The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-06 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

APPEALS.-SANSUEL WELCH, APPELLANT, T. HALLS, ESI.,
RESPONDENT.

Mr. BODKIN, for the rzspondent, said this was an appeal
against a conviction under the General Turnpike Act, and in-
volved a question which had come before the Court on a
former occasion, when Mr. Halls was at issue with the Court.
The appellant's cart passed the toll-gate at Clapton in the
morning loaded with hay, the produce of his own land, which
was therefore exempt from toll, but on returning from town it
was leaded with manure, which he contended was liable to toll
under the 32c clause of 3d George 1 V., cap. 126.
Mr. CLARKSON, for the appellant, who is a farmer at Walt-
hamstow, argued that if a man sent two carts out, one empty
and the other loaded, and the loaded one returned empty and
the empty one loaded, both would be free from toll under the
Act ; that was admitted, and he therefore could not think how
the cart in question could be made liable. Such a construc-
tion of the law might be very acceptable to the rich farmer,
who could afford to keep.half-a- dozeji_carts, but very unjust to
the poor man who had but one. The.clause under which the
fine had been inflicted ought to be more liberally construed.
Sir WILLIAM CURTIS was of opinion that both the hay and
the manure in this case ought to have been exempt It was
absurd to claim it because one cart had carried both articles in
one day.
The CHAIRMAN—Has this question been mooted in any
other county ? I wish you would take it into Surrey.
Mr. M'WILLIAM said, in justice to the contracter for the
roads, he should vote in favour of the conviction. .

The votes of the Magistrates were then taken, when there
appeared three for confirming, and two for quashing the con-
viction.

RAPHAEL, APPELLANT---HALLS, RESPONDENT.

This was an appeal by Lewis Raphael, Esq., brother of
the present Sheriff, against a conviction of Mr. Halls, in a
case precisely the same as the last, and the learned Counsel
on both sides agreed to leave the question to the Court, with-
out futther-argument.
The CHAIRMAN having sent for several Magistrates from the
Committee- room, explained to them the merits of the case.
Mr. LAURIE thought the Court should construe the Act most
liberally for the benefit of agriculturists.
Mr. M'W!LLIAM said it was a most extraordinary course
for .the to discuss the question, after having once de-
cided upon it.
The Court then divided, when there appeared nine magis-
trates for quashing, and three for confirming the conviction.
Mr. 'Welch said he thought himself hardly dealt with. He
was a poor man, and the penalty and expenses which he
had to pay would defray the toll for twenty years.
The CHAIRMAN regretted that he could not assist him.
Mr. BODKIN said the object of his client was to try the
question. Half the penalty and costs would be remitted.
The COURT—Where does the other half go?
Mr. Levy (contractor for the roadi)—To the Bow-street
Fund.

GEORGE AND EDWARD WALMSLEY V: G. MINSHULL, EISQ, OF

BOW-STREET.

This was an appeal againsiaConviction under the Pawn-
brokers' Act, for refusing to allow Major Wardle Brown to
inspect the entry of a sale of a gold watch. The appellants
took the watch in pledge on the 9th of AugUst, 1833, and
when called upon in February last by Mr. Brown, they stated
that it was sold, and though the law requires pawnbrokers to
keep a book of sale for the inspection of the persons interested,
they refused to give any account of the watch.
Mr. CLaimsoN, for the appellants, objected that it ought to
be proved that his clients were in partnership at the time.
Mr. Apoultra, for the respondents, was not in a condition
to do so.

The COURT therefore quashed the conviction.
Mr. ADOLPHUS advised his client to begin' again de novo. It
was very easy to let a partner slip in or out according to cir-
cumstances. He knew something of the tricks of pawn-
brok( rs ; one of the fraternity once told him, that by over-
charging a farthing in a pledge he made soot. a-year.
The COURT adjourned, after disposing of sonic other appeals.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

Q UEEN- S Q UA RE.

James Smith, a carpenter in the employment of Mr. Emery,
a builder in the Vauxhall-road, was charged before Messrs.
GHEGOEIE and WHITE by Thomas Halfpenny, also a carpen-
ter in the same employment, with assaulting him.
An immense deal of discord has existed ever since the for-
mation of the Trades' Unions between- the men employed in
the different factories in the neighbourhood, some shops having
joined the Union, others adopting a different system, and the
present case was one out of a number of similar instances that
have lately come before the Magistrates at this office.
Halfpenny had worked for Mr. Emery for some years, but
during the progress of the Union he had been employed-by
Mr. Barron, of St. Martin's-lane, whose men being anti-
Uilionists, he had signed " the document." Subsequently he
had.returned to Mr. Emery's employment, and ever since had
fed the most wretched life possible, annoyed in his business
in every way; and insulted in the grossest manner, by his .fel-
loW-workmen, the whole of whom were Unionists, because he
had signed the document, lie was, however, determined to
resist such an encroachment upon his rights as long as he
could. On Monday last he went into the George the Fourth,
in the Vauxhall• road, where the defendant was sitting, who
immediately knocked him down, struck him repeatedly, and
threw a chair at his head. He was at last compelled to fight
with the defendant in his own defence.

Smith; in answer to the charge, told a very different story.
He stated that the complainant had been taunting him at every
oppoitunity with belonging to the Union, and as he well knew
that he (the defendant) had asserted that he would never
drink with a document man, he had intruded himself into the
parlour of the George the Fourth; and seized the pot from
which he was drinking.
Several witnesses corroborated this statement, and as it was
evident that the defendant had given the first offence the War-
rant was discharged.