The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-02 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Oct. 1.

MANSION-HOUSE.—James Evans, a well-
dressed young man, was charged with stealing £2,
the property of his employers, Messrs. Hooper and
Son, Queenhithe, wine merchants.

Moss, a detective, deposed that on Thursday even-
ing he went to the prosecutors' premises, and re-
mained in a room over the counting-house till
about half-past 7, when he heard a ring at the door-
bell, and upon the door being opened by the servant
girl witness heard some one go into the counting-
house, and directly afterwards heard the lock of a
drawer shot back, the chink of money, and then the
sound of a lock being closed again. Witness told
the girl to tell the person to go upstairs to him,
and immediately afterwards the prisoner .3 it ered
the room. Witness inquired what he had b 23: nto
the counting-house for, and he replied to get a
letter from his desk ; but when asked to produce
the letter he had not got one. Witness then told
him to take out from his pockets whatever he had
there, and the prisoner immediatetly laid upon the
table two sovereigns, which witness shortly before
had marked and placed with other marked sove-
reigns in the till. He then told the prisoner to
consider himself in custody, and upon going to the
till found that there were two sovereigns deficient.
Upon searching the prisoner witness found a bunch
of keys, one of which fitted the till.
Mr. J. K. Hooper deposed that the prisoner had
been in the employ of the firm as clerk for four or
five years, and that from suspicions which arose ar-
rangements were made with the police to watch him.
The two sovereigns produced were the property of
witness and his firm, and prisoner had no right to
go to the till whence they had been taken. The
same system had been going on since April last, the
whole amount lost from the till being about £26,
in sums of £2 and £3 at a time, so as to cause a
good deal of annoyance, from suspicion being placed
upon other persons. Witness, however, for the sake
of the prisoner's mother, did not wish to press
harshly upon him, but was afraid he had got into
bad company.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and expressed a wish
that the case should be at once disposed of.
The Lord Mayor inquired how he became pos-
sessed of the key of the till ?
• Mr. Hooper replied that some time ago the chief
clerk was away. The prisoner in his absence had
charge of the keys, and probably availed himself of
that opportunity to get one made like the one that
belonged to the till.
Moss, the officer, thought the prisoner had taken
an impression from the key of the till, and had a
duplicate made for his own purposes.
Prisoner said it was not so. The key had been
made for a desk in the counting-house, and he acci-
dentally discovered that it fitted the till.
The Lord Mayor—Well, we can dispose of the
case now, as the prisoner has pleaded guilty and the
Court is sitting in petty session ; but it seems to me
a very bad case. These robberies, I suppose, were
frequently talked about in the office ?
Mr. Hooper—Oh, frequently ; and the whole
thing was a great annoyance to all in the place.
The Lord Mayor—That makes the matter worse,
and it must not be forgotten that you, the prisoner,
had no necessity pressing upon you, and that you
wanted the money for purposes of dissipation. It
shows, too, that you must have a bad heart, as
you for so long allowed suspicion to rest upon those
whom you knew to be innocent, destroying all
confidence upon the part of your employers towards
those in their establishment. Such conduct is
entirely destructive of all trust between the
em-
ployer and the employed, and without trust nothing
can be done. Both I. and my brother magistrate
(Mr. Alderman Cubitt) think that we should not
do justice if we sentenced you to less than six
months' imprisonment.

BOW-STREET.—Wm. ffardridge and Thomas
Mayne, drivers of omnibuses belonging to the Lon-
don General Omnibus Company, were charged with
furious driving.
Mr. Beard, solicitor to the company, defended.
Anscombe, 102 F, said, that about 25 minutes
after 2 o'clock on the 25th Sept. he was on duty at
Coutts's Bank, and saw the prisoners' omnibuses
coming along the trend at a furious pace from the
direction of Charing-cross. They were endeavour-
ing to overtake a Saloon omnibus which was a little
in advance of them. He had not spoken to them
about it, as they went on too fast to give him any
opportunity.
Mr. Beard said the men had no opportunity of
bringing evidence in answer to the complaint, as
they did not know what they had to answer for
till that minute.

Mr. Henry said, it was impossible for the con-
stable to speak to them at the time, as they were
going so fast, and if he had done so afterwards ob-
jections would have been made similar to those
which had been expressed on the former occasion.
Mr. Beard hoped his worship would deal leniently-
with the case, as it had occurred before the exami-
nation at which he (the magistrate) had expressed
himself so strongly, and as there had been a marked
improvement since. He appealed to Mr. Mackenzie.
Inspector Mackenzie—We have had no reason to
find fault since Monday.
Mr. Henry would take these circumstances into
consideration ; but the offence was a very serious
one, and in no case could he mitigate the penalty
below 40s. each, or a month's imprisonment. If the
case had occurred after the warning had been given
he would have sent them to prison without a fine,
and this he would do in any future case.
The drivers of two General Omnibuses and one
Saloon were summoned for furious driving (racing),
but the evidence being unsatisfactory the case was
dismissed.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—Mr. Benjamin
Caunt was summoned before Mr. Bingham for
having his public•honse, the Coach and Horses, St.
Martin's-lane, open at irregular hours, and permit-
ting disorderly conduct therein, on the 27th ult.
Police-constable F 125, said he heard a great
noise in the defendant's house at 20 minutes past
one o'clock a.m., and in company with another
policeman knocked several times at the door. For
some time admission was refused, the noise con-
tinuing all the time. About five minutes he was
waiting, during which he heard a voice call out,
" Stand clear ; let them have fair play !" Five
minutes after the door was opened by Mrs. Caunt.
He told her it was wrong to have persons in the
house at that time ; there were 4-r-o men stripped
in front of the bar, and he tole

wrong to allow a fight there at
morning. Mrs. Caunt told him to go away'z.,
his business, and at the same time pushed the door
to and would not let him enter.

By Mr. Edward Lewis, who appeared for the
defendant—The defendant was not present; he was
sure of the time, for he looked at his watch, also at
the house clock. Mrs. Caunt did not say her hus-
band was ill, but she did say he was in bed, and
she could not clear the house, but did not say the
two men had merely been quarrelling over their
beer. One of the two men was so badly injured in
the fight as to be obliged to go to the hospital to
have his ann dressed.

Mr. Lewis submitted that, as a sporting house,
there was none in London better conducted than
that of the defendant, which he had been the land-
lord of for 16 years, during which time he had only
been twice summoned.

Mr. Bingham said, the complaint, as shown by
the evidence; was more against the defendant's wife
than himself. Ladies were apt to be impetuous and
were not always so discreet in their answers as the
other sex. The defendant was, no doubt, a man of
judgment, but he must manage to close his house
at the proper hour and rule his customers ; to do
the latter he was certainly big enough. (Alaugh.)
The summons must be dismissed on payment of the
costs.

SOUTHWARK.—Frances Caddy, a miserable-
looking woman, about 30 years of age, was charged
with jumping off Blackfriars-bride into the river
Thames, with intent to commit suicide.
William Pett, the master of a vessel called the
Princess Royal, stated that he was on board
near the Surrey side of Blackfriars•bridge about
2 o'clock that morning when he was roused up by
hearing a heavy splash in the water close by. He
jumped up and got into his boat, when he saw the
prisoner struggling near him. He immediately
pulled to the spot, and after some difficulty got her
into the boat. He then called for assistance, when
a police galley came up and took her away.
The magistrate asked from what part of the
bridge she jumped off.
'Witness replied, about the middle arch, and it
was a miracle she did not come in contact with the
piles. When he reached her she was nearly ex-
hausted.

The magistrate asked him whether she said any-
thing after he had saved her life ?
Witness replied that all she said was, " Why did
you not let me drown myself 9"
Inspector Bett, of the Thames Police, said he re-
moved the prisoner into his galley, and took her to
the workhouse, where she had remained until
brought to the court. He asked her why she had
made such a wicked attempt on her life, when she
told him that distress had driven her to it, and she
had neither, home nor friends. She also said if
she was discharged she would do it again.
The prisoner, in answer to the charge, said she
was tired of her life, as she had no one to care for,
her.

The magistrate told her he should remand her to

prison until Thursday next, during which time she
would have an opportunity of conversing with the
chaplain of the gaol.

WESTMINSTER.—Mary Kennedy, described
as only 15 years of age, was placed at. the bar,
charged with stealing several dresses and other
articles of wearing apparel, the property of her
mistress, Mrs. Augusta Olford, 70, Lupus-street,
Pimlico.

Prosecutrix said the prisoner entered her service
on Saturday week, and. on Wednesday suddenly
absconded, taking with her dresses and other
articles, to the value of £6. She was met on
Thursday and given into custody.
Mr. Paynter inquired how she could possibly
take a person of such appearance as the prisoner
into her service ?

Prosecutrix said, that she was then very credit-
ably atiired in a clean cotton dress.
Mr. Paynter asked whether she had had any
character with her ?

Prosecutrix replied that the prisoner's mother
represented that she was a very industrious, Iv ell-
conducted girl, who had never been out at service
before, and upon that representation she took her
into her service.

A friend of the prosecutrix said that it had been
ascertained that that representation was false, as
she had been at several other places where com-
plaints had been made of her misconduct.
The police said that the prisoner was well known
to them. Although so young she had been a most
troublesome prostitute, for which offence she had
been committed, as also for drunkenness.

The constable who took the prisoner into custody
said she was wearing one of her mistress's dresses,
which she tore into pieces in her presence.
Mr. Paynter regretted to see a young girl so lost,
and remanded her for a week.

LAMBETH.—THE CASE OF BREACH OF PRO-
MISE OF MARRIAGE.—In consequence of an appli-
cation and complaint made to Mr. Elliott by a
young woman, who represented that she had been
disappointed in marriage, and that her intended
husband detained property belonging to her to the
amount of £6, Daniel Keeley, a constable belong-
ing to the L division of police, No. 62, attended.
before Mr. Elliott on Thursday to meet and an-
swer the complaint, when an inspector belonging
to the division was present to watch the proceed-
ings.

When asked by the magistrate why he had de-
tained the goods, Keeley replied that his reason for
doing so was that the things were purchased by his
own money, and being his he refused to part with
them.

The young woma* declared that this was not the
fact, and being thrown on her proof she was sworn
and gave her name, Bridget Eliza Ryan. She
then stated that she had been acquainted with the
defendant about 18 months, and that about twelve
months ago he commenced paying his addresses to
her, promised her marriage, and from that time to
the present carried on a correspondence with her.
She had been a servant, and was in service at
Brett's Hotel, Holborn, as her last place, but three
months ago was induced to leave it by the wish of
Keeley and his promise to make her his wife as
soon as he could. The banns for their marriage
having been put up, and last Monday appointed
for their marriage, witness purchased some furni-
ture three weeks ago, which she put into the rooms
that had been taken for their residence after mar-
riage. On Saturday last the defendant presented
her with a wedding ring and keeper, pressed her
in his arms at the time, kissed her, and said he
loved her in his very soul. On Sunday they found
that they could not be married b 1 banns, as there
was sonic mistake in the registration of their names,
and the defendant said he should purchase a license
for their marriage, and her mother gave him a
cheque for to get a license. On the Monday he
purchased the license at Lambeth Workhouse, and
took it to her mother's house, but while there he
threw it on the table and declared he should never
marry her. He then asked for the rings he had
given her, and she returned them to him, and he
subsequently wrote out a paper to the effect that
he had no claim on the property or the furniture.

Mr. Elliott—What has become of that paper ?
Witness—His sister snatched it away as he was
about to give it to me, saying he must be a great
fool for making such an admission.
Mr. Elliott—You say the articles of the value of
£5, which this man refuses to deliver up to you,
were purchased by your money and not by his ?
Witness—Yes, your worship, and here are the
bills and receipts. He said he did not want to keep
the property.
Mr. Elliott—Then why did you not take it ?
Witness—lt was after he said that lie did not
wish to keep it that he changed his mind and would
not give the things up.
Defendant—How can you stand there and say
and swear that the things were purchased by your
money, when you must recollect that I gave you
six sovereigns in the Westminster-road ?
Witness—l say the things were purchased by
me, and here are the receipts. What proof have
you that you gave me any money ; and you know
that you kept me three months out of a situation.
Mr. Elliott—That has nothing to do with it.
The question is, have you had £6 from this man to
assist in the purchase of the furniture ?
Witness (hesitating)—l have not, sir. If I had,
where is his proof ; where are his witnesses ?
Defendant—Will you take your oath that I did
not give you the £6 ?
Witness—l—l will.

Two respectable females, the sisters of the defen-
dant, said the complainant had acknowledged having
had the money for the purchase of the furniture
from their brother..

The complainant denied this, and wished her
mother to be examined, but the latter declared she
knew nothing whatever of the matter.
Mr. Elliott expressed himself much dissatisfied
at the manner in which the complainant had given
her evidence, particularly with respect to the £6
which it was alleged had been given to her by the
defendant, and adjourned the case to yesterday,
for the attendance of the landlady of the lodging
that had been taken, and who heard the defendant
state as his reason for not giving up the property
that he had given £6 towards its purchase.
Yesterday the complainants were again in at-
tendance, when the complainant, in cross-examina-
tion by Mr. Neale, for the defendant, said she left
Brett's Hotel in June last of her own accord, and
from illness brought on by being so much over the
re. She denied having been discharged for dis-
mesty or impropriety of conduct, and might say
ne defendant was the real cause of her leaving.
She admitted going to Woolwich with a young
man, a baker at Brompton, but denied that any
impropriety took place during the day, or that the
baker had travelled either in the railway carriage
or in an omnibus with one arm round her waist,
and her hand placed in his. On leaving her place
she received two sovereigns and some silver • it
might be altogether £2 3s. 9d. The cheque which
her mother had given to the defendant to purchase
the license she got from a gentleman whose house
she kept. She did not know of her own know-
ledge that the £3, the amount of that cheque, had
been returned by the defendant on Monday night,
but heard so, and believed the money was so
returned.

Bridget Fitzgerald, the wife of Thos. Fitzgerald,
who is a constable in the V division, was next
sworn, and said that when her daughter came from
her situation
_she handed her a purse containing
seven sovereigns and some silver, and this sum she
gave to her when she was going to purchase the
furniture. She knew nothing at all about the £6,
or whether it was given to her daughter.
Mrs. Elizabeth Whiffin said she was present
when the complainant asked the defendant for the
furniture placed in a room in her (witness's) house,
and heard him (the defendant) refuse to give it up
on the ground that he had given the young woman
£6 to purchase it.
A young woman, who was one of the Woolwich
party, described the conduct of the baker and the
complainant to have been very familiar, and heard
the former say of the latter, " This is he who shall
be my partner for 20 years." She further said
that during the journey in the omnibus from Lon-
don-bridge to Brompton, the baker had one hand
round her waist, and the other with Miss Ryan's
hand clenched in it. Witness also heard Miss
Ryan request one of the sisters of the defendant,
who wa' in the omnibus at the time, not to tell her
brother anything of what she saw.
Police-constable 89 L said he accompanied the
defendant to B7ett's hotel that morning, and learned
that the con plainant had been discarged from
there for bad temper, quarrelling with her fellow-
servants, and uncleanly habits, and that at the
time of her discharge she received £2 3s. Bd.

The defendant was here desired to get into the
witness-box, and when sworn he said he had been
a sergeant in the 97th Regiment, and served in the
Crimea. It was his intention, he said, to have
married the complainant, and he would have done
so had he not been told of the story of her conduct
with the baker, but this, together with her having
a most offensive breath, determined him in break-
ing off the match. In conclusion, he swore posi-
tively that a fortnight ago he handed her six sove-
reigns
Mr. Elliott commented with great severity on
the evidence of the mother and daughter, and said
he had very little doubt, on the day before, that
the complainant had the from the defendant,
and he was now confirmed in that Apinign. tie
then discharged the complaint as groundless,