The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-20 00:00:00

LONDON SESSIONS.

Tun RATING 0F TIIE BLACKPRIARS STEAM B)AT PIER.
...This case, brought forward on Satnrday, wus an cppeal
against the parish of St. Anne, Blaeldriars, On the part
(aisr stri.slesnci(e)nrptouriaatril(t)!nf:;rl the relief 'e Cle of T.outiuti, resiket to of the poor of the said
parish, as regards the rating of the pier at Blaeldriars-
bridge.
Mr. Maynard, who appeared on the part of the re-
spondents, said that, as the pier was built upon, and
within the parish of St. An, Blackfriars, arid from
which the corporation of the city of London obtained a
beneficial occupation, the palish authorities had, in ac-
cordance with the common arid statute law, rated the
said pier towards the relief of the poor. The amount at
which the rental was fixed was 5001. per annum. lie,
however, should be prepared to show that although the
pier had only been erected nine mouths, that no less than
2,000/. had been received as pier dues, and that the pro-
the appellants, they had preferred no fewer
fits were at least 1,000/. a year. From the case pre-
sented by
than five objections, and which were as follows:—First,
that the pier was not situate within the parish ; second,
that there was no beneficial occupation ; third, that it
was not property liable to be rated ; fourth, it was as-
sessed beyond its rental ; and lastly, that the case was
oppressive, illegal, and unjust. All these objections were
bad.

Mr. May, the assistant overseer, and Mr. Spilling,
formerly one of the churchwardens, were called, whose
evidence went to show that the houses from No. Ito
Nc. 4, Chatham-place, were exempted from the pay-
ment of rates by Act of Parliament, the rents being ap-
propriated towards the repairs of Blackfriars-bridge, but
the houses were, nevertheless, in the parish, the boun-
daries being fixed under the second arch, beyond the
distance unto which the pier extended.
Mr. Woodrutio, from the Town. clerk's office, deposed
that Blackfriar's-pier was opened on the 2-tth October,
1845, and that the charges made were 6d. cacti call by
the steam-boats—that up to 15th of June 7161. 16s. Gd.
hail been received—that there was owing to the
. Navigation Committee 655/. 6d.—that the expenses for
piermen, watchmen, &c., was 6021. 3s. 33., and that the
building of the pier cast the city 3,oool.—that when the
pier was opened it was estimated that the annual ex-
pense for maintaining it would be 1,089/. 4s. .
Mr. Lewis contended that there was no evidence to
show that the pier was in a rateable position, so that the
corporation was liable to be rated. The city had built
it for the accommodation of the public, and had been in-
duced to do so from the loss of life which had there
taken place. That by an Act of Parliament the soil of
the river was placed under the control of the city, and
not under that of the parish.
Richard Ware, the piermaster, was then called, who
proved that when the parish officers perambulated the
parish, they went down the steps next to the bridge, but
never came on the pier.
The REconuen, at very considerable length, then pro-
ceeded to give judgment, in the course of which lie ob-
cerved that although the evidence, as to the boundary of
the parish was not so clear as he multi wish, yet there
could be no doubt that the structure was within the pa-
rish, and that at present it was, to all intents and pur-
poses, a beneficial occupation. The rate would, there-
fore, be affirmed. The Corporation had the power to
put an end to the rate at any time it thought proper to
let the steam-boats take passengers away without charge.
In the course Of the proceedings he had heard the pier
ter med a nuisance, instead of which it appeared to him
to be a great public convenience and benefit.—The rate
was then affirmed, with the usual costs.
THE WATERMAN AND IRON STEAM-BOAT COMPANIES.
will be recollected that several convictions have
taken place at the Mansion House, of persons in com-
mand of die boats belonging to the above companies, for
an infringement of the fifth bye-law made by the Court
of Aldermen. In all of the cases the parties were con-
victed on the evidence of Mr. Fellows, law student, and
notice of appeal was given. The cases were fourteen in
number. The various defendants were now represented
by Mr. Pashley, Mr. Bramwell, and Mr. Maynard. To
the first appeal an objection was taken, to the effect that
the Mayor, after conviction, had ordered that in default
of payment the defendant should be imprist ned for
seven days, and thereby foregoing the intermediate
course of ascertaining whether the defendant had any
goods which could be taken in execution. Although
Sir Peter Laurie, Sir George Carroll, and Mr. Alder-
man Challis considered the objection to be bad, the
Recorder held the reverse, on the ground that the
liberty of the subject was not to be played with, and
the whole convictions on ibis point were in consequence
quashed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
111 A NSION- HOUSE
On Saturday, Mr. 316ses Abitbol appeared before the
Lord Mayor, "to show cause," as the summons ex-
pressed it, " why he misapplied certain shares, and alio
certain moneys, belonging to Francis Uncilla, entrusted
to him for a specific purpose.
Mr Cope, solicitor, appeared for the complainant, and
Mr. Humphreys appeared for the defence.
The case drew together a number of persons to whom
the defendant, who is a very public City man, appeared
to be known.
Mr. Uncilla, whose counting-house is at 20, Cullum-
street, stated that he was a merchant, and had been in
London about eight months. He knew Mr. Abitbol.
having become acquainted with him about two months
ago, at a restaurateur's. Witness and his wife were
there together, and Mr. Abitbol pressed them very much
to accompany him to places of amusement, and an inti-
macy grew up between them, which appeared to be
urgently desired by the gentleman. Witness, upon one
of the visits of Mr. Abitbol to his counting-house, asked
whether any Madrid and Valencia shares could be sold
in London, to which Mr. Abitbol replied, " Yes, I am
a broker, and do a great deal of business in them"
"He then," continued the witness, "quoted a price,
and advised me to write to Barcelona for some shares,
and he would undertake to sell them for me, at the
price he quoted, or thereabouts. I wrote accordingly,
and I received ten shares, and entrusted them to him to
sell for me on the 21st of May.
Mr. Humphreys—Did you give them to him? Mr.
Uncilla—l left them with his clerk, at his counting-
house, No. 35, Abchurch-lane, with instructions to sell
them.
Mr. Humphreys—Were they written instructions ?
Mr. Uncilla—No; they were verbal instructions.
The Loan MAYOR—Had you previously made any
arrangement with Mr. Abitbol ? Mr. Uncilla—The
only arrangement I made with him was, that I was to
send for the shares, and he was to sell them for me.
The next communication I bad from him was a letter
stating that he had sold a Parcel of 200 Madrid and
Valencia shares at Liverpool, for 20s. 6d. per share, in
which parcel my ten shares were included, and that on
the settlement he would send me a draft as usual. (Here
the complainant produced the letter, at the conclusion of
which was a very warm invitation to him and his wife to
dinner.) .
The LORD MAYOR —I suppo e you went to dinner ?
Mr. Uncilla—Yes, we went to dine with him.—( A laugh.)
The LORD MAYOR—I dare say you said nothing
about the shares at the dinner? Mr. Uncilla—We had
no conversation about them then. I afterwards called
upon him, and he gave me a contract in his own hand-
writing to the effect that be had sold ten Madrid and
Valencia shares for tee at 20s. 6d., the commission being
ls., statity, a balance due •to me of 91. 15s. ( l'he
witness here produced the contract, which wag
dated May 29, 1846, and was signed "M. Abitbol.) I
wrote for some more shares in consequence of his advice.
Mr. Humphreys submitted that there was nothing in
the statement of Mr. Uncilla which called fur an answer
on the part of his client.
Mr. Cope—l shall prove in the first place that Mr.
Abitbol is not a broker.
The LORD MAYOR --That may be the subject of in-
quiry in another place. I cannot entertain it here.
Mr. Cope—I can show it as a part of the constitution
of the fraud which I say has been practised upon my
client.
Mr. Goodman (the chief clerk)—The question then
would be whether a bare lie told by a man that he was
a broker constituted a fraud.
Is it not plain that ordi-
nary prudence has not been used. Before Mr. Uncilla
employed the defendant be ought to have inquired
whether he was a broker.
Mr' Cope—l do not consider such a course is practised
or necessary. If a man wants to employ an attorney he
Mr. Cope—
will not go to the Stamp-office to ascertain the fact. He
will take the word of the party that he is an attorney,
and I contend that it is an act of fraud in a person to
personate either.
The LORD MAYOR—If I were in want of an attorney
I should certainly look at the Law List.
is never done. Upon the faith of being a broker, Mr.
Abitbol was entrusted with these shares.
every
Mr Hum h • •evident, my Lord, that
p reys— t Its quite
I assure your Lordship that such a thing
twheisrebienfotrruesttehde wLi:hrodutmaaryt
else, although he may not be a sworn broker of the city
of London. This case must, therefore, fall to the ground ,
as to that argument. suppose he did say he was a
man is a broker who deals in shares or anything
broker, and that the shares were intrusted to him, they
merely left with, his clerk.
The case is subject to another sort of proceeding than
It is not recognisable in
thii court. yers.pecific direction, but were

Mr. Cope—There is no doubt that a moral fraud has
been committed, and the
presumption is that au actual
fraud has been committed. He pretends that ho is a
broker, and upon that false pretence he gets shares to
dispose of.
The LORD M.tvon—There is no
proof before me that
the account has not been carried over to another day.
['here is no proof that the money has been received or
that the shares have been sold.
Mr. Humpbreys_And if such things were proved it
would make it no more than a debt, on which an action
might be brought.
The LORD MAYOR—.There is nothing to show that
the defendant sold the shares. If ho have sold them and

he refused to pay, he is liable to the consequences of an
action.
Mr. Cope—Some money transactions took place, after
the share business, in which Mr. Abitbol received 501,
from my client, and neither in that nor in the share
transaction just described did he ever receive one farthing
from Mr. Abitbol.
Mr. Humphries submitted that it would be useless to
go into any other case.
Mr. Goodman (to Mr, Uncilia)—Did Mr. Abitbol
tell you that he was a member of the Stock Exchange ?
Mr. Uncilla—l do not
_know anything as to that, but
he told me he was a broker, end I was not aware that
he was not a broker, until I had intrusted him with
my money and my shares.
TLe LORD MAI-oil—With what money did you in-
trust him ?
Mr. Uncilla—l intrusted him with 501. to buy stock
ith, and I accuse him of having misappropriated that
sum.

The LORD MAYOR (having consulted with Mr. Good-
man) said it was evident that this case, as well as the
former, must be decided elsewhere. They both con-
tained matter for actions.
Mr. Goodman said, the case cou'd never bear an in-
dictment, and if it were nut inlictable, it could not come
under the notice of the Lord Major. If Mr. Abitbol
bad said that he was a member of the Stock-Exchange,
the responsibility would be different.
Mr. Ml6lla—He said he was a member of the Hall of
Commerce.
Mr. Humphreys here produced a letter, dated the Ist
of June, from the complainant to the defendant, in
which the former requistei the latter to be kind enough
to employ 501. for him in any operation for his interest.
Mr. Humphreys—That letter puts an end to the
business at one.
Mr. Uncilla—l wrote that letter beforzi I had any idea
that I should be treated unfairly. Mr. Abitbol was
giving constant invitations to amusements, and I had no
idea what would have happened. 1 was convinced than
honourable would have taken place.
Mr. Goodman—You may indict if you please, but the
Lord Mayor cannot adjudicate in the matter.
GUILDHALL.

On Saturday two knowing-looking characters, named
Henry Moore and Henry Jones, were charged with de-
frauding Mr. Farrier, the landlord of the Angel Inn,
Farringdon-street, of sundry pork pies and pints of half-
and-half.
The complainant stated that he opened his house at
four o'clock in the morning, to accommodate the market
people and those arriving by the waggons. That morn-
ing, shortly after he had opened his house, the prisoners
came in, and in a very commanding manner asked him
if he had any cold meat. He replied that he had not,
but that he had some pork pies, which no doubt they
would find equally agreeable. They answered, the pies
would do as well, and were served with some, which they
speedily, with several pints of porter, half-and• half, &c.,
put out of sight. On leaving, complainant asked them
for payment of the refreshments, upon which they
answered, " Money, eh we will pay you with a cut
over the eye, and that is all the payment you will get
from us." Jones made use of that expression, and, en-
deavouring with his companion to escape, a policeman
was called, and they were given into, custody.
The prisoners in answer to the charge, said if the land-
lord had allowed them to have gone home, they would
have got the money and paid the landlord.
Roe, the officer of the Court, remarked that these
serious frauds on publicans were daily increasing. The
metropolis abounded with such offenders as the prisoners,
and the licensed victuallers were sad sufferers by their
visitation,.
Mr. Alderman litrxmat. regretted the law did not
afford him au apportunity of punishing such characters
as the prisoners in the way they so richly me: iced.
There could be no doubt that such frauds going un-
punished was a great hardship on licensed victuallers ;
such, however, was the inefficiency of the law, and he
lamented it. Jones by his threat, however, had placed
himself in his power, and he should call upon him to
find two sureties of 20/. tacit, to keep the peace for the
next twele months.
Moore was discharged.
BOIV-STREET.
INSANITY.-Mr. James R. Smit k, a surgeon, of 43,
Sackville street, was charged with wandering in the
neighbourhood of Charing cross in a state of insanity,
and annoying several persons.
Mr. JAItDINE said a general order had been issued to
the effect, that persons found wandering in the public
thoroughfares in a state of insanity, should be in the
first instance conveyed to the workhouse, in order that
the case might be submitted to the medical attendant.
Inspector Stevens said that the order would have been
complied with had not the prisoner been annoying per-
sons passing, which constituted a distinct charge.
Constable A 83, proved that he saw the prisoner about
half-past one in Cockspur-street, Whitehall, &c.,
annoying ladies and gentlemen by laying hold of thorn.
He also paid a visitito the Home office, where he applied
to be appointed to a recordership, in consequence of
which the doorkeeper received orders to refuse him ad-
mission in future. Witness followed him for some time,
during which he entered numerous shops without any
apparent object. He had behaved in the same extraor-
dinary manner on former days, on one occasion seizing
the finger of a child and twisting it nearly out of jcint.
The prisoner, in his defence, observed in a quiet and
calm manner, that he had not annoyed any one inten-
tionally, and when he was alleged to have twisted the
child's finger, he was merely inquiring as to its health.
As to the Home-office, he admitted having been there
for redress, as a lady of title at the West-end had bribed
all the cab arid omnibus drivers to hoot him and call
after him as lie walked, and their persecutions had caused
him to lose almost all his practice. The annoyance from
omnibus men had nearly ceased, but still two of the
Marylebone police were constantly using offensive epi-
thets to him, and saying "Fie, fie !"
Inspector Stevens informed the magistrate that the
defendant had been fined 5/. at Marlborough-street for
annoying a lady.
In answer to the Court, the prisoner said he had
given his right name and address; but he was now only
consulted" by the faculty, his regular patients having
left him, in consequence of the persecutions to which he
was exposed.
Mr. JARDINE ordered him to be taken care of, and
desired the police-constable to confer with the parish
authorities as to the best course to he pursued with him,