The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, AUGUST_ 12, 1858.

tracts from the books on that day, as I did not know it
would be required. There can be no difficulty in producing
the books from the Custom-house, if required.
Theodore Foulger, detective, City police force, deposed
that on searching the prisoner's house he found a quantity
of papers belonging to Mr. Whiting.
Barnard, police-constable 578, deposed that he took the
prisoner into custody, and that on their way to the station-
house the prisoner said, "I have done a very silly thing; I
ought to have known better, as I have read so much about
such things in the newspapers.!'
The prisoner was then committed for trial.
Received for the poor-box—as. from " S. W."

GUILDHALL.—A NEW DODGE IN HORSE-DEAL-
ING. Edward Stamford, a middle-aged man, was
placed at the bar, before Alderman Sir Chapman Marshall,
charged with obtaining £5 under false pretences.
Mr. Huggins said—l went to the repository in Barbican
yesterday to buy a horse, and after the sale the prisoner
came up and said he had seen me bidding, but that I had
not bought a horse, and he offered to sell me one. I told
him I had been "sold" several times, and I did not wish to
be " sold" again, upon which he assured me that I should
not be " sold" by him, as I should take the horse home with
me, and try it any way I liked. I tried the horse he had to
sell in Barbican, and then asked him what he wanted for
it, and be said £O. I said that would settle the matter,
as I had not so much money about me. He said he did not
want my money, he only wanted my custom, as he knew
me and was satisfied. I then said I would pay him £5 if
he would give me a stamped receipt, acknowledging that I
was to pay the other £4 on approving of the horse, and if I
did not like it I was to be the loser oflOs. He said he would
give me a week or a month to try the horse; but I said a
couple of weeks would be sufficient. I gave him the £5,
and he gave me the receipt, and on getting outside he asked
me to let the horse take home the cart as far as the London-
road, as it would not be out of my way to Rotherhithe. I
accordingly consented, and he drove over to the London-
road, and when he got into his yard I heard him call out to
his man, " What, he will not let the horse go without the
rest of the money ?" The man repled, " No; master
says he will not let the horse go unless the £4 is paid."
The prisoner then came to me and said, "This is a pretty
business; the horse belongs to this man, although I sold it
to you, and you must pay the other £4 now, or you cannot
have the horse." I told him if be had done wrong in selling
a horse which did not belong to him to return me the £5 I
paid him. He said, "It was not very likely he would do
that, as he had spent £3 of the money." I then said I
should seek the advice and assistance of the police, and ulti-
mately I gave him into custody. The horse was never taken
out of the cart in my presence, and I never had possession
of it. When I bought the horse be told me he had so many
that he had not stable room for them, and he would there-
fore sell me that one cheap. I paid him the £5 believing
the horse belonged to him.
Cross-examined—l knew the prisoner very well by sight,
and have heard him called Ted Bailey. The prisoner did
not say he had summoned a man named Fletcher for a
horse; neither did be show me the summons until after he
had the money of me. He did not say he would not trust
me.
Police-constable 228 M said—l took the prisoner into
custody, and on the way to the station-house he told the
prosecutor that he should have neither the horse nor the
money. At the station I searched him, and found on him
five sovereigns.
The prisoner said—The prosecutor came first with the
policeman, and then left to get the rest of the money; but
he changed his mind, and came back and gave me into
custody.
The prisoner was then remanded, with permission to put
in bail in two sureties in £2O each, and his own recog-
nisance in £4O.

WESTM I NSTER.—Tous ON CHELSEA NEW BRIDGE.
—George Ray, a toll collector on Chelsea New Bridge, was
charged with unlawfully exacting toll there.
Mr. Gilham appeared to prosecute the complaint, and
Mr. Davis, from the Board of Works, for the defendant.
Mr. Gilham, in opening the case, said that his client was
Mr. Poole, of 87, Westbourne-street, Pimlico, who had a
postchaise, by the direction of the railway authorities of the
West-end or Pimlico terminus, for the convenience of a supe-
rior class of travellers. The Bridge Act specified that all
postchaises should, on their return empty, be free from toll,
notwithstanding which the defendant had, in his capacity of
collector, exaet the sum of 2d. from Mr. Poole's driver.
It would be said, he had no doubt, by the other side, that
the carriage in question was not a postchaise, for, according
to defendant's expressed definition, it could not be unless
the man in charge of it wore breeches and top-boots, and
rode the horse. Although Mr. Poole's man did not do this, it
was nevertheless a postchaise, and so considered by the
excise, who took post-horse duty for it.
Joseph Hayden, the driver, having proved that the de-
fendant exacted the toll,
Mr. W. Poole said he had stables close to the Pimlico
station, and paid post-horse duty; he did not take fares
like a cab, and was told by the excise that his was a post-
chaise. _

Cross-examined—Had no name or number on his car-
riage ; none was requires, ; was privileged to run from the
railway; paid duty on the 15th of July to enable him to
keep a postchaise; there was no difference is appearance
between his and a private carriage ; did not ply as a cab
without paying for a cabman's license; did not stand on
the rank for hire like a cab.
By Mr. Paynter—Pays 17s. 61. per quarter duty to
the excise; cabs pay a shilling deity per day.
Mr. T. S. T. Talbot, superintendent of the West-end
Railway, said that, being most anxious to get a superior
class of carriages for West-end travellers, the complainant
was privileged to come there. Such advantages were also
afforded the public at the Crystal Palace, East Croydon,
Brighton, and other places on the line. Complainant's car-
riage did not go en the platform ; if wanted, it was at hand.
Witness had made inquiries of the excise, and found com-
plainant required neither ticket nor plate under the post-
horse regulations. He witnessed a demand made upon
complainant's man for toll at the bridge by a collector, and
then told him to show his postchaise license ; he did, hut the
toll was still exacted, on the ground that it was not a post-
chaise, as there was no man riding on the berse's back. With
an earnest de.lre to set the matter at rest witness went to the
office of the Board of Works, and there saw two gentlemen,
named Crozier and Latnhart, and the result was that the
latter gentleman came to the terminus, had the matter fully
explained to him, and then said he would give orders that
no toll should be taken for complainant's empty carriage
unless notice was given•to the contrary, and so it went on
for some time. A Middlesex magistrate had complained of
the toll being taken for his postchaise, and when the toll
collector found out he was a magistrate he gave the money
back.

By Mr. Gilbam—There had been no complaint of this
description at Brighton or elsewhere; there had been no
dispute about such a carriage being a postchaise.
Mr. Paynter said complainant must mind he did not take
up a job as he returned.
Mr. Gilliam observed he did take care, for he would be
liable to a penalty of gm.
Mr. Davis could not see why witness should take so
active a part in the matter.
Mr. Talbot replied that it was his duty and interest to see
that every accommodation was afforded passengers. He
was now making arrangements for omnibuses to run to and
from Paddington, hi order to afford West- end residents
every facility of reaching the terminus.
Defendant, in reply to the charge, said that every gentle-
man's servant who went over the bridge in a brougham
might say it was a postchaise, for there was nothing to dis-
ting,uish the complainant's carriage. He had had seven
different jobs after li o'clock Over the bridge on Tue,iday.
Complainant plied at the station the same as a cab, and the
cabmen complained very much of it. He did not keep his
horse in the stable, but it was always ready.
Mr. Paynter had no doubt cabmen complained because
they paid ls. per day, and complainant only 17s. 6d.
per quarter. He did not see complainant was bound to keep
his horse in the stable.

Mr. Davis said that the Commissioners of Works as trus-
tees for the public were desirous of doing their duty as far
as they could, and had no right or power to forego tolls
which they thought by law should be taken. He had con-
sulted the officers of inland revenue, and had taken the
opinion of counsel, and was informed complainant was not
entitled to exemption. Complainant had entered himself
with the excise as carrying on his business at 87, West-
bourne-street, Pimlico, and therefore when he went with an
empty carriage from the Middlesex to the Surrey side of the
bridge he mild not be " returning home." He (Mr. Davis)
contended that this could not be called a post-horse and
chaise within the meaning of the act ; there was no mark
to distinguish it from a private gentleman's earria,e, and
this was nothing more than competition between him and
the cabmen at the railway for fares. In truth, when he
claimed exemption from toll, he was going to the railway in
quest of a fare.
Mr. Gilbam pointed out that he paid his post-horse duty
in the county of Surrey because his stables were there.
He merely had apartments in Westbourne-street. He
started with jobs from his stables, and returned there empty
and was exempt. The hiring was made with complainant
as job-master. The servant never took any money, save the
post-boy, gratuitously.
Mr. Paynter observed that a return chaise meant coming
back from a job, and unless exempt, how could a post-master
carry on his business? The question was whether this was
a postchaise, for, if so, and entitled to certain privileges,
the complainant was justified in claiming them.
Mr. Gilham pointed out that there was no probability of
the toll collector being imposed upon by his client's carriage
resembling that of a private gentleman's, and by his not
knowing who was exempt, for the driver, when he claimed
exemption, always produced his post-horse license.
The case was adjourned for a few days, for the magis-
trate to satisfy his mind on some points.
ROBBING RAILWAY PARCELS.—WaIiain Strange, a
carman, 10 years in the employment of the Great Western
Railway Company, was charged with breaking open a
package belonging to the Hon. Ashley Ponsonby, and steal-
ing a portion of the contents.
Mr. Joseph Aggerson, inspector of the goods department,
stated the case. About 1 p.m. on Friday last Richard Green-
wood, a corporal of the lit Life Guards, was at a window
of Knightsbridge barracks, when he saw prisoner stop his
cart, undo a package, and take out a couple of brushes,
after which he drove on. The soldier immediately com-
municated with the Great Western Railway Company, and
upon inquiries they found the package belonged to the
Hon. Ashley Ponsouby, and was being conveyed from his
town house at Rutland-gate, to his seat In Gloucestershire,
where, on its arrival, several brushes were missed. Mr.
Aggerson went to prisoner's I)dgings and found two of
them there.

Prisoneiwas remanded.
BRUTAL ASSAULT.—John Owen, an elderly man, was
charged with a brutal assault upon Susan, his daughter, a
woman 25 years of age.
The evidence adduced proved that the defendant, who
wasintoxicated, rushed upon his daughter in Rochester-
row on the previous evening and struck her several blows
with a brass rod, one of which wounded her in the head and
rendered her insensible ; her arm was also much hurt. She
was taken to the hospital' and now refused to press the
charge against he! father.
Defendant said that he went to sleep, during which time
his daughter took 10s. from him. When he awoke he asked
her for it, and she only gave him half-a-crown back. He
thought that an amount of provocation
did to her. justifying what he

Mr. Paynter observed that his daughter did right to take
his money from him during his drunkenness, and ought to
have been commended instead of ill-treated. He would not
part with defendant till she appeared, and should remand
him for a week. He subsequently offered to take bail for
his appearance.

NTARLBOROUGH-STREET.—CURIOUS CAB TICKET
DECEPTION.--A cabdriver named Bates was summoned
by Mr. Cherry, thl veterinary surgeon and inspector of
horses to the police. _ _ .

. _
Mr. Cherry said he was passing along Oxford-street
when the defendant plied him and drove up to the kerb.
Ile told the defendant he did not call him ; but now he was
there, seeing that the horse in the cab was lame, he would
ascertain what caused the lameness. He asked the defen-
dant for his ticket. The defendant gave him one, which he
saw was not the right number. He told the defendant what
he had discovered, The defendant said be bad made a mis-

take ; he bad been driving for two masters and had given
the wrong ticket. The defendant then gave him a second
ticket, and he should have gone away with it had he not
discovered, on a slight inspection, that the ticket was so
manufactured as to allow the top number to come off, leav-
ing a different number beneath. The top number was made
of very thin paper, and it was attached so slightly to the
substance of the paper that it would become detached on
the least pressure.
Mr. Beadon asked the defendant to explain the circum-
starces.
The defendant said the ticket was just as he had received
it from his employer.
Mr. Cherry bad reason to doubt this. The ticket had
been manufactured for purposes of deception, and it was
important that the public should be placed on their guard,
and the matter further inquired into.
Mr. Beadon said it was a matter of public importance,
certainly, as the public principally depended on the tickets
they received from cabmen in cases of dispute.
The defendant gave such a lame explanation of the affair
that
Mr. Beadon said he would first inflict a fine for plying for
hire ; next, he would detain his badge; and, lastly, remit
his license to Scotland-yard for the commissioners to inquire
into these deceptive tickets.
DETERMINED ATTEMPT AT SUICIDE..... Catherine
Rich, a very respectably-dressed female,,was charged with
the following determined attempt at suicide :
Police-sergeant Gummer, C 21, said he was sent for by
a chemist in Pultney-street, named Green, to take charge
of the prisoner, who had attempted to purchase arsenic for
the purpose of destroying herself. He took the prisoner
to the station-house, and questioned her. The prisoner
told him that she had been deserted by her husband, and
then pleading illness, requested to be shown to a place of
convenience. Tier request was complied with, but witness
feeling doubtful about her intentions, looked into the cell
where the prisoner had been introduced, and discovered
that she was black in the face and insensible. The prisoner
had tied a handkerchief round her throat, so as to produce
strangulation, and had she been left alone a few minutes
longer there was no doubt she would have destroyed her life.
The prisoner, whose husband is stated to hold a respect-
able situation in the City, expressed contrition for her con-
duct.
Mr. Beadon said he certainly should not let her go until
further inquiry was made.
Remanded for a week.

WORSHIP-STREET. ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A
DONKEY.—Mr. D'Eyncourt was occupied a considerable
time in the investigation of an adjourned summons in
which Edward Dillon, a police sergeant, 17 K, Wt 9
charged with cruelty to a donkey belonging to a man
named Joseph Parnell, a greengrocer, residing at Old
Ford, who was formerly a policeman in the same division
as the defendant.
The principal officers of the division were present watch-
ing the case, which appeared to have excited a high degree
of interest. _ _ .

Parnell, the complainant, deposed, that on the night o
the 26th ult., about 20 minutes before 12, while in his gar-
den, he heard the sound of a heavy blow, and looking over
a fence to a piece of waste ground where his donkey was, he
there saw the defendant strike the animal two other blows
with his truncheon. The defendant, he said, struck the
blows right forward " with all his vengeance," and after-
wards went into a neighbouring public-house. The donkey
ran away at least 150 yards, aad witness, when he brought
it back, found the eye much swollen and bleeding, a bit
being knocked off the eyelid as big as a shilling. The de-
fendant, he said, had a little spite against him, but he did not
know why, and believed it to have been his intention to
kill the animal. It was moonlight at the time, and the
moon shone full on the defendant's face.
Mr. D'Eyncourt—Did you say anything to Lim at the
time ?
Complainant—l did not speak to him, because I would
not have him say he had locked me up, as he has said he
would do.
In cross-examination by the defendant's solicitor, the
complainant said it was true that he was formerly in the
police, and dismissed from it upon the defendant's report,
hut he had never threatened to do the defendant an injury.
Policeman 460 K lodged in his house, he said, and had since
been reported by the defendant. He admitted, on being
pressed, that be went to the station-house to ask if the
defendant had been near his house that night at the time he
mentioned, because he had heard it said that he was not out
before one o'clock.
Policeman 460 K said he lodged in the complainant's
house, and had returned home about a quarter before 12 on
the night in question, his wife being unwell. He and
Parnell were in the back garden smoking their pipes, when
he heard the sound of a blow, and on looking. over he saw
that it was one of the police striking the donkey that was
feeding there. He saw two blows struck, and the arm
raised to strike again, when the donkey ran away. He
thought by the appearance and voice of the man that it was
Sergeant Dillon. Parnell said that it was, but be could not
say positively that it really was the sergeant.
In cross examination, he said he had once been reported
by the defendant, who was a very strict officer. He did not
see any more of the donkey after it ran away, but his wife
afterwards told him that it was cut.
Nathaniel Delaforce, foreman of the East London Water-
works, stated that he lived next door to the complainant,
and at 10 minutes or a quarter before 12 that night lie was
a few minutes' walk from the place, when he saw the de-
fendant.
Policeman, 59 K, said that, between four and five in the
morning, the complainant spoke to him, and showed him
the donkey, upon which he saw a night mark like a scratch
such as a nail might have made, but not such a mark as a
truncheon would make. It was quite dry, as if not very
recent; the skin was not cut off at all, nor did there appear
to have been-any blood. -He had seen two women, 271 K'.
wife and another, drive the donkey towards the hack door,
and the complainant told him that he had had " a row with
his old woman," and went off to bed, and therefore saw
nothing of the matter himself, but that he had two wit-
nesses who did.
The complainant being recalled again swore that be saw
the donkey struck as already described, and knew that it
was Sergeant Dillon, upon whose face the moon shone at

the time.
For the defence 127 K was called, and deposed that, at
a quarter before 12, while on duty near Bow Church, he
saw and spoke to the defendant, Sergeant Dillon, who could
not possibly have been near the complainant's place, which
is a wile and a quarter distant.
Mr. D'Eyncourt, after some indignant comments by the
defendant's solicitor, dismissed the complaint against the
sergeant, with an expression of his opinion that it was un-
founded, and arose out of a vindictive feeling, and, in addi-
tion, he ordered a guinea costs to be paid to the defendant.

CLERKENWELL.—TIIE OROAN-GRINDING
NuI-
StNCE.—IMPORTANT DECISION.—A abort hearty-looking
Italian fellow, an organ-grinder, residing in the neighbour-
hood of Saffion-hill, was charged befbre Mr. Tyrwhitt with
playing an organ to the annoyance of Mr. S. Bishop, a
gentleman and calculator, residing at 14, Mallacion-place,
St. Pancras.
The prosecutor stated that last night, about eight o'clock,
he was disturbed, white making some calculations, by the
defendant grinding an organ. He went out, and found him
playing in front of No. 5, and upon asking him to go away,
and telling him that if he did not he should give him in
custody, lie at once desisted ; but when the ladies at No. 5
told him to go on, and that they would see him paid, he
refused to go away, and was then given into custody. The
clergyman, who also resided in the same house, complained
of the noise and nuisance caused by the organ-grinders.
He was at present engaged in making calculations in con-
nection with the metropolitan sewage question.
Mr. Tyrwhitt inquired if the complainant was a house-
keeper or a lodger.
Mr. Bishop replied that the landlady was a widow.
that the Police Act, 2d and 3d Vie.,
Mi4•.7Tysercwthist3t s‘eydidii
cap. , • • , ch related to street musicians depart-
ing when desired so to do, referred only to householders.
The words were as follows :—" It shall be lawful for any
housekeeper within the metropolitan police district, per-
sonally, or by his servant, or by any police-constable, to
require any street musician to depart from the neigh-
bourhood of the house of such householder, on account
of the illness of any inmate of such hou-e, or for
other reasonable cause ; and e
very person who shall
sound or play upon any musical instrument in any
thoroughfare near any house, after being. so required to
&part, shall be liable to a penalty of not mare than 405."
According to the Act of Parliament, the meaning of the
word " housekeeper" could be nothing more than land-
lord. Dr. Johnson's meaning cf the word was, "master of
the family," which be took to mean the landlord of the
house. The defendant was entitled to the benefit of the
landlady not having spoken to him. It happened to be the
law, of which the defendant would have the full benefit,
that the housekeeper, instead of the lodger, must complain;
but he could rest assured that, if the cases were made out,
he would inflict the full penalty of 40s. These organ-
grinders were brought over here by a parcel of hard-
hearted fellows, who drove the poor people out of their
homes, and sold them as slaves to annoy us. The
padrone who hired these men, and who made a for-
tune out of them, ought to pay the fine. An.
other curious point in the case was, that the ladies
at No. 5 had
asked the man to play his organ. He
has no hesitation in saying that a person who had sickness
in his house, or wanted quietness for the purpose of study,
has a perfect right to object to noises in the neighbourhood,
notwithstanding that other persons might like them. That
point would never avail with him, for a foolish or ill-natured
neighbour, just for the purpose of annoyance, would ask the
organ grinder to stop. If they wanted music they had
better follow it to where it could be played without annoy-
ance. The defendant would now be discharged ; but he had
better be careful how he was brought there again ' • for on the
next occasion he might be charged by the proper person.
The parties then left the court.

SOUTHWARK—EMBEZZLEMENT BY A CONFIDEN-
TIAL SERVANT.—James Cooke James, a respectable-look-
ing young man, was brought before Mr. Combe, charged
with embezzling various sums of money the property of
Messrs. Cory & Son, extensive coal merchants, of Com-
mercial-road, Lambeth, his employers.
One of the firm attended and said the prisoner had been
some years in their employ and in their confidence. On
Thursday morning last the prisoner suddenly absconded,
which caused them to examine the books, and they then
found that he was deficient in several items. It was his
duty to receive money from the customers and account for
it to them. On discovery of the robbery they gave infor-
mation to the police.
Sergeant Broad, 23 L, said from information he re-
ceived, he went to Vauxhall Gardens, and saw the prisoner
dancing along with a female. Witness went up to him and
told him he was charged with robbing his employers, and
then took him into custody.
Prisoner denied the charge, stating that the money was
all accounted for.

The gentleman who attended for the firm, stated such was
not the case, and requested his worship to remand the pri-
soner, in order to have the books further inspected.
Mr. Combe said it was a case that required further inves-
tigation ; under these circumstances, he should remand the
prisoner till Monday next.

LAMBETH.--APPREHENsioN or A Bui GLAR.—G'eo
Seth Morris, a Young man, was charged before Mr. Elliott
by Sergeant Coppin a detective officer of the P division,
with having been found in Alban read, Camberwell, in the
y-
company of another man named Edward Phillips, who has
been convicted on the charge, on suspicion of being there
for the purpose of committing a burglary.
Coppin stated that, on the 7th of June, he was in the
Albany-road with a gentleman when lie saw the prisoner
going along the road with a man whose name is Edward
Phillips. Another man came up at the time, and they all
went away. Witness followed them some distance when he
saw that he was observed by the prisoner, who ran away and
got off. Lie seized hold of Phillips, w14,-) ~cas taken to the
station-house. He Was there searched, and upon him were
found 13 skeleton keys and a chisel. Ile (Phillips) was
tried and :convicted, and was sentenced to twelve months'
imprisonment. He was now in prison. lie (the officer)
had not seen the prisoner till that (lay, when lie saw him at
this court. He informed the prisoner that he was going to
Mite him into custody in consequence of being in the corn.