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

r.-Pope, the secre-
taryWitness—His name is Bryon.
Mr.
company i?d you see
of. St thaemcme ro m
Witness—l did. M
Did he not take your eviden ce?—He did not.
At one time I saw Mr. Vining, f ne solicitor.
What took place while you. v .
ere there ?—I told
them all the proceedings.
Were you not told by the SQ eretary that if you
became evidence you would ILO t be prosecuted ?—I
was. _

not being a defendant
w ye evidence in this case
againsta c as Company ?—Yes.
William Bloomfield, 248 A, sworn—On the 13th
of Sept. I was on duty at
'thent h atth
the e pyoruic Generaleshould
of
OmniYu gr i
the top of Sloane-street,
in in the morning until
[Mk I was on that duty
sevenK n
my attention was direct(' alto the omnibuses running
ghitnsbtrhie dgee v, frionennc.
there. There were Saloc In omnibuses running there
several times in the daY, . They were accompanied
by others of the Lon.don General Omnibus Com-
pany. The Saloon omnibuses were accompanied by
one or two in front or behind; always one behind.
I knew Edswick by the name of " Nobby," he
drove one of the Saloon o;amibuses. He used to be
up and down three times a day. His omnibus
was followed the others were. He always had
two omnibuses with hird. I have seen the Saloon
omnibus hailed by pas'seng(ms. At five o'clock on
Wednesday evening, Sept. 5, a Saloon omnibus
came up with one London General behind and one
in front. The Saloon omnibus was hailed bya lady
and gentleman standing near the tailor's shop. The
Saloon drew up to take the lady and gentleman.
Another objection was -zaised as to the admissi-
bility of such evidence, e.nd Mr. Sleigh urged that
the course taken b y the prosecution was not a fair
one, and he held that if all the drivers individually
chose to pull up to the Saloon omnibuses, the mere
fact of their doing so, for which they might be
liable to personal penalties, could not be evidence
against the company, nor if it were shown that 20
persons individually did any particular acts, would
it prove that they themselves were in a conspiracy.
There was no evidence to prove that the directors
of the company were on the road to see them do it
or that they had directed them to do it. If each of
the coachmen of a private gentleman committed a
distinct act in violation of the law, surely it would
not be assumed that their master was conspiring
with them or even that they were conspiring toge-
ther, for in that as in the present case it would be
nothing mere than a more motion separately and
unconnectedly with the other. He repeated that the
mode adopted was not a fair way to put this matter
before the public, for it was not just to assume as a
consequence upon the acts stated, that the pro-
prietors had anything to do with them. The mode
should have been to prove—if it were capable of
proof—the giving direction by the princiPals to 'do
certain acts, and then evidence of these acts, to
show, first, what the acts of these proprietors were,
and then back them up by testimony bearing en the
matter ; instead of which those who conducted this
prosecution were going the very reverse way to
work, and a number of individual acts, -without
showing directions or knowledge of the directors,
were brought up to prejudice the party before the

Mr. Paynter ruled that they might prove the overt
acts first, which of themselves went for nothing, and
then prove that they were done by the direction or
knowledge of the heads ; it was the everyday
'practice.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson had been surprised at the
loose manner in which this prosecution was being
conducted to what it would be in a superior court.
They had no specific proof that any of the heads of
the company knew anything about the practices
now complained of.
Mr. Paynter reminded the learned gentleman
that there
was a great deal of difference between a
police-court and the courts alluded to. A police-
court was a court of preliminary inquiry, where a
case had to be shaped, while a superior court had it
there already shaped. He (the worthy magistrate)
could not pretend to say what the evidence would
come to in support of the charge.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson cited " Roscoe" to show that
after a party were shown to be confederating, evi-
dence might be given against any of them, showing
their distinct acts, but here there was no party as
described.

Mr. Paynter repeated that in itself the evidence
of the individual acts went for nothing, but he
could not tell how they could be ultimately sup-
ported.
Witness resumed—Tho Saloon omnibus driver
drew up to take the lady and gentleman up, when
the London General driver drove his horses to two
feet behind the door. The conductor got down
from his omnibus and took hold of the lady and
gentleman, when I told him to keep on the hind
part of his omnibus unless he was called for,
and that if he repeated the offence I should report
him. He intimidated the lady and gentleman so that
they refused to go into the Saloon omnibus, and
calling a cab went away, On tte same day at 12.37,
one of the London General omnibuses was loitering
in the high road, Knightsbridge, when I took my
watch out of my pocket and looked at the time, and
going across to the driver took the number of his
badge. I asked him what he was doing there, and
he replied " Waiting for the Saloon omnibus." I
was at Sloane-street from the 13th to the 16th, four
days. Whenever a Saloon omnibus came up others
of the London General came up with it. On one
occasion a Saloon omnibus came up the road from
Hammersmith, with one of the London General
omnibuses before and another behind it ; the one
behind then came behind the cab rank into the
Brompton-road, and shut communications right off
the Saloon omnibus, from the top of Sloane•strect.
Cave was the timekeeper then at the top of Sloane-
street. I have seen him, when the Saloon omni-
buses have come up the Brompton-road,, come out
of the office, and ifhe saw any of the London Ge-
neral omnits6es in Sloane-street, beckon the drivers
to come on ; then, if the Saloon went on, he made
a signal for the others to do the same. Cave is
always at the top of Sloane-street. Chapman is
director of the London General omnibuses, and
M'Cloud. At the time I reported the driver of the
London General omnibus for loitering Chapman was
on the roof of it, close by the side of the coachman ;
that was on the 15th. They were in such a position •
that they must have heard what was said. Chap-
man said " Why don't you go and take the num-
ber of the Saloon omnibus," when I replied that I
could not see they were doing anything wrong—
the Saloon wos at that time N yards further up the
road. The London General driver started on di-
rectly
beggedhiim to correct a mistake which
Mr.
Oli spoke.r
dge t o
had gone forth on the former occasion. The names
of Edward Leuken and Willing had been used in
connection, instead of " Willing" it should be
" Whetton."

An adjournment was now generally requested by
the counsel, and it was ultimately arranged that the
investigation should be resumed next Thursday.
Before the counsel left Mr. Paynter observed
that great expease and inconvenience must be en-
tailed upon many by. this prosecution. It would
occupy much time at that court, and much, per-
haps, at another, besides increasing the bad feeling
which unhappily at that moment existed between
the rival parties. After the answer to the proposal
made by Mr. Francis to adjust the differences of the
companies, it might be feared that any suggestion
of his would be of no avail ; but he still would ask
the parties to consider whether something like an
amicable arrangement could not be come to between
them. It could not, in his opinion, be a proper
proceeding, nor a fair, English, or manly one, for an
associated body of persons, by great capital, to in-
terfere with and crush others not so conditional.
He did not mean to say that it was done inten-
tionally ; he did not mean to prejudice the case ;
but the proceedings spoken of had that tendency.
There were before him gentlemen belonging to the
London General Omnibus Company, who, from his
own knowledge of them, he was sure were incapable
of doing such an act as he had alluded to. It must
not be supposed that, in investigating this inquiry,
with a desire to ascertain all its bearings, he had auy
feeling against the London General Company. If
his feelings were to be at all swayed by anything
he himself had experienced, they would be opposed
to the Saloon, for he never was treated worse in his
life than he had been by a person belonging to that
company, while on the other hand, he had no such
complaint to make of the proceedings of any one of
the London General. So long as a company, by
carrying out improvements, by putting before the
public better accommodation, better horses, better
carriages, better servants, and perhaps more con-
venient times of running, no one would blame them
if they drove every one off the road ; but if they
attempted to crush others by force of capital, when
they carried it the length described, it became very
reprehensible. He could not believe that gentle-
men before him of the London General Company
would concur in carrying it to such a length, and
yet he hoped that by some arrangement—that
by the fair means of capital—the respective parties
would be enabled to carry on their undertakings.
Some of the directors of the London General
Company said they had submitted plans of opera-
tion both to Sir Richard Mayne and the Lord
Mayor. They (the company) were prepared to
work fairly.
Mr. Paynter thought that some of the men might
have resorted to means which the company did not
approve of.

Mr. Robinson intimated that the Saloon Com-
pany did not want terms. They were trading at
present on the morbid sympathy of the public.

One of the directors of the London General
Company declared that the establishment .of the
Saloon Company was merely to extort money from