The Sun.
London, England, 1832-10-24 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.
Yesterday a sergeant in the Guards requested to
have a communication with the LORD MAYOR rela-
tive to a house of public accommodation which was

licensed by the Magistrates.
He had gone into the Haunch of Venison public-
house,• in Bell-yard, Fleet-street, on the preceding
day, for the purpose of getting some refreshment,
and was, to his aurprise, prevented from sitting down
in the parlour. There was no tap-room in the house,
but there was a seat in front of the bar, on which
his rank in the army would not allow him to sit, and
he wished to know whether the owner of the house
was at liberty to exclude him from the public-room,
it which several persons were sitting at the time.
Mr. Hobler said that it was quite a mistaken
idea that because a man had a licence to keep a
house of the kind, he was obliged to admit to any
room in that house any person who chose to walk
in. It would be rather disagreeable to keep a house
on such terms.

Mr. Brown, the Marshal, said that the parlour of
the house in question was frequented by gentlemen,
who, it was very probable, would object to the com-
panionship of a sergeant in the Guards. The bar
was, of course, open to everybody; but the parlour
was select.

The Sergeant—My Lord Mayor, I wish to know
whether if I go into the Haunch of Venison, dressed
as I now am, and paying my way, and behaving like
a gentleman, I 'air) to be turned out ?
The LORD MAYOR—I don't know what right you
have to go into that parlour if the landlord objects
to your entrance. I don't see why he is to turn out
his company to accommodate you.
The Sergeant—l look upon it in this light, that
they do net think a soldier fit company for them to
sit with.

The LORD MAYOR—You must know, if you
know any thing, that gentlemen will not sit with
soldiers under a certain rank. It is nonsense to say

that people object to sit in company with a soldier ;
association is regulated by the rank of the individual,
and the army itself is a strong instance of it.
The Sergeant—There is but this one public room
in the house, and can't I go in there if I act like a
gentleman ?
Mr. Hobler—No, you can't, if the owner choose
to keep you out. Is a publican to have no power
in his own house ?

The City Solicitor, who was attending on other
business, said that there were plenty of houses
where there were rooms for the accommodation of
all sorts. The sergeant could easily find out such
places of general resort, but as for his right to take
his seat in a room set apart for those of a higher
grade in society, it was quite ridiculous to entertain
a thought upon it. He might, after that, walk into
any room in the London Tavern.
The Sergeant, who did not at all seem willing to
consider any men who were not military as an atom
above him, repeated the question once more, and
observed that he was quite sure that so long as his
conduct was that of a gentleman, and he paid his
way, he was entitled to sit in the parlour.
The LORD MAYOR—Pooh ! you'll not pretend

that you dine or are at liberty to dine with your com-
manding officer ? (A laugh.) The Sergeant--Cep-:
tainly not. • ..• . _
The LORD MAYOR--,Very well, then your en-
trance into parlour amongst gentlemen is a similar
intrusion.

The Sergeant seemed disposed to argue the mat-
ter further, but the Lord Mayor desired the next
case on the list should.be called.
Mr. Blencairn, of Fresh-wharf, summoned two
persons, named Bayliss and chandler, for a nui-
sance caused in rather an odd way.
The City Solicitor, who appeared for the prose-
cution, stated that the barge-owners adapted an in-
genious way of disposing of a cargo of mud, which
they were paid for taking out of one part of the
Thames. They moved a little way up the river,
and then shovelled it into another barge, for the os-
tensible purpose of removing it finally to Chelsea or
some other place, where it is received on shore. The
barge, however, into which it was last shovelled
was what was called a hopper, or without a bottom,
so that down the mud went into the river, and ob-
structed the navigation, to the great prejudice of
several of the wharfingers.
Witnesses proved that they saw the barges of the
defendants working into, or rather through, hoppers,
under London Bridge, so that the mud must have
been hurried by the tide directly to the neighbour-
hood of Mr. Blencairti's wharf, near which the na-
vigation had suffered greatly of late. The accumu-
lation of mud had actually caused a change in the
depth of the water of eight or nine feet. ,
The defendants, who, it appeared, were following
the example of higher authority, declared that they
did not think they had been engaged in an illegal or
improper act.—They were fined 40s. each.