The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 27, 1858.

....-------------- -
erie tore. The shares in this bank are transferable from hand
to hand ; they are purchaepeble in the share-market in
Liverpool and other places. What guides the minds of those
:ho are disposed to become purchasers? Only the reports
eublished periodically by the authorities of the company
hose shares are in the arket. It is those which, and
,ehfch alone, guide the publimc as to whether they shall become
purchasers or not. The plaintiffs are hard-working
men, not speculators, each of them employed as
warehousemen in the service of respectable houses
in this town. They had not means each of pur-
chasing the requisite number ofshares, because, by the con-
stitution of the company, less than ten are not transferable
they saw this report, they- took it home, they studied it
and they found that taking it altogether—although the
effect upon the share market had been to bring down
the shares in consequence, as you will see hereafter, of
the reelection from the usual amount of dividend—yet at
disclosed a state of things which they thought mut'
justify them in investing their money in the purchase of
shares. They accordingly, acting upon the faith of the
teport, purchased ten shares in the month of August, and
they were registered, I think, on the 23d of August. Now,
that is an outline of the transaction. It is for the misrepre-
sentation csntained in the report, with respect to which I
shall show, beyond all question, that Mr. Dixon, the defen-
dant, is intimately connected. They purchased upon the
faith of that, and they are entitled to he indemnified by him
against the loss to which they are liable. The bank stopped
payment on the 26th of October. They were called upon
afterwards with other unfortunate shareholders to pay a
call, I think, of £5. Now, the report to which I beg to
call your attention is this—" Twenty-first annual meeting
of the proprietors held on the 28:h of July, 1857. Directors
for the year," &c. The learned ceunsel then quoted the for-
mal part of the document, and proceeded—" According to
the last report, the paid-up capital of the bank was
£900,000, and the reserve fund £101,775 odd. Since that
date two calls of £1 per share have been made upon each cf
the shares, making the capital £1,000,090." It is, there-
fore, clear from this report that the actual existing capital
of the company paid up as represented amounted to
£1,000,000. " The nett profits of the past year, after the
payment of all expenses of management, and after deduct-
ing £45,825 for loss by bad debts incurred during the same
period, amount to £69,318." Therefore the nett profits of
the year, after the expenses of management are provided
for, and after £45,000 of bad debts during the current year
have likewise been deducted, leaves £69,000 odd. There-
fore, according to this, there would be £115,000 profits;
after allowing for bad debts, current and the year's ex-
penses of management, would leave £69,000 to be divided
amongst the shareholders. They say, " appropriated as
follows:-3; per cent. divided upon £950,030 (that is, at
the rate of 7 per cent. upon the former half-year) £33,250 ;
21 per cent., at the rate of 5 per centum per annum, upon a
million of paid-up capital, £25,000; property-tax, £3.1100;"
making altogether £61,879, leaving a balance of £7,439
6s. 6d. stated to be carried to the reserved fund. Just let
us for a moment look at the figures. It is stated that there
is a million of paid-up capital, asid upon the former balance-
sheet £101,700 of a reserve fund; £7,439 added to that will
give £109,000 of a reserve fund. They proceed—" Nearly the
whole of the losses above-mentioned have been caused by the
frauds of a customer." I believe that was so; one mighty
customer diet, during the course of this current year, take
in the bank to the amount of £45,000. "In winding-
up the affairs of 1854, a year which is well-known was
most disastrous to those customers of the bank who were in the
colonial shipping trade, a heavier loss had been sustained io
the realisation of the assets than could possibly be antici-
pated. The directors have thought it their duty at once to
reduce the dividend to the rate of five per cent. per annum,
on the ground that taking even a most favourable view of
the liquidation of those accounts, the whale of the reserve
fund will be required to meet the loss sustained." The loss
now ascertained, after the realisation of the assets and the
liquidation of the debts, will amount to so much. They will
require something more to place the bank clear than will
be met by the reserve fund of £lOB,OOO to £109,000. "The
whole of the reserve fund will be required to meet the loss
incurred." Not a word is said about the capital being re-
quired, but only the whole of the reserve fund will be re-
quired. They go on :—" And that, on the other hand,
taking the most unfavourable view consistent with proba-
bilities, the good current business of the bank will, in their
opinion, be sufficient to admit of the regular continuance of
the dividend, without encroaching upon the capital at the
same period in the coming year." Therefore, under the
most unfavourable circumstances consistent with proba-
bility, the good current business of the bank will enable
them, in the following period of the next year—the year
1858, and the month of July—to divide 5 per cent. without
encroaching upon capital. Not one word said about the
capital except that. What is the meaning of it? There is
the capital intact. The good business of the bank is such,
that the annual profits, after paying all expenses—the
prior losses of 1854 being all liquidated and accounted for
—the good genuine business of the bank will enable the
directors to pay 5 per cent. per annum, and not encroach
one iota upon the capital. The learned counsel then
proceeded to quote:—" In laying this statement before
the shareholders, the directors desire strongly to impress
upon them that its unsatisfactory character—(they had
divided 7 per cent. before this)—is to be attributed
to the affairs of 1854, and that apart from this, the sound
and legitimate business of the bank would have enabled it
to pay the ordinary dividend (that is, 7 per cent.), and also
to add largely to the reserve fund, notwithstanding the
losses that have been incurred subsequent to that period.
They wish also to state their confident expectation that the
change they are making in the policy and regulation of the
bank will effectually guard against a recurrence of similar
events." Now what is the lair result of the whole of this
report ? It represents a million of paid-up capital; it re-
presents all by-gone losses before the current year as amply
provided for by the reserve fund; and that without trench-
ing upon the capital, which is still intact, they are entitled,
as fair traders, to distribute among their shareholders a
portion of their profit amounting to 5 per cent. Now what
staauld you say, if it should turn out that the whole of the
capital was actually gone—that that which is represented as
existing capital of one million was all swallowed up before
this, and that not only the reserve fuud,but toe capital also,
had disappeared? What should you think if, so far from
the asets being realised, or the debt. liquidated, neither one
\
nor the other gad then been done ; that no; assets had been
realised, or at alt events to a very small extent ; that the
debts bad not been liquidated; and that so far from this
residuum fund, with the supposed realisation of the assets,
clearing the bank from all its former liabilities, there were
liabilities far, far beyond what the assets of the hank were
able to meet in existence at that very time ? What should
you say, then, as to representations of this kind ? What
should you think of the prudence of men in business actually
dividing profits upon the current year without attending to
the requirements of the deed, and setting apart from
time to time a portion of those profits against bad or
doubtful debts; saying, " We have lost in former years
far more than we can pay, but in this particular year
we find that which we conveniently call profit, and not
setting it against the prior losses, we will divide amongst
our customers this amount ?" What should you say ? Why,
gentlemen, I think you would be inclined to say with me,
that it was a gross misrepresentation. Now, I will show you
that it was so, and that the defendant knew it. It may be
said—well that may be so ; it may be true that the capital
may have been swallowed up; that these assets have not
been realised, or debts liquidated, and yet Mr. Dixon may
know nothing upon the subjec'. But, I apprehend that the
law is clear upon this, that if a man undertakes to represent
as an existing fact that which he does not know to be an
existing fact, whereby another is induced to alter his condi-
tion for the worse, he is as much liable as if he misrepre-
sented a fact which he knew not to be the case. They are
just in the same category. But what do you think of the
case where a man is a managing director, has access to the
books, is appointed a managing director for the very pur-
pose of overhauling the books and satisfying himself of the
existing state of things—what do you think if he should say
" I don't know anything about it ?" Why, you would per-
haps be inclined to reply, "Then you ought ti know snne-
thing about it." The learned counsel, in support of his ar-
gument, quoted the opinion of the Master of the It ills in a
case lately decided un ler simler circlunstatices. It was
•ought t make a wan con o-Oyitary to aa estate which was
being wound up, and the directors said they knew nothing
of it personally. " Wie, her (said the Master of the Ito,ls)
Cie directors persooally knew that their s,atemeots were de-
in-lye and etatrue, is, iii my opinion, immaterial. They
were bound to le iow it. They wete the vouchers to the
p-tolic of the accuracy of their statements. Taey were the
company itself ; by its proper organs announcing to the
public the state of the concern ; and the company can gain
no bent fi, by coca represeotations." So they were bound
to ienow :i!. But, gentlemen, I will go fu ther than that,
and show you that Mr. Dixon did actuagy know—not only
that he represented a fact which he ought to have known,
'tot only that he might have known it, and was hound
to knew it—but that he actually did know—if not to the
entire eve- tact ccrainly sulliiien 1 to have induced him nod
the other directors also to have adopted a dill rent course.
After the stoppage of the bank, on the 26,h of October, liqui-
dators were appointed, and Mr. Dixon became the chairman
of the liquids ors The liquidators employed Mr. Banner, a
most respectable accountant, of this town, to go over the
affairs of the bank, and he prepared a statement, which was
produced at a meeting where Mre. Dixon was, and adopted
and ordered to be printed and circulated. At that meeting,
after giving an account of what had been done since the
liquidators were appointed, Mr. Dixon made a speech, to
which I invite your attention. He says :—" I propose, be-
fore proceeding any further, to make a fewremfeaerlktshiant my
individual capacity as a director. I cannot but
position in which the directors are placed is one of very great
discredit." I don't think anybody will differ front hint in
that. "And I shall, as fully as I can, explain the part
which I have taken in the direction. About three-and-a-
half years since I became a director." [The learned counsel
said that he did not wish to go over_ the whole speech, called
attention to the fact relative to Mr. Dixon's conduct both
before and after he became a managing director.] * * *
" I also stated, after Mr. Doherty's matter—[the learned
counsel explained in 1836 and 1857]—came before the bank,
I placed on the books a record of my opinion that the
nature of the transactions by which this loss was incurred
was unbusiness-like, and ought not to heve occurred." So that
then, although an outside director, he took an active part
in condemning the system adopted in this particular in-
-lance.
then, . ''l also stated that, in my opinion, the managing
directors were as blameable as the manager for the loss."
What,
shall we say when he becomes a manning
director himself? "It was then for the first time I be-
came aware that the managing directors had actually
little control or knowledge of the affairs of the company
as outside directors." A pretty state of things! "Towards
the end ef June last Mr. Cress called upon me in London,
and told me Mr. Smith was going to resign, and that Mr.
Seller was to take his place, and asked me if I would become
managing director. I assented ; and immediately on my re-
turn to Liverpool my first step was to inquire into the condi-
tion of the bank with respect to the declaration or non-d, cla-
ration of a dividend." Had his attention been called to it ?
Did he think they were in a ticklish state ? Did he think the
declaration of a dividend was a mater for serious considera-
tion ? Hear what he says :—" The statement of the affairs
of the bank laid before me by Mr. Smith, the manager, led
toe to the conclusion that no dividend ought to be de-
clared. This view of the case was assented to at a meeting
of the directors ; but at a meeting afterwards, suddenly con-
vaerindepd;atcheeddietetit'hienpwriansterre'
decision
who
b a
a was
andra
se adopted dpe orr
sepesi
dee ,es-. e r reversed."
hands,"u t:,.1,,
rao w , that is a statement
upon which, as I shall show ,o
circulatedw ar d
,present
ybea yttbh t,t,ehah erwe
dhm.(
meeting,:. elaeentidii ontagotr.dhwe askedT :
.i purpose
reportut
Then rnn:Pvyeasspii ee al'
whetherlr.o fNe. t founded,',oet3oittlindhai being
Dixon replied—" By th
Or tl_taieniaphir
ii)teiopnroo_f
motive being that it was danee'rous •
the batik to run the risk of exeitemeinnt
pro-
duced by the non-declaration of diovfirtiebre:ldbi.aantlkt
bank." Toe
have
resulted in a run and the stoppage
declaration of divii!enl—et the effect that would haiveenbeei;
; oduced on the s: arch ldera. What would have teen the
.0111 c: upon the public, upon the customers of the bank who
not shareholders, the moment it should become bruited
would have been by public report—a
were ,
at it innitablY
the !ink stoppage, have be This is what they ,
furl (11)011 ,.,
final wanting up of the affairs of the bank,
thought; the _ ..
abroad,
" I acceded (said Mr. Dixon) to it
•,otl3o, of the shareholders.
t'te, less of all their shares, would have been utter ruin to
only on the understanding
and correct disclosure of the
aolitere should contain a full .
ending that the statement to the share-
d It of capital." Now,
feet that the dividend was declare ot ,
there is not iu this
condition of the bank, even though It should di close the
gentlemen (pursued the learned counse,),

report. the shadow of a shade of an intimation that the divi-
lend has been declared out of capital, because it is distinctly
.•ated that the net profits of the past year are £115,000, ou'
,f which net profits of the year the dividend is paid, the
expenses of management and the bad debts of the current
year being provided for. Not one word about its being paid
out of capital. Well, now, gentlemen, when the account
was published it was faund that their liabilities, after de-
luctirg those which might be made available, amounted to
£1,460,000, and that their assets were £1,488,000. So that,
supposing the assets when realised did produce that, under
the most favourable state of things, it showed a surplus of
£22,000, and that was all. But that was not so. Their
liabilities were far beyond what their assets were : calls had
to he made, and the whole was one complete mass of ruin
and desolation. Can it be said that all this capital has been
lost since July? Gentlemen, so far from there being a
million of capital paid up upon which they had actually
declared a dividend, and divided the profits, there were only
£936,000 odd. That was all the capital which they then
had. Was it lost in fuly ? It was or was t ot. Mr. Dixon,
trom the early part of June to the stoppage of the bank,
was himself the sole managing director. Will he say it
was all lost after July ? 'What reckless trading ! What
management there must have been in such a case ! Mr.
Dixon was alone responsible. Me cannot, therefore, say
it was lost since then ; it would be monstrous ; it must have
been lost before. But let me call your attention to what he
knows, and actually states. Mr. Banner was employed by
the bank to investigate the accounts, and upon the 12th of
November there was a meeting at'which he produced a sta'e-
ment, to a certain extent, of what he bad made out. "Into
the accounts," Mr. Banner said in this report, "upon which
the losses have occurred, I have not had time to enter closely.
They have most of them been current on the books of the
bank for some years, and I see that large amounts have been
written off from time t.r time to the eiebit of profit and loss,
£371,000 odd haNing been written off between June, 1854
(the year in which Mr. Oliver stopped), and the same period
of 1857, covering a period of four years only." So that you
have the fact, a rived at by the inspection of the books, as
stated by Mr. Banner before a meeting, at which Mr. Dixon
was present, that £371,000 odd had actually been written off
as lossee, and if that is not a loss of capital to that extent I
am at a loss to know what is. This is before June,lBs7, the
report being upon the 28th of next month (July). Mr.
Smith's statement is to the same effect, Mr. Smith's state-
ment to Mr. Dixon being in the month ofJune. Mr. Dixon
referred to this statement as showing the expediency of
dividing the profits; and I find likewise, in the report pre-
sented to the meeting upon the 17th February, in this year,
by Mr. Banner, and adopted by that meeting, he says this :
—" We mention in our report of the 12th of November that
the principal accounts upon which the losses have accrued,
now contained in our statement, have been current on the
books of the bank fur some years, and scarcely any of these
heavy amounts have been written off." That is totally at
variance with Mr. Banner's statement of the 12th Novem-
ber. He says that before that £371,000 had actually been
written off, and that "before the issue of the directors' re-
port in July last, an estimate was made of the probable lose,
amounting in the aggregate to £.370,000." Therefore there
could be no doubt that there was this loss of £370,000 re-
ferred to in Mr. Smith's report to Mr. Dixon, in the month
of June, stated by Mr. Banner, who had examined the
books on the 12th of November, to have been written
off before June in that veer, and afterwards stated by
Mr. Banner not to have been written off. Now, what does
this state of things show ? That in the month of June,
according to the directors' own account, the whole of the
reserve fund was swallowed up. £IOB,OJO, to their know-
ledge, was necessary to cover losses sustained in former years,
in 1854 principally, and two or three years succeeding, and
taking that from the admitted loss of £370,000 so written off,
it will leave somewhere about £270,000 of capital actually
gone. They were bound by that clause and their deed to
which I have referred, upon ascertaining that all the reserved
fund was gone, and a fourth part of the paid-up capital, to
summon their subscribers before them, and to take measures
for a dissolution of the company. There was gone at that
time far more than one-fourth of the capital, because one-
fourth of the p iid-up capital of £040,000 would only be
£235,000, and they had in fact lost nearly £300,000 besides
the reserve ; then I say that the defendant is liable for
the amount claimed by the plaintiff—because I shall
show you, beyond all question, that the plaintiffsdid actually
receive these reports, and acted upon them alone, and that
they were not, as may perhaps be contended on the
other side, intended solely for the inspection of the proprie-
tors. They are, and always have been, considered and acted
upon in the open market as furnished for the guidance of the
public, to show the public whether they will be justifird in
investing their money in the purchase of shares. The next
question is, are the misrepresentations such as to impose a
liability upon the defendant? I think when I have laid before
you proofs of these facts, you will see beyond all question
that the plaintiffs, who have invested their whole property,
or nearly so, in the purchase of shares in this bank, are en-
titled, injustice, in law, and in good sense, to call upon Mr.
Dixon to recompense them for the loss they have sustained.
The two plaintiffs were called and examined in
or tcorrobora-
tion of the facts stated by their counsel, after whch
Sir Fitzroy Kelly addressed the jury the defience, con-
tending that there had been no misrepresentation on the
part of Mr. Dixon; that he had been connected with the
bank since 1854, and that between that year and 1857 he
had purchased 130 shares, the amount thus invested being
£15,000. That until a few months before the failure, he
had not an opportunity of knowing what took place with
regard to the actual transactions of the bank, and that when
thoroughly apprised of its condition, he acted only as an
honest and honourable man would have acted. Evidence
was then called for the defence.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the
amount claimed.
The Judge said be hoped this case would be a warnivg to
he whole country.

he properly stoked and carefully coaled, would it be for
smoke to arise ?
Mr. Eandeson—A 150-horse boiler would take about a
minute and a half, if carefully seen to. The shaft is inside
a large brick square. It ought to be raised higher, about 1.2
feet.
Mr. Rogers observed that. if the commissionctrs were com-
pelled to consume a more expensive coal they would have
to shut up the establishment. It did not pay, and was not
able to pay out of the revenue the interest of the money
borrowed.
After a long argument, in the course of whic'h it was con-
tended by Mr. Rogers that Mr. Urquhart was r sot the proper
person to be summoned, but which the learn ad counsel de-
nied, it was agreed to adjourn the summons for a month, to
afford the commissioners an opportunity of making the
required alterations.
ATTEMPTED SUICIDE IN A CELL BY A FEMALE.—
Catherine Gannon, a married woman, was charged with
assaulting Anne Glynn, and with also having attempted to
commit suicide.
The evidence went to show that the prisowir lodged in
the same house with complainant, who was Vic occupier of
it, at No. 7, Blackland-street, Chelsea, anti that on the
previous afternoon she gave complainant a violent blow
with her fist os her right eye, which was much blackened
and swollen. She also struck complainant on her left arm.
In these several assaults she was assisted by her husband.
She was taken to the station-house by 158 B, and placed in
a cell. The officer went there in a few minutes awl found
her black in the face from the effect of a handkerchief which
she had tied tightly round her throat, and which was re-
moved by the constable.
She was fined £3, or in default six weeks' imprisonment,
and a summons was ordered to be issued against her husband.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—FORGED CHEQUES.-
Thomas Anderson Nesbitt was brought up for final exa-
mination before Mr. Bingham, charged with uttering
several forged cheques.
Mrs. Jane Walker, of No. 5, Pollen-street, Hanover-
square, licensed victualler, said she knew the prisoner as a
customer. On Saturday evening, the 7th inst., the prisoner
called to pay a small bill be owed and tendered a cheque on
Messrs. Glyn and Co., purporting to be drawn by John
on the cheque, she gave him
aid the cheque to a Eadie, for E 4 4s. She asked the prisoner to put his name
on the back of the cheque, and the prisoner having written
tt hh
ee nameneigh-
bour,e—
and it was raurned to her unpaid on the 16th inst.
re "Thomas
3 is. Anderson"
She
p
John Moore, one of the clerks of Messrs. Glyn, said no
person of the name of Eadie kept an account with that firm.
The prisoner was committed on this case.
The next case was for feloniously uttering to James Paul

two forged cheques.
James Paul, licensed victualler, 122, Oxford-street, said
on the Nth inst. the prisoner, who had been a customer,
came to his house, and producing a cheque for £B, purport-
ing to be drawn by James Cross on. Messrs. Glyn and Co.,
asked him to change it. He inquired of the prisoner if he
kn'w the drawer of the cheque. The prisoner replied he
did; James Cross lived in Cheapside, and was a very rich
man. The prisoner further added that Cross was a jeweller,
and he had done a great deal of business with him. Witness
believing the story, gave the prisoner £7 and 20s. in silver,
and he went away. On the 17th inst. the prisoner came
again, and brought a second cheque for £7 154., signed in
the same way asg
atihee t
hprevious
eorn eh,i s and asked
ew, ibtunte stsootko
ethheanpgreeciatu. precaution
nto stop the payment of it, as he bad received
information which led hint to doubt the genuineness of the
cheques.
John Moore, clerk to Messrs. Glyn and Co., proved that
no one of the name of Cross kept an account at their house.
Police-sergeant Silverton, C 293, said he had made inquiry
in Cheapside, and could find no one named James Cross,
jeweller, living there. When he took the prisoner into
custody, the prisoner said, " For God's sake let me see the
people, and square it, and give them the money."
The prisoner denied the accuracy of Mr. Paul's state-
ment, but admitted that Mrs. Walker had spoken cor-
rectly.
Fully committed.
Charles Thatcher, cabman, was charged with assaulting
Mr. John Vivian, of No. 20, King-street.
Mr. Vivian said he hired the deendant from Temple-bar
to the Haymarket. He paid the defendant his fare, but the
defendant demanded 6d. more ; and, on being refused, he
seized him by the coat and pulled off three valuable buttons.
The buttons were of foreign manufacture, and finely en-
graved.
The cabman, in defence, said he was not paid enough,
and on asking the defendant for his address it was refused.
This being denied by the prosecutor, the case was
adjcurned for further evidence.
George John Chapman, a county magistrate, was fined
ss. for being drunk and incapable in the Haymarket the
previous evening.

MARYLEBONE.—EMBEZZLEMENT BY A CLERK.
—Frederick Justice Latham, a respectable-looking man,
between 40 and 50 years of age, was placed at the bar
before Mr. Long, charged with having embezzled money to
the amount of gm, received by him for and on account of
his employer, Mr. Yates, matmaker, Abingdon.
The evidence went to show that on the previous day the
prisoner absconded, and that soon afterwards Inspector
Durdle, of the Great Western Railway police, Paddington,
received a telegraphic message, giving a correct description
of the prisoner, who, on the arrival of the 9 o'clock train
on the same evening, was taken into custody. Mr. Rawlings,
superintendent of the Abingdon constabulary, came up by
another train shortly afterwards, mad the prisoner was by
him identified. He was searched, and in his possession was
found the sum of £9B fiis. 3d.
Mr. Long directed Mr. Rawlings to take the prisoner
beck with him to Abingdon, for examination before the
magistrates there.
DARING ROBBERY BY FEMALES.—Anne Lee and
Mary Anne Sheehan, women of disreputable character,
were charged with having, supposed by the administration
of chloroform, robbed a man named Walter Davies of his
purse and money.
Prosecutor deposed that on the previsus night he was
accosted by the prisoners, at about 12 o'clock, as lie was
walking along the Harrow-road, who asked him to go home
with them. lie refused to do so, when one of them put
something wet upon his face, which caused him to feel quite
giddy; lie felt a hand in his packet, and directly afterwards
he missed his purse.
Sergeant Potter, 16 D, deposed that he was with Hobbs,
261 D, near the spot where the robbery took place, and he
heard prosecutor call gut. He (witness) with his brother
officer went up, and saw Sheehan grasping the prosecutor
tightly by the collar, and pushing him against some railings,
whilst Lee had her hand is his trousers pocket. The
prisoners were both taken into custody, and on the way to
the station-house Lee made a most determined resistance.
While the charge against her was being taken down in the
hook by the inspector on duty she dropped the stolen purse
on the floor.
Some o her evidence having been gone into, the prisoners,
who pleaded guilty rather than be sent for trial, were com-
mitted to hard labour in the House of Correction for four
months.
DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT AT A FUNERAL. John
Gilpin, a labourer, and another man, named Robsrt Day,
were brought before Mr. Long, charged with the following
diqe.raceful conduct :
It appeared from the evidence that on the previous after-
noon, at four o'clock, the hour appointed for the interment
cf a sergeant of militia, at St. John's, Hempstead, a crowd
of 1,500 persons assembled, and in order that there should
be no breach of proper decorum upon so solemn an occasion
some police-constables were present to prevent the mob
from rushing into the burial ground. The service in the
church having been cancleded, the Rev. Mr. Chapnells, the
curate, was preceding the coffin with the mourners to the
place of sepulture, when, at the entrance thereof, Gilpin,
who was very drunk and refused to obey the order that he
should not be admitted, abused the clergyman in a most
shameful manner. Much confusion ensued, and he was taken
info cu to iy by Gl.altiN, 415 5, whom he struck with great
,
violeoce on the head; lie also kicked him severely on the legs.
Day attempted to rescue Gilpin, and he (Day) made his
p,eape. He was afterwards taken into custody by Buck,
PS, and Gardiner, 189, both of the S division. Stones were
thrown, and Buck received a wound on his cheek, but he
could not say that the stones were thrown from the hands
of either of the prisoners.
Mr. Lenz fined each of the prisoners 20t., in Minh of
payment 14 days' imprisonment in the House of Correction.'

CLERKENWELL.—DOUBLE ATTEMPT AT SUICIDE.
—A miserable-loeking non, wto gave the name of Henry
Johnson, aged 78, a shoemaker, residing at 28, Little
Clarerden s=treet, Somers-town, was placed at the bar before
Mr. Tyrwhitt charged with being drunk and twice attempt-
ing to commit suicide by hangiog himself. The prisoner
in the !waning was much the worse for liquor, so much
So that it was found necessary to lock him up at the Somers-
town police-station. About three o'clock in the afternoon,
when Sergeant Mulvany, 8 S, the officer on duty, went
to visit him in the cell, he found that the defendant had
taken off his neckerchief and, placing it through the
small trap-door, had endeavoured to hang himself. The
sergeant reasoned with him, and the defendant promised
diet he would not repeat it; but when in the usual course
of visiting the cells—viz., after the lapse of about 10
minutes—he found him repeating the attempt, he placed
a constable with him. The prisoner said he was a mise-
rable roan, that he had a wife who was abeut 40 years
younger than himself, and that she being in the constant
ba'it of getting intoxicated, had made his life miserable,
and he was fully determined to put an end to it.
The prisoner, who seemed to be suffering from delirium
tremens, was remanded to the House of Detention.
DISGUSTING CRUELTY BY A DROVER.— Ilenry
Popkins, a drover, of Bethnal-green, was charged at the
instance of Mr. W. Love, the chief constable of the Royal
Society far the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with the
following b-utal treatment to a bullock :
The evidence of Guest and Selby, two of the society's
officer=, went to show that they were in the New
Cattle Market, when they saw a bullock struggling on the
ground in a state of exhaustion, haying its head tied tightly
up to one of the pen rails. They were about to release it
from its painful position, when the prisoner came up with a
heavy "bullock stick," having a sharp point inserted in the
end of it, and struck the animal a violent blow over the
nose, and in a moment after struck it again two terrific
blows between the head and eyes, and forced the end of the
stick in a violent manner up the nostrils of the poor beast,
cueing the blood to, gush out. They (the officers) baying
released the poor animal, immediately took the prisoner
into custody.
Mr. Tyrwhitt expressed his indignation at such brutality,
and asked the prisoner what he had to say to the charge?
The prisoner said he was very sorry for what be had done.
The bullock had lain down several times before, and it
caused him to lose his temper. He hoped his worship would
not " hurt him."
Mr. Tyrwhitt said unquestionably there was Brent cruelty
practised by such fellows as the prisoner at the Cattle Mar-
ket, and it was quite shocking to hear of such continued
brutality. He honed the society would continue to keep a
sharp look out after them. The prisoner would now have
to pay a flue of 305., or go to prison for a mouth, with hard
labour.

a well-dres;ed, gen tlernanly-
SOUTRWARK.—CAUTION TO RAILWAY TRAVEL-
LERS.—A NOVEL SYSTEM OF FRAUD.— lienry Palmer,
Mr. Combs charged with defrauding an old lady flaring
El'zabcth Newman of the sum of 3A. Gd., on the platfxna of
the South-Eastern Railway Terminus of London-bridge,
under the following novel Circumstances :
looking man, was brought before
The complainant stated that on the previous morning site
went to the railway station for the purpose of proceeding to
Shalford. While standing near the refreshment rooms the
prisoner came up to her, and asked her where she was
going. She told him to Shalford, and at the same time
a:ked him the fare. He replied that it was 35. Gd., and said
that he wauhl go and fe'cll the ticket for her if she gave
him the money. Believing him to be a gentleman she
handed him the 3s. 6.1., and he left ber. Shortly afterwards
a constable came up to her, and, on telling him what had
happened, the prisoner was followed out of the station and
brought back.
John White, a detective officer in the employ of the
South-Eastern Railway Company, said he had received in-
formation that several persons had been defrauded of money
in a similar way by a man answering the description of the
prisoner, and perceiving him go on the platform on the pre-

vious morning he watched him, and seeing him approach
the old lady and receive something from her and leave her,
he went and asked her what had occurred. On her telling
him, he pursued the prisoner, and saw him pa's through the
hooking-office in a hurried manner and run down the in-
cline, cross over the road into the Borough-market, and turn
into York-street. He then looked round, and, seeing that
witness was following him, he bolted across the road again,
up the incline into the booking-office, where he purchased
a ticket for Shalford, and was about to proceed to the plat-
form, when inspector Moy of the It division took him into
custody. The old lady lost the train in consequence.
The prisoner here declared that he never saw White,
and having 25 minutes to spare, he thought he would do a
little business at a shop in the Borough-market before he
purchased the old lady's ticket. He could assure his worship
he was a respectable, honest man.
White said he did not enter any shop or stop anywhere
until he returned to the booking-office. He believed the
Prisoner to be the same person who obtained a sum of money
from a little girl on the platform a few days ago under
similar circumstances. Then he did not return, as no per-
son was watching him. The poor girl cried very much,
having no money to pay her fare home ; but ➢lr. Dyne,
the station-master, hearing of the circumstance, with his
usual kindness put his hand in his pocket and paid her fare.
Inspector Moy, B division, said that on searching the
prisoner he found 56 pawnbrokers' duplicates relating to
great-coats, umbrellas, travelling rugs, a gold watch, chains,
and other property, pledged in different parts of London
within the last nine months. He wished for a remand, as be
believed the prisoner to be connected with a gang infesting
the railway stations for plunder and fraud, and that most of
the articles pledged were stolen from railway passengers.
The prisoner declared those suspicions to be false. He
was a gentleman, and resided at Perry-stree, near
Gravesend.
Mr. Combe asked him what means he had to live as a
gentleman, as the pawnbrokers' tickets did not show that
he was very well off ?
He replied that he had not much means. In fact, he had
been a merchant's clerk, but at the present time was out
of employ; but the officers were wrong in their suspicions.
Mr. Combe told him whether or no they were right or
wrong, he had some suspicion as to bis conduct ; therefore
he should remand him until Wednesday next. He would,
however, accept bail for his appearance, and if he was a
gentleman, as he styled himself, he would have no difficulty
in finding parties to become his surety.
Bail not being forthcoming, he was sent to gaol.

LAMBETH.—OMNIBUS RIVALRY.—Much of the time
of the Hon. G. C. Norton was occupied in hearing sum-
monses against the conductors of omnibuses for unlawfully
and improperly delaying their vehicles on their journeys.
It appears that up to a few weeks past the proprietors of the
Camberwell and Peckham omnibuses enjoyed a perfect
monopoly of the road from these places into the City, aid
the consequence was a charge of sixpence fare for any dis-
tance, however short, beyond the Elephant and Castle.
Some weeks ago, however, Messrs. Wood and Fox started a
number of omnibuses—the Havelocks—to run from the end
of Manor-place, a considerable distance along the Walworth-
road, to the Kingsland-gate, doing the whole journey for
the moderate fare of twopence; and the consequence is that
many of the merchz.nts and others living on this line of route
go to and from the City at one-third of what they bad been
in the habit of paying. The speculation became so pro-
fitable, and the opposition so successful, that the Cam-
berwell and Peckham 'buses found it necessary to lower
their fares, and considerable rivalry has resulted. As soon
as a " Havelock" pulls up for passengers at its starting
place, a Camberwell or Peckham 'bus is instantly driven
alongside, and one won't go without the ether; and when
they do go, they keep hanging on so as to commit the
offence of "loitering" on their journey, and for this several
summonses have been taken out by the police against the
parties, pro and con.
Yesterday, two summonses were appointed for hear-
ing, the one against George Drew, and the other-
against "William Low, and a third against George
Langham, all conductors in the service of Messrs. Wood
and Fox. Mr. Sleigh, instructed by Mr. Binns, attended
for the defendants ; and Mr. Superintendent Lund was also
in attendance on a summons taken out by the defendants'
attorney.
When the cases were called on, Mr. Sleigh took a legal
objection to the first summons, on the ground that the
place where the alleged offence had been committed was
not set out, the parish of Newington being merely men-
tioned, and contended that it was most important and abso-
lutely necessary to the defence that the defendant should be
made acquainted with the place of offence by setting it out
in the summons. For this omission he called on his worship
to discharge the summons.
Mr. Norton considered it essential that the place of the
alleged offence should be set out in the summons, and
should dismiss the case if pressed by Mr. Sleigh, but, if he
did so, a fresh summons would be taken out, so that the de-
fendant would not be placed in a better situation.
Mr. Lund said that if the summons was dismissed on the
objection urged by the learned counsel, he certainly should
at once apply for another in which the omission should be
supplied.
Mr. Sleigh, however, persisted in his objection to this
summons, as well as a second of a similar description against
William Low, and both were dismissed.
A third summons against George Langham was next en-
tered on, and from the evidence it appeared that the omni-
bus of which he was the conductor, after leaving Manor-
place, was three mintetes going 80 or 90 yards, and the con-
ductor of the opposition omnibus had on a former day been

fined for the offence.
Mr. Sleigh addressed the Court, and characterised the
alleged offence as of so trifling a character that he hoped
his worship would dismiss the case.
Mr. Norton, however, considered that a ease of loitering
had been proved, and convicted the defendant in a penalty of
ss. and costs.
Mr. Lund, addressing the magistrate, said that he had bees
served with a summons, not only to appear in the cases that
had just been before his worship, but to produce his books
containing all reports made to him respecting the Camber-
well and the Havelock omnibuses, and the consequence was
that himself and his clerk had been leapt up as late as 12
o'clock on the night before tracing out the reports in ques-
tion. The object, as be understood, in Catlin^ for such re-
ports was TO stosw that he (Mr. Lund) had exhibited a par-
tiality in favour of the Camberwell omnibuses ; but if such
had been the intention, the reports themselves and the re-
sults that followed would prove a perfect contradiction to
such a supposition.
Mr. Linn! assured Mr. Lund that no idea of partialitv
on his part had been entertained, and said the summons had
been taken out by him under a different feeling.
Mr. Wood begged that the objection made to the other
two summonses might be waived, and that they !night be
heard at once, obterving at the same time that the sum-
monses, the cost of defending them, and the penalties en-
forced, were most ruinous.
Mr. Sleigh told him that if he thought proper to take the
case out of his flange., and act counter to the objections he
had raised, and which led to the dismissal of the summonses,
lie might do so, and go on with the cases if he liked. (The
learned gentlemen here left the court.)
Mr. Wood, however, persisted in his request, and said there
was a considerable difference between his cases and those of
the Camberwell omnibuses, as the former while at Manor-
place had not started on their journey—that being the
starting-place—while the latter were in the performance of
their journey. All lie required was a few minutes, such as
might be fixed by his worship, at the starting-place, and
with that he would he satisfied.
Mr. Lund said the time fixed on by Sir Richard Mayne
was three minutes and this was not objected to so long as
there was no complaint on the part of the public or the in-
habitant.; but as regarded the starting-place, at the end of
Manor-place, there was, in point of fact, not any starting-
place appointed, nor had there been any representation
made to Sir Richard Mayne on the subject..
The two eases were tuen entered no, and r,tstateil id the
defendants being ordered to pay the expenses of the
summons,
Mr. Norton remarking be hoped that some arrangement
respecting the starting-place at Manor-place would be
speedily come to, and that be should have no more of these
sutonnotiecs.
Mr. Binns sincerely thanked his worship for the kind and
libet at jufp-tient he had given, and begged to place before
him a memorial, followed by the names of merchants, pro-
fessional men, and tradesmen, possessing property far ex-
ceeding one million sterling, approving in the biggest
manner of omnibuses by which persons were enabled to
travel several miles for the moderate stun of t wopcnce,
while o:liers ef a similar description were charging three
and four times as much for a less journey ; and if Mr. Lund
would have the kindness to take charge cf it, and place it
before the commissioners, he would be doing r. art at service.
This Mr. Lund promised, and the pt.cceedings terminat. d.

TEIANIES.—A CASE FOR THE BENEVOLENT.—Mr.
Selfe handed to our reporter a letter he had received from
Mr. Charles Dyke, of No. 6, Eaton-square, and dated Aug.
24,1858, in reference to the lamentable case of a poor blind
boy, named Daniel Regan, which came under the notice of
the magistrate some time back: The lad, a destitute and
harmless creature, was in a smithy in Whiseehapel whelk a
drunken and helf•insane ruffian entered the place, took up
a pondt rotas hammer and strack the boy on the head with it,
ii.flicting a severe wound and fracturing the skull. The
boy was in a precarious state for some time, and upon his
partial recovery gave evidence of the savage and unpro-
voked assault committed upon him. His evidence was con-
firmed by several witnesses, and the fellow who assaulted
him was committed for trial, and ultimately convicted at
the Clerke niv€ll sessions and sentenced to a long term of
imprisonment. Mr. Dyke in his letter states that the boy
had been admitted into an institution for promoting the
general welfare of the blind, 127, Euston-road, as a pupil,
and was already earning something for himself; but it was
very trifling. The association had admitted the boy into
the institution and taught him a trade perfectly gratis, but
had no funds for lodging or feeding him doling the time he
was a pupil. Mrs. C. Dyke had given £5, and a gentle-
man had kindly promised more towards this end, and
all that Mr. Dyke would ask now was that the magistrate
would make the case known to the world through the me-
dium of the press, as it would be lamentable to fail in
teaching the boy—who had displayed great intelligence—
the means of supporting himself in his affliction, for the
want of
a few poutds to lodge and feed him whilst he was
receiving instruction for nothing.
Mr. Selfe said he knew the case referred to by Mr. Dyke
to be a most deserving one, and he should be most happy to
rtc.tive the subscriptions of the benevolent to carry out the
objects aimed at by Mr. Dyke. He was glad to hear that
theunoffendiug boy had recovered from the terrible wound
inflicted upon him, and that he had found a refuge in the
excellent institution of which Mr. Dyke was a promoter and
supporter. Mr. Selfe also announced the receipt of 2s. 6d.,
—"A mother's mite from Tunbridge-wells ;" and a cheque
for LI from Mr. William Watling, for the benefit of Mrs.
Spurling, whose husband, a recruiting sergeant, married her
on the oth inst., and, after ill-using her, abandoned her on
the following day, taking with him a gratuity of £lO pre-
sented to her by the committee of the Indian Relief Fund,
in considera•iou of her first husband, Patrick Readdy, hav-
ing been killed while serving with tha army in ludic. Au
acknowledgment of the subscriptions was requested to be
made in the journals.
PRECOCIOUS VILLANY.—Henry Phillip, aged 16,.
and George Phillips, 13, were braught before Mr. Selfe
charged with stealing £4 in gold and silver, the property
of an old Irish couple named Sloane.
It appeared that the old man Sloane, who has been in
the army, and has received medals for his good conduct and
bravery, and his wife, a laundress, and a very industrious
and thrifty woman, were removing from 34 to 42,3 amerce-
street, on Wednesday afternoon. Mt s. Sloane engaged the
boy George Phillips to carry goods from one house to the
other. While the removal was going on the
.elder
pri-
soner proffered his services, and George Phillips said
Henry Phillip was his brother, which afterwards turned
out to be quite untrue. Among other goods removed
was a large box, not locked, containing a quantity of
clothes. The box also contained a tea caddy, and in it were
five half-sovereigns, eight half-crowns, a florin, and other
money, a soldier's medal, pawnbrokers' duplicates,. and
other things. When Mrs. Sloane got to her new lodgings,
No. 42, she took the tea caddy out of the box, unlocked "
it,
and took out the 2s. piece in presence of the bo,ys, aai,d,
to the younger prisoner, Come along, and li Pa s y
you,
and she changed the florin and gave him 7d., but did nut
give Henry Phillip anything, because she had not employed
him. Directly afterwards her husband called her to pro-