The Sun.
London, England, 1851-09-30 00:00:00

tion. Witness then went to Mr. Bunn, of whom he I
made some inquiries, and the prisoner was given into
the custody of Trew, the officer.
Patrick Hoy, an officer of the Easton Counties
Railway, said, the person of the prisoner having',heen
described to him, he went in search of him, and found
him crouched up in a corner of the refreshment-room,
but not in the public part. He told the prisoner he
wanted him on the platform about some gentleman's
luggage, to which he made no answer. He was then
handed over to Trew, another officer.
George Trew, an officer of the City detective
police, said, that two of that body, at the desire of the
Eastern Counties Railway Company, were always in
attendance at the principal stations, and on the day in
question the prisoner was given into custody by the
last witness for stealing the portmanteau and other
property. He said that he thought that it belonged
to his cousin, named Jones, who was a mechanic,
living at Colchester. On further inquiry he said
that he had been for the last two or three weeks
lodging at TOM'S Coffee-house, in Holborn ; but
such statement appeared to be entirely destitute of
foundation.

The prisoner, in his defence, said that he never was
before a magistrate until the present charge, and he
hoped the jury would deal leniently with him.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was
sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour for six
months.

James Day, 40, was indicted for unlawfully as-
saulting Ann Hore, with intent, &c.
It appeared that on the night of the lath of Sep-
tember the prisoner invited a little girl, named Ann
Hore, aged thirteen, into a show at Copenhagen fair,
Copenhagen-fields, and after the performance took
her to a retired part of the fields, and there committed
the offence which formed the subject of the present
indictment.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty ; and he was
sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour for twelve
calendar months.

Charles Tedman pleaded guilty to an indictment
charging him with having stolen a purse containing
the sum of 4/. 10s., the property and moneys of
Harriet Bamfield, from her person.
Several previous convictions were put in against
him, and he was sentenced to be transported for seven
years.

- John Norris was found guilty of stealing a purse
the property of Jabez Palmer, from his person ; and
being an old offender in crime he was sentenced to
be transported for seven years.
John Maxwell was convicted of stealing a watch,
the property of Francisco Monteso, the mate on
board the Italian vessel Speranza, lying in the Lon-
don Docks. He was sentenced to imprisonment for
six months.

The other cases tried were of no public interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WES7'IWILVST.ER.

John Ray, a labourer, employed by the sub-con-
tractor for the building of the new suspension-bridge
at Chelsea, was summoned for working upon the
Thames for hire and gain, he not being a freeman of
the Waterman's Company.
J. F. Wing, a waterman at Chelsea, stated that
since the bridge had been commenced, the defendant
and a great number of others, at different times, had
conveyed the surveyor and other persons engaged on
the works to and fro, in boats, to the college and to
the various piers in the neighbourhood. When any-
body came, they called for a boat, and it was answered
by one of these men pulling off and rowing them
wherever they wanted to go.
Mr. Hone, from Waterman's Hall, having proved
that the complainant was a freeman of the company
and that the defendant was not,
Wing went into the specific charge against the de-
fendant. On the day mentioned in the summons de-
fendant was at work all the afternoon rowing persons
backwards and forwards to the college and the piers.
Mr. ARNOLD asked whether he had any evidence to
show that the defendant had done so for hire or gain ?
Wing replied that he had a witness to prove that he
was a paid servant of the contractor or bridge com-
pany. _

- Zan Brown, who appeared from the office of Mr.
Jerwood, solicitor, Ely-place, Holborn, on the part of
the contractor, said that to save time he would readily
admit that the defendant was a servant of the con-
tractor at the works of the bridge. His answer to the
case was that be had a right to do what he was charged
with having done unlawfully.
Mr. ARNOLD inquired whether he was to under-
stand that defendant had only conveyed persons con-
nected with the works to and fro, without receiving
payment for that specific act? Wing replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. ARNOLD—You do not say that he took any
money of the persons for so carrying them, or took
anybody else and charged for their conveyance ?
Wing—No, Ido not; but lam a freeman and get
my living by working upon the river, and if this man
and the others in the same employment were not row-
ing the perscns belonging to the bridge backwards
and forwards, I or some other waterman would have
to do it. They have no right to row persons upon
the Thames ; a waterman ought to be employed. This
man is a servant of the contractor, and carries him
and others as part of his labour, and therefore I con-
sider he is working for hire, which he has no right to
do upon the Thames.
Mr. ARNOLD—DO you contend, then, that if a
gentleman has a yacht that he cannot be put on shore
by his own man in his own boat unless that man is a
freeman of the Waterman's Company ? Wing—l
do. If it is in the jurisdiction of the Waterman's
Company the boat must be navigated by a freeman.
Mr. ARNOLD —lf your view is the right one, no
gentleman could have a boat of his own pulled by his
own servants. Wing—No, he could not.
Mr. ARNOLD—If residing on the banks of the
Thames he could not employ his own servant to assist
him in rowing his own pleasure boat without being
liable to a penalty ? Wing—He could not unless the
servant was a freeman.
Mr. Brown contended that this was not the " hire
and gain" contemplated by the statute. The defen-
dant was a carpenter's labourer employed by the con-
tractor, who was using his own boats for the purpose
of conveying surveyors and others connected with the
works to and fro when the watermen who were em-
ployed were not at hand. He then cited a number
of sections in the Act of Parliament and several of the
bye-laws made by the Waterman's Company, show-
ing exemptions for " woodmongers" (non-freemen)
and others in working craft with goods, merchandise,
&c., with a view of showing that the spirit of these
clauses was in favour cf his position.

The magistrate's attention was also called to other
portions of the Act by Mr. Hone on the contrary.
Mr. ARNOLD entertained a very strong opinion that
a man employed for other and general purposes could
not be said, unless paid specially for the conveyance
of the persons, to be working for hire or gain within
the meaning of the section, and thought it did not
contemplate a man being rowed about by his own
servant as an offence. He was, however, not pre-
pared, without a careful examination of the whole
of the law bearing upon theoubject, to determine it.
Mr. Brown observed that it was preposterous to
conceive that Wing had put the right construction
upon the law. If the view taken on behalf of the
complainant were correct, a gentleman having an
estate a couple of miles from a plying-place on the
banks of the Thames, and wishing to cross, would be
put to a serious inconvenience if be were to have to
wait while a freeman was being procured. The
same question as this had been unsuccessfully mooted
while the Thames Tunnel was in the course of for-
mation.

Mr. ARNOLD thought the matter deserved consi-
derable attention ; and Mr. Brown having stated that
his principal could produce the Bridge Act, and
would probably wish to adduce further argument, the
case was adjourned for a week.