The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-21 00:00:00

CAPTURE OF A THIEF.

On Saturday evening, a gentleman belonging to this
town was returning from lluntingdon in a gig, and on
arriving at Fenstanston, about half-past eight o'clock, he
was suddenly accosted by a decent-looking woman, who
earnestly requested him to stop, and urged him to re-
ceive into the gig, and to convey to Cambridge, a young
man by whom she was accompanied, stating that a
• scoundrel had just robbed her of very considerable pro-
perty—that he was not gone above an hour—that she
had received information which induce d the belief that
he had gone to Cambridge, with the view of proceeding
by the first train to London, and that it would be of
great importance to follow him up, and if possible to
overtake him. Overcome by the importunities of the
woman, who seemed highly respectable. and who was
evidently much affected by the loss of her property, the
gentleman took up her companion and pursued his way.
The story was no fiction. The young man whom our
informant received into the gig was brother•in-law of
the very worthy woman whose property had been con-
veyed away, and he stated the particulars of the case
as they drove on together. The man who had ab-
sconded had been lodging some months in the house
of his sister-in-law. lie had worked with a harness-
maker in Fenstanston. He had come from another
part of the country, but had generally conducted him-
self in such a manner as induced them to treat him with
some confidence. During the four months that he had
lived in the village, he received board and lodging and
various articles of dress, &c., and had promised faith.
fully to pay for all when he received his money. On
Saturday last he did receive his money and forthwith
disappeared, having previously packed up and conveyed
away the whole of his very limited property, increased
however in bulk and in value by several articles which
wore not his own. This was the man whom he was
now in pursuit of. Our friend, on learning these parti-
culars, recommended that they should call at the first
public-house. They did so, and were given to under-
stand that the knight of the harness had indeed been
there, and had left about a quarter of an hour. The
travellers proceeded with the Lull resolution of calling at
the next public-house. The night was very dark, and
it was only by such means that they could hope to dis-
cover the object of their search. As they approached
the next house of refreshment, the landlord and the
identical runaway himself came to the door. The latter
at once recognised the brother-in-law of his late land-
lady, and entreated to be allowed to proceed, protesting
that he would surrender on the spot all the money
which he had in his possession. This offer was
not accepted. The young man (the brother-in-law) had
been in the police force at Cambridge, and knew some-
thing of the business on which he happened to be em-
ployed. Nothing would do but that the runaway gen-
tleman should go back. To this unwelcome retrocession
the latter at length consented, and both, before retracing
their steps, retired into the inn to have a glass of beer
with the landlord, who was not a little surprised at the
sudden and unexpected capture of the temporary guest.
At this point our friend, who had evidently done one
good action that evening, proceeded on his way to
Cambridge, and how the matter has been settled, we
cannot tell. But perhaps we have omitted the strangest
part of the transaction. It is a singular fact that the
landlord (who knew nothing of the miscreant, except
that he had stated his desire to reach Cambridge
speedily) had hurried with him to the door, on hearing
the sound of wheels, to get him, if possible, accom•
modated in the same manner as his pursuer had
bet-n ; so that our friend in the gig, if he had not
conveyed the one, would probably have been prevailed
upon to do that office for the other. Providentially, it
so happened that instead of assisting a rogue to escape,
he was the means of overtaking him. He was altogether
an instrument in the hands of Providence. Actuated
only by kindly motives, he might have done eel], but it
just so happened that he did good ; and we trust the
worthy woman will bays her own, and that the rogue
will get what he merits.—Cambridge paper.

The article of the Universal Prussian Gazette which
intimates the decided sentiments of the Pru,,sian Go-
vernment in the question of Schleswig-Holstein, was
copied yesterday into the Berlin Gazette, which draws
the attention of its readers to it, but without adding any
remarks.
[ADVERTISEMENT ]—A NOBLE DUKE AND HOL
Low Ar's Plu.s.—Professor Iloilo,. ay Las lately been honoured by
the personal thanks of one of the most renowned dukes of the
realm, who (like the Earl of Aldborough) has been cured of a liver
and stomach complaint of some years' standing, attended with
great weakness and debility, by the means of Holloway's celebrated
Pills, and this after phylcian's skill was tried in vain. Drot sy,
paralysis, asthma, and diseases of the lungi, have nearly all their
origin in disordered livers and stomach., which a few timely dotes
of Holloway's Yids will cure.—Sold I.*, all dealers in medicines, and
at professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Sept. 19

THE PILOT ACT.—IN RE ISAAC WILLIAM NEWTON.
—This case involved a question under the Pilot
The insolvent, a master mariner, was opposed by M.
11)rry on the part of William Williams, the detaining
creditor ; he was supported by Mr. Cooke.
It appeared that the insolvent had been some Tears
master of the brim Dart, trading from the London Docks
to Madeira, and ° belonging to R. Dart, Esq., of Wal-
brook. In the early part of 1844, as the insolvent was
about to proceed on his voyage from the London Docks,
a pilot of the Trinity House, named Mountford, claimed
his right to pilot the vessel, but was refused by the in-
solvent on the ground that he was by the Pilot Act (6
Geo. IV. c. 125) exempted, because he was part owner,
and resided within the jurisdiction of the Isle of Tha-
net. Upon the return of the, vessel the insolvent was
summoned to Lambeth-street Police-office for an in-

fringement of the Act, and on the disposal of the
summons, which the insolvent insisted was dismissed,
but which was denied by the othr side, an action was
c.,mmenced in the Court of Exchequer for the
charges, and the question raised was discussed before a
full Court, the insolvent was exempted, and ev, ntually
the case was decided against him. He was now in ens-
tods' for the damages and costs, amounting together to
1101. 123. 6d.

The insolvent, on his examination, admitted that he
was not a part owner when he claimed exemption in the
year 1844. The fact wai that en the 6th of November,
1843, he had the 64th part of the vessel transferred to
him to give him a " qualification" on the registry, and
on the next day it was transferred by him.
Mr. Cooke observed, that if he had been part owner
he would have been clearly exempted from the operation
of the Pilot Act.

Mr. Harry insisted that the insolvent had committed a
fraud by claiming exemption when he was not exempted;
he was either part owner or he was not.
The insolvent, on bring further examined, stated that
he had no interest in the vessel.

Mr. Horry wished to know the consideration given for
the re-transfer.

Mr. Cooke said nothing.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS observed that the insolven
had admitted that it was a "colourable" transaction.

The Court ordered the insolvent to be discharged.

LONDON SESSIONS.

TRANSFER OF LICENCES.—The following transfer of
publicans' licences took place:—Bunch of Grapes, Dow-
gate-hill, from W. Tyler to John Lloyd; Ship, Minories,
from John Dance to Thomas Kingstone ; India House
Tavern, Leadenhall-street, from John Anderson Wills
to Samuel Harmer Lindley; New Rum Puncheon, Rose
and Crown-court, from Jane R. Gill to David Hurry;
Green Dragon, Half M on-alley, from James Ewen to
Mark Woodale Spital; King's Head, Pudding-lane, from
John Cookston to William Raythorpe; Britannia, Fish-
street-hill, from Joseph Green to Eliza Hollingsworth;
Glaziers' Arms, Water-lane, from James Robert Nunn
to Joseph Alder Chester • Portland Arms, Long- lane,
from Henry Murray to John Weldon; New York Coff,e-
house, Angel alloy, Throgmorton-street, from William
Godfrey to William Edward Jeffries; George, Gold-
smith's-row, from Joseph Chamberloyne Baker to W. M.
Smith ; King's Head, Ludgate-street, to Mary Ann
Lambert, widow of Daniel Lambert ; King's Arms,
Newgate-market, from William Rogers to William
Teasdale ; Coopers' Arms and Crown, Golden-lane,
from John Powell to James Price ; Golden Lion,
Fore-street, from William Negus to Eliz ibeth
Pethurst ; White Hart, Fetter-lane, from Sarah
Austin to Harriet Harling ; Grapes, Bread-street, from
Elizabeth Arnold. widow of Thomas Arnold, to J. Wor-
well ; Queen Victoria, Middle-street, from Win. Key to
Edw. Williamson ; Sun and Punchbowl, Long-lane,
from William Morton to Joseph Evans ; Red Hart, Fet-
ter-lane, from Elizabeth Wetherell to Thomas Gabriel
Battomley ; Essex Coffee-house, Aldgate High-street,
from John Oilier to William Wood ; Palace Tavern,
Hutchinson-street, Petticoat-lane, from Henry Nixon. to
Joseph Humphreys ; Swan with Two Necks, Gresham-
street, from William Chaplin to William James Chap-
lin ; Dolphin, Coleman-street, from Henry Surridge to
Mary Harding ; Shepherd and Flock, Little Bell-alley,
from William Monk to Thomas Groom ; Crown and
Cushion Tavern, London-wall, from James Raven to
Frederick White ; Horse and Trumpeter, Crutched-
friars, from James Barret Hawker to Anton Scherzinger;
Magpie and Horseshoe, Fetter lane, from Edward 110.. e
to William Robinson ; King's Head, Great Tower-street,
from E. F. Barber to Charlotte Barber ; and Rose,
Smithfield, from Jane Caroline Stevens, the executrix of
William Stevens, to Thomas Bristow.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
FORGERY OF STOCK IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND
A man named Joseph Jones was brought before Mr.
Alderman Gibbs, in the custody of Daniel Forrester,
charged with having forged a transfer of stock, which
was deposited in the names of George Edwards and bis
wife. Forrester received the warrant for the apprehen-
sion of the prisoner at a quarter past five o'clock, traced
him to Greenwich immediately, and placed him at the
bar at a quarter before seven o'clock.
Mr. Henry Freshfield, of the firm of Freshfield and
Co., solicitor=, to the Bank of England, stated that the
sum of 31. 10s. per annum, standing in the Long Annul•.
ties in the names of George Edwards and his wife, had
been taken out by the prisoner, who represented George
Edward,, with whose wife he lived, and for that purpose
forged the name of Mr. Edwards.
A clerk at the Transfer Office of the Bank proved
that the transfer of the stork had been mnde. He pro-
duced the transfer book,which showed that the transfer
had been made on the sth of January, 1842.
Alderman GlBBS—Prisoner, do you wish to ask the
witness any question ? The prisoner—No; the thing is
quite clear enough.
The witness said he did not recollect whether the pri-
soner was or was not there.
George Edwards, of Winch-park, Coventry, stated
that his wife formerly lived in Ehury-street, Pimlico,
and that her name was Sarah. He had not, since 1840,
transferred any stock in the Bank of England. The
writing on the transfer-book of the Bank was not his.
Ho did not authorise anybody to sign his name. He did
not :authorise his wife to sign his name.
The prisoner—l know nothing at all of this man, who
has just spoken. •
Alderman GIBBS—Do you know where your wife is?
Witness—No ; I have not seen her these four years, I
have written to her, but I have received no answer to
my letters. I was told she lived with the prisoner, but
I don't know anything about him ; I never saw him in
my life before.
Samuel Couldry, of No. 10, Eecleston-street,
stated that he knew the prisoner twelve years, and that
he knew Mrs. Edwards, the wife of the witness George
Edwards, about twenty years. Witness saw the prisoner
in the beginning of August, at his (witness's) dwelling.
Mrs. Edwards was with the prisoner, and introduced the
prisoner as her husband, Mr. Jones.
The prisoner—Yes, yes.
Witness went to Richmond with the prisoner and Mrs.
Edwards, or Mrs. Jones, and the prisoner gave him some
cards. The prisoner keeps a beer-shop. Witnese be-
lieved that the name " George Edwards" in the bank
transfer-book was the prisoner's handwriting.
William Henry Freshfield produced a letter signed
Joseph S. Jones, to the last witness. The prisoner eta
the letter was written by him. He acknowledged that
he knew nothing at all about the lady's being married—
he knew nothing about her being married at all, and
therefore he had no offence to answer for. The lady
told him she was not legally married to Edwards.
Alderman Ginns asked whether the prisoner wished
to account for the" transfer made in the books ?" The
prisoner—No ; it will be all found right.
Alderman Glens—You are charged with forgery ?
The prisoner—.Yes.
Alderman GIBBS—And I shall remand you till Friday.
The prisoner—That's a long time. It will be ell
right, I know, when it's all heard. Will you take bail
for my appearance ?
Alderman GIBBS—No.
The prisoner—lt will be all right.
The prisoner was then remanded.
CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.
DISEASED CATTLE.—On Saturday, a Mr. Smith, an
extensive cow-keeper, &c., at Islington, and his son, a
boy about fourteen, were summoned before Alderman
Lucas to answer a charge preferred by police•con-
stable 33, under the following circumstance, :
It appeared, from the statement of the officer, that he
saw the boy driving a cow into Smithfield. The animal
was in such a state as not to be able to move, and its
tongue was hanging out from disease. Witness had
cautioned the boy he ought not to drive at all, not
having a badge, and that if he continued his cruelty to
the animal, he would have to answer for it. Tho father
then went up and grossly abused the witness for inter-
fering.

A witness was called, who denied the statement of the
officer.

The officer said Mr. Vince, the inspector of the
market, had said it was extreme cruelty to force the ani-
mals to walk at all. They were labcuring under a
disease of the lungs. The witness said this was ve.y
prevalent ; at least twenty beasts a week in that state
were taken into the market, and witness had caused
several to he killed.
The worthy Alderman fined the boy ss. and costs, and
the father 10s. and costs.
WESTMINSTER.
A question of some interest to licensed v'etuallers
arose before Mr. Burrell, upon a complaint made 1w the
police against D. Crow, the proprietor of the Three
Elms, St. Anne-street, Westminster, who was charged
with refusing to admit Police Sergeant Loom, and de-
taining him three minutes at the door. The question
which wns raise d by Mr. Duncombe, the solicitor to the
Licensed Victuallers' Society, was, how far the police
had a right of entry into the house of a licensed victualler?
Mr. Duncombe said, that this information was laid under
the 4th and sth of Will. 4, cap. 85, intitled an Act to
amend an Act passed in the Ist of Will. 4, to permit the
general sale of beer or cider. The Act of 1 Will. 4
applied only to beer-shop keepers as appeared by the
preamble. By the 7th sec. of the 4 and 5 Will. 4, it
was enacted, that it should be lawful for constables and
police-officers to enter into all houses, which should be
licensed to sell beer or spirituous liquors, to be consumed
upon the promises, when and so often as such constables
or police-officers should think proper. and if any person
having such licence as aforesaid, or any servant in his
employ, should refuse to admit such police constable he
should for the first offence forfeit 51., and that it should
be lawful for any magistrate upon the second offence to
adjudge that such offender should be disqualified from
selling beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry, for the space of
two years, or for such shorter time as the magistrate
should think fit.
Under these words it was contended that the. Act
only applied to persons who sold beer, and not to those
who sold spirituous liquors, and had received their licence