The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-14 00:00:00

PAGE V. HATCHELL.

This case was tried during the sittings of last term,
when the facts were published at full length; a short
sumrm,,ry, therefore, is all that is now necessary.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that the plaintiff got
a verdict in the case last term, and he now moved to
have that verdict set aside, and a new trial granted.
The case went to a jury upon two issues ; one issue
was tl.at of not being possessel, and the other, not
guilty. The declaration contained two counts, the first
of which alleged that the river Thames was a navigable
river at the place in question, and that the plaintiff had
a when; upon the river near Battersea-bridge, where he
carried on business as a coal-merchant, and as such had
certain barges, &c. coming up to their wharf, but that
his trade had been obstructed by reason of the defendant
having placed certain posts in the river in front of the
wharf. The second count was a count in trover, for
certain barges, carts, waggons, &c. The first plea was
to the allegation of not being possessed of the wharf ;
and the second, that of not guilty, to the count in
trover. The Solicitor-General then proceeded to describe
the locality of the wharf, and the premises connected
with it. It appeared from the statement that a family
named Long held certain other premises near to those
of the plaintiff, under a lease from Lord Cadogan ; that
a son of Mr. Long's was also a coal-merchant, and used
the wharf in question in conducting his business ; that
Mr. Long, sen., had let the wharf to plaintiff, but the
defendant, who had a private house near to the wharf,
conceived that the wharf had become his private pro-
perty, and that it should not be used by the
public, and therefore he bad put up the posts"
complained of. It had been given in evidence
that the family of Mr. Long had been in possession of
his premises for forty or fifty years, and that during
that time the wharf had been used by the public ; bzit
the plaintiff did no produce any lease to Mr. Long ; he
relied entirely on the fact of user. But the defendant
put in the last lease granted by Lord Cadogan to Mr.
Long, by which it appeared that Lord Cadogan had
demised to Mr. Long the premises he held ; but as to
the wharf, there did not appear to have been any demise
of that, other than the use of it heretofore. The Learned
Solicitor-General, having stated a number ofextraneous
facts, then proceeded to read the lease he had mentioned,
which was a most voluminous document.
Judgment deferred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-ROUSE.

A young fellow, named " occasionally" William Poston,
who has been some time one of the leaders of the Westminster
gang of sad-money utterers, was brought up for final exa-
mination upon the charge of having exhibited two of his
manoeuvres in the shop of Mr. Baker, 110, Cheapside, tobac-
conist
The cool self-possession of the prisoner caused some sur-
prise in the justice-room, for he not only questioned the right
of the Lord Mayor to send him for trial, but he denied the
application of the law, as quoted by Mr. Goodman, to his
particui.tv case.
Fredrick Breach, shopinan to Mr. Baker, said on Tuesday
last, between two and three o'clock in the afternoon, the pri-
soner cause into the shop, and asking for three cheroots, laid
down a oevereign. I gave him half-a-sovereign in change.
He then asked me to change it, as he thought it was light. I
accordingly took from him what I then believed to be the
coin I 11.9 d just given him, and gave him another half-
sovereign. He then requested me to give him silver in-
stead of the half-sovereign I had just handed to him ;
but, upon taking up the half-sovereign, I perceived that
it was a counterfeit, and not, the second one which I had
just gi"en to him. I laid down the counterfeit piece,
and going round, I shut the door, and demanded from
the prisoner the good half-sovereign which I bad that mo-
ment given to him, when he said,—" Here it is ; here is the
good had-sovereign which you gave me ;" and I took it
from him. When I looked for the counterfeit which he had
last given me, it was gone from the counter, and could not
be found. I then determined to examine the first half-
sovereign which I had taken from him, in the belief
that I bad given it to him in the first instance in change,
and I discovered it to be the counterfeit which I now pro-
duce and which I swear I received from him on his first
application to have the one I had given him changed.
Edward Roberts (City policeman, 472) stated that he had
searched the prisoner upon apprehending him, but found
upon his person nothing but three cheroots.
The LORD MAYOR asked whether it was not the intention
of the Mint to prosecute in this case ? The policeman
said he rather expected that the solicitor to the Mint would
be in attendance, but he supposed that gentleman's avoca-.
tions detained him in other Courts.
The LORD MAYOR—WeII, I shall commit the prisoner for
trial. Do you wish to say anything, prisoner ? The pri-
sone:—Yes, my Lord. I wish to know whether you can
commit me without knowing that the Mint will prosecute ?
The LORD MAYOR—NO doubt of it ; I intend to commit
you novt , and Mr. Goodman will make out your commitment.
The prisoner—l wish to know whether -Mr. Goodman has
got the authority of the solicitor to the Mint to send this case
to the Central Criminal Court. You'll excuse me, my Lord,
but I don't think he has. The law requires that two Offences
must be nommitted by the same party, and one within 14
days of the other. Now, where is the second piece of bad
money t, show against me ?—(Laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR—Your calculation upon the Act of Par-
liament is construed by you too partially in your own case.
We have a section that will meet your case.
Mr. G,iodman said, it happened that the sanction of the
Mint was by no means necessary to the prosecution for the
offence with which the prisoner was charged, if the magis-
trate considered it to be his duty to commit ; and there was
a section in the Act which stated that if any person should
tender, utter, or put off any false or counterfeit coin, knowing
the same to be false or counterfeit, the crime was, in England,
a misdemeanour, and the party convicted was punishable by
imprisonment, not exceeding one year.
The pi ironer—l do not consider that you can legally com-
mit me without producing bad money passed by me within 14
days. In fact, I know it.—(A laugh.)
The Lotto MAYOR—You will find yourself mistaken, I
think, by the result of this experiment, although you so
adroitly swallowed the good and bad money. You have,
with all your legal acquirements upon the branch of trade
you follow, stumbled upon a section under which you will
not be prosecuted, and you have overlooked that under which
you certainly shall be prosecuted. You supposed that we
would ge against you for a heavier punishment, and indict
you for an offence the proof of which would require additional
evidence. We shall do nothing of the kind. As we can't
get any more for you, we shall be satisfied with the one year's

imprison rent.
The priioner—l don't think I shall get it.—(Laughter.)
The Loup MAYOR—I do; and if the Mint should hesitate
upon the subject I shall direct the City solicitor to prosecute.
The prisoner was then committed for trial ; but he con-
tinued, while he remained at the bar, to reason upon the
legal propriety of committing him, without however fur one
moment denying that he was an experienced hand at the
game, which, in this instance, has thus received a temporary
check.

John Mickleburgh, messenger to the United Mexican
Mining Association, of which Sir John Easthope, Bart., was

represented to be the chairman and trustee, was brought up
in the custody of Daniel Forrester, the officer, charged with
having stoeu a cash-box, containing property owned by the
company.
Mr. Janes Smith, a gentleman employed by the company,
stated that it was the duty of the prisoner to *fetch the cash-
box, which was left at t!,e banker's in the evening, home to
the office every morning. On the evening of the 12th of
December. there were in the cash-box four cheque-books, a
will, a set lad security, of which witness did not know the
contents, ;rid 531. in cash and bank-notes, of the numbers of
of which witness did not know the particulars. The box
was on that evening taken to Messrs. Bosanquet's banking-
house, but it was returned to the office, as was customary,
next morning. On the evening of the 23d of December wit-
ness received the box wrapped up in a piece of brown paper,
directed to him as belonging to the office, in the hand-writing
of the pri3oner. It contained all the property with the ex-
ception of 391. The prisoner, who had been sent for the
box on the 13th of December, never made his appearance af-
terwards.
Mr. William M. Brown, clerk in the offices of the United
Mexican Mining Association, stated that on the evening of
the 12th a December he received the box from Mr. Smith,
and took it to Messrs. Bosanquet's, and left it there in the
condition in which he had received it.

William Robert Bushnell, cashier at Messrs. Bosanquet
and Cr.'s, Lombard-street, bankers, stated that on the morn-
ing of the 13th December he delivered the cash-box to the
prisoner, in the usual way of business.
Daniel l'orrester stated that he had in December received
informatics that the prisoner had disappeared with property
belonging to the association, and a few mornings ago the
prisoner caged upon him, gave himself up, and said he was
greatly distressed in his mind, and had been wandering
about.

--
Tha pr:saner said he 'had nothing whatever to say, and
was committed for trial.
BOW-STREET.

Mr. Jos.p.i Bowers Gray, a surgeon, who was charged last
week with forging a post-office order receipt for 11. (which
had been forwarded for his predecessor in the business, 114,
Holborn, was placed at the bar for further examination.
The prisoner, it may be remembered, after purchasing the
business ir. High Holborn of Mr. G. L. Hillas, disposed of it
to his brother, and succeeded, himself, to achemist's business,
in St. James's-street, for which he had paid, or was about to
pay, 2,000 t. During his residence in Holborn, a post-office
order for I', was sent, to the house, for Mr. Hillas, from a
former patient of that gentleman, then residing at Southwell,
near Newark. Mr. Hillas had written to his patient (the
Rev. A. Tatham) respecting the sum due to him, and was
informed tint a post-office order had been forwarded to him.
On inquiry at the General Post-office, in St. Martin's-1e-
Grand, it was ascertained that the amount had been received,
and the signature of Mr. G. L. Hillas regularly signed upon
the order, which the clerk in that department produced in
court, although unable to identify the party who signed the
name. The writing, however, was declared by several wit-
nesses to be. that of the prisoner, and this constituted the
evidence in support of the charge against him..
The pris:z.er was not admitted to bail.
At the resent examination the Rev. A. Tatham, who sent
the order, the clerks at the post-office, Newark, who entered
it upon the books, the letter-carrier who delivered it in Hol-
born, and cue or two other witnesses, who identified the sig-
nature upon the order as being in the prisoner's handwriting,
added their depositions to those taken last week. The exa-
mination being conducted by Mr. Peacock, on behalf of the
Post-office, and by Mr. Ballantine, for the prisoner.
The Leal tied Counsel for the prisoner_urged upon his Wor-
ship's consiJeration the slight nature of the evidence, as con-
trasted with the serious character of the charge, and also the
apparent absurdity of supposing that a man in such a sta-
tion of life, and with so much property at his command,
would risk hid reputation and his liberty for so paltry a sum
as 11., the amount of the'post-office order.
The prisoner's brother, a fellow-assistant of the prisoner
when the latter lived with Mr. Fowler, a surgeon, of Devizes,
and some,oti,er witnesses, were called to prove that the hand-
writing in which the signature was written did not resemble
that of the prisoner's.
Mr. ,f,kur.ttac determined on sending the prisoner for trial,
but on this occasion consented to take bail, himself in 1,0001.,
and two sureties in 5001. each, for his appearence to answer
the charge.

WESTMINSTER
Dr. Quail, many years surgeon in the armies of Greece,
Poland. and .'srtugal, who made an application to Mr. Bond,
about two maths since, with reference to some alleged claims
on the Government, waited upon Mr. Burrell on the same
subject.
The Magistrate having inquired his business,
Dr. Quail Laid—l was brought before you, sir, about four
years ago, from the Treasury, charged with reff.sing to leave
there. I hart now come to put myself under your protec-