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

BOW-STREET.

CHARGE OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.—This morn-
ing John Pinkerton, a common lodging-house keeper,
was placed at the bar on remand, charged with having
in his possession a large quantity of wearing apparel,
watches, and jewellery, supposed to have been stolen.
It will be recollected that the prisoner is the pro-
prietor of some 30 or 40 common lodging houses in the
neighbourhood of Drury-lane, and that the stolen pro-
perty which he was charged with having in his posses-
sion he stated had been left at different times by parties

temporarily occupying apartments in his houses. -
This morning Inspector Mitchell stated he had re-
ceived two letters relating to two of the rings, and
another letter referring to some other property. The
parties were not in attendance, but he had several other
cases complete against the prisoner.
Mr. Henry thought, from the communications that had
been received, be had better remand the prisoner for
another week, his case would not be prejudiced by such
a proceeding.
Mr. Lewis, who appeared for the prisoner, said he had
no objection to such a proceeding providing bail was ac-
cepted for his client's appearance.
Mr. Henry refused to accept bail.
Mr. Lewis then proceeded to address the magistrate
in support of his application for bail, and said he would
prefer a commital, as he could then make an application
to a judge at chambers for the liberation of his client on
bail.

Mr. Henry said he could not accede to the request
for bail. He would therefore remand the prisoner until
Wednesday next, upon which day he would commit him
for trial, and Mr. Lewis could then make his application
to one of the judges.
CHARGE AGAINST A POLICEMAN. Police-constable

Thomas Pratt, 311 A, appeared before Mr. Henry to
answer a charge that had been made against him of ne-
glecting his duty. The inquiry had been ordered by the
Commissioners of Police.

From the statement of the complainant, Mr. Robert
Holland, a tradesman carrying on business in Museum•
street, it appeared that at about five minutes past nine
on the evening of the 29th ult., he desired his servant
to put up the shutters of the shop, and in about two
minutes afterwards a person entered the shop and told
him a drunken man was obstructing his servant in his
duty. Oa going to ascertain the cause of the disturb-
ance he saw a man sitting near the shop, and on his
requesting him to leave the spot, he commenced abusing
him, using language of a most disgusting nature.
Finding he could not persuade the man to go away, he
despatched his servant for a police-constable, who, after
an absence of about ten minutes, returned without one.
The man then again commenced using the most insult-
ing language, and eventually a policeman, 311 E, made
his appearance.
It was here remarked by the Inspector that there was
no such number in the force.

The policeman, 311 A, admitted he was the man.
Complainant continued—lmmediately on the arrival
of the constable he told him to take the man into custody
for insulting him. The constable refused to do so, say-
ing he could not take a man into custody upon such a
charge.
Mr. Henry—Was the constable present when the man
used the abusive language.
Complainant said he Ni as not.

The constable, in answer to the charge, stated that on
the evening in question he arrived at the hour men-
tioned at the shop of the complainant, and immediately
he did so Mr. Holland told him to take a person into
custody who had been insulting him, and interrupting
his business. He told Mr. Holland he had no power to
do so, as he had not heard the man make use of any bad
language, but he would caution him, and if he still per-
sisted in annoying the complainant, he would take him
into custody. He had been ten years in the force, and
this was the first time thera had been any complaint
against him.

Mr. Henry told the complainant the constable had no
power to arrest a person for using bad language which
he did not hear. The course he ought to pursue was to
take out a summons against the party.
The complainant said he thought it was very hard
that tradesmen should be subjected to be insulted and
annoyed by idle people, and then after all to have to
take the law into their own hands.

Mr. Henry said the law did not give power to police.
men to arrest parties without warrant for using abusive
language which they did not hear, and he thought it
was wise it did not do so. If it did, it would be very
easy for a person to accuse another of insulting him and
giving him into the custody of a policeman. If the man
had used bad language in the presence of the constable
the case would have been different. It had been stated
that after the policeman had cautioned the man he went
away, and, under the circumstances, this was all the
policeman had power to do.
Mr. Holland said he had no vindictive feeling against
the policeman, but he thought he bad neglected his
duty, and that was the reason he had moved in the
affair.

The case was dismissed.