The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-06 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.
On Saturday, Mr. Jones, the chairman of the Joint
Committee of Shareholders of the Metropolitan Rail-
way Junction Company, for pursuing certain complaints
against a portion of the provisional committee men,
again appeared before the magistrates to support three
informations to penalties under the Joint Stock Com-
panies Registration Act. The first information was for
not registering, with the other documents, the list of
subscribers, within one month after they had become
such ; and, by a clause in the Act, the solicitor of the
company was liable to the penalty for the neglect.
Mr. Wire, for the defendant, and Mr. John Bar-
ber, of Furnival's Inn, the solicitor to the company,
raised an objection that railway companies were
not within the scope of the fourth clause
of the Act, which requires the list of subscribers to be
filed. In the case of " Young r. Smith," decided laA
term, the Chief Baron said the second clause excepted
railways from the provisions of the Act, except as here-
inafter specially provided, and in the 26th clause there
was no reservation in respect of railways, therefore the

Act applied to all Joint-stock Companies except ra.
ways. Oa the other hand it was urged that as the ra)

way Companies complied with the various other clauses
in the Act, it clearly showed that they were public bo-
dies within the meaning of the Act, and therefore could
siot be exempted from any particular clauses ; also than
the Attorney-General would never have permitted
penalties to be sued for unless he had considered that
Act exr<mded to railways.
Sir Pirrzia LAURIE said they must take especial care
thit tire* did not arrive at a decision contrary to that oi
L. theindges. Ho had bad nothing to do with railways,

.~

IL

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Edward David Veasy and Wm. Maule, gentlemen, of
Trinity College, Cambridge, were charged with having
disturbed the audience and interrupted the performances
at the Princess's Theatre, on Friday evening, by violent
conduct and language, and also with having broken a
plate of glass, value 50s.
The boat race between the students at Oxford and
Cambridge, which took place in the morning, had the
effect of bringing to town a large party of collegians.
In the evening a batch of Cambridge men went to the
Princess's Theatre, and many being, as asserted by the
police, Bacchi plenus, a disturbance ensued under these
circumstances.
Mr. Maddox, the lessee, acid, about ten o'clock his
attention was called to a party of young gentlemen who
were conductine themselves in an outrageous manner,
and who were using very bad language. Ile went up
to the party to remonstrate on the impropriety of their
behaviour, when he was asked what he had to do with
the affair, and called an opprobrious name by one of the
party. Another of the party said he would show them
what Cambridge lads could do, and this was followed up
by the defendant Vesy and others making a resistance
against the constables who were in attendance at the
theatre, and who had been called to sup-
press the disturbance. The defendant Veasy
broke a plate of glass in one of the doors before he
was secueed. The reason alleged by the defendants and
their party was that they could not get seats in the
dress circle. There was quite sufficient room in the
boxes, hut the defendants, though they came in after
half-price had commenced, would not be satisfied with
the vacant places, but expected to have those seats
which an early visit to the theatre could only entitle
them to. The defendants, who wished to be accommo-
dated with seats together, were told that this was im
possible, but that they might have a private box or stalls
it they chose to pay the difference. This the defen-
dant refused to do, and as their conduct disturbed the
audience, the police were employed to take the most
riotous into custody.
William Massingham, the boxkeeper, said a party of
sixteen or seventeen gentlemen came to the theatre
about half an hour after the half price had commenced.
The party paid their money, but in a short time they
all returned, complaining they could not get such ac-
commodation as they approved of in the dress circle, and
demanded a return of their money. There was sufficient
room in the hazes, but of course the best plaices were
occupied by those visitors who oame earlier. The de-
fendants and their friends were very riotous and abusive,
and Veasy broke a glass plate in one of the doors.
Police-constable Sheppy, A 1, proved that the de-
fendants and their party were very violent in their con-
' duct, and used very foul language. The defendants
made resistance when given into custody.
The acting-manager, Walton, said he was behind the
scenes when his attention was attracted by the noise in
the box part of the theatre. He went forward, and he
heard a number of gentlemen, friends of the defendants,
abusing Mr. Maddox, the lessee, in language that would
have disgraced a costermonger. One of the party called
out as soon as the police were summoned, that they had
taught the police at Cambridge their duty, and they
would give the same lesson to the London police. The
conduct of the party had the effect of stopping the per-
;ormance and alarming the audience,
In defence Maule said there were no seats to be had
in the boxes. They demanded the return of their money,
when they were called a pack of schoolboys, and that
led to an altercation.
Veasy said his friends and himself could not see the
performance, and this induced them to ask to have their
money returned, which was refused. He denied break-
ing the glass in the door.
Both defendants also declared they were not intoxi-
cated.
The police, however, said that the party were more or
loss under the influence of drink.
Mr. HARDWICK lectured the defendants on the great
impropriety of their conduct. It could not be for a mo-
ment endured that persons of the rank of gentlemen
should enter a theatre, and conduct themselves in such a
manner as to put a stop to the performances, and to ter-
rify the timid portion of the audience. It' the defendants
chose to demand the return of their money, and if the
demand was resisted, they had a remedy, and they must
then fore not attempt to effect their purp se by violence
and abuse.
Veasy fined 31, and 2L los. damages; Maule fined 31.
LAMBETH.

John Tapon, a smartly-dressed young man, was
placed at the bar before Mr. Elliott, for further ex-
amination, on a charge of stealing a portmanteau, co-i-
-taining a variety of valuable property, from the terminus
of the iireat Western Railway Company.
Mr. Justins, from the office of Messrs, Maples and
Co., solicitors to the Great Western Railway Company,
attended to prosecute, and Mr. Collard, the superin-
tendent of police on the Great Western line, was also
in attendance to watch the case.
The first witness, Henry Weatherdon, an intelligent
little boy, stated that on Tuesday or Wednesday last,
the prisoner, who lodged at the house of his father,
asked him to go with him to see the railways. Thy
prisoner called a cab, and they proceeded to the Great
Western Railway terminus. While there the prisoner
went up to one of the carriages on the line, picked up a
portmanteau, which lay inside, looked at the address, and
desired the witness to lay hold of one of the handles. He
did so, and they carried the portmanteau to the cab, and
drove home with it to his (witness's) father's house, 16,
Palace New-read, Lambeth. Soon after, the prisoner
left the house with a large bundle.
James Ayres, a shopman to a pawnbroker in the
Westminster-road. deposed that on Thursday morning
the prisoner offered to him in pledge a fashionably-made
lady's satin dress, and a polka of the same material,
both of the best quality. Suspecting from the account
which he gave, that he had nut become honestly by the
property, witness sent for a policeman, but while the
messenger was in search of one, the prisoner went away.
monteeyhiasd sister,vance upon it, and then'
d
In the afternoon he returned, and insisted on having the
pstraotpeedrttyhabat back
belonged or the
who resided at St.
John's Wood. Witness again sent for a constable, who
took the prisoner into custody.
Francis J. Harrison, shopkeeper to Messrs. Whistler
and Edwards, pawnbrokers, in the Strand, produced a
variety of articles which the prisoner had pledged at the
shop of his masters, on Wednesday last, for six shillings.
Mr. Justins severely censured the conduct of the
witness for having tsken such a quantity of valuable
articles from a perfect stranger for so small a sum of
money.
Harrison said that the prisoner had told him he bought
the things from an invalid at an hospital.
Mr. Justins observed that he should not be satisfied
with such a representation, and at his (Mr. Justins's)
request,
The /IitGISTRA.TE ordered the property to be handed
over to a constable, and bound the witness over to attend
at the next examination.
Police c astable Redford, 52 L, deposed that he went
to the House No. 16, Palace New-road, where the
pisoner lodged, and there found the portmanteau and
the articles then produced.
Mr. David Williams, a draper of Brailth, in Breck-
nockshire, said, that on Tuesday last, he was a passen-
ger by the afternoon train on the Great Western Rail-
way, and hi:, luggage consisted of a carpet bag and a
portmanteau, and which was put into the luggage wag-
gon. On arriving at the Paddington station, the carpet
bag was found safe, but the portmanteau could not be
found. It belonged to his daughter, who accompanied
him, and contained besides a variety of dresses, a purse
with from thirty to forty shillings in silver, and an old
fashioned and valuable gold watch belonging to a c'egy-
man, and which he brought to town to have repaired.
Miss Sarah Williams, the daughter of the last witness.
identified the whole of the property produced as hers
She also identified the portmanteau found at the pri-
solve, lodging.
Mr Collard here said he had every reason to believe,
thatshould be able to get some further important in-
it the prisoner was remsnie.d for a-. few days,
.he
formation.
day.
remanded to a future
The prisoner, who offered nothing in defence, was ac-
cordinglySOUTH WA /t/r.
Just as Mr. Traill was about to quit the sty,be a
widdlv-aged,tespectabkploking you I!'Nplaced ip

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
Olt THE RN CIR CUlT—Liverpool, April 2.
(Before Mr. Justice PArresoN.)
George Pearson and Robert M' Connell were indicted for
cutting and wounding James Barlow.
Mr. Whigham and Mr. Baxter conducted the prosecution ;
the prisoners were defended by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and
Mr. Monk.
It appeared that a quarrel had arisen between the pri-
soners' party and a number of persons employed at the gas-
works at Heaton Norris, whe had met at a public-house there
called the Crown Inn. The prisoner and his party were
turned out, but waited for the others, and a scuffle then
ensued, in which knives were drawn, and the prosecutor re-
ceived two cuts, one in the shoulder and one in the neck,
from a person of the name of Taylor, not in custody. The
evider.ee of the witnesses, however, failed in showing a parti-
cipation in Taylor's act on the part of the prisoner, and they
were Acquitted.
James G arrag an was indicted for the manslaughter of
Henry Sherlock.
Mr. Arnold conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner was
defended by Mr. Atkinson.

This indictment also arose out of a public-house squabble.
The deceased, his brother, and another person had, on the
9th of March, met the prisoner and a numb r of others at a
beer-house at Kensington, in Liverpool, kept by a person of
the name of Hughes. Some quarrel took place about a glass
of ale, and blows were exchanged until the landlord turned
them out of his house. In the street the quarrel was re-
newed, and several on one side and the other were knocked
down. When it was over the deceased was found to be
bleeding from his temple, and complained of being hurt in
the side. He continued ill for some days, but afterwards
went to his work for a short time. He was at last obliged
to discontinue his work, and died on the 22d. On a post
mortem examination there was found a large coagulum of
blood upon the brain, sufficient to cause death. It appeared
also that the liver was slightly lacerated, and there was a
small perforation of the gall-bladder, which, of itself, would
finally have been fatal. The principal evidence against the
prisoner to connect him with the violence which caused the
death, was an observation which, it was alleged, he was over-
heard to make while passing down the street after the affray,
namely, " Did you see me jump on trim when you were
kicking him in the public-house?" There was, however, no
evidence to show that the deceased had been knocked down

inale...house at all, or been kicked by any one. The violence
which caused his death had taken place after he went out,
and seemed as likely to have been caused by a fall as a blow ;
nor was the actual participation in that as.-ault by the pri-
soner clearly shown.—Verdict, Not Guilty.
On the civil side the Court was engaged with the case-of
"Toulmin v. Hedley," tried at the last assizes. It is an ac-
tion for not accepting guano, and the particulars have been
already before the public.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Taunton, April 2.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
John Sampson was indicted for embezzling three several
sums of 201., 241., and 101., which he had received for the
churchwardens and overseers of Bedminster, he being their
clerk.

Mr. Stone and Mr Edwards were counsel for the prose-
cution, and Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Slade defended the pri-
soner.

From the evidence, which was very long and complicated,
the following facts were elicited :—ln the year 1836 the pri-
soner was appointed collector of the rates for that part of
the parish of Bedminster which is in the county of Somerset;
but some doubt arising as to the legality of his appointment,
in the year 1839 be was made assistant-overseer, and he
continued to collect the rates until tile end of the year 1845.
He had a salary of 1501. a year. The amount he had to
collect was about 5,000/. The prisoner also collected the
borough rates. The prisoner was ordered to keep a cash
book, wherein he was to enter all moneys collected by him.
The overseers were to check the cash receipts weekly. On
the 15th of September, 1844, the prisoner received 201. of
Richert Hunt; on the 9th of November, 1844, he received
of the same person a sum of 24'. 3s. 3d. ; on the Bth of De-
cember he received of Mrs. Jefferys 101., but no entry of
those sums appeared in the cash book. In the latter part of
the year 1844 the prisoner was several times remonstrated
with for not paving over the balances of his accounts. On
the Ist of January, 1845, a special meeting of the overseers
was called, at which the prisoner attended, and attention
was called to the smallness of the weekly collections by the
prisoner. He expressed a wish to have time to make up his
rate-book, as he had been told that he had not entered some
sums he had received, and that in other instances he had
only entered sums as then received which it had been disco-
vered had been received months before. The prisoner was
told at the meeting of the Ist of January that there was a
balance of 2401. due from him. He said he would pay it,
and on the 3d of January he did pay that amount. On the
2d of January there was a vestry meeting, and on the Bth of
January all the books were taken from the prisoner, and
from that time the prisoner was not seen, and his house was
shat up. Search wag afterwards made at Brighton and other
places for the prisoner, but eventually he was apprehended
at his own house in December, to which he had returned.
The case for the prosecution having closed,
Mr. COCKBURN took an objection that the indictment
charged the prisoner as being the clerk of the overseers,
whereas by the evidence it was shown he was an assistant-
overseer.
Mr. Baron ROLFE said that the prisoner was expected to
perform all the duties of an overseer. No doubt formerly
he had been a collector of the rates, and acting as the ser-
vant of the overseers; that appointment, however, had been
cancelled, because the vestry had appointed him assistant-
overseer, therefore be could not be considered a servant.
It would consequently be the duty of the jury to acquit the
prisoner.
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
John Williams and John Ward were indicted for a burglary
in the house of Thomas Bunn, at Frome-Selwood, on the
20th of February, and stealing therefrom a silver salver and
other articles.
Mr. Stone conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr.
Saunders defended the prisoners.
On the morning of the 21st of February the prosecutor and
his family were alarmed by a noise in the house. The pro-
secutor got up, took his sword, and went down stairs. He
found a fire had been lighted in the drawing-room grate, and
bottles were on the table. The drawing-room window had
been broken in, a silver salver and a watch, which had been
in the room the night before, were missing. Early that
morning the prisoners were seen at the Tiverton station with
bundles in their hands. Some persons who saw them looked
closely at the bundles, and seeing they contained some silver
articles, instantly gave them into custody, and upon search-
ing them several housebreaking implements were found upon
them. The silver articles were identified as being the pro-
perty of Mr. Bunn.
The jury at once found the prisoners Guilty, and they were
sentenced to be transported for ten years.
Daniel North and John North were indicted for stealing an
ewe sheep, the property of Mr. Dampney.
Mr. Salmon conducted the case for the prosecution, and
Mr. Edwards defended the prisoners.
This was a very simple case. The sheep was missed from
the field, the entrails and blood were found in the field, the
foot-marks of two persons were traced from that spot to a
pond, in which a sheep skin was found. The foot-marks were
then traced to the house where the prisoners lived, and from
thence to a rick, where the carcase of a sheep was disco •
vered. The prisoners' boots corresponded with the foot-marks.
Verdict—Guilty.
John North was sentenced to ten years' transportation, a
former conviction having been proved against him; and
Daniel to fifteen months' imprisonment.

NORTH WALES CIRC Ul T.—Chester, April 2,
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. .Justice WILLIAMS.)

RAILWAY CA SE.-CHAMBEJL LAINE V. THE CILESTIE AND

BIRRENNEAD RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. ViTEISBY opened the pleadings, to the effect that the
action was on the case, that the defendants were bound by
statute to make a railway to Tranmere Ferry, before con-
ducting their railway further than Grange-lane ; and that
they had not done so, to the injury and damage of the
plaintiff; to which the defendants pleaded not guilty, and
denied the plaintiff's right. The damages were laid at
20,0001.
Mr. JERVIS stated the case to the effect, that Mr.Chamber-
laine is tne owner of Tranmere Ferry, which had been long es-
tablished and was of long legal existence, sad of great yalus