The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-17 00:00:00

THAMES.

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST TWO POLICE-CONSTABLES.
—Mary Ann Brown, a married woman, aged 27, who
stated that she was the wife of a costermonger, and residing
at 109, Royal Mint-street (alias Rosemary-lane), applied to
Mr. Yardley for summonses against two police-constables
named John Brown, 180 H, and Alfred Clements, 210 H,
for committing a violent assault upon her, dragging her
from her house and falsely imprisoning her on the morning
of the Bth inst.

A police-sheet containing the charge of assault pre-
ferred by Brown on the 9th instant was put before
the magistrate. The woman was charged with assault-
ing Brown while in the execution of his duty, at half-
past four o'clock on the morning of the Bth instant. Mr.
Selfe, after a long investigation, came to the conclusion
that Brown had acted most improperly, that ho had
assaulted the woman, and that he ought to be reported to
the Commissioners. The magistrate at the same time said
that he had long distrusted Brown, and was not pleased
with his conduct on other occasions, lie hoped the Com-
missioners would do their duty.
Mr. Yardley said his colleague had written upon the
police sheet before him—" I think Brown, 188 H, unworthy
of belief, and that his conduct has been most improper."
Inspector Dendy, of the H division, said that the Com •
missioners had investigated the case.
The complainant said that the two police constables came
to her house, charged her with robbing a man, and struck
her.

In answer to a question; the witness said both constables
struck her.

Mr. Yardley said he would grant separate summonses
against tho two policemen. He recollected investigating
another and very serious complaint against Brown. He
dismissed it, but h 9 was by no means satisfied with his con-
duct. He only dismissed tho case for want of evidence, or
rather owing to the inconclusive nature of the evidence.
The case against the two constables would, he was happy to
say, be heard by a magistrate who had no prejudices—who
had not prejudged the matter.
Mr. Livingstone, the chief usher—lt is the earnest wish
of your colleague, Mr. Selfo, that you should hear the case.
Mr. Yardley—Very well, I don't mind. Bring all the
light you can to the case on both sides, Mr. Dendy.
Inspector Dendy--I will, sir.

Mr. J. Orrell Lever, M.P. for Galway, accompa-
nied by Mr. O'Beirne and other gentlemen, paid a length-
ened visit to the Groat Eastern last Saturday, and minutely
inspected the vessel throughout.
There are several duplicate titles in the British
Peerage, e.g., there is a Duke of Devonshire and an Earl
of Devon, there is a Lord Hastings and a Marquis of
Hastings, there is a Lord Gifford at 'd an Earl of Gifford,
there is a Lord Downe and a Lord Downes, there is an
Earl of Winton and a Marquis of Winchester, there is a
Lord Bruce and an Earl Bruce, a Lord Strafford and a
Marquis of Stafford, an Earl of Strafford, and a
Lord Stafford (Viscount Enfield), an Earl Fortescue
and a Lord Fortescue (Viscount Ebrington), two
Lords Stewart, two Lords Stuart, a Lord Sudeley and a
Lord Sudley, a Duke of Hamilton and a Lord Hamilton;
an Earl of Morton and a Lord Moreten, a Lord Ponsonby
and a Lord Ponsonby of Imokilly, a Lord Forbes of Scot-
land and a Viscount Forbes of Ireland, an Earl Grey and a
Lord Gray; a Lord Monteaglo and a Lord Mounteagle, and
until very recently there was a Lord Holland as well as a
Lord Lovell and Holland, and an Earl Talbot as well as a
Lord Talbot de Malahide. There is still a Lord Stanley of
Bickerstaffe and a Lord Stanley of Alderley ; and if Mr.
Strops, of Danby, should succeed this year in establishing
his claim to that ancient title, there will be two rival Earls
of Wiltshire.