The Sun.
London, England, 1869-01-05 00:00:00

EXCITING SCENE ON THE ICE.

4CTIOIV FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF ROBBERY.

----

A singular charge of robbery from the person Is unaer
investigation by the magistrate at Worship-street Felice-
court. Henry Thomas Holloway, 25, estate agent,
Rectory-road, Stoke Newington, stands charged with
stealing a gold watch and chain and other articles, the
property of Joseph Lillie, of Malvern Villas, Cassland-
road, South Hackney; and Martin Durnsford, 20,
clerk, of Gloucester-road, Regent's Park, is charged
with being concerned in the same robbery.—
Mr. Wontner, jun., appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
Peckham for Holloway ; and Mr. Serjeant Robinson for
Durnsford. The prosecutor was one evening drinking
heavily, and treating the prisoner and others in a public-
house. He left in a cab, accompanied by his three or four
friends, and on his way home missed his watch and other
articles. Some days afterwards he accused Holloway of
the crime. Durnsford was apprehended outside the court
on a charge of stealing a bank-note for £lOO from a Mrs.
Howard, and he was further charged on his own con-
fession with having stolen Lillie's watch and chain. Evi-
dence was given by Mary Ann Cott, who cohabited with
the prosecutor, relative to the events which took place on
the night of the robbery, when Lillie and the young
men reached her residence. From her statement it
was shewn that Holloway, whatever share he may have
taken in the proceedings of the evening, did not avoid
the prosecutor's house or company for several days after-
wards ; in fact, not till after he was accused of being
the thief. Mrs. Annie Howard, of Caroline-street, Bed-
ford-square, deposed that she knew the prisoner Durnsford,
and had known him about three months. On Friday last
he went to her house. She remarked that he looked very
' ill, and he said that he was very ill and bothered, and
Asked her if she had seen a case of larceny in the papers.
Witness replied that she had not, and he said it was in regard
to a watch being lost. He told her that he had been at a
tavern, and there he had met schoolfellows, and the gen-
tleman who lost the watch was the father of one of the
party- He also told witness that they all had a great deal
of champagne, and the man who lost his watch asked them
to go to a house with him in Hackney. On the way in
the cab or in the tavern, witness could not say which, he
said he took the gentleman's watch. Holloway, who was the
expected party and under remand, was innocent, he said.
Before that witness asked him if he knew who was the
guilty party, and he said yes, he was. Witness promised
to keep his secret, and tried to hide him in her house
for two days. Durnsford told her he had pawned the
watch opposite the railway station in Shoreditch for
£6. The chain he detached and took to anos her
pawnbroker, where he found that it was aluminium, while
he thought it was gold. On finding out that it was not
gold, he took it to a railway station and hid it in a
water-closet.—Cross-examined by Serjeant Robinson :
Witness said she was a widow. Her husband was a Mr.
Howard, who died about a year ago. ISerieant Robinson
was proceeding, when witness said she thought it was
very irrelevant to the question, and Mr. Newton said
something to the learned counsel, who thereupon aban-
doned the course be was entering upon.] Under
further cross-examination, she replied that she knew the
prisoner Durnsford very well, and bad introduced him to
her family—in fact, she looked upon him in the light of her
awn son, but she declared that there had never been
any improper connection between them. She did try
to hide him, and never gave any information about
his confession until discovering her loss of a £lOO
note, four of which, together with a £2O note, she had in a
bag in her house while prisoner was there. When she
missed the note she went to Scotland-yard to give informa-
' Zan of her loss, and was then, obliged to say who had
been in her house. The prisoner slept at her house on the
Saturday night, and left about 8.30 the next morning.
Witness begged to say that she did not charge Durnsford
with stealing the £lOO note, and also that since she had
been in the court she had received information that two
;entlernen had called at her lodging and returned the £lOO
3ote to her servant.—Police-sergeant Thomas Manisty,
12 N, deposed to taking Durnsford into custody outside
;he court, telling him that he should charge him with
dealing a £lOO note from the house of Mrs. Howard,
Ind also on the charge of being concerned in stealing -a
watch and chain from the .person of Mr. Joseph
Lillie. Witness read the information laid at Sctland-
rard respecting the £lOO note to prisoner, who said the
irst portion, about his being there, was correct, but he did
lot take the note.— At this stage of the proceedings the

3risoners were remanded on bail.—After the case had con-
:luded, Police-sergeant Parker discovered the missing
match at a pawnbroker's in the Kingsland-road.

FINE WRITING. —A Rochester paper, describing
recent fire in that city, employs this fine figure of
•hetoric :—" About this time the rear wall of the back
I • •
nuldnig fell with a crash, and the Fire-fiend danced
vith malignant joy in and about the roar portions of the
tores and offices nearest the burning building." —New
York Sun, Dcc. 23.

Alexander Robbie and an assistant gardener in the ser-
vice of Sir George Ramsay, of Banff, were sent on Friday
to the loch on the top of the bill of Alyth to sweep the
ice, preparatory to a skating match. While the men were
4t work on the ice it gave way, and both went down in
Jeep water. In a moment they arose to the surface, and
clung to the surrounding ice, which gave way at every part. A
oy who saw the accident ran to the volunteer rifle range,
where the riflemen were engaged in their annual prize
competition, and gave the alarm. The whole of the volun-
teers ran to the loch, where the men were still holding on
oy pieces of ice, and keeping afloat. It was impossible to
enter the water with any hope of rendering service without
t rope, but no such thing was to be had. At once it
was suggested to bind all the cravats of the company
together, which was clone. The line thus extemporised
was fastened round the body of George Lindsay, Sir
George's gamekeeper, who went forward with the volun-
teer flagstaff, which he held out to the gardener, he being
nearest. The gardener got hold, and the men on shore
pulled both to the beach. Lindsay immediately went
in to rescue the other man, but it was then discovered
that the line was too short to allow him to get near
enough to Robbie. By that time Robbie was rapidly
riving way, when one of the riflemen took the leather sling
from his gun, bound it to the rope, and so lengthened it

sufficiently to admit of Lindsay going near enough to the
drowning man with the flagstaff. Robbie, with a last
effort (he had been twenty minutes in water then), seized
hold of the pole, and was got out, apparently in a dying
state. He was taken to a farmhouse, medical aid was
trocured, and we learn that he is likely to reeover.

A. very singular case has come before Mr. Justice Lush,
at the Liverpool Assizes. The plaintiff was Mr. William
Young Torckler, and the defendant the Rev. Mr.
Tattersall, of Claughton, near Birkenhead. The action
was brought for an alleged false imprisonment. The
plaintiff was formerly in the service of the East India
Company, and in 1829 held a commission as lieutenant in
the Bengal N.I. Mr. I. Temple and Mr. M`Connell
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. Russell and Mr.
Herschell for the defendant. According to the opening
statement of counsel, the plaintiff had seen a great deal
of service, had been engaged in the action at Bhurtpore,
and had obtained several medals. In 1829 he had a quarrel
with one of his brother officers, during which pistols were
drawn, and the plaintiff fired, though without doing any
injury to his antagonist. For this offence he was tried
by a court-m %dial, and was sentenced to death. It
transpired, however, that the proceedings of the court
were irregular, and the then Commander-in Chief (Lord
Dalhousie) refused to carry out the sentence, though
plaintiff was dismissed the service. From that time to
1864 this eentence of death was hanging over the
plaintiff's head, and it was only on the movement of Sir
Fitzroy Kelly (the present Chief Baron) that this sentence
was rescinded. Notwithstanding the sentence and the
subsequent dismissal, a pension of £7O was granted to the
plaintiff, which he had enjoyed to the present day. Of
late years he had supplemented his means of livelihood as
well as he was able, and, amongst other pursuits, adopted
that of teaching gentlemen's sons at Bristol and other
places. He recently came to Birkenhead, and being a
Freemason, was befriended by several members of the craft
residing in that town ; and having received a list of the
other members of the order residing in that district, he
called upon them to solicit pecuniary aid, with the object
of founding a school for military exercises. Amongst
others he called upon Mr. Tattersall, the defendant,
who promised to give him a sovereign, as the other
brethren had done, and who subsequently sent to
plaintiff's house the sum of half a sovereign. This the
plaintiff received, but sent back a note to the effect that
he was obliged to the reverend gentleman "for the instal-
ment," but that as a sovereign had been faithfully promised
he should expect the balance. On the 9th October
last the defendant met the plaintiff and began to
abuse him, calling him a "rogue and a vagabond," and
accusing him of having received 10s. under false•
pretences. He followed plaintiff into a public-honse,
sent for a policeman, and gave him into custody upon the
charge of misdemeanour. The plaintiff was taken before
the county magistrates and remanded, but was ultimately
discharged, and he now brought this action to compensate
him for the injuries which he had received, and for what
he deemed a malicious prosecution. The damages were
laid at 25,000. After the case for the plaintiff had been
opened, he consented to refer the matter to the stipendiary
magistrate at Birkenhead; but a verdict was entered for
the plaintiff for the amount claimed in the declaration,
subject to the decision of the referee