The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-19 00:00:00

'TIM SIM, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 19, 1869

WAKEFIELD ELECTIOIY COMMIaION.

WAKEFIELD, OCT. 18.
At the sitting of the commissioners this morning,
Mr. W. IL Tomlinson was the first witness
called. He stated that he had been a volunteer
canvasser for Mr. Charlesworth, but he denied
having offered a bribe or used any threats to any
voter to induce him to vote for Charlesworth
Like all the Conservative agents who have yet
appeared in the witness-box, he contradicted point
blank the evidence of the witnesses -who have
implicated them in corrupt proceedings. lie
acknowledged having endeavoured to persuade a
voter named Moxon to go away on the polling-day,
but when pressed as to whether he had offered the
money to go away, his memory suddenly failed
him, and he was unable to swear that he had
offered it, or that he had not.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—l trust that a gentleman
in your position will set a good example to your
side. I may say for myself that I never met with
anything so grievous as the exhibition which has
been made by some of the witnesses on the Conser-
vative side. They can remember everything' im-
material about a transaction—the mere fringe of a
matter, as one may say—but the moment they are
asked whether they have paid money or offered
:honey they can recollect nothing distinctly, and
they won't swear to anything one way or the other.
It would be much better to speak the truth
straight off; It, makes very little difference to the
purposes of this inquiry now ; but we are all very
much pained at the attempt to keep the truth back
from us. People talk about the spread of education
doing good, bat if education will not teach people
to speak the truth in a witness-box, I can't see what
use it is, except to make them wiser scamps.
Mr. Tomlinson—Well, T won't undertake to say
whether I did offer him aninducement or nomade
t. I
may have said something about its being
worth his while to go away.
Samuel Gifford voted for Latham, for which he
had £lO in money and £lO in goods. Alfred Ash
and Boston came to fetch him to vote, but his wife
would not let him go until the money was put
down. Ash then took off his watch and offered to
leave it with Mrs. Gifford until the cash and goods
were put into the house. They were obliged to
comply with this condition, and then he voted.
Previous to this Joe Brear had given him £3O to

vote for Charlesworth.
Eliza Gifford, daughter of the last witness, cor-
roborated her father's evidence with regard to the
offer of the watch.
Mrs. Gifford also gave the same evidence.
Mr. A. Ash was recalled, and gave a positive
denial to the story of the watch.
George Craddock was next called, and contra-
dicted flatly, the evidence of Bairstow, who, on a
former day, had sworn that the witness offered
him £5O to vote for Charlesworth, and that he had
been discharged from his situation after voting for
Leatham. He characterised the story of the man
and his wife as a " pack of lies." Mr. Craddock
also denied the statement of a witness named Wain-
wright that he had endeavoured to induce him to
vote for Charlesworth by offers of increased custom.-
The witness was subjected to a severe cross-exami-
nation, but he gave his evidence in such a stupid
and prevaricating manner that the Commissioners
threatened to commit him. Nothing, however, was
got out of him.
Mr. Thomas Field Gilbert was next called—He
said, lam an election and Parliamentary agent. I
came down to this town at the last election to assist
Mr. Wainwright in conducting the election on be-
half of Mr. Leatham. Mr. Wyatt, the Parliamen-
tary agent, asked me to come down, telling me that
it would involve considerable hard work, and would
last several weeks. He did not intimate in any
way, either directly or indirectly, that it would be
necessary to resort to illegal practices ; and it was
only after I got to Wakefield that I learned that
bribery would be necessary. My terms were £3 3s.
a-day and all expenses. I saw Mr. Wainwright
immediately after my arrival. Nothing passed be-
tween me and Mr. Wainwright about bribery at
our first interview ; and it was not until the middle
of the month of April that it became apparent that
bribery was going on. I heard within a week of
my arrival that there was likely to be a good deal
of bribery on the other side. I think it was Sharp-
ley told me that. I did not speak to Mr. Wain-
wright about this until I came to have the real
condition of the borough before me. It was not
till a fortnight before the election that I had the
state of the borough before me. I had a list pre-
pared of the number of voters on both sides whom
no sort of influence could touch; then a list of
doubtfUl and unpledged persons who might be ex-
pected to be influenced in some way or other, either
legitimately or otherwise; then a list of the
neutrals. These are the three classes into
which we electioneering agents generally divide
the canvassing books. Sharpley also handed
me in a long list of persons who were bribable
on both sides, and the number was so great
that I said, " Really, Sharpley, you must have
made a mistake; Wakefield can't be so corrupt as
this." (Laughter.) I should think there were at
least 200 on the list. I don't know where that list
is—lost, I should think. I conversed with other
persons besides Sharpley on the subject; and,
though some thought that Sharpley had formed an
extravagant estimate, yet the result was that I came
to the opinion that if the election was to be won it
must be by something more than the ordinary and
legal means. I then said. to Mr. Wainwright—" 1
want to know whether I am to be absolute director
of this contest, and whether I am to be at liberty
to use all the means which I may think necessary
for winning it." Wainwright took a day to make
up his mind, and then he said the matter would be
left entirely in my hands. Of course I did not say
what means I should have to use, but he could per-
fectly understand what I meant. This was about
the 16th of April. I then said, "If my plan is to
be carried out, the first thing required will be some
money." To which he replied he had no doubt some
ould come. When I got down to Wakefield I
found to my great disgust that the town was in-
vaded by a host of what are called "watchers."
There were droves of them about the streets, and
no one could go out without being followed by a lot,
watching where he went and what he did. The
system was a very foolish one. I suppose it object
was partly to intimidate voters and partly to pre-
vent voters being carried away. It would have
been a good job if a lot of them had been carried
away. (Laughter.) I received about £2OO from
Mr. Wainwright to pay the expenses of these men
before the conversation of which I have spoken ;
and after that conversation I received. £2,000
through Messrs. Overend and Gurney, in three
separate parcels. The parcels were laid on my
table by somebody, I can't say by whom—and I
opened them. There was generally a letter of
advice with each packet—here they are. (The
letters were handed in.) I made no entry of the
amounts I received, partly because I thought the
letters were sufficient evidence, and partly be-
cause, the transactions being of an illegal charac-
ter, I was not likely to be so minute in my
memoranda. Since the election I have had £375
from Mr. Wainwright. After I had received the
money I was put in communication with a number
of persons whose names I have put down on this
list. (The names were Sharpley, Armstrong,
Beverley, and Co., who have already made their
appearance before the Commissioners.) To all these
men I gave money to buy voters ;—there is a list,
so far as I can recollect, of the voters who were so
bought. I made a list at the time, though I don't
know where it is, of the amount paid to each ; but
the evidence which I have read in the papers on
this point is for the most part correct. The largest
sum I ever sent was £5O. I remember £96 being
sent, but that was for two votes. lam certain of
that. The price ran from £lO to £5O. Generally
it was on the other of £25. The genasal way in
which the bargains ran was this; Sharpley, or
some other agent, would get a voter to promise for
£l5; then, a day or two after, the voter would send
word that he could net vote for Mr. Leatham for
that sum,—the most he could do would be to
stand neutral, and for that he must have something
more. Later on he would ease his conscience by
offering to vote for Leatham for an additional sum ;
and, after all, sometimes he would both keep what
we had given him and vote for the other side.
(Laughter.) The total amount spent in bribery on
Mr. Leatham's side, as 'hr as I know, was between
£l,BOO and £1,900. That is all which passed
through my hands, and I have no knowledge of
any other sums. I believe, in fact, that no other
money butie that was spent on Mr. Leatham's side in
bribery. During the election I received a letter
from son
man, who has since gone to America,
offering to vote for Leatham for 1150. (I,aughter.)
"
I :lowed the letter toMr. Wainwright, and he put,
it in the tire at once. It was entirely Mr. Wain-
" d.oing that I went by the name of Field.
I had no wish at all to pass under an alias, nor to
conceal my presence in the town. Mr. Wainwright
said he did'nt want th,.: other Eide to know that he
had a regular electioneering rigc.nt assisting him.
I .saw and talked frequently with Mr. Leath=
I during the election, but nothing passed between us
about bribery. I have no .-cation to believe that,
he knew anything of what was going on, ex-
cept that as 1 was in receipt of a large sum of
money it was for. the gentleman who was finding it
to judge what it was for. I generally kept the
money in my pocket, and took it out as it was
wanted for each person. I never kept it in a drawer,
and never put it in envelopes directed to particular
voters. I never handed money to any voter perso-
nally. The whole sum which passed through my
hands was £2,792 12s. Sd., of which from £l,BOO
to £1,900 was for bribery, and the rest general ex-
penses, I advanced znpelfabout £l6O from my own

pocket for the general expenses. I have never re-
ceived anything for my services. I was employed
here 57 days, and, exclusive of money out ofpocket,
my claim is pretty nearly £2OO. Mr. Wainwright
came to me not very long after the election and
asked for an account, and I said I was perfectly
ready to go into accounts, but my advice to him
wag, if he expected to be examined before the com-

mittee the less he knew the better. I am aware,

from reading Mr. Leatham's evidence in the papers,
that he says £2,500 came down from Overend and
Gurney's ; but £2,000 is all that I ever received,
and I think there must be some mistake. All the
money which I paid out far bribes was before the
election, so that if any of the bribes were delayed
it was in the hands of the under agents. I never
heard Mr. Wainwright mention any sum as the
liMit placed on him by his principal. That is an
unmitigated lie of Godfrey Noble s. Parties en-
gaged in electioneering matters in London now,
when they meet with any lie bigger than another
call it a " Noble." (Laughter.) Noble's state-
ment, too, that he saw notes and gold in my pos-
session is another lie. The first time I saw him was
in the presence of the hon. member for Hudders-
field, Mr. E. A. Leatham ; and when he went away
I said to Wainwright, " I don't know what ground
you have for confidence in that man, but in my
mind he is not to be trusted—l think him a scoun-
drel." I was therefore particularly cautious not to
do anything heron him. Hinchliffe, too, is another
ofithe same stamp. He says I gave him £7O, but
the fact is I gave £9O, and much of the money
which I gave him for voters did not reach their
hands. He lies, too, in saying that I authorised
him to keep the £2O given to Wainwright if he
could get it back. I gave him no such authority.
Mr. Willes—Do you know whether there was
any person on the other side engaged in a similar
way to yourself ?
Mr. Gilbert—l was told frequently of a myste-
rious stranger being at work on the other side, but
I don't know who he was, nor have I any suspi-
cion. I know there were very experienced tacti-
cians at work on the other side, and the only won-
der to me is, seeing the high prices paid on the
other side, that we succeeded at all. I wish to say
in conclusion, with reference to the insinuations of
dishonesty which have been thrown out, that they
do not apply to me at all. Apart from my love of
truth and honesty, it is my intention to be
honest to my employers. I came to Wake-
field with an unsullied reputation as a Parliamen-
tary agent; and but for some few acquaintances I
have made here, I regret deeply that I ever set my
foot in it. I have never been engaged in bribery
before, except, perhaps, what I may call legitimate
bribery. I have been engaged in many county
contests, and I have known villages in which the
inhabitants have been split into different parties—
Liberals and Conservatives. The Conservatives
have been taken care of by the clergyman or the
landlord, but there has been nobody to look after
the Liberals, and I have felt it quite legitimate to
find them a good breakfast and give them half a
crown for their day's wages. That is the only kind
of bribery I have ever been engaged in before this
Wakefield affair.
Mr. Joseph Brear, maltster (one of the Conserva-
tive agents, and to judge from the evidence of for-
mer witnesses, their chief bribery agent), was next
called. He said—l canvassed for Mr. Charles-
worth at the last election. I suppose you have
heard, gentlemen, that I did a little of the " amia-
ble" during the election? (Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—Well, such a suspicion has
been breathed against you.
Mr. Brear—So, to save you trouble, I have drawn
up a list, as far as I can recollect, of those to whom
I " tipped the ready" during the election. I
gave Robert Beaumont £25 ; Alexander Brady,
£3O; Charles Brady, £3O; William Cass, £3O; Mi-
chael Cox, £25; E. Owen, £5O; Benjamin John-
son, £2O; George Perkins, either £35 or £4O; J.
11. Steed, £2O ; William Warrener, £35 ; William
Wells, £4O ; Gifford, £3O ; Joseph Briggs, £l5;
William Newsom, £l5 ' • J. Beaumont, £2O or £25 ;
Mr. Williamson, £l5; Mrs. Dunhill, £lO. I also
gave Archibald Crowther £2OO to deal out among
his friends ; George Moore, £35 ; " a man un-
known," £530. (Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—What name did he go by?
Mr. Brear—l never heard his name. Mr. Thos.
Alder brought him down to my house one evening
in the election week. -He sat down, and we had
some talk about the election, from which I came to
the conclusion that he was one of the right sort. I
met him next morning, when he told me he could
secure about a dozen voters, and I gave him £250.
The next day I met him again and gave him another
£250. I did not make many offers that were not
successful. I did certainly offer money to other
people, but it was mostly " chaff." They got more
chaff than money, did that lot. (Laughter.) For
instance, one day I met a man in the street who
drives an omnibus to Leeds. He was struggling
along with two bony horses, and I asked him how
he meant to vote. He said he was going against
us, and I said, " What a fool you must be ; I'm in
a position to buy you four gray horses, new sets of
harness, and a bran new omnibus"—(laughter)—
but he drove on and would have nothing to say to
me. I went, too, into the house of a man named
Mitchell, a customer of mine, who is a voter. I sat
down and called for a glass of beer, and seeing a
clock hanging up against the wall, I said, " What
a pretty clock that is." " Yes," said Mitchell, but
Ts a rare bad 'un. " Oh," said I, " I can soon cure
it ; it wants greasing—£2s a wheel would soon cure
it." (Laughter.) L must say, however, it was
more fun than anything else. I don't think he
would have taken a shilling from either party. He
is as decent a man as any in the town.
The witness was under examination when our
parcel left.

evidence, but with an intimation that he would be
committed for trial.

GUILDHALL.--FORGERY AND FRAUD.—CAU-
TION TO TRADESMEN.-Sir James Duke, one of the
directors on duty at the London Joint-Stock Bank,
attended yesterday for the purpose of drawing at-
tention to a new system of forgery and fraud which
was being carried on to a very considerable extent
at the West-end, with a view to caution the public
and put them on their guard against such nefarious
practices. The system Which the directors were so
anxious to check was one very much calculated to
deceive, and the mode of operation was that of ob-
taining a bank cheque-book in the name of some
customer of the bank, and filling up the cheques for
small amounts of £5 or £6 each, which they pre-
sented at various newspaper offices in payment for one
or two insertions of advertisements cut from any
newspaper, and as the cheques were signed with
names of persons well known to the public, no
difficulty was experienced in obtaining change for
the cheques in cash. In the present instance a
cheque-book containing 100 cheques was obtained
of the London Joint-Stock Bank, upon a forged
order, only a short time ago; and in one day as
many as four cheques, which had been passed in
that• manner, had been presented at the bank for
payment, not one of the persons whose names were
forged to the cheques being customers of that bank.
One cheque was signed in the name of " Edwin
Smith and Co.;" another in that of " Savory and
Co.;" and doubtless the remaining 96 blank cheques
would be filled in with the names of other persons
equally well known. He (Sir James Duae) and
his brother directors, however, considered that the
most effective means of preventing the circulation
of these cheques was that of publicity, and they
trusted that this exposure would have its effect
among that class of persons most likely to be
victimised.

Mr. Alderman Copeland, who was also present,
said it was really extraordinary with what pane-
verance certain systems of fraud were carried on.
It was only last year he was very successful in
breaking up a very extensive gang of swindlers,
whose principal trade was in potatoes. He thought
he had effectually put an end to the potato fraud ;
but he was mistaken, as the following letter, 'ad-
dressed to his bailiff at Stoke-upon-Trent, would
show :

24, Manchester-street, King's-cross, London, W.C.,
October 4, 1859.
Dear Sir,—Wo have heard you have a quantity of pota-
toes for sale, if so, please forward us a sack with lowest
price and quantity. Should the quality, &c., suit, we are
buyers. Let the sack be an average sample, for which we
will remit you a receipt. —We are, sir, yours respectfully,
Mr. J. Palby. ARTHUR WuITTEIt and Co.
Mr. Alderman Copeland said, on receipt of that
letter he wrote for references, but the only answer
he received was that cash would be paid for the
potatoes on delivery, no notice whatever being
taken about the question of references. He there-
fore sent his clerk to the address in the letter, and

he there found several persons regaling themselves
over their pipes, with brandy and water, and he had
no doubt dividing the plunder obtained from other
parties. Had he not made these inquiries he should
probably have had to tell a different tale, and
reckoned himself among the potato victims.

SOUTHWARK.-EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF

ABDUCTION AND SEDUCTION OF A YOUNG GIRL.-

THE PROCURESS AND HER VlCTlMS.—Elizabeth
Hunt, a middle-aged female, the keeper of a brothel
in Cole-street, Dover-road, Newington, and Mary
Vedler, a young woman, about 18, residing in the
-same house, were brought before Mr. Burcham, on
a warrant, by Fensum, 227 M, one of the warrant
officers of this court, charged under the Bishop of
Oxford's and Lord Shaftesbury's Act with unlaw-
fully procuring Sarah Young, a young girl, 17
years of age, to have carnal knowledge with men.
The complainant, a pretty and modest-looking
young girl, the daughter of honest and industrious
parents, at Dockhead, in a very clear manner stated
that she knew Vedler 18 months ago, she having at
that time lived nearly opposite their house. She
met her on Tuesday evening, the 11th inst., near the
post-office, Dockhead, when Vedler asked ber where
she worked. Witness replied at Mr. Doudo's, in
Bridge-street, Southwark-bridge. Vedler then or-
ranged to meet her on the Thursday evening. She
did so, when they walked down Cheapside, Thames-
street, over London-bridge, to Maze-pond-street,
Bermondsey. Vedler then spoke to a female, and
they walked to Union-street, where she spoke to a
gentleman, who accompanied them to Snowficlds,
but witness did not hear their conversation. They
then went to the house of Mrs. Hunt, in Cole-
street, and had some beer together in the parlour.
Witness, finding it was past ten o'clock (her time
to get home), asked to go, but Mrs. Hunt toad her
"No." She was to remain there and sleep with
two girls for that night. She then said again that
she should like to go home, when Mary Vedler
laughed at her, and said they would both go home
the next meriting.
Mr. Burchan asked whether she knew where
Vedler lived ?

Witness replied that she did not, but she told her
that she lived near Queen Elizabeth's School, Dock-
head. Witness did not know where she was; there-
fore she consented to stop. At half-.ast 12 Vedler
went to bed, and witness went to bed with two girls
it two o'clock. She then had an opinion that it
was a bad house, but she could not leave the house,
as a young girl stood at the door and prevented her.
Mrs. Hunt did not then offer any obstruction. At
10 o'clock that morning she got up with the other
girls, when Vedler wanted to drag her into a room
where there was a gentleman, but she did n.,t go.
She had some of her clothes on, but her bonnet,
shawl, and boots co thl not be found. Witness again
told Vedler to let her go home, when she requested
her to stay a little while. She kept her waiting all
that day, as she did not know where she was. In
the evening, Vedler told her she should not go, and
she was kept in by the prisoners and another girl.
Vedler put her bonnet and shawl away, and she
was kept without food until seven o'clock in the
evening, when Mrs. Hunt told her she would give
her some coffee and bread and butter, which she
mast pay her for when she got some money. Vedler
then tool,: her to a coffee-shop at the corner of the
street.
Mr. Burcham asked why she did not leave her
then, as she had an opportunity of doing so ?
She replied that Vedler had hold of her, and
prevented her, and when they returned to Mrs.
Hunt's, she pushed her into the house and fol-
lowed her. As soon as they got in witness tord
Mrs. Hunt that she wanted to go home, when
she said that she must stop all night. Mary Vedler
then wanted her to send for her clothes. She did
not do that, but about nine o'clock she went
out, accompanied by the latter prisoner, and,
in passing along the street, two gentlemen came
up and spoke to Vedler. One of them said
he would come at half-past 11 to Mrs. Hunt's. They
then returned to Cole-street, and at the time the
gentlemen came. One of them asked her how long
she had been away from home. She told him only
the previous night.
Mr. Burcham asked her whether she did not tell
him she wanted to go home ?
. Witness replied that she did, but he said she
should sleep with him. She told him she should not,
and commenced crying. She bad pulled her boots,
stockings, and bonnet and shawl off, as they were
wet, and when she again asked to go home she
found that they were locked up in a room. She did
not know who locked them in, but in a little while
a girl came to her with a light, and called her up-
stairs to go to bed. Feeling sick and extremely
tired, she followed her into a bedroom, believing
that she was going to sleep with other girls. How-
ever, as she was undressing herself, a gentleman
came into the room, and then she became so ill that
she was glad to get into bed. The gentleman fol-
lowed her, and then she became unconscious, and
did not wake until 10 o'clock in the morning. The
gentleman was with her, and she ascertained that
112 had ruined her. He told her not to cry, he
wean see her in the evening, and make it all right
and give her some money.
Mr. Burcham asked her what was the cause of
her sickness ?
She replied that a tumbler containing about half
a pint of beer was brought to her, and handed her
by the gentleman. As soon as she drank it she
became sick, and unable to stand or sit. Witness,
as soon as she dressed herself, went down stairs and
saw the prisoners. Vedler laughed at her as soon
as she told her what had occurred, and they re-
mained together all that day, as she did not know
where she was. In the evening they went to her
sister's, who was in service near St. Paul's Church,
Bermondsey, but did not tell her what had occurred,
as she was afraid of Vedler. They remained to-
gether all Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday,
and then her father found her.
Burcham asked whether more than one man
had been free with her ?
Complainant replied, in a crying voice—Oh yes,
sir, two others.
She here fainted away, and was compelled to be
carried out of court by her father and mother, as-
odi
athgaaitnypeudtiettriitniti
si,ted by the officers. The prisoners were also re-
moved.
ortly before
ners
mplainant, infi five
answer
o'clock ctka
At pßruisroc
le.o(dleucclec'dwhielreninto an..ot.her houise on
where she was familiar with. a SuSCni weresad
se-
cond man, and on Monday night with the third.
Mr. Burcham said there did
in that to implicate Hunt.
Didot appear anything
she wish to ask
any questions ?
Hunt denied having kept her in her house.
When she came she told her her mother was dead,

and she had a strict father, who would be at her if
she went home. She accordingly let her stop.
Mr. Burcham asked the girl whether such was
the case ? _ .

She replied that it was not. She wanted her to
stay and introduce Men to her. Mary Vedler said
something about furnished apartments, but she
did not.
limit declared that although she kept a brothel
she had no wish to allow the complainant to stop in
her house. She did all she could to persuade her
to leave. On Saturday and Sunday nights she came
home tipsy, when she prevented men going withher.
Mr. Burcham asked complainant if she gave Mrs.
Hunt any money ?
She replied that she gave her two sixpences for
her lodgings.
Mrs. Hunt said that was all she received, and if
the case was adjourned she should be able to prove
all she had stated.

Mr. Burcham accordingly remanded them until
Friday, accepting bail for their appearance.

WORSHIP-STREET.—WATCH ROBBERIES.—
John Osborne, 20, was charged before Mr, D'Eyn-
court with stealing a silver watch from the person.
Mr. David. Bryant and his wife were passing
along Whitechapel, towards their residence in Mile-
end New Town, on the night of the 10th instant,
when prisoner, whom they both distinctly noticed,
spratv, forward from George-street, snatched the
guard of Mr. Bryant's watch, possessed himself of
the latter by snapping its ring in the usual man-
ner, and then ran off. Four men endeavoured to
prevent pursuit, but subsequently the prisoner was
taken into custody at a notorious house in Keate-
street, Spitalfields, playing at cards with a woman,
by Billings, 103 H. The property was not found.
Holland, 155 11, said he knew the prisoner as a
companion of the Whitechapel thieves, and had
had him in custody.
The prisoner, who declared his innocence, was
fully committed for trial at the Middlesex Sessions.
Denis Fleming, a powerful, thick-set, determined
looking fellow, was charged with stealing a gold
watch and chain, on the 14th inst.

Mr. George Thomas, of 26, Alma-terrace, New
North-road, identified the property, but said that
having been intoxicated at the time it was stolen,
he knew nothing about it.
Mr. D'Eyncourt observed that if ,Mr. Thomas
had been charged with drunkenness, as he ought
to have been, he would assuredly have fined him,
inebriation being an incentive and temptation to
pocket picking.
Joseph Creswell, a compositor, proved having, at
one o'clock on the morning of the robbery, seen
prosecutor with a female in a cab. She called for a
quartern of," Old Tom," which she induced him to
drink. He became insensible, and having fallen to
the bottom of the cab, was subsequently removed
into the publichouse. Prisoner assisted in this, and
took the opportunity of purloining the gentleman's
watch from his waistcoat pocket. Witness per-
ceived the theft, and grasping the valuable watch
through the trousers of the prisoner as it lay
snugly in one of his pockets, held it, despite the
determined resistance of the rogue, until a police-
constable arrived.
Austin, 24t N, deposed that he found last wit-
ness struggling with the prisoner, and with his
assistance, got him into the publiehouse, wl-.ere,
having thrown prisoner on the floor, the watch was
taken from him. Creswell subsequently picked up
a gold chain and gave it to him.
Mr. D'Eyncourt complimented the compositor on
his display of courage against crime, and sent the
accused to the Middlesex Sessions for trial.

CLERKENWELL. MURDEROUS ASSAULT
UPON TUE POLICE.—SERIOUS ILLNESS OF Two
CONSTABLES.—A rough-looking fellow, who gave
the name of Francis Alpine, described as a stoker,
having no fixed residence, was charged before Mr.
Corrie with being drunk, disorderly, and assaulting
police-constables Cole, 350 S, Wilson, 432 S, Tay-
lor, 219 N, and Older, 418 S, at i 4,1 dward-street,
King's-cross, and Mary Ann Shaw, Caroline Shaw,
Ellen Greenwood, and Bridget Shea, prostitutes,
were charged with:throwing stones and inciting the
mob against the constables, and Richard Williams
was charged with attempting to rescue Alpine and
Shea from custody.
Acting-Inspector Mulvany, 8 S, said that two
constables were so ill-used that they were unable to
attend. He then handed in the following certificate:—
Police Station, Somers Town, Oct. 18, 1859.
These certify that police-constables James Taylor, 219
N, and Abraham Cole, 350 S, have each received severe
scalp wounds, which have
J disabled them from duty.
AMES SMELLIE, Surgeon, &C.

The prisoner Alpine was so violent that it was
found necessary to have the handcuffs on him while
in the boy, and while at the station he made use of
very disgusting language, and kicked and struck
at every person who came in his way.
From the evidence, it appeared that this morning
about half-past one the prisoners, who had been at-
tending a raffle for the " bone& of a friend"—that
is, to procure money to obtain legal assistance for a
thief who is in custody, were in Edward•street,
King's-cross, making a great disturbance. Police-
constables Cele and Wilson w(nt to the spot and
asked the prisoner Alpine to go away. This he re-
fused to do, but caught hold of Cole, struck him,
and threw him down. Wilson attempted to assist
his brother constable, when Alpine struck him a
violent blow on the face and threw him clown.
While they were on the ground Alpine kicked
both constables and very much hurt them.
Other constables then arrived, and Alpine kicked
and struck at them. When Wilson was assisting
his brother officer, Shea laid hold of him, pulled
him back, and the prisoner got away. The pri-
soner was followed, and when again apprehended
Williams endeavoured to pull him away, all the
other prisoners threw stones and brickbats, and it
was with the greatest difficulty that the prisoners
could be got to the station.
In answer to Mr. Carrie, Sergeant Mulvany said
that both constables, who were not in attendance,
had very severe wounds. The prisoner Alpine was
a thief and a very bad character.
The prisaner Alpine said he was ill-used by the
police, and the other prisoners said it was no use
making any defence.
Mr. Corrie remanded the prisoner Alpine for a
week, sentenced the whole of the female prisoners
to one month's hard labour in the house of Correc-
tion, and ordered Williams to pay a fine of 205., or
in default of payment 14 days' imprisonment.

MARYLEBONE.—THE ROBBERIES OF PLATE,
&C., FROM COFFINS.—AIfred Grantham, Charles
Grantham, Charles Grantham, the, elder, Francis
Edinborough, labourers, and Thomas Mead, a
marine store shopkeeper, carrying on business n
the North Wharf-road, Paddington, werd again
placed at the bar before Mr. Broughton, the first
four charged with stealing plates and portions of
lead from coffins in the vaults of St. Mary's Church,
Paddington, and the latter as a receiver of the pro-
perty with a guilty knowledge.
Mr. Herring attended, as upon former occasions,
for all but Mead, who was defended by Mr. Lewis,

jun.
The particulars of what previously transpired
have already appeared, mid it will be remembered
that a remand took place in consequence f Ser-
geant Potter and Doble of the D division stating
that fresh evidence would be adduced, more espe-
cially against Mead.
Mr—Fuller, solicitor to .the vestry of the parish,
was as before present on the part of the prosecution.
The whole of the evidence wag read over by Mr.
Phillips, the chief clerk, and the prisoners, all of
whom with the exception of Mead, were allowed to
put in bail it they could procure it, 24 hours' notice
thereof being required, were committed for trial.
Other charges were brought against Mead, but
they were not snbstantiated. They related to iron,
sacks, &c., found on his premises, and which the
police had reason to believe had been stolen, when
he was taken into eustoily.
ATTEMPTED SUICIDE.—AbsoIom King, between
60 and 70 years of age, was charged with having
attempted to drown himself.
The evidence went to show that on Saturday last,
between 12 and 1 o'clock, Mr. Hammond, professor
of music, residing at 33, Beaumont-street, Maryle-
bone, while passing over York-gate-bridge, Regent's
"Park, was informed that a man had Just thrown
himself into the canal. He rushed to the spot, and
plunging into the water, suczeeded, after some dif-
ficulty, in extricating the prisoner and getting him
on to the bank. He was for some time in a state
of unconsciousness, and was conveyed on a stretcher
to Marylebone Workhouse. He was sinking when
fortunately rescued by Mr. Hammond.
Mr. Broughton addressed the prisoner in a, most
kind and feeling manner, and
His answer to the charge was, that distress
caused him to do what he had done.
31r. Broughton sent him to the House of Deten-
tion for a week, where he would have the advice
and admonition of the chaplain, and the magistrate
propeily lauded Mr. Hammot conduct.

WOOLWICH. GROSS MISCONDUCT OF A
POLICE CONSTABLE.—SamueI Miles, a police con-
stable, 481 of the R division, was placed at the bar,
before Mr. Trail', by order of the Cornmivsioners of
Metropolitan Police, charged with violation of his
duty by apprehending David Watson upon a false
charge.
Mr. Mal'alien, superintendent of the IL division
of police, attended to watch the proceedings ; and
the prisoner, who ha,a recently left the Brighton
police force, was undefended.
1). Watson, a shipwright, residing at Charlton-
vale, deposed—About 12 o'clock on the night of
Saturday, the Ist inst., he was proceeding down
Trinity-street, when he saw the prisoner in advance,