The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-12 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(Nov. 11.)

WORSHIP-STREET. Richard Jeffries, a
short, singular-looking person, but of respectable
appearance, was charged with the following extra-
ordinary conduct.
A young woman named Mary Ann Free, the
daughter .of a tobacconist in James-street, Old-
street, stated that while seated in the parlour of her
father's shop at 10 o'clock on the preceding night,
she was startled by the abrupt entrance of the pri•
soner, who was an entire stranger to her, and who
suddenly ran into the shop, and so rapidly put out
the gas, first on the counter and then :in the win-
dow, that the lights were all extinguished before
she could run into the room. When she 'did get
into the shop both she and the prisoner were in the
dark, all but a small gleam of light, by which she
could just distinguish his hand over the counter
close to the till, though she could not swear he was
trying to get the till out. She screamed, which
brought downstairs her cousin, who pursued the
prisoner into the street and caught him, but the
moment he had done so some person, a stranger in
the crowd, called out to him, " Be careful of that
man ; he is mad, and has just tried to bite me ;" on
which the cousin let him go, and the prisoner took
rapidly to his heels. Nothing was stolen, and they
thought themselves lucky in so getting rid of him,
when the prisoner some time after ran in again in
the same strange manner, and exclaimed to her
mysteriously, but vindictively, " You have known
me only as a customer before, but you shall know
me in another character now," and would, there
could be no doubt, have done something to her, had
not her cousin fortunately heard his observation,
and again made his appearance, on which the pri-
soner again ran out, but was this time both taken
and given into custody. ‘4 I don't know him at all,"
said the witness, "and I'm afraid he will do me
some serious injury if I am not protected."
A constable of the G division stated that he was
on duty in Old-street at the time mentioned, when
a gentleman ran up to him in great alarm, and told
him there. was something very seriously wrong
going on at the tobacconist's in James-street, and
that he . had better get there as quickly as
possible. ..On nearing the house he found
the prisoner engaged in a violent struggle with the
last witness's cousin, who gave the prisoner into
custody, bid the prisoner was so outrageous, declar-
ing that he would either kill himself or somebody
else, that he had great difficulty in securing him.
Sergeant Harvey said that he was on duty at the
station when prisoner was brought in. He was ex-
tremely violent, and presently after very nearly
strangled himself with his gold guard chain, which
he had twisted so tightly round his throat that he
was thoroughly speechless. On his being searched
a card was found upon him with the name of the
New London Coal Co. upon it, and from what he
had since learnt he believed that the prisoner was
connected in some capacity with that company.
Mr. D'Eyncourt asked the prisoner what he had
to say to such extraordinary conduct ?
The prisoner, who was now perfectly sobered to
the reality, of his position, replied that he was very
sorry for his strange conduct, but he had not the
slightest recollection of anything that had taken
place. He need not say that he was intoxicated at
the time, or such a thing could not have occurred
to him.

The officer remarked that the defendant was cer-
tainly-not sober.
The prisoner rejoined that, however that might
be, such behaviour should not be repeated, and with
regard to the fears entertained of him by the young
woman, he had not, of course, the remotest idea of
injuring her, as he knew nothing of her.
Mr. D'Eyncourt told hint that, at any rate, he
seemed to net very nearly mad when he took a little
• drink, and e had better therefore not take any at
all. He could not be allowed to act and terrify per-
sons in this way, and, as some guard against a re-
petition of • such conduct; he should order him to
put in . ow it re-
in £2O, for his peaceable behaviour for
•bail to the amount of ilo and his o
the next
provided the required sureties, and
The prisoner
cognisanct
seemingly a totally different man
1-ft the court
Zee months.
!MAW 10010000 a tO'bC: • • -
'from that he hat/

THE su N

THE OMNIBUS COMPANY PROSE-
CUTION.

The proceedings in this important case of the
Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Company versus the
London General Omnibus Company were resumed
yesterday at the Westminster Police-court, before
Mr. Paynter, and occupied between three and four
hours. The court was, as before, densely crowded.
Since the last examination summonses have been
issued charging nine persons with being concerned
in the conspiracy.
Mr. Edwards begged, before proceeding to the
business of the day, to make one observation. He
had stated in the conclusion of his opening address
that one of the means resorted to on the other side
to ruin the company was garbled reports of meet-
ings, to which his friend, Mr. Sleigh, had made a
very proper reply in defence of the press ; at that
time there was a gentleman, named Ross, summoned
as a defendant, and as it might seem that those
remarks reflected upon Mr. Ross, against whom that
summons had been withdrawn, he begged now to
state that those garbled accounts were not his
reports, and as he should be very sorry that any
gentleman should labour under such imputation, he
begged to exonerate Mr. Ross. Further, he had
to remark that there being two gentlemen of the
name of Lloyd Jones in London, the wrong one had
been summoned on the last occasion, an error which
had since been corrected.

In order fairly to show the points of the cross-
examination of the witness Bryon, hereafter given,
it is necessary, before proceeding with yester-
day's evidence, to briefly refer to his former t'sti-
mony, the substance of which is as follows :—He
was a journeyman coach-builder, formerly in the
service of the defendant Ayshford, and while there
some omnibuses were made for the London Gene-
ral Omnibus Company by Hawkins's directions as
much as possible to resemble those of the Metro-
politan Saloon Omnibus Company. Bryon was a
poor man, and. Hawkins inquired what it would
take to set him up in business. On his replying
£l5O in a small way, Hawkins induced him, upon
promise of a reward of £l5O, to assist him in filing
bills in the Court of Chancery, stating at the time
that it would cost them nothing. If the bill suc-
ceeded Bryon was to have £5O before he left the
court, and £lOO afterwards. Hawkins did not wish
his own name to appear, and said it would be better
for Bryon to lend his as an independent shareholder
of the Saloon Company ; and that if the bill suc-
ceeded it would have the effect of crushing the
company. Bryon was also induced to, go with
Hawkins to solicit the signatures of the share-
holders of the company to a petition praying that
the Board of Trade would send some one to exa-
mine the accounts of the Saloon Company. Another
part of Bryon's instructions was that he was to
attend meetings of the Saloon Company and disturb
them all he could. This he did. He and others
each time previously- met at a public-house opposite,
and supper was paid for by Hawkins and Lloyd
Jones. In course of conversation with Bryon,
Hawkins frequently said the Saloon Company had
not a farthing in their coffers. He was working
day and night, and getting papers cut and dried
for them. He would sell the coat off his back but
that he would crush them.

Bryon was now called, and cross-examined by
Mr. Stammers, as follows:

Mr. Stammers—You know that you had 10 shares
in the company ?
Witness—Yes, sir._ _ _

You are aware, I believe, that your mother is a
shareholder in the company P—Yes. She has also
10 shares, and the shares have been paid up.
Have you had any dividend upon them ?--None,
sir.

Do you know if any other of the shareholders in
this company have had any dividends ?
Mr. Paynter—How can he possibly know that ?
Mr. Stammers—Were you not attending a meet-
ing of the Saloon Omnibus Company for the pur-
pose of borrowing money on debentures ?—I was.
When was that ?—At the first meeting that was
caLled.

Was it this year or last year ?—Last year, I be-
lieve- It was last year.
Were you not a dissentient on the occasion of
your being at the meeting P—l was not a dissen-
tient till I received some information about the
object of obtaining them.
Was not the Saloon Omnibus Company at that
time in a state of insolvency P—l knew nothing
about the affairs of the company except what I
was told by Mr. Hawkins.
From what you did know were you not aware
that the Saloon Omnibus:Company was insolvent ?
—I was not.

Did you become aware at any time that the
company was insolvent ?—Only through being told,
Are you aware of it now ?—I am not.
Mr. Edwards here interposed. He said that he
did not wish to put an extreme limit to a cross-
examination ; but he submitted that this cross-
examination had nothing to do with the charge of
conspiracy. He thought that his learned friend
was not justified in questioning the solvency or
insolvency of a company on a charge of conspiracy.
A company was placed in a similar position to a
private individual. His learned friend hadno right
to question the solvency of the company, and he
submitted that the course of examination pursued
ought not to be persisted in.
Mr. Poynter observed that he did not see what
bearing the cross-examination had on the case.
Mr. Stammers, having remarked that the inter-
ruption of the learned counsel was too late, as he
had done with the cross-examination upon the
question of insolvency, said to the witness—You
stated in your last examination that Hawkins told
you that he wanted to file a bill, and that he did
not wish his name to appear ?
Witness—That was so.

Do you remember going to Mr. Norton, the so-
licitor, on the subject of the proposed bill ?—Yes, I
went to the office of Mr. Norton.

Was not the opinion of Mr. Wordsworth on the
subject of the contents of the bill read over to you?
—1 cannot say.
Was not some paper read over to you ?—Yes.
Look at that (producing a paper). Is that the
paper ?—I believe it is.
Did you sign any paper at Mr. Norton's P—l did.
Did not Mr. Hawkins also sign the paper in your
pre ;ence ?—Yes. He placed his signature under

Did you not give authority to Mr. Hawkins to
file the bill^on his and your behalf ?—Hawkins did
all the business.

Did you not give authority to Mr. Hawkins to
file the bill on his and your behalf ?
Mr. Paynter—The bill will show that.
Mr. Stammers—Will you swear that the bill was
not the joint bill of you and Mr. Hawkins ?
Witness—l did not do it. Mr. Hawkins and
myself were plaintiffs in the case, and I made an
affidavit with Hawkins in support of the statements
in the bill.

A long discussion here took place in reference to
evidence being received upon affidavit from another
court, and
Mr. Edwards contended that the only evidence
which ought to be produced was what was in refe-
rence to tie evidence given on a former occasion,
in order to show whether there was any contradic-
tion to his former evidence.
The cross-examination of the witnesses was then
resumed by Mr. Stammers.
Mr. Stammers—Have you ever asserted that the
London General Omnibus Company had adopted
means to destroy the Saloon Company ?
Witness—l deny it.
By Mr. Stammers—My mother made an affidavit
in the bill, and she signed it. . She is not able to
read. The contents were read to her.

Have you not expressed yourself dissatisfied as
to the steps taken to borrow money on debentures ?
—I have been dissatisfied.

Did you not bring your mother up from the
country to make an affidavit ?--Mr. Hawkins
wished me to fetch her.
Mr. Sleigh here interfered. He observed that
on the last occasion it was suggested that the
cross-examination should be reserved till such time
as the counsel for the company might see what
evidence was brought forward, upon which they
could cross-examine the witnesses. At present he
thought they had nothing to examine.
Mr. Edwards said that the course recommended
by Mr. Sleigh was one that was never pressed
before. If any cross-examination should be pro-
ceeded with it ought to be at the time of the
examination of the witnesses.
Mr. Stammers—Do you not know that between
the months of April and September, 1857, the di-
rectors of the Saloon Omnibus Company contracted
debts to the amount of £3,557.
Mr. Edwards—What has that to do with the
charge ? I cannot see what the debts of the Metro-
politan Saloon Company have to do with a charge
of conspiracy.
Mr. Stammers repeated the question, in answer
to which the witness replied, I do not.
Mr. Stammers—How was it that you became a
witness in this case ?

Witness—A friend or two of mine told me that
I was being led astray, and advised me not to have
anything to do with Hawkins.
Did you not go to the Saloon Company and offer
to give evidence ?—I saw the secretary of the com-
pany and told him what I knew of the proceedings
of the company. •
Did you make arrangements with the object of
becoming a witness ?—I made no arrangements at
an.

Who was the friend you allude to?---I am not
obliged to tell you.
Mr. ray rater'-.You had better say.