The Sun.
London, England, 1856-08-12 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-Aug. 11.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Mr. Michael George Ryan, a
fashionably-dressed young man of about 18 years of age,
was brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with bay-
ing threatened to stab Mr. John Mackie, proprietor of
Mullins'd Hotel, 11, Ironmonger-lane, Cheapside, with
a dagger.
Mr. Moos appeared on behalf of the defendant.

_ _ •
The prosecutor, having been sworn, satd—l knew
nothing of the defendant until ho came to lodge at my
hotel about a week ago. About one o'clock yesterday
(Sunday) morning I met him coming out of my water-
closet, and told him I had found it in a state which I
did not expect to find it. He made a remark to me
which I did not understand, and at the same time drew
from his coat the dagger produced (a moat formidable
weapon about a foot iu length), and held it in a inenac-
ing attitude towards me.l He then wont into his bed-
room, and I sent for a policeman. The defendant and a
friend of his occupied a double-bedded room.
Mr. Moss—ln what state were you when the defendant
drew the dagger, were you in your sober senses ?

Prosecutor—l was.
Mr. Moss—Upon your oath, were you not drunk ?
Prosecutor—Certainly not. I did not refuse to allow
another gentleman to leave my house till a policeman
was called in. I did not demand of bim 50/., or 401.,
or 301. before I would allow him to depart ; but I did
insist upon his paying me 101. before he left.
Mr. Moss—Did that gentleman owe you 10/, ?
Prosecutor—l don't think he did.
Mr. Nlos.—Did you not return him the difference be-
tween what he owed and the 10/. yesterday ?

Prosecutor—No ; Mrs. Mackie did. -
Mr. Moats—Will you swear that you are not known
to the police as being in the habit of getting drunk and
quarrelling with your customer 3 ?
Prosecuttz—l am not so known.

-
Mr. Moss—l will call a gentleman to prove it.
The Lord Mayor—You cannot call a witness to put
the complainant on his trial. Even if the complainant
was drunk, it is no reason why your client should
brandish a dagger over his head.
Mr. Moss—l trust I shall be able before the case is
concluded to satisfy your lordship that the prosecutor
W 45 not in a position to give the defendant into custody.
Police-constable W. Willoughby, No. 48, said—l
was called by Mr. Mackie to take the defendact into
custody. I found two persons in the bedroom, One Of.

Mr. Moss, on behalf of the defendant, said that the
latter had purchased de dagger for the purpose of tak-
ing it with him to Buenos Ayres, for which port he and
a gentleman who had been staying with him at, the
hotel of the prosecutor for a week prior to the disturb-
ance were about to sail. He (Ur. Moss) could not for a
moment justify the conduct of the defendant in drawing
the dagger, but he was instructed by his client to state
that the prosecutor at the time of the altercation was
drunk, and, without the least provocation, threatened to
throw the defendant down stairs. (To the prosecutor.)
—Will you withdrawthc charge ?
Prosecutor—lf I withdraw the charge, will you with-
draw the insinuation as to my being drunk I
Mr. Moss—No, certainly not; because your own wit-
ness, the officer, has proved you were drunk, in spite of
your own denial of the fact.
Mr. Edward Healey, a fashionably-dressed young gen-
tleman, of about the same age as the defendant, and who
gave his evidence in a remarkably clear manner, said—
The defendant and I came from Ireland together about
10 days ago, and put lip at the hotel of Mr. Mackie
from the time of the arrival until the occurrence of the
disturbance. A few days ago we paid for our passage to
Buenos Ayres, for which port the vessel by which we
are booked sails on Wednesday next. My friend pur-
chased the dagger for the purpose, as he told me, of de-
fending himself in the event of a mutiny happening dur-
ing the voyage. On the night of the disturbance I ob-
served that Mr. Mackie, whom I did not then know to be
the proprietor of the hotel, was drunk, and I had seen
him drunk on two previous occasions. I went to bed,
and shortly afterwards I heard some words passing be-
tween Mr. Mackie and my friend, and when the latter
came into my bedroom I asked him what was the matter.
He replied,V A drunken man wanted to throw me down
stairs." Trhat man (Mr. Mackie) came to the door and
began to abuse us. I opened the door and said to a police-
man whom I saw on the landing, " You must protect us
from the annoyance of this man ; you see he Is drunk ;
he is a madman. I shall not stop here." I immediately
packed up my things, and said I should leave the hotel,
upon which Mr. Mackie, who was dreadfully excited,
entered the room, and, holding his clinched fist in my
friend's face, said, " I'll make you pay for this." The
policeman was present all this time, and both heard and
saw everything that took place.
The Lord Mayor (to the officer)—ls all that true ?
Officer—No.

Mr. Healey—l most solemnly declare every word o

it to be true. I then offered to pay the bill, upon which
Mr. Mackie said, ," No, you shall not leave my hotel
unless you give me 50/." I then desired the porter to
let me out, which he refused to do, saying that his mas-

ter would discharge him if he acted contrary to his
orders. Upon this I went to the coffee-room and called
for a policeman, when constable No. 451 came up, and
he saw Mr. Mackie sign a receipt for the 101. which I
paid him.
The Lord Mayor--It is quite clear that either the last
witness or the policeman has not told the whole truth.
What is the defendant !
Mr. Healey—He has been a clerk in Ireland. He has
friends in Buenos Ayres, and so have I. We both wish to
join some friends there who have offered us employment.
The Lord Mayor ordered the defendant to enter into
his own recognizances to keep the peace, and said that
the dagger must be impounded.
Ths defandaut eaterad into his own recognis:lnces, and
was discharged.

The Lord Mayor requested that the press would ac-
knowledge the receipt of 1/. from Mr. J. Dillon towards
a fund for defraying the expenses of conveying home
ten of the aborigines of Walpole Island, Upper Canada.

MARLBOROUGH-SFREEL—A handsome, well-
dressed lady entered the court, and begged advice on
this matter :

Last week she was induced to go into a shop where an
auction was being held, and, believino; the sales to be
Jona fide, she was induced to make purchases of plated
dish covers and other expensive articles to the amount
of 601. She paid a deposit of 10/, and left her address
where the purchases were to be sent and the balance
paid. The nest day the articles came, with a bill mak-
ing tho purchases amount to 1001., and this was effected
by putting down 101. where the article was knocked
down to her for 71., and so on. She was Eatistied of the
additions that had been made to the prices because she
had put down the figures at the time, and her servant
was with her, who could also speak to the same fact.
She remonstrated against this imposition, and she was
told the matter could easily be rectified ; but, as she
found the mode of proceeding was to be by taking away
goods so as to reduce the amount to 601. she refused to
have any further dealings with the auction people, and
preferred to come to this court to know if there were any
means by which she could get back her 10/. deposit.
Mr. Bingham said he presumed the lady had not been
long in London, otherwise she would not have ventured
into a sham auction with any hope of being honestly
dealt by.

The lady admitted she had only ju3t come from Aus.

Mr. Bingham asked if sha was a person of means ?
The lady replied she had 2,000 guineas a•year of her
own to spend.

Mr. Bing4am would then advise her to take steps to
punish the parties who had attempted to defraud her,
and her solicitor would point out the way.

MARYLEBONE.—DanieI Haley and Joitn, Gorman,
were brought before Mr. Broughton, on remand, charged
with having been concerned with another not in custody,
in feloniously assaulting, under the infamous garotte
system, and stealing from the person of Mr. James, a
tobacconist in Stingo-lane, New•road, a silver watch,
va'ue 51.

The prisoners were both committed to take their trial
at the Central Criminal Court.

WORSHIP-STREET.— William Perry, a drover,
was charged with the following cruelty and outrage :
Sinclair, an intelligent officer of the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, stated—l have for
some time past had my attention directed to the wanton
act of barbarity committed by drovers upon the cattle in
their charge, and the more especially in consequence of
repeated complaints by respectable inhabitants of New-
ington, Kingsland, and Hoxton, which form the chief
part of the route from the railway lairs to the New
Cattle-market at Islington. I have therefore kept a per-
severing watch upon their actions, and while in Hoxton
at 7 in the evening of the 27th ult. noticed the defendant
and other men driving a herd of foreign cattle in the
direction of the new market. One bullock happened to
be slightly in advance of the others, but was walking
quietly and slowly, and doing nothing whatever to give
cause for such cruelty, when the defendant went up to it
and grasping his stick, which was a very thick ono, in
both his hands, dealt it such a terrible blow just above
one of its hocks that the poor brute seemed perfectly
paralysed and crippled, and could not move its hind legs
for some time afterwards. I took the prisoner into cus-
tody directly, and he went with me quietly for some dis•
tance, but he suddenly changed his mind, refused to go
any further, and told me that I was only an informer. I
explained to him that I was sworn in by the Police Com-
missioners the same as a constable, but he resisted vio-
lently, and shouted to his companions to rescue him.
The other men advanced, and one crying out "Cut him
up," the others flung me to the ground, and held me
while the prisoner kicked me about the body and legs
and escaped, and I saw no more of him till he was taken
last night by a constable who knew him, and to whom I
had given a description of him.
A tradesman named Spencer in Hoxton described the
defendant's brutality in similar terms, characterising it as
one of the most wanton acts he ever witnessed, and that
the defendant had struck several other bullocks before
that both cruelly and unnecessarily.
Defendant—l did not hit the animal upon the legs at
all. I am a licensed drover, and my badge is with Mr.
Shanks, the clerk of the market.

Mr. D'Eyncourt—Thero is no dolbt of the cruelty
whatever,and I am very glad that the officers have got hold
of you. I cannot conceive how you can be SJ brutal and
cowardly as to wantonly injure,a poor animal which has
only a few hours more to live. I shall send you to the
House of Correction for 21 days, without any fine, for
your cruelty to the os, and in addition to that you must
pay a penalty of 20s. for your assault upon the constable
or undergo another imprisonment of 14 days.
Defendant—Well, I can't pay it ; that's all.

THAMES.—Joseph Derrington, a carman, aged 19,
of 9, Romford.row, itomford, was brought before Mr.
Selfe, charged with furious driving and injuring a wo-
man named Mary Ann Lumchley, who is in the London
Hospital.

It appeared that on Saturday evening the prisoner,
who was in charge of a horse and cart, was having an
altercation with a woman named Lumchley, who is a
vendor of oysters at the Earl Grey tavern, a roadside
house in the Mile-end-road. The woman demanded some
money that was due to her, and the prisoner said he
would not pay her then, and attempted to drive off.
The woman seized the reins on one side and clung to
them, and the prisoner directed her to let go, and on
her refusal to do so flogged his horse, whieh proceeded
up the road, with the woman clinging partly to the
shafts and partly to the reins, to the great alarm and
horror of the bystanders, who expected that she would
be dashed to the ground and run over. The woman ob-
stinately heid on to the reins while the prisoner drove as
fast as lie was able. The consequence was that the horse
and cart were driven on the footpath at that part of the
road called Syke's•terrace, to the peril of the foot passen-
gers. Mr. John Taylor, a respectable tradesman, remon-
strate.' with the prisoner, and threatened to give him into
custody. The prisoner swore at him and u't r d most foul
language. The woman, spite of her danger, and regardless
of remonstrance, stuck to the reins with great tenacity,
and at last fell, and the wheel went over her leg. The pri-
soner then turned round and drove furiously down the
road towerds Essex. Mr. Taylor called out " Stop him,"
and an instant pursuit was made by Police-sergeant
Smith, No. 23 li, in another vehicle, and after a long
pursuit and a deal of shouting the prisoner's horse and
cart were stopped and he was secured. Sergeant Smith
said the whole scene was a most frightful one, and that
the people in the road were greatly terrified. The pri-
soner drove along the !road at a most fearful pace, and
it there had been anything in his way, or if the horse
and cart had come into collision with any other animal
or vehicle, the consequences would have been serious.
The'prisoner said that all the officer said against him
was right. . . .

Mr. Selfe.—What do you mean by acting in this
manner and endangering people's lives ?
The prisoner said the woman now in the hospital, in
detiauce of his eatresties, would hold OR to the reins,

LAMBETH.—Mr. George Lamb, who described him-
self as a Methodist minister, residing at No. 14, Suther-
land-square, Walwortb, was charged before the Hon.
G. C. Norton with obstructing the foot and carriage
way in front of the Lock's-fields station-house, by sing-
ing and preaching during the hours of divine service on
Sunday morning.
Mr. John Lund, the Superintendent of the P Division
of Police, deposed that at about half past 10 o'clock on
the preceding morning he was at the Lock's-fields police-
station, and saw the defendant and seven or eight others
place themselves at about 30 yards from his office. They
commenced singing a hymn, and in a very short time a
crowd collected that blocked up the carriage way and
foot pavement. The single men who had been on duty
on the night before, and who were asleep at the station-
house, complained of having been aroused from their
sleep by the singing, and deprived of their proper rest,
and he (sir. Lund), in consequence, sent a sergeant to
the parties to inform them that they had caused the
blockixg up of the street, contrary to law, and must de-
sist. The sergeant returned with one of the party, who
said his name was Lewis. He (Mr. Lund) told Mr.
Lewis that he could not permit the public highway to
be impeded, or his men, who had to go on duty at night,
deprived of their necessary rest, and the parties must
therefore desist. Mr. Lewis returned to his friends, and
notwithstanding what he had told him the parties still
continued upon the ground, upon which he (Mr. Lund)
approached them, and addressing the defendant, who
was preaching at the time, said that he could not per-
mit him to proceed, and unless he desisted he should
feel it his duty to order him into custody. The defend-
ant desisted for a moment, and, removing from the car-
riage to the pathway, commenced a hymn, upon which
be ordered him into custody, and the charge was taken
in the ordinary way. The defendant was immediately
bailed out by his friends, and he and his party proceeded
to a piece of waste ground close by, where he recom-
mence i preaching.
Mr. Norton—How many persons were collected in
the first instance ?
Mr. Lund—l should say there were about 200, your
worship.

The defendant, in reply to the charge, said that he went
o the place in question, in front of the station house,
_ _

from having heard that the Rev. Mr. Sherbourne, a friend
of his, had preached there a few Sundays before, and had
he been aware that he was disturbing any persons, and
more particularly the constables who' had been up all
night, he should not have stopped there. He begged to
say that no communication had been made to him by
his friend Mr. Lewis from the officer who had just given
his evidence, and when Mr. Lund had personally com-
plained to him he had merely given out the verse of a
hymn preparatory to his taking the congregation who
had assembled to a piecs of waste ground close by, the
use of which was granted to them by its owner.
Mr. Norton considered Mr. Lewis very much to blame
in not communicating to the defendant the message de-
livered to him by Mr. Lund. He (Mr. Norton) saw no
harm whatever in properly appointed ministers preaching
in the open air. On the contrary, he believed it to be pro-
ductive of good ; but they must select places where no
obstruction to the public thoroughfares would be occa-
sioned, and persons, and particularly policemen, who, of
all others, required proper rest when off duty, would not
be disturbed. If proper places were selected he did not
suppose the police would interfere.
Mr. Lamb, the defendant, observed that the number
of persons who had congregated on the spot the day be-
fore proved that no place could have been better chosen
than the one in question, and he should be most willing
to attend there at a time mentioned by the superintendent
that would be less inconvenient. He understood that the
police had directions to protect them (the ministers) ; but
if this was not the case, and that the law was to be car-
ried out to the letter, they would be liable to be taken up
every moment.
Mr. Norton repeated his belief that much good was
done by open-air preaching, as there was a large class of
persons who could not be got to church, and recom-
mended the defendant to put himself in communication
with Sir Richard Mayne on the subject, and ask his
permission to preach at the place mentioned.
Mr. Lund said he should be compelled to oppose such
permission, and observed that during the last week no
less than six watch robberies took place at the Surrey
Obelisk during the open air preaching.
The defendant having promised not to repeat his
preaching and singing at the place objected to, at least
for the present, was discharged, and hit the court in com-
pany of a large number of friends.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A CLERGYMAN.

The Rev. George Wilkins, the incumbent of Wir, in
Essex, appeared before the Bishop of Rochester, at the
Castle at Colchester, on Friday, to answer a complaint
of improper conduct in the church of Wir ou Sunday,
May 4. Archdeacon Barney and the Rev. 11. R. S.
Smith, rural dean, assisted the Bishop i❑ conducting the
inquiry. The proceedings were taken on the complaint
of Mr. Thomas Morris, of Wix-lodge, whose letter was
read :
" To the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
" Wir kdgo, by Manningtree, June 14.

"My Lord,—Asone of th© parishioner; of this parish,
whose family are in the habit of attending the parish
church, I beg to ahlress you on a very painful subject,
and I feel bound to do this because a full month has now
elapsed since the occurrence of the eircumstanc9 I am
about to detail, and I cannot ascertain that any notice
has been taken or inquiry set on foot by any of the
authorities who may be considered as specially charged
in such cases.

"On a Sunday in the month of May last the Rev.
Mr. Wilkins, the incumbent of the parish, was in -the
church fur the performance of Divine service, and, after
the second lesson, abruptly terminated his reading and
began an address to the congregation, commenting upon
what he considered had been the immoral conduct of one
of his parishioners, who was present. This provoked a
reply from the pasty (a Mr. Eagle), who rose, and in
profane language accused Mr. Wilkins of falsehood ;
when Mr. Wilkins rejoined in the most coarse and vehe-
ment manner, and an altercation ensued between them of
a character which would disgrace the lowest public-
how e. I forbear at present to enter into the particulars,
further than by adding that the service was thus ended,
and that the congregation left the church, one by one,
offended in the highest degree. My daughters, union
tunately, sat in a pew between the litigant parties, and
were compelled to witness the scene, and they retred.
from the church with feelings such as your Lordship can
readily estimate without any further description on my
part.
"Neither of the churchwardens happened ti be pre-
sent ; but this occurrence was made known to them soon
after, and I have been informed (though for thi; I can-
not vouch) that they reported the case to the rural
dean ; yet uo inquiry was made, and I therefore felt it
imperative on me to call your lordship's attention to the
matter, and to request that your lordship will, without
delay, take the necessary steps, not only to punis), but
to secure the parish against the recurrence of such an ex-
hibition, for it is iedee hard that a congiegation, asesm-
bled in the House of God for His worship, should have
their ears assailed by such language as was used by both
parties on the occasion referred to, and to be sent to their
homes only to contemplate with dismay and disgust the
sad want of all that they had a right to look for in him
who should be their spiritual teacher.

" I can, if necessary, readily verify the foregoing
statement awl the minute details of the case by many
respectable witnesses, and,
" I am, my lord, &c.,
" THOMAS MORRIS."
The Bishop then inquired of Mr. Wilkins what he bad
to say in answer to the complaint.
Mr. Wilkins—l throw myself entirely on yoar lord-
ship's indulgence. I admit—it is not my intention to
make any reply to what is there said.

The Bishop said it fell to his lot, and he was extremely
sorry for it, to be obliged to reprimand Mr. Wilkins
Very severely for- the extremely improper conduct of
which he was guilty on that occasion. He need hardly
repeat what was stated in that paper, which, in fac',
Mr. Wilkins did not contradict. In passing sentence
of reprimand and admonition, he could not forget that
he was addre,sing a venerable brother of the Church,
against whom on no former occasion had he heard any
charge, who had hitherto conducted himself with
great propriety, and for whom he always entertained
a high respect. It was with great pain that he repri-
manded him on this occasion, and Mr. Wilkins was re-
primanded accordingly. His Lordship hoped that he would
return to his parishioners and enjoy once again that re.
spect and attention which they had hitherto shown him,
and he (the Bishop) believed justly so. He was aware
that in his immediate neighbourhood there were persons
who entertained malicious feelings towards him, very en-
' justly, as he had reason to believe, but he hoped the
generality of the parishioners had a very different feel-
ing ; from the zeal he had shown for their spiritual wel-
fare, and from his general propriety of condwit unt,l
this occasion, when he unfortunately forgot himself ix a
manner which he could not but feel afforded a just
ground of complaint. The churchwardens were not pre-
sent, otherwise it would have been their duty to report
the matter to him. He might add that, generally
speaking, it was not for the Bishop to take proceedings,
but for the party complaining, as the Bishop was judge,
and ought not to be judge and prosecutor at the
same time ; but he felt it to be his duty to reprimand a
clergyman for condueting himself so improperly as Mr.
Wilkins unfortunately did on this occasion. He would
not refer to the conduct of Mr. Eagle, as his case was
not before him, but it seemed to have been very im-
proper. There was some excuse for Mr. Wilkins,
though nothing could really excuse him, because be
ought to have had his temper more under his command.
One of the churchwardens inquired if his Lordship
would advise them to take proceedings against Mr.
Eagle ?

His Lordship said they were at liberty to do so if
they liked, and there was no doubt he behaved exceed-
ingly ill upon the occasion, but be did not feel it to be
his place to enter into a matter which was not before

It is understood that proceedings are intended to be
taken against Mr. Eagle.

COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE.—The reported commence-
ment of the rebuilding of this theatre on its late site is
incorrect. The site of it has not been taken ; neither
has any contract for rebuilding it been entered into.
Whether it will be applifld to the same or some other
purpose bas not yet been determined upon.