The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-21 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

THE ORGAN GRINDING NUISANCE.—Angelo Busi,
an Italian organ grinder, was charged before Mr.
Vaughan with continuing to play his organ in Grey
Hound-court, Strand, after being requested to go
away for just and reasonable cause. As the pri-
soner either could not or would not understand
what was said to him in English, the evidence was
explained to him by an interpreter.
A poor woman, narnod Mary Anne Leigh, living
in Grey llound-court, stated that the prisoner way
playing his organ in front of the house in whi_ll she
lives, when she went cut to him and asked him tr
go r. way, as her husband was very sick and ill, and
could not bear th2noise. The prisoner laughed in
her face, clapped his hands, stamped on the pave
meat, and made signs to turn the hurdle herself.
He then began playing again. Finding that he
would pay no attention to her remonstrances, and
being afraid of the consequences to her husband,
who had been bed-ridden for years, and suffered
much from any such disturbance, she sent for a
policeman, and gave the prisoner into custody.
Police-constable, F 165, said he was called to
the spot, andifound the prisoner playing his organ
furiously, laughing at the complainant; and by
gestures defying her.
The prisoner, who had repeatedly interrupted
with comments and denials in the course of the
interpretation, was now called upon for his defence,
and replied that he had nothing to say. _

Mr. Vaughan said the prisoner had behaved
very badly, but as this was his first offence he
should only fine him 155., or ten days' imprison-
ment, instead of the full penalty of 405., or one
month.

The fine was paid, and the prisoner went away
grinning at the complainant and officers.

MARLBORO UGH-STREET.

GROSS IMPOSITION.—John Kelly, a non-Unionist
tailor, and Julia Kelly, his wife, appeared before
Mr. Knox to answer a summons charging themwith
applying for relief at the workhouse of St. James's
parish, having at the time of such application in
their possession, and under their immediate control,
money and property, of which, on inquiry made,
they did not make correct and complete disclosure.

Mr. Buzzard, vestry-clerk, and clerk to the
governors of the poor of St. James's, attended to
prosecute, and, in opening the case, stated that he
appeared to prosecute the defendants under the
11th and 12th Vic., cap. 96, sec. 88, the charge
against them being for obtaining relief from the
parish while they had the means of living with-
out it. The wife of the defendant, John Kelly,
who was a j3urneyman tailor, living with his
wife and family in Windmill-street, St. James's,
applied in the month of September last for relief,
stating that he was in great distress, only earning
ss. or 6s. a week, and that he required relief. The
assistant gave the defendant relief and continued it
for a long period, the amount of relief averaging
Bs. or 9s. a week, and the total amount being
£l5. By mere accident it transpired that the de-
fendant John Kelly had, during the whole of the
period he had been receiving relief from the parish,
been earning 30s. or 325. a week, being employed
by a respectable firm in Saville-row, and the go-
vernors of the poor of the parish, feeling that they
had a public duty to perform, and that they ought
to make an example of such flagrant conduct on the
part of the defendant, had instituted the present
proceedings.
Mr. James Dore, assistant overseer of St. James's,
said that in the early part of September last, the
defendant, Julia Kelly, applied to him for relief for
herself, husband, and family, stating that her
husband was out of work and unable to support his
family, consisting of two sons and two daughters.
In consequence of the woman's representations a
visit was paid to the defendant, and relief was
granted, it being varied from time to time up to
May. The woman stated that her husband had
pledged all his clothes, and that he had no boots nor
shoes, and that he only earned 6s. or 7s. a week.
The relief was distontinued after the week ending
the 9th May.
James Smith, assistant-relieving officer and mes-
senger, stated that the defendants were relieved
from the sth September to the week ending 9th
May, receiving meat, soup, beef-tea, bread and
cheese, and occasionally porter, the relief being
varied.
Mr. Knox asked whether the defendants received
any money, and the witness said they did.
Mr. Charles W. Mooney, tailor, of Saville-row,
said that the defendunt John Kelly was at work for
him during the whole of the time spoken of by the
governors' witness, at average weekly wages of
£1 12s. Gd.

One of the governors of the poor stated that in
consequence of its being represented to him that
the defendants bad been receiving relief, and that
they were undeserving persons, he made inquiries
and found that to be the fact. lie was
recommended to go to the employer's house, and
he did so, and Mr. Williams was kind enough to
tell him what he had stated in court. Afterwards
finding that the female defendant had applied to
the parish for some clothing for the eldest girl,
about 15 years of age, to go to service, he went to
the defendant, and asked him whether that was the
case, and he said it was quite true. Looking round
the room, and seeing some coats, he remarked to
the man that he seemed to have work, and he said
that he could only make two of the coats a week,
and that he had a difficulty in earning more than
Gs. a week, as he worked for a slop shop. He after-
wards went to the shops alluded to by the prisoner
and found that no such one was employed by them,
and Mr. Williams further stated that the coats the
prisoner was at work upon were his coats. He
asked the prisoner whether he had received beef
tea and other things, and had admitted that he had,
and that his children had the bread and cheese.
He asked the prisoner whether he had had
any money, and, after denying it, he ac-
knowledged that his wife had had it, but
he said he had been in great distress, and had had
no work. He told the man that as the strike was
going on he might have got work somewhere, and
he then said that he could not work for a regular
shop. The man then showed him his rent book,
poishowedntin
g
him th
out
that heehaddurhlaiecl duplicate
of a distressciona
th:shpultachee,
and
afterwards asceitained that the very week he pre-
tended his goods were seized he received from his
employer £1 11s., and 9s. worth of relief from the
parish.
Mr. Samuel George 'Tett, inquiring officer, said
he called on the defendant, John Kelly, and asked
him if he was in the employ of Mr. Williams, and
he said he did a little for him, but he represented
his pay to be different to what Mr. Williams had
stated. He admitted receiving relief for six months.
From inquiries he (Mr. Tett) had made he found
that the man was a notorious drunkard.

The defendant, John Kelly, said that having been
ill he applied for a little relief and received it, and
it was continued. He had not received the amount
stated.

Mr. Knox said ho wondered the defendant (John
Kelly)p
what he had. It
pe d from
his employer that he liad been in
appeared e had
ad the face to say
receipt of wages averaging £1 12s. a week, and yet
he had been, by a trick, drawing
from the
authorities money intended for the really poor and
destitute. It was shown that he was a man of
drunken habits, and that was the way in which the
money he received was spent. He had no doubt
about the case, and very much regretted that the
Act did not go further, for both the defendants
deserved it. He considered their conduct abomin-
able, and he should commit them for a month each,
with hard labour.