The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 12 1867.

cord of the Case Law of the country worthy of
those high and eminent persons who have to admi-
nister it, and thereby confer a benefit, as well upon
those who have to advise, as of the suitor whose in-
terests are affected by that law.—l have the honour
to be, your obedient and faithful servant,
(Signed) " ROUNDELL PALMFR, Chairman.
" The Right Hon. the Lord Chief Baron."
" Sergeants'-inn, Chancery-lane, May 28, 1867.

"My Dear Sir,—l have the satisfaction to
inform you that at our Green Cloth' last
evening, the Lord Chief Baron's motion, that
this society shall send two representatives
to the ' Council of Law Reporting,' was, I may
write, almost unanimously agreed to. Our repre-
sentatives are, I have to inform you, Mr. Sergeant
Hayes and Mr. Sergeant Pulling. Should the coun-
cil require further explication be pleased to address
me as above.

(Signed) "E. S. BAIN, Treasurer.
"James T. Ilopwood, Esq., Secretary to the
Council of Law Reporting."

The Attempt to Bribe a Magistrate.

At the Central Criminal Court yesterday, George
Edward Gurney, a respectable-looking man, sur-
rendered to take his trial for misdeanour, in having
unlawfully and corruptly endeavoured, to induce
Robert Tubbs, Esq., the chairman of the Kensington
bench of magistrates, to violate his duty by procur-
ing him a spirit license for a bribe of £4O.
Mr. Poland and Mr. Beasley conducted the pro-
secution on behalf of the Treasury ; Mr. Ribton
was counsel for the defence.

The facts of the case will be fresh in the recollec-
tion of our readers. The defendant kept a beer-
shop called the Earl of Cardigan, in the Marl-
borough-road, Chelsea, and he had several applica-
tions to the bench of magistrates at Kensington, of
which Mr. Tubbs is chairman, for a spirit license,
but had been unsuccessful. He made a similar ap-
plication at the general licensing meeting of the pre-
sent year, and this would have come on for conside-
ration on the 19th of March, and a few days before
that day the defendant sent him a letter to the fol-
lowing effect _ _

" Honoured Sir,—Trusting you will not feel
offended, but pardon the liberty I have taken.
Having struggled for the last 11 years to keep my
family without any complaint being made by the
police. If you will take my case into your consi-
deration and be my friend at the approaching licen-
sing day, I shall be for eves! grateful." The letter
was addressed Robert Tubbs, Esq., and it was
marked " strictly private," and contained four £5
and two £lO Bank of England notes. The prose-
cutor immediately communicated with his brother
magistrates, and also with the Secretary of State,
and when the application of the defendant for a
license came on for hearing the license was unani-
mously refused. When the defendant found that
this was the case he wrote another letter to Mr.
Tubbs, in which he inquired whether he had received
a letter he had leftat his house, and which also con-
tained an envelope addressed to himself, the object
of this proceeding on the part of the defendant evi-
dently being that as the license had not been ob-
tained, the money he had sent to the prosecutor
should be returned to him.

The facts and circumstances of the case were fully
proved by the testimony of Mr. Tubbs and other
witnesses. The police constable Tuck, by whom
the prisoner was apprehended on a warrant, proved
that when he read the warrant to him, the defend-
ant admitted that his name was Gurney, and added
that in what he had done he did not know that he
was doing anything wrong.
Mr. Poland having summed up the evidence ad-
duced in support of the prosecution,
Mr. Ribton raised some technical objections, and
contended that there was no case to go to the jury,
inasmuch as many of the averments of the indict-
ment had not received that formal proof which was
required under the provisions of the statute 9th
George IV., cap. 61. One of these averments, that
the notices necessary for a licence had been duly
served and published, had not been attempted to be
supported by a tittle of evidence. There was a
second averment, that the defendant sent the letter
of March 9, with its enclosure, to Mr. Tubbs, well
knowing that that gentleman would be the chair-
man of the bench of magistrates on the occasion of
the adjourned licensing day on March 26, but of
this there was no proof, as indeed it could not be
certain to any one that Mr. Tubbs would be chair-
man on that day. On those grounds—namely, that
as those averments which were material to the issue
of corruption had not been supported by evidence--
be (Mr. Ribton) submitted that there was no case
to go to the jury.
The Common Sergeant, however, overruled the
objections, on the ground that on the whole the
question was for the jury.
Mr. Ribton then proceeded to address the jury
on the part of the defendant, inviting clear,
calm, deliberate, dispassionate, and charitable con-
sideration of the whole of the matters submitted
to their decision. He should invite them to
take the indictment into their own hand, and
to say by their verdict whether the whole
of the offences charged and set out in it had
been proved to their satisfaction or not ; for unless
they found that all that was charged had been done
with a corrupt motive on his part, the defendant
would unquestionably be entitled to a verdict of
acquittal. This course was by no means novel in its
character. Formerly, in cases of libel, the judges
were in the habit of laying down the law sometimes
in the most dictatorial manner, and the jury were
left no other duty to discharge except to say whether
or not the libel had in fact been published. This
state of things led to serious discussions between the
bench and the bar, especially in the memorable case
of the Dean of St. Asaph, which led to the introduc-
tion, by Mr. Fox, of a bill which subsequently be-
came law, which provided that it should be left to
the jury to pronounce whether the matter charged
was a libel or not, and this had been acted on ever
since. Hence it was that he should ask the jury
he now addressed to take into their hands the pre-
sent indictment, and declare for themselves whether
all therein alleged had been proved to their satis-
faction. There could not be any doubt as to the
facts of the case, for they might be taken .as undis-
puted, but the question was whether or not the de-
fendant sent the letter of March 9, with its enclo-
sure of 140, to Mr. Tubbs with the intention, not
to influence, but to corruptly influence that gentle-
man. They must be satisfied that corruption was
in the mind of the defendant at the time he sent the
letter and its contents before they could return a ver-
dict adverse to his client. Money might be offered
to a person in authority without the person offering
it intending corruptly to influence, and a person
who received a bribe might decide the question
rightly, justly, and conscientiously--that was a pro-
position which he urged on the consideration of the
jury before they arrived at their verdict in this
case. History narrated, and with truth, that in the
olden times the judges had been bribed, and it fur-
ther disclosed that the great Lord Bacon, one of
the ablest, the brightest, and yet, as described by
Lord Campbell in his " Lives of the Chancellors,"
had taken bribes, sometimes from both sides, and
yet it was now admitted that so far from his judg-
ment and decisions being corrupt, they had invari-
ably been given in the right direction. This was
now an ascertained and admitted fact, and hence he
submitted that the act of thepresent defendant could
not have induced Mr. Tubbs to lend himself to a
corrupt decision in the matter referred to. What
was the position of the defendant? He was the
proprietor of the Earl of Cardigan beershop, for
which he was anxious to obtain a spirit licence from
the magistrates for which he had applied three years
before without success, and he wrote the letter to
Mr. Tubbs soliciting him to " act as his friend,"
on the ensuing licensing day, with a view to have
his petition and claim more fully considered, greater
time given to all the points in his favour, so that the
whole question should be fully ventilated, and jus-
tice, as he thought, done to his claims by the hearing
of his petition early in the day, instead of being
thrown to the close of the day, when the magis-
trates were worn out and fatigued by the monoto-
nous proceedings of a licensing day. To solicit this
was no more to corrupt than it would be corruption
to give £lO to the managing clerk of an attorney

to expedite a cause, and bring it to a finalissue. He
(Mr. Ribton) contended that this was the sole object
of the defendant, as was manifested by the terms of
his letter, to which he claimed from the jury a
charitable interpretation, instead of their adopting
the sinister construction put upon it by the prosecu-
tion. With regard to the second letter, he con-
tended that it was merely an inquiry as to whether
the first (which had been left with the servant) had
been received by Mr. Tubbs, and he denied that
it contained any demand, even by inference, for
the return of the money. Both the letters
were fully capable of the construction he had en-
deavoured to put upon them, and in conclusion
the learned counsel invited the jury to adopt
that construction, and to restore the defendant,
who possessed a high character, to his family and
friends. It was said that every man was supposed
to know the law ; unhappily the defendant now
knew it, and he felt, as he had expressed to the con-
stable, that he had done wrong, and it was not
therefore required to inform the rest of the world
what was the law, that a verdict of guilty should
now be recorded against him.
The Common Sergeant summed up the case with
some brevity, pointing out to the jury his view of
the law.

The jury retired, and after an absence of about
20 minutes returned a verdict of Guilty, accompa-
nied with a recommendation to mercy.

The Common Sergeant inquired whether or not
the £4O had been returned to the defendant, and
being answered in the negative, said that this must
be done, as it was the defendant's property.
In reply to Mr. Lewis, sen. (in the absence of
Mr. Ribton), the Common Sergeant said he should
reserve a minor point raised by Mr. Ribton until
he should take the opinion of the Recorder upon it.
The Common Sergeant added that he fully con-
With a view to
compliance with
tchuerroebdi
eicnt the
tvmerednitcitonoef
dt,haenjduryin.
the recommendation to mercy of the jury, he should
allow the defendant to go at large on entering into
his own recognisance in the sum of £2O to come up
to receive the judgment of the court on the first day
of the July session of the court.
The recognisance was entered into, and the de-
fendant discharged, and the court then adjourned.

WHAT IS A GLASS OF ALE ?-A VEXED

QUES7ION.

Yesterday, Mr. Gurney, of the " European," op-
posite the Mansion-house, was summoned by Mr.
Johnson, one of the City inspectors of weights and
measures, before Alderman Gibbons and Sir R. W.
Carden, at the Guildhall Police-court, for using
three unjust measures.

Mr. Beard defended Mr. Gurney.
Mr. John Fletcher Johnson, inspector of weights
and measures, said that on the 31st of May he went
with some persons into the " European," opposite
the Mansion-house, and one of those with him called
for three half pints of bitter beer, and paid 6d. for
them. They were served by the barmaid in the
glasses produced. He had measured them, and
found they were each 2oz. short of the half pint, or
20 per cent. less than ought to have been given.
Sir R. W. Carden said that was if they were
filled.

Mr. Johnson replied that that was supposing them
to be full, but there was generally from half to
three-quarters of an inch of froth on the widest
part of the glass, so that by that means they were
30 per cent. short.

Cross-examined by Mr. Beard—He knew the
man who called for the ale. He met him acciden-
tally at the Mansion-house, and invited him to go
to Mr. Gurney's. He had been there several times,
and bad always been served in similar glasses when
half pints were asked for. He knew several houses
where they served the full half pint when a gllzss
of ale was asked for. He could name many. There
was Mr. Green's, the " White Hart," in Bishops-
gate-street Without ; Mr. Read's, the " Yarmouth
Arms," Lower Thames-street ; Mr. Pallett's, the
" Grapes," in Lime-street, and a vast number of
others which, with a little reflection, he could name.
He would swear positively that half pints were asked
for. Mr. Gurney kept on the premises standard
half pint glasses, but witness denied that he used
them whenever half pints were asked for. Ho had
never known them to be used as a rule. The majo-
rity of Mr. Gurney's customers, when witness was
there, did not ask for glasses of ale but for half

pints.
Mr. Beard said he would be able to show that the
majority of the trade of London was carried on by
-glasses and not by measures, and that the public
never expected to get half a pint of ale when they
called for a glass.
the men B
B.
calledllr f
C arodr lasegnsasie o
said
the
thre question was whether
half-pints.
Mr. Beard said that was the point.
Alderman Gibbons said that was not quite the
point, but whether the defendant should have given
them full measure. Those glasses produced were a
fraud on the public.
Mr. Beard assured the Bench that that was the
way the trade was carried on all over London.
Alderman Gibbons said, then it was a very bad
practice, and the sooner it was altered the better.
H. J. Gibbs said he resided at No. 3, Gloucester-
place, Hackney-road. He had been an omnibus
proprietor, and was now a waiter. On the 31st of
May he accidentally met with Mr. Johnson, whom
he had known formerly, and went with him to the
it European," and asked for three half-pints of ale,
which were served in the three glasses produced,
and they were seized by the inspector.
Mr. Beard, after a short and not important cross-
examination of this witness, said he would prove
that Mr. Johnson did not hear what was called for,
hesethoaefle order
or that his witness did not,afaloenl.olothwerowuthohiwsaisnbstyruthce-
tions and call for what he told himiiefowrohueiddistinctly
e
e
and who would swear that
given, and -also a
side
barmaidaciudlslet ood
nf
eohrrewwr thahhonro eds
hoe
re
heard
eer
dl
ada
rs
ditts
Gibbs ordered three glasses of ale. If he proved
that he would be entitled to ask that the summons
should be dismissed.
Emily Ford said she had been barmaid to Mr.
Gurney for a year and five months. She served the
three glasses of ale. Three glasses of bitter ale were
called for. If half-pints had been asked for she
would have served the ale in half-pint glasses.
There was no difference in price between a glass
and an imperial half-pint.
Emma Belcher had.been in Mr. Gurney's service
about
was for three glasses. They
She remembered the ale being
ordered,and the months.
orders.-
used half-pint glasses when half-pints were called for. 9
two mon
William Harding, IN
I •aardigan-street, Hamp-
stead-road, commission agent, said he was there on
the occasion referred to, and heard three glasses
asked for. He knew that Mr. Gurney had imperial
half-pint glasses in use.

Alderman Gibbons having consulted with Sir R.
W. Carden,
said—We have considered this ques-
tion, and while we are of opinion that the evidence
is not strong enough to prove that the half-pints
were naked, we are both of us of opinion that a
fraud is committed on the public by giving them less
than half a pint for a glass of ale. We do not con-
vict, but we express a very strong opinion that it is
a most dishonest mode of conducting business. You
do not charge
more for half a pint than for a glass,
and yet you always serve in a glass instead of giv-
ing half a pint.
Mr. Beard—The public do not look for nor ex-
pect half a pint for a glass of ale, and you will get
it in any house in London except the few that Mr.
Johnson has named.
Alderman Gibbons—All respectable licensed vic-
tuallers will only sell in half-pint glasses. It was
only in June, 186 G, that Mr. Gurney was fined 40s.
for the same offence, ?rid he has not altered his mode
of conducting business.
Mr. Beard—lt is the custom of the trade.
Alderman Gibbons—Then it is a dishonest cus-
tom, and the sooner it is done away with the better.
Mr. Beard—Then the Legislature must interfere.
On behalf of client, I will say that he would do
whatever his brother licensed victuallers will do.
Sir R. W. Carden—Then it will never be altered.
Alderman Gibbons—l am quite satisfied that no
honest person would serve in those glasses. Th e
summons is dismissed.
The summons was then dismissed,

Charge of Libel against a Clergyman.

At the Marlborough-street Police-court yester-
day the Hon. and Rev. Ralph William Lionel Tol-
lemache, of No. 10, Pembroke-road, Kensington,
was charged before Mr. Knox with maliciously
writing and publishing a defamatory libel concern-
ing Joseph Belcher, a waiter of the Phoenix Club,
St. James's-place.
The warrant has been in the hands o the officer
for some months, but could not be executed till yes-
terday.

The charge arose in this way. The rev. gentleman
was placed in custody for stealing some cigars, which
had been previously marked by the complainant,
Belcher, who saw the prisoner take the cigars
through a hole in the door of the room in which the
prisoner sat, which hole he had previously bored.
When the rev. gentleman was taken into custody,
besides the cigars a case of considerable value be-
longing to one of the members of the club, to which
the prisoner also belonged, was found.
The libel complained of was in a letter written by
the rev. defendant to the managers of the Phoenix
Club, in which it was insinuated that the charge of
stealing the cigars was an affair concocted by the
servants of the club against him.
Yesterday, the rev. gentleman being present in
custody and the prosecutor absent, but represented
by a solicitor, who said he was authorised to appear
for him, the case was called on.

Mr. Shepherd, who attended professionally for the
prisoner, said an apology had been made to the
complainant, which was considered satisfactory, and
the charges had been entirely withdrawn.
The solicitor for the complainant said his client
had accepted the apology, and was quite satisfied.
In fact the warrant ought not to have been served at
all, and he regretted it should have been served.

Mr. Knox said the warrant officer had done no
more than his duty in serving the warrant. He
should be glad to know something more about the
apology.
The solicitor for the comp!ainant handed in a
paper, of which the following is a copy :—‘, I
her eby withdraw my statement to the committee of
the Phoenix Club, dated March 3, 1867, and all im-
putations contained therein cast upon the servants

the club, together with my letter to the said
committee dated April 2, 1867, and regret having
sent them. And I hereby undertake not to write
any further letter or letters to the aforementioned
committee, to the proprietor, or to any member or
servant of the said club, or to any person, with re-
ference to the subject-matters of the statement and
letter. This document may be copied, published, or
advertised by the proprietor, or by the committee
of the club, in any way he or they may think neces-
sary.—Dated June 8. (Signed) R. W. L. TOLLS-
MACRE."

Mr. Knox asked the defendant if he admitted the
contents of the document, and that the signature ap-
pended to it was in his writing?

The rev. defendant said it was so.
Mr. Knox said the summons must be dismissed.

Shortly afterwards the complainant Belcher, ac-
companied by Captain Rainsford, the manager of
the club, entered the court, and stated that he had
just heard, to his surprise, that the case had been
heard in his absence and dismissed. He could assure
the magistrate that he was no party to the compro-
mise which the solicitor who said he appeared for
him had effected. He never had any intention of
withdrawing from the charge, nor had he authorised
the solicitor to do so for him.

Mr. Knox said this statement was unexpected,
as he was under the belief that the solicitor in ques-
tion was acting on the instructions and by the au-
thority of his client. However, the applicant would
have goad ground for proceeding against the solici-
tor, if the solicitor bad prejudiced him by an un-
authorised act. He should recommend the applicant
to consult some other solicitor, and then; if he chose,
to come to that court under the second solicitor's
advice and apply for another warrant, it should
be granted.