The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-23 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

SYSTEMATIC ROBBERIES BY A JEWELLER'S SHOPMAN.
—A BAD CASE.—Samuel Fuller, a well-dressed young
man, in the employ of Mr. Charles Packer, jeweller, of 76
and 78, Regent-street, as junior shopman, was charged with
stealing two bracelets and some marked money, the pro-
perty of his employer.

From the evidence of Mr. Charles Packet it appeared
that the prisoner had been in his employment about three
weeks, during which time he had been continually missing
money from the till, and on Friday night some marked
shillings were put in the till. On Saturday, one of them
being missed, he requested him to show him his money
and on the prisoner turning out his pocket he found one of
the marked shillings, and subsequently a second, and on
requesting to see the prisoner's box he found a bracelet of
jet and gold, and in his bag a cameo and jet bracelet, the
prisoner having denied he had any of his property. There
were other articles of jewellery found (a locket, a signet
and wedding ring.)

Bernard Stanley, 341 A, said there was another case
against the prisoner for robbing a previous employer of the
other articles produced.

Miss Mary Jones, manager of the business of Mr. Charles
Grego, jeweller, &c., of 16, Norton-folgate, Bishopsgate,
said the prisoner had formerly been in Mr. Grego's employ,
having left about a month. The articles produced, consist-
ing of the locket and the two rings, were the property of'
her employer, and wort?' about £3.

Mr. Packer said though he had been extensively robbed
and believed the prisoner to be a confirmed thief, he wished
the case dealt summarily with.

Mr. Bingham, however, committed the prisoner for trial
on both charges.

WILFULLY DESTROYING A SIGN-BOARD.---Edward
Thomas Aston, a respectable-looking man, was charged
with creating a disturbance and pulling down a large and
very attractive show-board, the property of Mr. Joseph C.
Ruttinger, manufacturer of tobacco and cigars, 3, Carlisle-
street, and Dean-street, Soho.

Mr. Ruttinger said there being a disturbance outside of
his house at four the previous morning, he got up, and on
going down stairs found the prisoner with the police, and
that he had tore down his show-board, which contained a
list of his prices, &c., causing him great annoyance. The
damage was about 6s. 6d.

Mr. Bingham having ordered the defendant to pay the
amount,

Mr. Ruttingor said he wished to have it put in the poor-
box.

The defendant said he had been drinking.
Mr. Bingham said that being the case he should fine him
the usual fine of ss.

MR. BRIGHT, 111. P., AND MR. W. JAMES.

The following additional correspondence has
taken place between Mr. Bright, M.P., and Mr. W.
James

" Barrack-park, near Carlisle, May 16.
" Sir,—Some person has sent me a copy of the
Carlisle Examiner newspaper of Saturday last, the
14th inst., in which I notice a letter purporting to
bear your signature, dated Rochdale, May 12th,
commenting on some remarks made by me to my
former constituents, the electors of East Cumber-
land, at the late county election held in the city of
Carlisle. I think it is usual, and would certainly
have been well in this case, if you had taken the
trouble to inquire as the correctness of the
report before submitting your comments upon it
for publication. In one particular the report
is not correct. There was a great deal of noise and
confusion while I was speaking, and it is not to be
wondered at that I failed to make myself clearly
understood by all the reporters. I did not cer-
tainly intend to say, and I do not think I did say,
as some of the reporters have attributed to me, that
the sentiment I quoted as having fallen from you
was made after Louis Napoleon had seized the reins
of power (for I was not then in Parliament), but
after he had attempted to do so. Your remark to
which I alluded on the hustings was made upon an
occasion when you, I, and other members of the
House of Commons were standing near the doors
of the House of Lords waiting for admission to
that assembly. I cannot, after such a lapse of
time, fix the precise date, but to the best of my
recollection it was either at the opening or
the close of the session of 1847. A conversation
arose as to what the next change might be in
France consequent upon the then growing un-
popularity of Louis Philippe, and whether the
present Emperor of the Fronch was likely to make
another attempt to seize the reins of power. I have
a distinct recollection of your having, on that
occasion, made use of the expression I quoted, or
words to the like effect, and which you now appear
so desirous to repudiate. In reply to the last
observation in your letter to the editor I am
fortunate in being able to say that I have a good
memory, and as much regard for truth as any man.
—I have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient
servant, " WILLIAM JAMES.
" John Bright, Esq., M.P., Rochdale."

" Rochdale, May 18.
" Sir,—l have to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 16th. If the report of what you said
was incorrect, I think it was your duty to correct
it. I contradicted it ; and through the channel
where it was made public. With regard to your
explanation, I have only to say that whereas the
original statement was simply untrue, the explana-
tion is not only untrue, but absurd. After Louis
Napoleon's seizure of power such a thing as you
charge upon me might have been said, but not by
me ; but before it, and when nobody suspected that
Louis Philippe and his family would be driven from
France such a thing is in the highest degree
improbable and absurd. If you do not recol-
lect the time when you heard me say some-
thing which you do not accurately remember,
I think it would have been more prudent
in you, and more just to me, to have abstained from
making a charge against me which you are unable
to substantiate. If you had prudently confined
youmar rkseedl f t
ht oe
ctohuarts
egoefne
yourra l abuse
political of m e
associatesw hi which r hasg
the recent elections, I should not have thought it
necessary to comment upon what you had said.—
r am, in Wm. James, Esq., " JOHN BRIGHT.
Barrack-park, Carlisle."

instant. ;Barrack park, near Carlisle, May 19.
" have
to
.acknowledge the recept of your
letter date
Y oyue s
et eo rmdpa
lyaynn roefp Imp
yt o
notm i n eh
aovf
itnhge Ic6otrh.
rected the inaccuracy in my speech in the columns
of the newspaper where it was made public. I
presumed that if you had felt yourself aggrieve d
by what I was reported to have said you would
naturally have written to me for an explanation ; I
do not feel myself called upon to enter into a cor-
respondence with the editor of the Carlisle Exa-
miner. You repeat that my statement is untrue.
I am quite prepared to give you credit for believing
it to be so, as you have doubtless forgotten what
took place as referred to in my last letter. lam as
firmly confident of its truth, that you used words
to the effect that any man in any country had a
right to place himself in a similar position to that
which the French Emperor now occupies, if he
could. I have not forgotten the remark, for, as I
stated on the hustings, it made a very strong im-
pression on my mind at the time. I would not
knowingly or wilfully be guilty of injustice to you
or to any man. You may consider my explanation
absurd; it is nevertheless true.--I am, sir, your
obedient servant, " W. JAMES.
" John Bright, Esq., M.P."

NORWICII ELECTION PETITION.—It is said that a
petition is to be presented on the meeting of Parliament
against the return of Lord Bury and Mr. Schneider for
Norwich. The petition originates with the Conservatives,
and it is stated that Mr. Slade, Q.C., has been specially re-
tained to conduct the case against the sitting members. It
remains to be seen, however, whether the movement will
lead to any definite result.