The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-05 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-July 4.

GUILDHALL. William Alexander Law was sum-
moned before Sir R. W. Carden for using a room in the
Sun and Last public-house, in Ne wgate•ruarket, for the
purpose of betting.
Mr. Charles Pearson, the City solicitor, attended to
prosecute on behalf of the corporation.
The defendant, who pleaded guilty, handed in an ap-
peal in mitigation of the penalty, se`.ting forth that he
was not a regular frequenter of the room, and that he
never made a bet in prior to the 26th of May.
He discontinued betting entirely on the 11th of June.
I:Ruing that time he was only occasionally there, and
many days was not in the house. fie trusted a distinc-
tion w..uld be made between one who regularly and
systematically used -a room for the purpose of betting,
and one who casually <did so.
In answer to Sir R. W. Carden he st- ted that he had
been a publican, but was out of business. He tried
betting as a speculation, but he did not 2nd it so pro-
fitable as he anticipated.
Edward Briscall, 168, said he saw the defendant irk
the room 0.. the 27th of M ty, but he was not there or
the 28th, 29th, 30th, and 318 r. On some occasions sub-
sequently he was in the room by himself, and sometimes
there were others there.

Sir R. W. Carden i-aid this was not a very bad case ;
but he knew he was transgressing the law.
Tha defendant said he knew he was, but he had dis-
continued the practice, and would not attempt it again.
Sir R. W. Carden said the practice was so demorali.
ing that the magistrates weredetermined to put it do wr.
It was a species of small gambling, which led you; he
to rob employers. He did riot think the defendant.
would he likely_ to open a place of the sort again,
and he did not want to punish him so much as to give a
warning to others. He should only fine him 51. and
costs, which was much easier than he had let others off.
He wished it to be understood that the Act of Parlia-
ment gave him the power of inflicting an imprisontnen,
of six months, with or without hard lab )ur, and
without giving the defendant the option of paying a
fine.
The fine was paid.

BOW-STREET.—Louis Conrad, a Frenchman, for-
merly servant to Lady Mallett, was brought up on re•
wand, charged with obtaining goods from Meser,.
Stone, and Cornpapy, of Waterloo-house, on false pre-
tences.

It appeared that the prisoner, while in Lady Mallet's
service, had been fr,qu9ntly sent to \Vaterloo•houye fot
good, for his mistress and for Lady Broughain. On such
occasions, however, he was always provided with a
written order. About a fortnight ago he was discharged,
and a few days afterwards he obtained 16 yards of at
expensive satin from Messrs. Pearce, in the name of hi,
late mistress.

The case was adjourned in the absence from illness of
Lady Mallet.
The prisoner was further charged with having ob
tained a pair of boots from Mr. Paul Hase, a boot
maker in the Burlington-arcade, on the false pretence
that they were ordered by Mr. Edward Mallet, son of
Lady MaNett.

He was committed for trial.
Wiliam Stamp, described as the secretary of the
London Exchange Advance Fund and Life Association,
was summoned before Mr. Jardine to answer a charge
of perjury.
Mr. T. Atkinson appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. W. Cooper for the defendant.
The prosecution was instituted by Mr. R. Dawson, a
solicitor, of 5, Upper Charles-street, Westminster•, who
stated that, being pressed for money in April last, he
applied to the society with which defendant wad con-
nected for a loan of 1101. The business' of the offie.-•
was carri'd on at 2, Adelphi-terrace, and the " managers"
appeared to be two brothers named Hutchinson. They
were present, and it was agreed that witness should give
them a bill of sale upon the furniture of bis house at.
Hastings. Witness objected to this at first, but on being
assured that it was a matter of form, intended as much
fur his own security as for theirs, be consented. On Sa-
turday, the 12th of April, witness, accompanied by hip
orotliet-in•law, a clergyman, went to the office to execute
he bill of sale When this was done the " managers"
'landed him a cheque for 601. 10s. only charging 371.
10s. for expenses, independently of 2/. 12s. previousl)
received. Tney afterwards remitted 121, 103 to wit-
landl .rd for rent, and in three weeks afterwards.
with .ut giving him any notice, they put the bill of sale
into execution, took possession of his furniture, and sold
it off by auction—sending down a Lond in auctioneer fur
'he purpose. The sale only realised 1141., and the
wade him out a debtor to the extent of 29/. 17s. 9.1. in
addition to the amount.

An office copy of the bill of sale was produced, and
tppeared that the document was sworn to, in the affi
davit of defendant, as having been filed on the 10th 01
April, instead of the 12th.
In cross-examination Mr. Dawson admitted that he
might have agreed to execute the bill of sale on the 10th.
He was in difficulties at the time, but did not owe more
than 1001. He did not consent to the execution of the
bill of sale to avoid an order of the County Court, and
denied having removed any of his furniture to London
afterwards, except his office furniture and papers, and a
few things not included in the bill of sale.
Mr. Cooper for the defence, urged that the mistake of
date was merely the accident of a clerk, the appointment
having been originally made for the 10th of April, and
the whole proceeding was the result of revenge. The
terms of the loan office might be harsh, but this arose
from what they had heard respecting the proceedings of
the prosecutor.
Mr. Jardine said there was nothing in the evidence to
support a charge of " wilful and corrupt" perjury. There
had been false swearing as to a certain fact, but "false-
swearing," unless shown to be intentional, did not amount
to perjury. In this case it had been clearly proved that
the defendant, in an affidavit before the judge, required
by the act of Parliament, had sworn that the bill of sale
was filed on the 10th of April—two days before it was
actually completed. But it had not been shown that the
office gained anything thereby, or that there could have
been any possible motive for making a false statement
ag to the date. How, then, could he convict the defen-
dant of wilful and corrupt perjury ? The summons must
be dismissed.

During the proceedings Mr. Dawson complained that
the managers, Messrs. Hutchinson, had insulted him in
court, by offensive gestures and insulting expressions ;
upon which the brothers rejoined that Mr. Dawson bad
called them a couple of " rascals," while passing from
the witness box ; and in this temper the parties left the
court.

WESTMINSTER.—Mrs. Emma Stevens, the wife of
a builder, residing at 14, Devonshire-terrace, Kensington,
underwent a lengthened examination before Mr. Paynter,
charged with wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Sleigh, instructed by Mr. W. H. Barber, conducted
the prosecution ; and Mr. Vaughan, solicitor, appeared
for the defance. _

In 1854 Mrs. Palmer, an old lady of large property,
occupied apartments in the house of defendant and her
husband, 14, Devonshire-terrace, Kensington. Shortly
afterwards a hamper, containing valuable property be-
lunging to Mrs. Palmer, was stolen from a store-room.
After some months Mrs. Palmer left, and having suspi-
cions that Mr. and Mrs. Stevens had been implicated
in the robbery, sent one of her daughters (who was un-
known to them) apparently to inspect the furnished
apartments, but in reality to ascertain whether any of her
property was there. Miss Palmer, finding some china,
aad some curtains, &c., which her mother had lost, gave
Mrs. Stevens and her husband into custody. After three
examinations at the Hammersmith Police-court defendant
and his wife were discharoid by Mr. Dayman, who sug-
gested that Mrs. Palmer might have loft the cups and
other little things behind her by accident, evidence having
been given respecting the larger articles, the curtains, by
the accused, showing that they had bought them as de-
scribed. It was alleged by Mr. Sleigh that the defend-
ant and her hu,band, " cultivating the suggestion"
thrown out by Mr. Dayman, brought an action for false
impri,onment against Mrs. Palmer, which was tried

fore Lord Chief Justica Campbell on the 19th June in
the Court of Queen's Bench, when defendant swore
that she found the small articles enumerated in

the cupboard of the back parlour after Mrs. Palmer
bad left the apartment, and upon this evidence
the jury gave 201. damage.. The assignment of perjury
was that of having sworn the things were left in the cup-
board, and after proof that defendant had given had such
testimony, Mr Sleigh called three witnesses who re
moved Mra. Palmer's goods from the house, who proved
that the cupboards were thoroughly and strictly exa-
mined by them, and that nothing was left behind. Mrs.
Palmer and her daughter also examined the curtains,
which were produced, and positively identified them.
Mr. Vaughan, for the defence, having commented on
the evidence,
Mr. Paynter thought that the case was proved as far
as a negative could be proved, and said he should com-
mit the accused, upon bail, for trial at the Central Cri-
minal Court, but must adjourn the cave for the deposi-
tions to be prepared.
Mr. Vaughan said he would prove, on the trial, that
the things were left in the cupboard,