The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-24 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Nov. 23.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Mr. George Stevenson, a
fishmonger, in Billingsgate-market, attended. to 1.
answer a summons charging him with an infringe-
ment of a provision of the Tweed Fisheries Amend-
ment Act of 1859. The summons was issued on a
petition presented to the Lord 37ayor by Charles
Smurthwaite, superintendent of water bailiffs, act-
ing under the Tweed Fisheries Act of 1857, and the
Amendment Act of 1859, alleging that Mr. Steven-
son had contravened the 10th section of the latter.
statute by having in his possession, on or about the
19th of November inst., 28 salmon, known by him
to have been illegally taken or caught in the river
Tweed, or one of its tributaries, during " the annual
close time," by which he has incurred a penalty not
exceeding £56.
The 10th section of the Act in question provides
that every person who, during tbe eunual close
time, has in his possession salnisra known by him to
have been taken in such time (except salmon
caught by the rod and line, between the 15th of
Sept. and. the 30th of Nov., or between the Ist and
14th days of Feb., or which have been taken for the
purpose of artificial propagation:, under the autho-
rity of the commissioners), or who sells or exposes
for sale or exchange any salmon. known by him to
have been caught in the river 'between the 15th
Sept. in any year end the 14tb. Feb. in the year
following, shall be liable to a :penalty of not less
than 10s. and not exceeding .for each salmon.
Mr. Stevenson, who was acc ompauied by Mr.
Fitzgerald, a solicitor, formally ...pleaded " Guilty ;"
but added that he was prepared to state on his
oath that he knew nothing whatever of the fish in
question being in his warehouse. He was bound, he
said, to receive every box of fisi I that was sent to
him, and he asked how he was to know what each
box contained until it was opened.? He was rather
late in going to the market on the morning on which
the salmon were said to have bc:en received at his
warehouse, and they were takeza in there without
his knowledge. There was no man who had done
more to stop the illegal sale of fi. 3h than he had, and
he thought it was disgraceful tb.at this proceeding
should have been instituted ag a inst him. In his
opinion the only 'effectual means of putting a stop to
poaching would be to prohibit the exportation of
fish, for it was generally believed that the salmon
taken out of season in this count ry was mostly sent
to Paris.

Mr. Sanderson, solicitor, whi) appeared for the
Tweed Fishery Commissioners, ;said he had reason
to believe that this was the first; occasion on which
Mr. Stevenson had infringed the law.
Mr. Fitzgerald, the defendant'fs attorney, acknow-
leased the conciliatory spirit in •which Mr. Sander-
son had acted in the transaction, and stated, as a
proof that the defendant was di s posed to deal with
equal candour and fairness, that 1 le had handed over
to that gentleman a letter which had been addressed
to him by the person sending tine salmon.

Mr.. Sanderson admitted that. was so, but he was
also bound to state that that lett e r, which came from
Galashiels, contained a remark Indicating, as it ap-
peared to him (Mr. Sanderson), • a consciousness on
the part of the writer that he m as doing. an illegal
act, and it was not handed eve r by the defendant
until this proceeding had been 'commenced.
The defendant repeated that he knew nothing of
the salmon coming to him until after it had been
received, and he submitted it wio uld be hard to make
him answerable for the act of an other which he could
not control. Besides, his only motive in pleading
guilty was to prevent publicity,. and if he could not
prevent his name in connexion A rith this transaction
appearing in the public prints, he should wish to
withdraw that plea.
air. Alderman Hale said;that. was a public court,
and the defendant could not surely expect that he
could lend himself to any attempt to control the
publication of its proceedings, which, as in the
case of every other judicial trib ttnal, had been long

recognised.-
Mr. Sanderson said he represented a public body,
who had felt it their duty to institute this pro-
ceeding, and he objected to the e defendant intro•
ducing irrelevant topics into the consideration of
the question at issue.
The defendant said he had d one everything in
his power to suppress poaching, and it was dis-
graceful that he should have been summoned to
answer a charge of this kind.
Mr. Alderman Hale said he could see nothing
disgraceful in the course which the complainants
had pursued. Ho could not all',ow the defendant to
make that statement in his hewing. Mr. Sander-
son, the solicitor for the com.:plamants, had con-
sented, at the defendant's own request, to the case
being heard on certain terms., and now the de-
fendant objected to those terms. He could see
nothing in that gentleman's conduct in the least
deserving of the epithet " disgraceful." He (Mr.
Sanderson) was an officer em.ployed by a public
company; he had simply a duty to discharge in
this matter, and he had discharged it with pro-
priety and moderation.
The defendant again appealed to the bench to
prevent the publication of his name.
Mr. Alderman Hale emphatically declined to
accede to the request, adding that the representa-
tives of the press, like other people, acted under a
sense of responsibility, and that his experience as
a magistrate went to convince him that they exer-
cised a vocation tending greatly to the public ad-
vantage.
Eventually the further hearing of the summons
was adjourned.

GUILDHALL.—Lewis Robert Poole, of the
bankrupt firm of Poole and Bryan, boot and shoe
manufacturers, of Northampton, and of New Oxford.
street, London ; Mr. Roger Dawson, a solicitor, St.
Giles's-street, Northampton; Mr, James Cooke,
tanner, Walsall, employing some hundreds of work-
men ; Geo. Billingham, a broker. and general dealer,
of the Horse-market, Northampton ; and Fred. W.
Ventris, clerk to Messrs. Quilter, Ball, and Co., ac-
countants, were brought up for further examination,
relative to the charge of conspiring together, and
with one Thomas Chapman, an innkeeper, of Kings-
thorpe, not yet in custody, for the purpose of re-
moving, concealing, and embezzling property to the
value of £1,200 and upwards, with intent to cheat
and defraud the creditors of the bankrupts Poole
and Bryan.
Cooke, Billingham, Ventris, and Chapman were
also charged with having on the 27th October, 12th
November, 15th November, and. other days, com-
mitted wilful and corrupt perjury in their exami-
nation in the Court of Bankruptcy.
Mr. Holl, barrister, watched the case for the pro-
secution, which was, however, conducted by Mr.
Van Sandau ; Mr. Best, instructed by a gentleman
from Mr. Waldron's office, appeared for Poole and
Billingham; Mr. Ebsworth, of Walsall, attended
for Mr. Cooke; Mr. Merewether, instructed by his
client, appeared for Mr. Dawson; Mr. H. Wood
defended Ventris ; and
Mr. Lucas, barrister, appeared and stated that he
was instructed to attend for Mr. Chapman, who
intended to surrender.
Mr. Van Sandau said he should not have occa-
sion to go into a very lengthy statement with re-
gard to the facts of the case, for they were
already in evidence, and he submitted that, irre-
spective of the evidence he should then offer, he
should make out such a case as would entitle him •