful. At the Bank he was told that there were num-
bers of notes of the plate in circulation, and that the
specimen was of a very dangerous kind.
The LORD MAYOR returned thanks for the infor-
mation, and said the public should receive a hint upon
the subject.

GUILDHALL.
George Webber, a costermonger, who hawks fish
about the City, was brought before Alderman Moon,
charged with wilfully damaging, to the extent of
801., the shop-front of Messrs. Behrens and Co., im-
porters of French fancy goods, on the south side of
St. Paul's Churchyard.
_ _

Mr. Lloyd, a solicitor, attended on behalf of Mr.
Behrens, and stated that a very serious amount of
mischief had been done by a man who was clearly
unable to make compensation, and for whose
adequate punishment the law had yet made no provi-
sion, much as the grievance had been complained of.
In this instance the actual damage was 801., but he
could, he believed, only claim 51.
William Allen, a police-constable, No. 378, stated
that he was' on duty about half-past eleven o'clock
that forenoon, in St. Paul's Church-yard, when he heard
a great crash, followed instantly by a like noise. He
then saw the prisoner throw something at the window
of Messrs. Behrerte, and a third crash of glass fol-
lowed. He immediately seized the prisoner, who
said, " Now lam revenged, I am satisfied." Three
very large squares of glass had been broken, and
some property within the shop. The stones used
were as large as a man's fist. On the way to the
station the prisoner accounted for what he had done
by saying he had summoned Messrs. Behrens for
some fish, acid the Court had decided against his
claim ; and subsequently he said he was sure he had
done enough mischief to pay the interest, and when
he was released he would have tne principal. He
produced one of the stones.
The prisoner made no answer to the charge.
Mr. Alderman MOON said an unusual amount of
mischief had been wilfully committed, in a manner
which might have cost the life of any one standing
within the range of the stony. Such a recklessness
of consequences, such a degree of malignity, ought
not to be dealt with in the ordinary way, and he
should remand the case to have evidence as to where
the stones fell, and how near to any person, and to
consider whether he ought not to punish the prisoner
in a different manner, and with more severity, than
the ordinary cases.
BOW-STREET.

Towards the close of the afternoon the chief ma-
gistrate, Mr. Hall, after being occupied all day with.
out intermission with the night charges and other
eases of a trifling character, had to enter upon the
examination of a great number of prisoners for
disorderly con luct, pocket-picking, &c., in Trafalgar-
square, during the disturbance caused at the public
meeting.
Several young men were committed fur trial for
picking gentlemen's pockets of snuff-boxes, pocket-
handkerchiefs, &c.; and others were fined or cum-
!flitted to pri-on for assaulting the police in the execu-
tion of their duty.
A tailor, named James illarchant, was charged
with throwing stones at the police, and aiding the
disturbance by exclaiming " Do xn with the police,"
"No national guard," " Vive la Republique," for
which offence he was fined 205., and committed in
default of payment.
Some of the defendants appeared to have sustained
some injuries themselves, broken heads, bruises, &c.,
said to have been caused by the police.
These cases kept his Worship on the bench long
after the usual time for closing the court.
MARYLEBONE.

James Finch was charged with having stolen a
quart pewter pot frosn the house of Mr. Cook, land-
lord of the King and Queen, Paddington-green.
The prisoner was observed to quit the house with
the article alluded to, and, on his being pursued and
captured, it was found concealed in his trousers.
The prisoner, who :mid that some one must, while
he was asleep, have put the pot unknown to him in the
pace it was discovered, was committed for trial.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

The Hon. and Rev. Augustus Cavendish was
brought to this court, and charged, before Mr.
ilardwick, with having obtained fraudulently 601.
worth of diamond brooches, the property of Messrs.
[Lunt and Ruske'', jewellers and silversmiths, New
134nd-street.

The defendant was met with in Argyll-street on
Saturday afternoon, by an assistant to Messrs. Hunt
awl Co., named Broadhurst, who, after some conver-
sation with the accused, caused him to be taken into
custody, and brought to this court.
Joseph Broadhurst stated, that on the 4th of Sep-
tember last the prisoner called at Messrs. Hunt and
Co.'s warehouse, and stated that he had been com-
missioned by a lady to select a diamond brooch for
her; but being a bad judge of such articles, he
wished to be allowed to take some brooches away on
approbation, in order that he might have the lady's
opinion before he concluded the purchase. The pri-
soner was allowed to take away six diamond brooches,
value 604' on the promise that he would bring them
back the following day. Nothing was seen of the
prisoner until Saturday, when witness met with him
in Argyll-street, and spoke to him on the subject.
Defendant said he had been told that if he gave up
the brooches it would be all right. The witness
Broadhurst knew who he was when he obtained the
brooches, from the fact of his having perfututed the
ceremony when he was married.
Mr. llrtanwicK considered that the offence took
the character of a constructive larceny, and remanded
the prisoner until Wednesday, with an intimation
that if good bail was produced he would accept it.
The prisoner had not procured bail when the police
van came round for the prisoners, and he was accord-
ingly sent to prison.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Mr. William Broom, a tea broker in Fen-court,
Fenchurch street, appeared before Mr. Arnold, in
pursuance of his recognizances, to answer an ad-
journed charge of having unlawfully refused to
deliver up his ticket, as a passenger by one of the
trains upon the Eastern Counties Railway, and also
with obstructing and assaulting the officers of the
company in the execution of their duty.
It was proved at the former examination that the
defendant arrived at the Stratford station in a second-
class carriage of the Bury train, upon the evening of
Tuesday last, and having positively refused to deliver
up his ticket, when required so to do by the officer
appointed to collect such tickets, he was ultimately
ejected from the carriage, after a strenuous resistance,
in the course of which it was alleged, that he made a
violent attack upon one of the inspectors, and was
therefore given into custody.
After hearing the evidence in support of the charge
and the counter allegetion on the part of the defen-
dant, who justified his refusal to surrender his ticket
on the ground that the seats of the carriage were in
such a damp and filthy condition it was impossible to
use them, and that he wished, therefore, to detain it
to enable him to lodge a complaint at the terminus,
The 'MAGISTRATE expressed considerable doubt as
to the legality of the defendant's arrest, and post-
poned his decision for a more perfect exposition of
the grounds upon which the company proceeded.
Mr. Duncan, the solicitor to the railway, now at-
tencled, and directed the magistrate's attention, first,
to the sth bye-law, by which it was enacted that any
person wilfully obstructing the officers of the company
In the discharge of their duties might be forthwith
removed from the premises, and, besides forfeiting
the amount of his fare, should be liable to the penalty
of 40s. for such obstruction ; and, 'secondly, to the
16th section of the Act for the General Regulation
of Railways, which authorised the officer so ob-

structed to seize and detain such offender and convey
him before a magistrate, who was empowered to
impose any penalty not exceeding five pounds
for that offence. In this instance it had been
clearly proved that the. inspector was acting in
the execution of his duty in requiring the defendant
to deliver up his ticket, and that having refused to do
so he was legally expelled from the carriage, in order
that the train might proceed on its journey. His
arrest was, under these circumstances, the natural
and proper consequence of the resistance he offered to
the fulfilment of this duty, and the assault he subse-
quently committed upon the officer was clearly a sub-
ject for the summary adjudication of the Magistrate.
Mr. Parry, the barrister, who appeared for the de-
fendant, was about to reply, but was stopped by
Mr. ARNOLD, who intimated that he had arrived at
a clear opinion upon the question, without troubling
him with any observations. The solicitor of the com-
pany rested the case entirely upon the construction
of their sth by-law, which authorised the removal of
any person from the carriages who should obstruct
or impede an officer in the execution of his duty ; and
he contended that a refusal to give up a ticket
amounted to such an obstruction. He (the magistrate),
however, decidedly entertained a contrary opinion, as
he considered, first, that the obstruction contemplated
must mean some act committed by a person, and not
a mere omission to perform an act; and, secondly,
because the consequences of the non-delivery of
ticket had been expressly provided for by the first
by-law, in which it had been held, in the case of
" Chilton v. the Brighton Railway," that such a
refusal would not justify the arrest of a passenger,
although he might be required to pay the whole amount
of fare from the place whence the train originally
started. He felt satisfied that neither of the clauses
warranted the removal from the carriage or subse-
quent apprehension of the defendant for assault which
sprung out of that removal, and, without expressing
any opinion as to the propriety of his conduct, he felt
it his duty to order him to be discharged.