The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-04 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-April 3.

WESTMINSTER.--Henry Martini, servant in the
establishment of Major Gammen, was charged with
assaulting his master.
Major Gemmed, whose forehead exhibited marks of
recent blows, stated that the defendant had been in his
service for the last three years as butler and valet. lie
had recently had his discharge, and before leaving that
day committed the assault now complained of. Com-
plainant had declined to give him a character, because
when he desired defendant to leave the room be had re-
fused to do so. Yesterday morning the defendant came
into the library, and told complainant he was obliged to
him for not giving him a character, and called him an in-
fernal scoundrel and other names. Complainant ordered
him to leave the room, but he refused, and commencing
a violent attack upon him, beat him about the head
until he inflicted the marks be now bore. Defendant's
conduct in the service had been good until lately.
Wye. Wells, the major's coachman, said that he heard
the bell ring that morning, accompanied with a loud
cry from the library, when, on hastening to the room, he
found the complainant and the defendant engaged in a
struggle. Witness took his master away, thinking he
might be in danger.
Defendant, in reply to the charge, said that his mas-
ter refused to give him a character, aad had done the
same before with other servants. He went into the
library and thanked him for not giving him a charac-
ter, whereby he was to starve, he supposed. He ad-
mitted that his master had ordered him to leave -the
room on a former occasion, but said he had done so in
a most improper manner, and he had refused to go un-
til he had fulfilled the duty which took him there, and
for that only his master had refused to give him a cha-
racter. As regarded the assault complained of, be said
that it was nothing but a scuffle that took place, after all.
Mr. Paynter animadverted upon the defendant's gross
misconduct, and fined him 2/. 10s., or one mouth's im-
prisonment in the House of Correction.
The defendant immediately paid the fine.
The major observed that the defendant still had pos-
session of his keys, which he refused to deliver up.
Mr. Paynter said he could have no claim whatever to
detain them.
The defendant said he held them because he was re-
sponsible for the plate and other property which bad
been given into his charge, and did not like to give
them up until it was seen by the list that everything
was correct.
It was then arranged that one of the summoning
officers should accompany him to his master's house,
and that he should hand over the property intrusted to
his care.
A few days ago William Kilminstcr, a servant in the
establishment of the Austrian Ambassador, was sum-
moned for unlawfully detaining soma wearing apparel,
the property of James Neaves, when Mr. C. Lewis, an
attorney on the defendant's behalf, pleaded that he was
privileged from the ordinary operation of the law by
belonging to the establishment of the Austrian Em-
bassy ; but as the name was not returned on the official
list supplied to this Court the matter was adjourned
until yesterday.
On the parties reanpearieg, Mr. Lewis still pleaded
defendant's privilege, and referred the magistra e to the
7th of Anne, chap. 12, sec. 3, which recognises the pri-
vilege in qusstion, established by the law of nations, anti
points out that a list shall be sent to the Foreign-office of
the names of persons comprised in an ambassador's esta.
bhshment.

Mr. Paynter, who was aware of the enactment in
question, inquired of the complainant whether he knew
that defendant was in the service of the ambassador !
Complainant replied he had no doubt that he was.
Mr. Lewis observed that defendant was not only at-
tached to the establishment of the ambassador, but was
actually residing in his house.
Mr. Paynter said that the inviolability of the ambas-
sador's household must not be interfered with, and as it
was clearly admitted by complainant that defendant was
in the ambassador's establishment there must be an end
to the case. He might go on with the hearing, but as
the privilege was claimed,
and would doubtless be perse-
vered in, it would be useless, as he could not issue civil
process against the defendant to enforce any order. It
was imniaterial whether the official list sent from the
Home-office for the guidance of the magistrates con-
tained the name or not in this instance, as it was ad-
mitted the defendant was a person entitled to the pri-
vilege.
Complainant inquired whether there was no means of
getting back his property from defendant ?
Ferater said he knew of now% and persons must