The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-25 00:00:00

IL ROG V. FRANKLIN.

Mr. Collier and Mr. Karslake were counsel for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Kingdon for the defendant.
The deel.aration charged the defendant with having as-
saulted the plaintiff, and put him in irons, and imprisoned
him.
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and that be was cap-
tain of a vcss 1, called the Urdaunted, on the high seas, and
while in command of the ship certain of the passengers re-
sisted the orders of the defendant, denied his authority, and
used menacing and insulting language, which tended to dis-
obedience and mutiny, and that the plaintiff was ene of
those passengers, and therefore be imprisoned him, having
reasonable and probable cause to suppose that a mutiny
would ensue._

The plaintiff denied this, and alleged excess.
Mr. Collier, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff
was Mr. Ignatius Krog, a member of a family living at the
Cape of Good Hope, his father being a member of the As-
sembly. The plaintiff himself was a member of the Scotch
bar, and he complained of an outrage which it was almost
impossible to conceive. The vessel called the Undaunted
was chartered from Melbourne to London, to call at Calcutta
and the Cape. At Calcutta about 200 wounded soldiers
were taken on board as passengers, as well as many officers, '
who had been. engaged in the fearful struggle in India, and
were
Ido9i
seotsi nienorgn
he
uhs borne.had survived
obfadla d
a n dAmonga a all
ehtreh
children
Horrors passengers
bout t wLoeunrceek, an
andnumberow . t
ha Shethat
one she was bringing home. These officers were as
courteous as they were brave. Unfortunately, some
misunderstanding and a degree of coolness arose be-
tween Captain Franklin and the passengers before they
arrived at the Cape, and the captain upon one occasion had
called one of the ladies a d— b—. The officers were a
good deal annoyed at this, and treated the captain with a
degree of coolness which was extremely natural. He seemed
to be very irritable, having a notion of " I am as good as
you." He made himself extremely offensive. He had on
one occasion told an officer that he only wished to go ashore
because he was afraid, and that he had not much courage
under his red coat, and be threatened to pull their noses.
The officers bore all this as gentlemen, there being
strict orders at the Horse Guards that they should not
enrage in duels. He could well understand that men
who cared not to risk their lives against an enemy would
not like to engage with a turbulent sea captain. The plain-
tiff embarked at the Cape on the 16th of May. Nothing
took place for some tine, but on the sth of June, when Mr.
Krog was pacing the poop, he heard a noise below and found
there was an altercation about putting out the lamps in the
saloon at 8 at night, this having been done by the captain's
order fly vexation and annoyance. Mr. Krog, not knowing
what the noise was about, asked what the row was. The
captain called out, " Who the devil are you ?" Mr. Krog
said, " My name is Mr. Krog." The captain repeated the
name several times in a roost insulting manner. Now,
perhaps few things annoyed a man more than misspelling or
mispronouncing his name. Mr. Krog said, " My status in
society is as good as yours." The captain then began
making a noise. Mr. Krog, said, " Capt. Franklin, no
doubt you are captain of the ship and the crew, and so far as
the crew are concerned, they are bound to submit to your
orders, but it is different with respect to the passengers, who
have a right to the use and enjoyment of the saloon ; but you
are like the landlord of a floating hotel." Captain Franklin
became furious, attd said, " I ant put you in irons." Mr.
Krog did not believe he was serious, and said "You dare not
do that." Captain Franklin's law, however, %las like that
of the Medes ; he knew he was doing wrong, and then he
ttionght he would wet up a Elef.TIC to enter on hie log. He
went to hie cabin and put a revolver in his pocket, and then
he rushed Into the saloon, and sold, " You passengers have
been endesveurinz to take possession of the vessel for 24
hours, but yen shall only do this over my body, and here is
my revolver," and lie drew himself up like a captain on the
stage. He piped up his crew as if there had been the ele-
ments of a mutiny. The captain then retired to his den, but
Mr. Krog was placed in irons; he thought he had done
enough to justify him. Mr. Krog was quietly pacing the
deck when be was taken below, a chain was brought and
one end was fastened to the threshold of the cabin door and
the other end locked round Mr. Krog's leg. Tile cabin was
six feet by seven feet, and there were three other passengers
in it, and the ship was then in the tropics, with the ther-
mometer at 100 degrees. The key of the cabin-door
could not be found, or it would have been locked. After
this Captain Franklin went into the saloon and said to
Lieutenant Armstrong, " Little Armstrong, I will wring
your nose, but you are the cause of this." He also threat-
ened to pull the noses of other officers. Captain Franklin
sent different messages to Mr. Krog, offering to release
him if he would make an apology. He also said he might
take exercise on the quarter-deck, but not on the poop,
where the other passengers walked. Mr. Krog was kept in
irons in this manner for ten days, when Dr. Macbeth inter-
fered, and said Mr. Krog's health would suffer if he was
longer detained. Captain
Franklin then removed the irons.
Mr. Krog's health lad suffered in consequence of this. The
learned counsel then called upon the jury to give serious
damages for such conduct.
Mr. Krog proved nearly all these facts.
Cross-examined—There were about 30 other first-class
passengers. I do not know the number of general passen-
gers on beard. I have been told that the officers did not
belong to the troops that were on board. I got on board at
the Cape on the 15th of May. There was then no coolness
between Captain Franklin and me. He used to dine with
us. I sat just behind the mast. There was a little gap in
the tablecloth there ; a towel used to be put to fill it up. I in-
sisted upon using it as a napkin, and George said, " If you do
that I shall take it away." I was told this once. The officers
were playing at whist when the lamp was removed by the
steward lower down the table. The subject of the discussion
was the removal of the lamp. I think there were three
lamps in that saloon. I was at the ship about five weeks ago
to take measurements. I heard Lieut. Armstrong say,
" Why do you do this? Have yea orders to remove the
lamp ?" The steward said he had, and he either removed it or
extinguished it. Lieut. Armstrong said the steward had '
insulted him grossly, and I said, " They have no right to
remove the lamp." I have come from the Cape before.
I bad a difference with that captain. I had dared him to
put me in irons, and I told Captain Franklin and some
of the passengers of this. Major Longden was on the
poop at the time. I looked down the cabin and heard
the noise after I had spoken to Captain Franklin.
Colonelth°'eHunt did not say,
bearing her Majesty's
commission
tto on a
interfere.ll Captain
”Turn the men out and let's see who are the strongest." I
did not see soldiers crowding multi the cabin. I saw Las-
cars, a crowd of them. I did not hear Colonel Horn say,
" Men, I sin sure you will obey me," and go below. The
crew was chiefly composed of Lascars. Mr. Smythe said, if
I did not stay in my cabin I must be made to stay. The cap-
tain called up the skylight two or three times that he would
put me in irons. I was told to stay in my cabin, and I re-
fused, and opened the door and sat outside. When I was
taken down stairs there was no altercation going on. The
captain's wife went into hysterics. Mrs. Lomax was on
board. I never heard of her fainting till this moment. M. r.
George Thompson, M.P., was on board; he is now very ill.
He made some speech which I could not hear. I had re-
peated applications to make an apology. I wished to have
it brought to me in writing, which was declined. It was
not true that on the Gth of June Captain Franklin sent his
mate to me to demand a written apology. I sat at the door
of the saloon to take my dinner. The chain made a great
ledd.not I t
take
nwoeirsee
atev every time
I
me I
wmoouv
deck, because Lascars and soldiers were there. I have seen
them scores of times walking on the quarter-deck.
Re-examined—Mr. Thompson was making a speech be-
fore I was chained. (It was conceded that Mr. Thompson
haPePxeenrecdise while
on ile
the the
quarter-
deck, othersarte
r-
was too ill to attend.) Lieutenant Armstrong is too ill to
come here.
C. W. Wood—l was a passenger from Calcutta. We left
on the 18th of March. There were several officers and ladies i
on board as passengers. I remember Mr. Krog coming on
board. There was nothing mutinous in the conduct of the
passengers. The Lascar crew struck work when
we were
at the Cape. They went to work again next morning.
There was not any violence. There was nothing mutinouson the part of the soldiers. There was nothing mutinous
when Mr. Krog came on board. There was no insubordina-
tion among the passengers. On the evening of the sth,,of
June I heard a row in the saloon. The words were, I
shall," and " You shan't." Captain Franklin ran down.
I went to the main skylight. Captain Franklin said the
light should not be removed from its proper place. The
steward said after he had removed the light one of the
passengers had brought it back. Captain Hunt asked in a
civil way by whose orders the light was removed. The
steward said he had received orders. Captain Hunt brought
the light beck to its proper place, and then it was ex-
tinguished. Captain Franklin went into the valves and said
it was his orders. Mr. Krog came up to me and asked what
it was all about. Captain Franklin rsaid, "Who the devil
are you?" Mr. Krog said, "I am Krog, and my position
in life is far better than yours." Captain Franklin said,
" it, I'll show you that I shall put the lights out at 8
o'clock." Mr. Krog said, "You dare not do that; you
have nothing to do with the passengers; your ship is a
floating hotel, and you are the landlord of it." Captain
Franklin afterwards said, " You have been trying to take
the ship from me, but you shan't while this body exists."
He then said, " I've power to put Mr. Krog in irons for
using mutinous language, and I'll do it." He then ordered
all hands to he piped on deck. Smythe did so, and he told
Smythe to bring Mr. Krog down from the poop. Mr. Krog
was silent on the poop. I followed. Mr. Krog merely
said, "No, I will not go down." Captain Franklin then
sent Smythe fur the boatswain and the carpenter, and M. r.
Krog came down, and when he got down, be said

"Gentlemen, be witness to what has happened this even-
ing." Mr. Krog went into his cabin and came out, and
Captain Franklin ordered the carpenter to put hire in
irons, and this being done all hands were piped
down. Captain Franklin retired to his cabin, and
brought a revolver out, and said, " You, young
Armstrong, have been the cause of all this row ; I shall
wring your nose as soon as we get to Gravesend." Arm-
strong called on those present to take a note of what oc-
curred. All were quiet at that time. The captain
turned to Capt. Hunt, and said, "As for you, I shall wring
your nose in some other way." Capt. Hunt said that two
could play at that, and he ordered Capt. Franklin to keep
from him. No one bad ever attempted to take the ship
from the captain ; there was no such disposition.
Cross-examined—l think we had dined at four that day.
There had not been a late sitting—we had gene on the poop
to smoke. There were no soldiers at the door. Major Long-
den told the officers who were on the quarter-deck to go
down. I did not hear Capt. Hunt say, "Turn out all the
hands and we shall see who'll have the best of it." It was
after the affair was over that Capt. Franklin came with the
revolver. Mrs. Franklin was crying in the cabin. Mr.
Landsberg was there. He and Mr. Thompson said some-
thing. I don't know that they interfered on the side of the
captain.
Re-examined—No one resisted the captain. All hands
came when they were piped up.
Capt. Green, of the 82d Regiment—l was a passenger.
I had a dispute with Capt. Franklin, and we did not speak
afterwards. On the sth of June I was on the poop deck.
My attention was attracted by a noise. The steward had
removed the light from a whist party who were playing
quietly. I heard Capt. Franklin say in a loud voice, " I
shall put out the lights at eight o'clock." Mr. Krog said,
" You cannot do that ; you are captain of your crew and
ship, but so far as your passengers are concerned you are
only the landlord of a floating hotel." I saw Krog go
quietly away with the carpenter and the others. I did not
go down to the saloon for some time. When I went down
all was quiet.
Cross-examined—l heard Colonel Horn desire that no
officer should Interfere. I saw no soldiers aft the mainmast,
which is a considerable distance from the saloon. The
chief of the crew were Lascars. All hands came up when
they were piped. Did not know whether there were many
wine glasses broken that day.
By the Judge—The plaintiff did net excite the soldiers
to mutiny, or speak to them.
Mr. Blenman—l am in the Bengal Civil Service, and
was wounded at Lucknow. When the plaintiff said his
name was Krog the Captain repeated it in a sveering way
several times. There was no pretence for saying there was
a combination to take the ship from the captain. The whist
party went on in a quiet manner. Captain Franklin was
the only noisy person.
John Calvin Hunt—l am a captain in the army. I was
one of the whist party that evening. Lieutenant Arm-
strong wished to move the light a little further up. The
steward prevented him. I pushed it, and the steward
blew it out. I told him he had no right to do that; lie
should have gone to the chief officer. Captain Franklin
came in and thumped the table with his fist, and said we
should have no lights at all if we did not mind. I heard the
plaintiff's voice asking what was the noise. One of the
party said they were putting out the lights. The plaintiff
said they dare not do that. The captain said " Who the
devil are you ?" The plaintiff told him, Krog, upon which
the captain repeated the name several times in a jeering
manner. The captain threatened to put him in irons. The
plaintiff said he dare not do that ; and Smythe, the first
officer, said "Might is right." The crew were piped up, and
the plaintiff ordered to be put in irons. The captain said
there had been a combination to take the ship. There was
not the least pretence for saying there was any intention
to mutiny. The plaintiff was afterwards put in irons.
When the captain went out of the cabin he saw us taking
notes, and he struck his breast several times and said, "I've
more money than you."
Cross-examined —I had the captain bound over on our
arrival at Plymouth.

Mr. Menzies—l am an undergraduate of Utrecht Univer-
sity. I was on board.

The learned Baron said there were 200 soldiers, 60 crew,
and 30 passengers, and he supposed all were to be called,
and it would be ever by the Ist of October. They had heard
the same facts proved over and over again. Sometimes
counsel had confidence in their cases.
Major Longden—l was in command of the soldiers on
board. There was not the slightest mutiny.
Cross-examined—There was a disturbance among the
Lascars ; two or three of our men were quarrelling at the
Cape, and Captain Franklin interfered in the most unneces-
sary manner. He asked me if a passenger attempted to
take the ship whether I would render him assistance. I
told him every assistance I possibly could. If I had heard
of any combination I should have supported the captain
through thick and thin.
This was the plaintiff's case.
The case was proceeding when our report left.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Livv.nrooL, AUG. 24.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)
WILSON Y. THE MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND
LINCOLNSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Hoggins, Q.C., Mr. James Wilde, Q.C., Mr. Ovens,
and Mr. T. Jones, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Atherton,
Q.C., Mr. Konk, Q.C., and Mr. Milward, for the defendants.
This heavy case, which commenced on Saturday after-
noon, and continued throughout the whole of yesterday,
was brought to a conc!usion to-day. The damages were
laid at 1;25, and the facts are as follows :
The plaintiff, Benjamin Wilson, is a shopkeeper, residing
near the Hollingwood Branch Canal, between Failsworth
and Ashton, and he sought to recover £25 for damage done
to his house, garden, and stock by the water overflowing
front the canal of which the defendants were the proprietors,
through the negligence and misconduct, as it was alleged,
of the defendants or their servants. It appeared that on the
evening of the 14th of August, 1857, a great rain storm came
on, and in consequence of the alleged neglected state of the
Hollingwood reservoir, which was connected with the canal,
the water overflowed its embankments, and ultimately
found its way into the canal. It was also alleged that the
defendants had caused the original self-acting weirs on the
canal to he altered, and turned into floodgates, which re-
quired some one to open them. On the night in question,
before these floodgates were opined, the water in the canal
ran over its embankments and caused considerable damage.
A great body of water found its way into the river Medleck,
on the banks of which were numerous manufactories, and
carried away weirs, btidges, everything, the river having
ri,en three feet in a quarter of an hour. The plaintiff ad-
mitted, in cross-examination by Mr. Atherton, that he had
some wealthy people at his back in bringing this action,
who had also sustained damage.
A great number of witnesses hating been called by the
plaintiff,

Mr. Atherton, Q.C., addressed the jury fir the defendants,
and said that this inquiry, though apparently involving only
a small sum, was of very great importance to the railway
company to whom the canal belonged. lie would submit
to the jury two questions—firstly, was ttis overflowing of
the water referred to attributable to the negligence of the
defendants, and, secondly, was the injury of which the
plaintiff complained to be exclusively attributed to the
negligence of the defendants? He would show that on the
night in question there was a most extraordinary downfall
of rain, and it would be told the jury by his lordship that,
provided ordinary and reasonable means were resorted to by
the defendants for the purpose of avoiding auy infliction of
injury to the neighbours, they were not responsible for that
which must be looked upon as a mere accident, or, as it was
usually called, " the act of God." With regard to the over-
flowing of the water at the Hollingwood reservoir, it arose
from the walls having shortly before subsided, in conse-
quence of the ground underneath having been worked for
coal. The learned counsel urged that when last inspected
in spring, the reservoir and walls were in good condition.
He also proceeded to argue that the overflow of water from
the reservoir could not have contributed to the damage of
which the plaintiff complained, as the times named did:not
at all correspond. The learned counsel concluded by review-
ing the evidence which had been adduced, to show that the
plaintiff bad no real cause of action against the defendants.
A vast body of evidence was then tendered upon behalf of
the defendants, and this morning, Mr. Atherton, in sum-
ming up the evidence, made an earnest appeal to the jury,
urging that neither the railway company nor canal company
were bound to construct their works to endure for perpetuity,
and insisted that the evidence given pointed only to this—
that the plaintiff, on the night in question, like thousands of
persons in the north of England, was subjected to incon-
venience by flood, but he had not made out that anything
that had happened was caused by the fault or negligence of
the company.
Mr. Hoggins, in replying upon the whole case, dwelt
upon the necessity of attending to the different stages of
the flooding on the plaintiff's prem*ses. The defendants. on
many former occasions had compensated the plamtifffor in-
juries of this description arising from the overflow of the
canal or reservoirs. They were stopped, therefore, from say-
ing that nothing was due on this occasion. The company
had raised the weir at Bardsley some six or seven feet. It
was formerly, in the memory of the plaintiff, self-acting.
The company appointed persons to look after the new weir,
which would not operate to let off the water, except-it were
raised by human aid. Those persons were proved to have
been utterly negligent. The company were responsible for
that negligence, and the plaintiff, who bad been injured in
consequence, had a title to compensation in damages. They
must indemnify him for not doing what they ought to have
done in a proper way at the right moment.
Mr. Baron Martin then summed up at some length,
telling the jury they could not find for the plaintiff unless
they believed that the injury proved by the plaintiff arose
entirely from the negligence of the company in not keeping
the banks of the canal as they ought to have done. The cul-
vert had been alleged as a ground of disentitling the plaintiff
to damages, because the culvert, having been constructed by
the company at the desire of the plaintiff, was insufficient to
carry off the water, but he could not see how this affected
the case ;it was, however, a question for the jury. The first
question was, was the canal sufficient and fit for its pur-
pose? If it was, the defendants were not responsible for the
consequences of an extraordinary flood. Then the second
question was as to the reservoir; it was for the jury to
say whether it was in a proper state, and whether it
was not
an act of negligence of the defendants
to leave it as it was ms the 14th of August. They bad also
to consider whether the injury suffered by the plaintiff arose
from that cause wholly. The reservoir having continued
sufficient for so long, the presumption seemed to be that it
had only given way under the pressure of the overwhelm-
ing flood—that which, in fact, the law of England described
as the act of God.
The jury, after consulting for nearly three hours, re-
turned into court, giving the following verdict :
" That the defendants had been guilty of negligence in
the way in which they had kept the reservoir, bat that the I
damage which the plaintiff had sustained was not in any
way attributable thereto."
Upon this the learned judge directed a verdict to be en-
tered for the defendants.
This verdict governed two other causes which arose out
of the same matter.

paper, which I produce, containing an account of deficien-
cies acknowledged by him. That paper is as follows :
Cash-book, folio 3GB £lOO

306
200

422 7O
7)

// 422
7)

- -
3, .'
430
), GO
1/ 51 430
,) ,) 438.... 54
.
13 ,) 441

£597
The prisoner said that this paper contained an account of
his deficiencies, but that it was not all. I then put my
initials on the paper.
Mr. Stephen Bridge, the prosecutor, said—The prisoner
was in my employment as clerk and cashier. It was his
duty to keep the books and accounts, to receive money from
customers, as well as all sums that came into the house,
through the hands of other clerks ; it was also his duty to
pay moneys. I was anxious to go out of town, and on
Thursday last asked him to come a little earlier on the fol
lowing morning. Not seeing him at 10 o'clock, I sent to
his dwelling, and was informed that he had not been home
all night. In the course of the day I received a letter from
him, saying that he was suffering very severely from head-
ache and fever. Feeling dissatisfied, I sent him a letter,
discharging him, and enclosing him £5 for two weeks'
salary; but he was absent from home. At that time I had
no knowledge whatever that there were any defalca-
tions. On Saturday last he came to the warehouse as usual.
I then requested one of my clerks to give him the letter
I had written to him, and I afterwards spoke to him upon
the subject. He told me that he did not wish to leave my
service, as he could give every explanation as to his absence
that would be satisfactory to me. I said to him, " Mr.
Vint, I have done with you altogether; I have enclosed you
your salary up to the 28th ; you will oblige me very much
by going into the counting-house and making up your cash
account as soon as possible and giving me the keys." He
went down stairs, and after about an hour and a-half I
asked him whether he had not almost finished. He replied
that he had not. About half-past 12 I went to him
again, and he handed me a letter in which he asked
me to grant him an interview, and said he would
explain the transactions. He also asked me to retain
him in my service. I told him I could not grant
him an interview. As I was leaving the counting-house
he said to me " I am very sorry to say I am a defaulter."
I asked him to what extent, and he made no reply. I asked
him whether it was £5O, and he said he thought it was more
than that. I said, "Is it £lOO or £150?" He replied
that it might be, but that be could net say exactly. I said,
" You may as well be candid and straightforward and tell
e the amount at once. Is it £4OO or £5OO ?" He said
he thought it was between £4OO and £5OO ; that he was
very sorry, and that if I would allow him to remain in my
service he would try and recover it. He gave me the key of
the cash-box and left. On Monday morning I waited upon
his father, and the prisoner came to me. I then sent for
Mr. Jones (the last witness), thinking it as well that one
of my creditors should see the position in which I
was placed. I left Mr. Jones and the prisoner toge-
ther, and saw nothing more of the latter till I gave
him into custody. I have examined my hooks as
far as time would allow me. Upon reference to the bill-
book I find the following entry in the prisoner's handwriting :
—" No 1231, accepted November 20, drawn by Walker and
Co., Nottingham, due February 23, amount £2l 17s. ld."
This bill has been paid in due course, but on reference to
the cash-book I find that the prisoner has charged himself
with having paid £l2l 17s. ld., thus defrauding me of the
sum of £lOO. There is another item in the bill book in the
prisoner's handwriting—" 1242, £99 145., due 23d March."
That bill is dated the 20th November, 1857. He has
charged that bill in the cash-book as £299 145., thus de-
frauding me of £2OO. He has balanced the book at the
end of the month, and carried the balance forward as if he
had paid the larger sums.
Mr. Morgan declined putting any questions to the wit-
nesses in cross-examination.

Mr. Robinson—l now apply for a remand.
The Lord Mayor—For what purpose ?
Mr. Robinson—For the production of further cases.
The Lord Mayor—What do you want a remand for ? The
two cases gone into are as good as a thousand. If you give
Mr. Morgan netise of any fresh cases, that will be quite
sufficient.

The officer—T took from the prisoner a watch and a £5
note.

Prosecutor—That is the £5 note that be had of me. I
wished it to be given back to him, in order that he might
have any refreshment he required.
Mr. Morgan—The prosecutor does not object to the £5
being returned to him.
The Lord Mayor—lf the prosecutor does not object to it,
I shall not.

The money was handed to the prisoner.
The prisoner, who made no defence to the charge, was
then fully committed for trial to the Central Criminal
Court.

The Lord Mayor requested that the press would acknow-
ledge the receipt of 10s. from " Sigma," for Mrs. Soden.

BOW-STREET.—Jtseph Gates, a young man, who has
been for several years an assistant in the shop of Mr. Low-
rance Phillips, tailor and army clothier, of the Strand, was
charged with stealing ready-made clothes to the value of
£lOO, the property of his employer.
The articles were taken by the prisoner from time to
time, and pledged at different pawnbrokers in the neigh-
bourhood. They consisted of 45 coats, 22 pairs of trousers,
23 waistcoats, one jacket, and two pairs of hoots. It did not
appear that any of the property was missed from the stock
by the prosecutor until the prisoner's sister having informed
him that her brother had " enlisted for a soldier," the
circumstance excited his suspicion, and led to inquiry. The
prosecutor's son, accompanied by Sergeaat Franklin, of the
F division (in private clothes), then went in pursuit of the
prisoner, who was found in Charles-street, Westminster.
He at once admitted that he had robbed his employer to a
great extent, having been led to it by bad associates; and,
handing the key of his box to Mr. Phillips, jun., told him he
would find all the duplicates relating to the stolen property
inside. The box was accordingly opened and 89 pawnbrokers'
tickets were found concealed between the leaves of a prayer-
book and another volume. They represented articles pledged
to the amount of £32 at Mr. Fleming's, in St. Martin's-
lane, Mr. E. Whistler's, of the strand, Mr. Vaughan's,
Messrs. Atteuborough, &c. _ _

Mr. S. B. Abrahams, the solicitor far the prosecution,
complained that the property had been taken in by the
pawnbrokers without proper caution, the coats, &c., being
all new, and the name of Mr. Phillips plainly impressed upon
the buttons. He called the attention of his worship to a
very remarkable fact in connection with the case. Some
time ago Mr. Phillips received a note to this effect :
" Private.—Mr. Phillips, I shall be glad to speak with you."
To this a signature was appended, which neither Mr.
Phillips nor any of his family could comprehend, and upon
which be should like to take the opinion of his worship.
Mr. Henry, after looking at the note, said the signature
was apparently " Geo. Leach."

Mr: Abrahains observed that this was the impression of
his client ; and not knowing eny person of that name him-
self, and there being no address given in the note, be was,
of course, unable to take any steps in the matter. It now
turned out that this mysterious note was written by Mr.
Whistler, who, when applied to respecting the property
pledged at his establishment, said, " Oh, I wrote to Mr.
Phillips, but he took no notice of the matter."
Mr. Henry—l see, now that the name is mentioned, that
the signature is " E. Whistler ;" but written in a peculiar
way, the " w" being small, and connected with the initial
,c E,,

Mr. Abrahams—All' I can say is, that if the intention was
to give Mr. Phillips information, the address should have
been given as well as the signature. If the intention was
simply to get the credit of doing it; without really doing it,
it is one of the cleverest contrivances imaginable.
Mr. Henry—You ought not to say that. Mr. Whistler is
extremely well known, and he no doubt presumed that
Mr. Phillips, being a neighbour, did not require to be told
of his address. With regard to the signature being illlegible,
that was no uncommon fault. A great many people signed
their names in such a way that nobody could read them.
Mr. Phillips said he was in conversation with Mr.
Whistler only a few days before, but nothing was said to
him upon the subject. Besides he only lived 10 doors from
him.

Alfred Corder, an assistant to Mr. Whistler, said he had
taken in nearly all the things before he observed the name
of Mr. Phillips on the buttons, and then he mentioned the
fact to his employer, who wrote to Mr. Phillips immediately.
It was said that pawnbrokers hardly knew how to act,
because sometimes master tradesmen themselves sent things
to pledge. They considered that Mr. Phillips was somewhat
to blame in not having missed the property abstracted from
his stock.
Mr. Henry said as the prisoner had pleaded guilty the
whole of the property would have to be given up ; and if
the pawnbrokers hesitated to do this they must be bound
ever to appear at the sessions.
Franklin said the property would be all given up.
The prisoner was then committed for trial.

WESTMINSTER.—THE RIGHT OF OMNIBUSES TO
PLY FOR HIRE ON STARTING.--John Ross, driver of a
Metropolitan omnibus, was summoned at the instance of
Inspector Friar, of the B division, before Mr. [Poynter, by
direction of the Commissioners of Police, for having caused
the omnibus he was driving, No. 6,975, to stand longer than
was necessary in a certain thoroughfare for taking up and
setting down of passengers, contrary to the statute.
Mr. Thomas Beard, of Basinghall-street, attended for the
defendant.

Police-constable Piper, 2.50 A, stated that on the 10th of
August, between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, he
was on duty in Grosvenor-road, Pimlico, when he saw the
omnibus in question, which was driven by the defendant,
standing there for above 10 minutes. Witness told the
defendant that he must report him.
By Mr. Beard—The omnibus was standing near the
Compasses. I do not know that it had been the starting-
point of omnibuses for years. No one complained to me
of the omnibus remaining where it was, nor was there any
obstruction caused. When I spoke to the defendant he said
he was taking his meals, and observed that he must have
time to take his meals.

Mr. Beard remarked that, to constitute an offence, it
must be when an omnibus loiters while on its journey. This
has been for 22 years a starting-paint :sr several omnibuses,
and the defendant had not commenced the journey. A
gentleman of the name of Clarke, who is the proprietor of
the Compasses, will prove that the defendant's omnibus is
one of those which has started from this house for 22 years,
and yet from some cause the defendant has been summoned.
The neighbours don't complain.
Inspector Friar stated that there had been some com-
plaints of omnibuses patrolling the streets, and then of
going to the Compasses for passengers.
Mr. Beard said that they went about the streets because
the police had interfered with them standing at the Com.
passes. This was one of the termini of these omnibuses
which go as far as the Blackwell Railway. They ought to
have some point to start from for the public convenience.
Mr. Poynter remarked that omnibuses must have some
place to start from, and he knew that for such a purpose in
many parts of the metropolis they stand without permission..
It was for the convenience of the public that there should
be these starting points, and it would be a great pity if
omnibuses should be entirely deprived of them. The bert
way, perhaps, would be to pay the cast of the summrju;.
He believed his brother magistrate would be of his opiniou
and be should wish k to be made known to the Chief Com
missioner.

2'. King, a marble mason, ap-
TTlhieEelovstAsTwEeßre
ctlutennEp.aidlif.
peered on remand, charged with flinging some water over
a child of the name of Wheatcroft.
Mr. Smyth at tended for the defendant.
The particulars of the former hearing have appeared in
this journal.
Mr. Smyth now stated that he should produce some wit-
nesses who would contradict the statement made by the
parents, and he would stow that the child, which was al-
leged to have died from cold, which was attributed to water
having been flung over it, had actually died of water on the
brain. (Ile produced a certificate of the child's death to that
effect.) He would further show, from the evidence of Mr.
Morgan, surgeon, who prescribed for the child, that the
mother never said a word to him about water being flung
over it. With respect to the expressions attributed to the
defendant when spoken to by the parents, that he would do
it again, he had witnesses who were present when the water

was thrown at the child, who would say that they never
heard defendant make any such remark, and who would
swear that they never beard or knew of the defendant on
any former occasion having flung water upon children.
And with respect to the charge in question, his witnesses
would state that there was not much water in the pail,
and that in throwing the water over the gunpowder and
coloured light, some went on the children.

,
Mr. Smyth produced several witnesses who supported
the above statement.

Mr. Poynter observed there was no doubt but that water
was flung over the child, and said that he should not
decide upon the case, but would send it to the sessions,
unless an arrangement should be come to, which he would
suggest.

The parties retired for that purpose, and the defendant
said that whenever he was again annoyed by children he
would send for the police.
Mr. Paynter—That is the proper course.

WORSHIP-STREET.—CHARGE OF CONCEALING A
BlRTH.—Caroline Graham, a young woman of very de-
cent appearance, was brought before Mr. D'Eyncourt upon
a charge of concealing the birth of an illegitimate child.
Evidence was given to the effect that she had lived about
12 months in the service of Mr. Wilson, of 12a, White-
chapel-road, but about the 12th inst. her appearance made
it evident that she was in the familyway, and on that day
was hurriedly carried away in a cab, in the belief of an
approaching accouchement. It was subsequently discovered,
however, that the birth had already taken place, and on
Saturday last George Crosswell found the body, which had
been thrust through a hole in the kitchen ceiling, between
that and the roof, and was then far advanced in decom-
position.
Sheridan, a police-constable, 438 K, stated that in conse-
quence of this discovery he went to 22, Nelson-square,
Blackfriars-road, and apprehended the prisoner, who, on
being told what she was charged with, said " It's an unfor-
tunate business. I did it for the best in order to prevent
exposure."
Mr. Horton, police surgeon of the K division, said he had
examined the prisoner, who had every appearance of having
recently been delivered, perhaps withint fortnight; and
she told him that the birth occurred unexpectedly, when
she had been little more than eight months enceinte.
The prisoner, who, of course, was not called upon for any
defence at present, was remanded for a week.

SOUTHWARK.—WHOLESALE UTTERING OF FIC-
TITIOUS CHEQUES.—Limby Ede, a gentlemanly-looking
man, 52 years of age, but apparently much older, who de-
scribed himself as a merchant and commission agent, but
refused his address, was brought before Mr. Burcham,
charged with uttering forged or fictitious cheques on the
London and Westminster Bank to various tradespeople,
thereby defrauding them of goods of considerable value.
He was also charged with stealing a gold watch worth 05,
the property of Mr. George Edward Mylne, watch and
chronometer manufacturer, 2, Great Percy-street, Clare-
mont-square.

The Court was crowded with the victims of the prisoner,
who, while the evidence was being taken, kept his face
covered with his handkerchief and leaned on the dock.

Mr. John Chamberlain, brush manufacturer, Newington-
causeway, said he bad known the prisoner 12 years, and he
formerly resided in the neighbourhood, and a few years ago
he believed him to be a gentleman in good circumstances.
On the 17th inst. he came to his warehouse and selected
goods to the value of DI 10s., for which he paid him with a
cheque on the Southwark branch of the London and West-
minster Bank, and took the goods away. The cheque was
signed " Limby Ede," and in the prisoner's handwriting.
He presented it to the bankers in the usual way, and it was
returned to him " No account."

Mr. Burcham asked the prisoner if he had any question
to ask the witness ?

The prisoner, who hastily lifted up his head, said he had
no questions to ask.
Mr. George Sweet, a clerk in the Southwark branch of
the London and Westminster Bank, said that he knew the
prisoner, and about eight or ten years ago he kept as
account with them. He did not know what profession or
business he was. He always believed him to be a gentleman.
Mr. Burcham asked whether be had an account with them
at the present time?

Mr. Sweet replied in the negative. It was closed eight
years ago. The cheque in question was in the prisoner's
handwriting, and upwards of 20 similar ones for various
amounts had lately been presented.
Mr. Robert Marley, carpet and floorcloth dealer, 120,
London-road, said he had only been in business a few weeks.
He had previously assisted his father in the Blackfriars-
road, and about three years ago he laid down floorcloth
for the prisoner in his residence at Peckham. Two years
ago the prisoner removed to another house and ordered
more floorcloth of his father, and witness also laid that
down, for which the prisoner paid him. He neither heard
nor saw anything more of him until the 16th inst., when
he received a letter from him, dated Four Foots, near
Southampton, ordering goods to be got ready amount-
ing to 11019 x., and stating that he would call for them in
a few days. He called on the Wednesday afterwards with s
cab, into which he put the goods and handed him a cheque
on the branch of the London and Westminster Bank at
London-bridge, and he let him take the goods away, be-
lieving that he really had an account there. The first
thing the following morning he took the cheque to the bank
and found that such was not the case. Having traced the
andpr is oner
communicatedt theo
with
South-Westerni‘ir. Railway,lnspector n
he proceeded o
whom
thereh he
gave the cheque, and through his instrumentality the goods
were traced and stopped, and were still in his possession.
Bent,
Mr. Burcham asked where thatcheqtrNyas?

Mr. Edwin, the chief clerk, informed his worship that it
was in the possession of Inspector Bent. He had received
a letter from him stating that he was compelled to go to
Southampton tbat day, but he would attend to produce the
cheque and Mr. Maney's goods on a future day.
Sergeant George Warr, 3 P, here said that there were in,
the court at least a dozen other parties who had been vic-
timised by the prisoner by false cheques, and there were st
great number who were not able to attend that day. Wit-
ness took the prisoner into custody, and on searching him
he found a number of blank cheques on the Southwark
branch of the London and Westminster Bank. Each
cheque had a receipt stamp on the left upper corner, and
was signed by the prisoner. The amounts were not filled
up. He also found on him a gold watch, the property of
another victim.

Mr, George Edward Mythe here stepped forward and said
he was a watchmaker at 2, Great Percy-street, Claremont-
square. He had known the prisoner 12 years ago as
manager at a merchant's at Pinner's Hall, but bad not seen
him for two or three years. On Saturday, the 14th inst.,
he called on witness and told him he was a merchant and
commission agent, and resided at 29, Upper Stamford -street,
and that he wanted a good gold watch to show a friend.
That was one o'clock in the daytime. Witness selected a
watch worth 35 guineas and handed it to the prisoner, with
strict injunctions for him not to sell it, and lie left his shop
with the watch, promising to bring it bacic by eight o'clock
the same evening. He, however, did nut return, and on the
following day witness went to 29, Upper Stamford-street,
and ascertained that the prisoner had not lived there for
four years.

Mt: Burcham here said that this charge was clearly a
felony, but the others were only obtaining goods under
fraudulent pretences. He asked whether the prisoner Will
known to be a commission agent at present?
Mr. Mylne replied that he was not. He now lived by
swindling the public.
Mr. Burcham asked him whether he gave him a chequ►te
for his watch?
Mr. Mylne replied in the negative. He did not sell. an
watch to him, but merely entrusted it to him on a written
promise from him to return it by eight o'clock the same
evening. _

The -prisoner here said that he never intended to dispose
of the watch. He should have returned it that morning but
he was taken into custody.
Several other persons who had been swindled out of their
goods by him through his cheques came forward to give
evidence, but

Mr. Burcham said that at that late hour he should not
take any further evidence against him, as there was quite
sufficient for a remand. The witnesses and all others who
had been defrauded by him could attend on Tuesday next,
the 31st inst., to which day he should remand him.
The prisoner was then removed.