The Sun.
London, England, 1834-09-25 00:00:00

THAMES POLICE.

A vvaterman named George Warwick, belonging to the
Tower-stairs, was brought before the Magistrates for re-
examination on a charge of stealing and smuggling twelve
gallons of brandy out of the London Docks.
On Sunday afternoon a Custom-house officer, named
Fernaux, went on board an empty barge which the prisoner
was hauling out of the London Dock through the Hermi-
tage-lock entrance, and found between the timbers and the
ceiling thirteen skins filled with brandy, which he seized,
and took the prisoner into custody. The prisoner said a
man named Bolt hired him to take the barge, which be-
longs to a widow named Hale at Ratcliffe, out of the dock,
and that he was to receive half a crown for his trouble. He
has given every assistance to the Custom-house officer to
find out the really guilty party, but he has kept out of the
way. The owner of the barge is not at all implicated in
the affair ; but it is now stated that Bolt, who is well known
as a notorious thief and smuggler, and has been twice con-
victed for stealing and smuggling brandy out of the same
dock under precisely the same circumstances, has been con-
cerned in the transaction.

—.—
On the prisoner being placed at the bar, Mr. Bullock,
the clerk to the Solicitor of Customs, said that since the
last examination he had received such an excellent charac-
ter of the prisoner that he was instructed not to offer any
evidence against him.
The prisoner was then discharged, and the brandy sent
to the Custom=house. The barge remains in possession of
the Crown.

UNION-HALL.
Yesterday John Osgood, a servant in the employ of Mr.
Murrell, of Ewell, was charged with stealing a quantity of
hay, together with several bags of beans, the property of
his master ; and John Skelton, at the Greyhound at Ken-
nington, was charged with receiving the same, knowing
them to have been stolen.

Both the prisoners were fully committed.
Two coal-porters named Hurd were charged with assault-
ing two men of the same calling for not joining in the strike
which took place some time ago amongst a body of the
coal-heavers. _ _

The defendants were fined 20s. each, and in default o
payment sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-SEPT. 24.

William Smith, an elderly man, applied Upon his petition
for his discharge. The insolvent was unopposed.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN inquired how long he had
been imprisoned ?—The insolvent replied since August,
1833.

Mr. Commissioner BOWEN—What ! since August,lB33,
for a debt of eleven shillings ?—lnsolvent—Yes, Sir.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN appeared astounded. and
said—l see the whole you owe in the world is 9/. ss. 3d.,
of which Si. 14s. 11d. is for costs.--Insolvent—Yes,
that
is all.

The Learned COMMISSIONER—And you have been in
prison since August, 1833, for that sum ?
The insolvent was ordered his immediate discharge.

George Maddick was opposed by Mr. Woodroffe, on
the part of a host of creditors ; he was likewise opposed by
Mr. Chadwicke Jones for a Mr. Levy, and was supported
by Mr. Cooke.
The insolvent took the benefit of the Act in 1823 ; he
petitioned again in 1829, but subsequently arranged with
his then creditors by paying them 4s. 9d. in the pound.
Some time ago he took a house in Lamb's Conduit-street,
and opened it as a tobacconist and stationer ; he kept a
billiard table, and he employed the opposing creditors to
fit up the premises and supply him with goods. lie had
during his residence contracted many debts ; be had bor-
rowed of Mrs. Canham, the proprietors of De Velnoe's
vegetable syrup, the sum of 2601. on two warrants of
attorney ; she had seized his property, but allowed his wife
still to carry on the concern.

The Court sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.

ESSEX PETTY SESSIONS.

THE POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL-IMPORTANT CASE

UNDER ITS PROVISIONS.

On Saturday last a case, the decision of which is of the
greatest importance to all ports, towns, and parishes in
which the fishily, trade is carried on, was brought under the
notice of R. W. Hall Dare, Esq., M.P., and a full Bench
of Magistrates, assembled in Petty Sessions, at the Angel
Inn ,Ilford, Essex.

Mr. Griffin, the Vestry Clerk of the parish of Barking,
applied to the Bench for its order to remove a young man,
named James Wheeler, who had become chargeable to that
parish, to the parish of Layton, to which he legally be-
longed. Mr. Griffin then proceeded to state that aout six
years ago,Wheeler was bound by the parish officers of Lay-
ton to William Gardener, then a fisherman at Barking, with
whom he lived until about eighteen months since, when his
master becoming embarrassed was obliged to sell off his
smacks, and was at present in the employment of another
owner as captain. Wheeler was in consequence thrown on
the parish of Barking, and the officers now sought to get
rid of his burthen under the 67th clause of the recently-
passed Poor Law Amendment Act, by sending him back to
the parish to which he legally belonged.
Mr. Stury, the Magistrates' Clerk, gave it as his opinion
that the clause in question only referred to such apprentices
as had not gained a settlement previous to the passing of the
Act. The pauper had clearly gained a legal settlement
under the old hiw by sleeping forty nights in the parish of
Barking after he had been bound, and therefore the present
Act did not apply to him as it could not supersede his pre-
viously acquired settlement.
The Chairman, in a most pointed manner, directed the
attention of the Bench to the case, which, he remarked,
was one of very great importance to parishes generally, but

more• particularly to that of Barking and other parishes
where fishermen resided. When he (the Chairman) had
first read the clause referred to, he did not consider that
there was the slightest difficulty about the case, and that
the magistrates would, as a matter of course, sign the order
as requested. After hearing the opinion of Mr. Stury,
which he believed to be the proper legal construction to
be put on the clause, he confessed he felt of a different
opinion.

The Chairman and Magistrates retired to a private
room, and, after remaining in consultation for some time,
returned into Court, when the Chairman observed that the
Magistrates, considering all the circumstances, declined to
sign the order. They, however, at the some time, recom-
mended the parish officers to draw up a case, and lay it before
some high legal authority for his opinion on the point, as it
is of great importance to the parish.
The officers said they would take the opinion of the
Attorney-General, as there were at present nearly six
hundred apprentices in the same situation as the pauper
who might hereafter become chargeable to the parish.