The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-12 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

A POLICEMAN CHARGED WITH DEFRAUDING THE
AUTHORITIES.—Police-constable Gymer, 61 F, the man
who about a year ago suffered a murderous assault at the
hands of a young woman named Donovan, who stabbed
him several times with a table knife, was this morning
placed before Mr. Jardine, on remand, charged with ob-
taining money from the authorities of Scotland-yard by
means of false and fraudulent representations.
It is necessary to explain that in the case of a ticket-of-
leave man committing any infraction of the condition of his
licence, the circumstance is notified to the Home-office, the
licence is revoked, and a warrant issued for the offender's
apprehension and recommittal to serve the remainder of his
original sentence The warrant is forwarded to Mr. Hall
(the chief magistrate) at this court. The clerk notifies to the
superintendent of police that a certain constable is required
to attend at the court at a stated time to receive instruc-
tions. The constable attends accordingly and receives in-
structions from Mr. Hall, or, in his absence, from the sit-
ting magistrate, to go to the place where the convict is to
be found and apprehend him. For this purpose he receives
a warrant. He then takes a printed form called an " im-
prest," which he fills in with an estimate of the expenses of
his journey, and submits it to the superintendent, or, in his
absence, to an inspector, who countersigns. He also hands
in a written report that he has been sent on this duty. The
inspector keeps the report, and the constable takes the im-
prest to Scotland-yard to get the signature of a commis-
sioner. He next proceeds to the office of the receiver-
general of the metropolitan police, where he hands in the
imprest and gets the money.
From the evidence of Inspector Mitchell it appeared that
the prisoner had for about 12 months been occasionally em-
ployed in this kind of duty. On the 18th ult. he presented to
him a report and an imprest. The report set forth that
he was instructed to go to Birmingham to apprehend a
ticket-of-leave man. The estimate on the imprest was
£l3. The prisoner said he had not got the warrant yet,
but he wanted to get the money before the office in Scot-
land-yard was closed. He signed the imprest, and Gymer
went away. Some days afterwards, seeing Gymer in the
street, he asked him why he was not gone. He said that
he had information that the man was in the infirmary. The
next day he repeated the same excuse. On the 24th witness

told him tluit if he did not go the next day he must bring the
money in. He said lie would. As he did not do so, he sent
for him on the 26th, which was Sunday, and asked him why
he had not brought in the money. He said he had paid
it in to Mr. Golding, at the receiver's office; adding,
" I did not know you meant I should pay it here."
Mitchell said if it was paid to Mr. Golding th.lt would do ;
he only wanted to leave no responsibility on his own
shoulders. Prisoner also stated that Mr. Golding tore up
the imprest, which he said was signed by the commissioner.
During the week witness ascertained that the money had
not been paid to Mr. Golding. He then sent for Gymer,
who admitted that he had not paid it, but had it in his
pocket. Witness desired him to put it down on the table,.
on which he drew £l2 from his purse, and said he must go
home for another £l. Witness allowed him to do so, and he
went and fetched it. Witness took it, and then said he
should report the prisoner. Gymer begged he would not
do so, as it would lead to his dismissal. He said, "Do for-
give me, Mr. Mitchell. I will tell you all about it. I had
a hole in my pocket and lost my purse, containing £9.
Mitchell said he could not overlook it, and afterwards he
discovered that the prisoner had not received authority to
go to Birmingham to apprehend any convict.

In answer to questions from Mr. Lewis, who appeared
for Gymer, Mitchell said he took the money as a discharge
of the £l3, but did not then know that there was anything
wrong beyond the falsehood that he had paid Mr. Golding.
Would not have let him go without giving up the money.
Mr. Lewis contended that this amounted to a condona-
tion, or at least to treating the case as a monetary transac-
tion.

Mr. Jardine said the jury must decide what was the
motive. There was quite enough for a jury to consider.
He should fully commit the prisoner for trial.

The witnesses were then bound over in the sum of £4O
to appear at the Central Criminal Court, and give evidence
against the prisoner.

Mr. Lewis applied for the prisoner to be admitted to bail
Mr. Jardine said he had no objectien to that course, bui
he should require good and substantial securities.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

IMPORTANT TO DINING-ROOM KEEPERS.—John
Richardson, a cab-driver, badge 10,676, was summoned
under the following circumstances for causing an obstruc-
tion in Mill-street, Conduit-street:—
From the evidence of Charles Graminson, hackney-car-
riage attendant, it appeared that at one o'clock in the day
he was in Mill-street, when he saw the defendant with his
cab and three others outside a coffeehouse, the owners
being inside taking their dinner. The defendant was one
of them, and as they had caused an Obstruction he had
summoned them. They were inside 15 minutes.

Summonses were taken out against three others, but as
they were all of a similar nature, one ruled the other.
Mr. Lewis, jun., who appeared for the defence, said the
facts were simply these. The cabmen were in the habit of
dining at Mr. Manton's dining rooms, in Mill-street, leaving
their cabs outside in the care of a person. The defendant
and another went in, and just as they were about to come
out two others drove up, placing their cabs behind the Ant
two, and that was what the carriage attendant called an
obstruction. No one came forward to complain of it ; none
of the neighbours were in attendance. It was not to be
supposed cabmen could be out all day without refreshment,
and the men stopped no longer than was necessary. The
men had been accustomed to do the same thing for some
time without any complaint.
Mr. Beadon said the waterman had acted in accordance
with the statute.

Mr. Lewis said he did not mean to contend that he had a
right to stop there, but there was no obstruction, as there
were seldom more than two there at onejtime. Mr. Manton,
who was a respectable tradesman, was in court, and would
for the future abide by any regulation his worship would
lay down for his guidance.

The carriage attendant said he should not have sum-
moned them only one of them was insulting to him.

Mr. Beadon said then, because one insulted him ho sum-
moned them all.

Mr. Lewis said no doubt he felt his dignity hurt
_ _ _ _ _

Mr. Beadon said he quite agreed that-the men should he
allowed to have their meals, and no one wished to prevent
them. As long as there were only two cabs in front of Mr.
Manton's house no complaint would be made, but when
four got in rank, and thus got in front of the neighbours'
houses, that must certainly be considered an obstruction
which could not be allowed. He should dismiss all the
summonses in the present instance.
The decision gave considerable satisfaction.