The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 27, 1858.

broker ; but we have never had it offered at a lower
price. I consider that the freedom of importation
is not in the least affected by the present system of
making government purchases of timber. Ido not
agree with Colonel lulloch on that head.
By Mr. Turner--We look sharp after our brokers,
and I believe -they do us justice,
By the Chairman—We have only departed from
the general principle of purchase by competition
with respect to those articles which it has always
been the custom in the trade to purchase through
the intervention of brokers. The following is a
letter which I addressed to Messrs. Baring on this
subject of purchasing. timber, and the answer I re-
ceived from those gentlemen :
" Gentlemen,—Will you be pleased to state for
the information of General Peel what means of
purchase your firm would adopt if you were called
upon to obtain and ship for a foreign correspondent
500 loads of teak and 1,000 deals, Archangel or
Onega P—l am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
" THOMAS HOWELL."
_

" War-office, July 2, 1858." _
(Answer.)
" We should say that a commercial house would be
guided their knowledge of the market as to the
proper time, and to the most efficient broker to
select, to effect the purpose for a foreign corres-
pondent.

" BARING BROTHERS and Co."

The Chairman—l should put many more ques-
tions to you, Mr. Howell, were it not for the five
hundred you have already been asked at Weedon.
The present is in point of fact a mere supplemen-
tary examination. But is there anything else you
wish to state ?

Mr. Howell—l find that on the 14th of March,
1854, there was a purchase of St. Petersburg deals
from Mr. Roberts under the old system. These
deals cost us £BO, £9O, and £lOO per double
standard. That was just before the war broke out.
In September, 1855, when the war was at its
height, and before Sebastopol was taken, we
bought the same description of timber through a
broker for £46. It is quite true that there was a
great rise of all Russian produce just before the
war, and that prices afterwards -fell ; but the
market price of deals in March, 1854, was £45 ss.
I consider that if the plan of purchasing through
the medium of a broker had been adopted in
1854 there would have been a saving of 30 per
cent.

At this stage of the proceedings the commis-
sioners adjourned till this day.

CENT.RAL,CRIMINAL COURT.—Oct. 26.

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)

John Laskey, 27, who was described as a private
in the Guards, was charged with assaulting Eliza
Wright, and causing her actual bodily injury.
He was also charged with assaulting the prose-
cutrix, with intent to rob her.

Mr. Cooper conducted the prosecution ; the pri-
soner was defended by Mr. Doyle.
The prosecutor in this case was a respectable
lady, living with her brother in Thanet-place,
Strand. She was on her return home, about sixin
the evening, near Essex-street, Strand, when the
prisoner who was in an intoxicated state, accosted
her, and forced his conversation upon her until she
came near her own home, and upon her turning up
Thanet-place, he followed her and asked her to let
him kiss her. She indignantly refused, upon which
he snatched her reticule and seized her round the
waist, and finding that she resisted his proceedings,
he at length either threw her or let her fall with
great violence on the ground, and the consequence
was that she received very severe injury upon the
face and head. The prisoner then attempted to
make his escape, but he was followed and taken
into custody.
Mr. Doyle, in his address to the jury, admitted
that the prisoner hadbehaved in a most disgraceful
manner, but he urged that there was no pretence
for saying that he intended either to commit a rob-
bery or to do the prosecutrix any injury, and that
, the fact was that being in a mad drunk state he
had mistaken the prosecutrix for a woman of loose
character, and it was under this impression that he
had acted in the manner described.

The jury, after some deliberation, found the pri-
soner guilty of a common assault, and he was sen-
tenced
to two months' imprisonment.
John Royston, 62, was indicted for receiving a
quantity of leather knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted ; Mr. Sleigh was counsel
_ _ _ -
for -the prisoner.
The prosecutor of this indictment was Mr. Dale, li
a saddler in Rupert-street, and the prisoner, it ap-
peared, also carried on the business of a saddler and
saddlers' ironmonger, in Broad-street, Bloomsbury.
The prosecutor, it seemed, suspected that a lad who
was m his service, named Madden, was robbing
him, and he was taken into custody, and in conse-
(pence of the statements he made a police-consta-
ble
wentto theprisoner's shop, and inquired whether
he had lately purchased leather of any person. He
at first replied in the negative. Upon being pressed,
however, he said that he had purchased some about
six weeks before, and he showed it to the constable,
but none of this leather it appeared belonged to the
prosecutor. Subsequently, however, a search was
made upon his premises, and then about .£l6 worth
of different descriptions of leather was found, which
was identified by the prosecutor as his pro-
perty. The principal witness against the priso-
ner was the boy Madden, and he stated that he
commenced robbing his • master in February last,
and that he first took • a small quantity of leather
to the prisoner and sold it for ls. 6d. a pound, and
he said that he continued to dispose of the leather
he stole from his master to the prisoner, and that
upon some occasions he sold leather to him foi which
he received as much as 13s. This witness in cross-
examination admitted that the -transaction took
place quite openly, in the prisoner's shop, and that
he made inquiries how he became possessed of the
property, and he said he- told him• that the leather
was given out to -him to work up-at his own house,
and that what he was disposing of was the remnant
of that leather.

Mr. Sleigh made a most able address to the jury
on behalf of the prisoner, and he contended that there
was no evidence to show that he was aware the
leather was stolen, and that although it was per-
haps an imprudent proceeding on his part to haVe
purchased such property from a lad like the witness
Madden, yet there could be very little doubt that
be had told him such a plausible story as to throw
him off his guard, and thus induce him to purchase
the property, but without the slightest knowledge
that it was stolen.
A number of respectable witnesses, some of whom
had known the prisoner for so long a period as 40
years, gave him an excellent character for honour-
able conduct and integrity.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and
were absent about half an hour. Upon their return
into court they found the prisoner Guilty, but re-
commended him to mercy on account of his good
character and his age..
In answer to a question put by the Court it was
stated that some stirrup irons belonging to another
saddler, that had been stolen, and from which the
name had been erased, were also found upon the
prisoner's premises.
The Recorder said he- felt it his duty to order
the prisoner to be kept in penal servitude for three
years.

told the gentleman that it was the defendant who
had pulled the lady's bonnet. The gentleman took
hold of the defendant and his companion, upon
which they both struck him; and khoeked him
down several times.

Mr. J. Cox, a gentleman of independent fortune,
living at 30, Osnaburgh-street, Regent's-park, who
was passing at the time, fully-corroborated the evi-
dence of the last witness.

In answer to the Lord Mayor, the constable who
had charge of the case said that the gentleman
who gave the defendant into custody was not in
attendance. The defendant's companion escaped.
Defendant—lt was my brother who was with me.

The Lord Mayor—lt is well for yourbrother that
he is not here. What have you to say in answer
to this charge ?
Defendant—l did not know I was doing any harm.
The Lord Mayor—Such disgraceful conduct as
this is not to be tolerated in the city. It is shame-
ful that respectable ladies cannot walk in Bishops-
gate-street at 3 o'clock in the day without being
subjected to annoyance and insult of this descrip-
tion. I shall fine you 405., or in default you will
be committed to Holloway gaol for 21 days.
Urban A. Godtz, who has been remanded upon
the charge of unlawfully . depositing a warrant for
16 bags of clover seed, with intent to defraud Mr.
Jan Renier Meuwissen, a native of Echt, in Hol-
land, was brought up and further remanded.

WESTMINSTER.—CharIes Montague, alias
Calcraft, and Henry Martin, alias Saunders, were
finally examined charged with being found at the
door of Lady Lucan's house, Rutland-gate, with
intent to commit a felony.

At about a quarter past 7 on the evening of the
10th inst. a policeman observed the two prisoners
near Rutland-gate, and suspecting them of some
improper intention watched them. Montague then
went up to the door of Lady Lucan's house, the
other prisoner placinF himself a yard or two in front
so as to screen his comrade from observation.
Something apparently disturbed the accused, as
Martin suddenly approached the other and spoke
to him, upon which both walked away. The police-
man who had been watching examined Lady
Lucan's door, and finding that the post had been
cut near the latch followed the prisoners and took
them into custody. On their being brought before the
magistrate it was proved that Montague was well-
known to the police, and that he had acquired the un-
viable cognomen of " Calcraft" from the circum-
stance, as alleged, of his having robbed a man in
the country and hanged him up in a tree.
George Walker, a Hammersmith omnibus con-
ductor, proved finding a " jemmy" at 8 o'clock on
the evening in question in the high-road, within
300 yards of Lady Lucan's house.
Wm. Franklin, a police constable of the F divi-
sion, proved that Martin had passed by the name
of Saunders, and that he had seen him with two
prostitute thieves.
Mr. Lewis, sen., solicitor, who defended the ac-
cused, submitted that if a man denominated a
" suspected person" were to be punished every time
he was found in the streets it would be unsafe for
him to go out, for it seemed to be implied he was
always everywhere for the purpose of committing a
felony. He did not deny that the prisoners were at
Knightsbridge, but contended that there was no-
thing to show that they were there with an inten-
tion to break into a house. He pointed out that the
evidence against Martin proved next to nothing,
save that he had met and conversed with Montague,
who was described as the common associate of
thieves.

Mr. Arnold said there was ample evidenceito
compel him to come to the conclusion that the ac-
cused were suspected persons, and that they were
at the door of the house with intent to commit
felony. He therefore committed them each for three
months to hard labour in the House of Correction.

WORSHIP-STREET.—Thomas Jordan, John
O'Brien, and Henry Merritt, three well-dressed
young fellows of 21, all well-known thieves, were
charged before Mr. D'Eyncourt under somewhat
peculiar circumstances.
Deeble, a detective of the H division, said—l was
on duty in plain clothes last night in Commercial-
street, Whitechapel, when I saw Merritt lift up the
in
to
the of a gentleman's coat and thrust his hand
the pocket : he withdrew his hand without stealing
anything, though I distinctly saw the gentleman's
handkerchief in his pocket; Jordan and O'Brien
were " covering" Merritt while so acting. I knew
them all to be regular thieves, and being too well
acquainted with their character to attempt taking
them alone, I followed them till I saw them enter
a public house which is notoriously the resort of
such customers, and I then got assistance and took
the three.

O'Brien (contemptuously)—Took the three ! Yes,
and you brought five officers with you to do it. Why
didn't you take us at once, we offered no resistance ?
Deeble—No, you offered no resistance because
you knew it would have been useless ; I knew, too,
that the house was likely to have more of you in it,
and when I got in I found I was right, for there
were 12 of you there.
Merritt—Why, sir, I have just come out of the
hospital, and had not the slightest idea of such a
thing.
Jordan—Nor I neither, I'm sure; we were cer-
tainly together, but that was all.
O'Brien (to the magistrate)—Now, sir, I ask you
—and I ask you because you must know—is it at
all feasible that we three should try to steal a paltry
handkerchief ? It's a perfect insult to suppose so,
and I am really ashamed to stand here charged
with such an offence. _

Mr. D'Eyncourt—You mean because it is so
paltry.
O'Brien—Just so, it is paltry. As far as lam
concerned myself I own that, for my part, I should
not care if the charge was for anything worth while,
but this is for a paltry handkerchief. Why, look
now, sir, any one can always buy a silk one for ls.
6d., and this one was only cotton ; is it likely ?
Mr. D'Eyncourt—Does any one else know the
prisoners ?
Sergeant 12 H—l do, your worship ; I know them
all to be regular thieves.
Deeble—And I know also that O'Brien has been
charged before.
O'Brien—Well, I own to that, certainly ; but I
have been at work since, and I can prove it.
Mr. D'Eyncourt—You will each of you go for
three months' hard labour in the House of Correc-
tion.
O'Brien—l am very much hurt to hear you say
that, your worship. Am Ito understand that you
send us for stealing this handkerchief ?
Mr. D'Eyncourt—No, no, not for actual stealing;
for the attempt to do so.
O'Brien—Oh, ay, that's quite right ; thank your
worship ; I'm sorry I troubled you.