The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-19 00:00:00

On Saturday, the driver of a Hammersmith om-
nibus, named Wyclierbow, was summoned before
Mr. CONANT, for having endangered the life of
William Gibbon, owner and driver of a cabriolet.
The complainant had just taken his place on the
stand in Oxford-street, when he perceived the de-
fe►►dant, who appeared to be racing with a rival
omnibus, coming along at full gallop on the wrong
side of the way. Before he could jump off his seat
the wheel of the omnibus caught the wheel of his
cab, and turned it completely over upon him, throw-
ing the horse down, and doing considerable injury
to the animal.

Two witnesses corroborated the statement of the
complainant.
Mr. CONANT said the present was a case of a
very aggravated description, and he should there-
fore fine the defendant 4/.

The conductor of the omnibus having made use
of violent threats towards the complainant in the
office, was ordered to find bail before he quitted it.

WORSHIP STREET.

EXTENSIVE ROBBERY BY A SERVANT.—A man,
named Brionble, was charged with robbing his em-
ployers, Messrs. Clark and Co., ironmongers, in
Shoreditch, to a large amount. The prisoner had
been in the prosecutors' employ for several years,
and he always bore a good character. About a week
ago they received an anonymous letter, informing
them that the prisoner was robbing them by whole-
sale ; and, on an officer going to his lodgings, 24
dozen of brass fender feet, several coffee-mills, nails,
copper articles, and a number of duplicates for pro-
perty belonging to Messrs. Clark were found.
The prisoner was remanded, the prosecutors stat-
ing that they had other charges, of a more serious
nature, to bring against him.
CURIOUS CHARGE OF POISONING.--Rebecca
Wiltshire was re-examined on suspicion of having
attempted to destroy her husband by arsenic. The
prisoner is much addicted to drunkenness, and she
and her husband have led a very quarrelsome life.
The husband stated, that two months since he came
home and found a pudding left for him. After
eating part he became very ill, and it was several
days before he recovered. His son, aged 10, was
also taken ill the next morning after eating some.
The boy told him that he saw his mother put some-
thing from a paper into the pudding, when she was
making it, and he asked her what it was ? She
said, " Why, my dear, it is moist sugar." The
pudding made his head ache, gave him a pain in
his stomach, and made him ill for two months.

Mary Wiltshire, aged nine, examined by the Ma-
gistrate—She said she knew nothing about the
pudding, but, on another evening, her mother put
something into a dish of pickled salmon, and desired
her to give it to her father. Her mother then went
to bed, and she soon after heard a voice (not her
mother's) say, " Don't give it to your father, there's
poison in it." She in consequence threw it away.
The parish surgeon stated that he was called in
to attend the husband and the boy, and he found
them suffering under symptoms of cholera. No-
thing was then said about poison, but the effects de-
scribed might have been produced by arsenic.
The husband having suffered two months to elapse
before he made the charge, the Magistrate discharged
the prisoner.
QUEEN- S QUARE.

IMPORTANT TO CARMEN AND OTHERS.-Mr.
Faulkner, the proprietor of a stone, brick, and lime
wharf, at Chelsea, and Mr. Levy, the lessee of the
toll-gates at Queen's Elms, Hammersmith, &c., at-
tended to answer each other's complaints, which
involved questions of the most important nature, as
affecting the interests of carmen and others. The
first case was Levy v. Faulkner. From the evidence
of William England, one of the collectors at the
Queen's Elms-gate, it appeared that on the Bth in-
stant, the defendant's cart, laden with bricks, passed
through the above gate. The carter had passed
through Fulham-field-gate. the ticket for which
stated that it cleared the Queen's Elms-gate. He,
instead of presenting this ticket, presented one,
from his inability to read, which he had received on
the 6th instant, and, although he was informed it
would not exempt him from toll, he refused to pay.
Mr. Levy said he did not intend to rest his case
upon the mistake, but upon his right to toll at
Queen's Elms-gate, although toll might have been
taken at Fulham-field-gate. He read the clause in
the Act, which states, that carts passing through the
turnpike-gate, laden with bricks, stone, lime, timber,
iron in bars, lead in sheets, &c., were liable to pay
toll every time they passed so laden.
Mr. Faulkner ohjected to this view of the case,
and a long conversation ensued, respecting the man
producing the wrong ticker, which terminated by Mr.
GREGORIF. observing that, under the present cir-
cumstances he considered the case proved, but he
should mitigate the penalty from 51. to five shillings
and costs.
The next case against Mr. Faulkner was for re-
fusing to pay at Queen's Elms-gate for a load of
brick:, the toll having been paid at Fulham-field,
and as it was not entangled with any other circum-
stance, as in the previous case, it resolved itself into
the plain but important question—whether a cart
laden with bricks, lime, coals, &c., as above enu-
merated, was or was not exempt from the payment
of toll at the Hammersmith, Kensington, and
Queen's Elms-gates, after paying at Fulham-field-
gate.
A witness proved that the defendant's cart passed
through Queen's Elms-gate, without paying the toll
demanded.

Mr. Faulkner contended that Mr. Levy had no
right to alter the tolls without the consent of the
Commissioners, who provided the tickets, and not
the lessees. Such a toll had never before been de-
manded. He had three carts, which passed three
times a day each through these gates, and if he was
to pay a shilling for every load, instead of three-
pence as hitherto, it would increase the demand from
40/., which was allowed by the Act, to 164/. 15s.
per annum. In ordinary cases the toll was only de-
manded at one gate, when a ticket was given which
cleared the other three gates for one entire day. It
would, therefore, be in opposition to the meaning of
the Legislature to suppose that carts laden with any
of the prescribed articles, after payment of the toll
at one gate, should not clear the others, as in ordi-
nary cases, with this difference, that the latter was
liable to toll every time of passing so laden, while
others were exempt the whole day.
Mr. GREGORIE said, what was he to do when the
Act stared him in the face? He, however, would
postpone the case until Tuesday se'nnight, for the
satisfaction of himself, when the defendant should

not only have his (Mr. G.'s) own opinion, but it
•hould be backed by ethers, far more capable of de-
ciding upon the case than himself.
The case was accordingly postponed.
SHAMEFUL CONDUCT OF AN OMNIBUS CON-
DUCTOR.—A young man, named Vine, conductor of
one of Mr. Pierre's omnibuses, running from White-
chapel to Chelsea, appeared to answer the com-
plaint of a female named Digby. It appeared the
complainant got into the omnibus at Whitechapel,
and rode to Sloane-street. She gave the conductor
one shilling for his fare, but he demanded another
sixpence for her luggage ; and as she found he
would not give up her property unless she paid him
the extra sixpence, she gave him another shilling to
take the demand. When he gave her the bundles, he
said she had given him but one shilling. This was
stoutly denied by the complainant, when the de•
fendant made answer, " Well, never mind, you owe
me sixpence !" and then went away. The father
of the complainant had since made application to
the defendant, who denied having received more
than one shilling.
The defendant, in answer to the charge, however,
confessed having received the two shillings, and
said he charged one for the luggage.
Mr. GREGORY convicted him in the penalty of
fifty shillings and costs. His master would not pay
the fine, and he was locked up.
UNION-HALL.

EXTENSIVE SEIZURE OF ADULTERATED MEAL
IN PRINCE'S-STREET, LAMBETH.—Mr. Russell, of
the firm of " Mines and Russell," was summoned on
,an information, charging them with having on the
premises occupied by them in Prince's-street, Lam-
beth, a certain mixture called carbonate of lime, for
the purpose of adulterating meal. A waggon, con-
taining three tons of the adulterated substance,
which had every appearance of flour, was seized on
Thursday by a city policeman, as a carman was
taking in the sacks to a granary in Prince's-street,
Lambeth, belonging to Messrs. Cancellor and
Coward, but now in the occupation of Messrs. Mines
and Co., to whom it had been let for the purpose
of warehousing meal and flour, the articles in which
they dealt.
Mr. Russell having pleaded not guilty to the
offence, evidence was then adduced of the seizure,
and also of the deleterious nature of the ingredients,
and a witness was examined, named John Barker,
who stated that he was placed in charge of No. 33
wharf, City Basin (the place from whence the ar-
ticle was sent to the granary in Lambeth), by Mr.
Perkins; he has seen defendant there on two dif-
ferent occasions with the workmen. Witness had
frequently heard the men at work all night, and had
seen ten bags of sawdust and also several bags of
whiting on the premises. He had also seen some
waggon loads of stuff resembling oatmeal, sent
away, which, owing to the caution observed by the
workmen, and the circumstance of their always
working at night, excited his suspicions for some
time, and he at length gave information to the city
police.
A sample of the ingredient in a baked state was
here produced, and great laughter was excited upon
Mr. Chambers saying that he had been informed
that the article was intended for the consumption of
Don Pedro's army. The cake exhibited was of a
dark brown colour, the carbonate of lime being pre-
dominant, and, if intended for human food, must
have been productive of great injury to the stomachs
of those who partook of it.
Mr. Russell said that he was ready to admit that
Messrs. Cancellor and Coward were in no way
whatever concerned in the transactions upon which
he was summoned to attend, with the exception of
that firm merely letting the granary, where the sei-
zure was made, to him and his partner.
A book was produced with an entry, in the de-
fendant's hand-writing, of the receipt of flour and
meal, and also an article called rounds, at the gra-
nary in Prince's-street.
Mr. CHAMBERS said that evidence was given to
satisfy his mind that a deleterious article was found
on the premises occupied by defendant, and unless
he could prove otherwise, he rendered himself liable
to the penalty attached to the offence.
Defendant—l can easily explain the matter; the
fact is, the article that has been seized is a mixture
of Scotch pollard and whiting ; that is what it is
composed of.
Mr. CHAMBERS—For what purpose was it in-
tended—was it not for the adulteration of meal ?
Defendant—Certainly not ; it was intended for the
production of images, such as the Italians hawk
about the streets, and also for the stucco work of
ceilings, and other work of that description.
Mr. CHAMBERS said that his opinion was, deci-
dedly, that the article was for the purpose of adul-
terating either meal or flour, and not for the manu-
facture of images or stucco work. It was evident,
from the appearance of the ingredient after under-
going the process of heating in an oven, that it
could not be applied to the purposes alleged by the
defendant in his explanation. The Italian figures
were made of a beautifully white plaster, and a
mixture of such an article as that seized must ruin
the colour.

Defendant—The article, however, does not be-
long to either myself or partner; we are merely the
wharfingers, and it was sent to us from No. 33
Wharf, City-road, to be housed.
Mr. CILAMBERS—It has been given in evidence,
that you were seen on the premises from whence
the article was sent to Lambeth, and where, no
doubt, it was manufactured; and unless you can
rebut this statement, and also prove that it was
sold to the image-makers for the purposes you have
alleged, the impression on my mind remains the
same ; and that is, that you and your partner carry
on the manufactory of this pernicious ingredient at
the City Basin Wharf, and then have it sent to the
granary at Lambeth, to be mixed up with meal, and
then sold to bakers and mealmen.

Defendant—We have no dealings with bakers
or niealmen ; and only acted on t his occasion as the
wharfingers. The defendant then called the Mi-
gistrate s attention to a note directed to him from
the person who sent the article from the City Basin
to Lambeth.
Mr. CilamßEas said that he had received an
epistle that morning from a man, signing himself
" Bogan Honnyghan," in which the writer, who
scarcely spelt a word right, claimed the seizure a.
his property, and declared the article was not for
human consumption.
Defendant—l hope this letter will satisfy your
mind that the article does not belong to me or my
partner. . _

Mr. CHANBERS—Indeed, it does not satisfy me
on that point by any means ; for you have been seen
on the premises yourself in conversation with Mr.
Bogan Honnyghan, the Irishman, and it has been
proved that he is in your employ.
Defendant—l'll bring the man who makes it and
he will avow the fact himself.

Mr. CHAMBERS-:Wilere is he ? Why is he not
present ? Defendant—Because I have not had time.
It was late last night when 1 was served with the
summons to attend.

_ .... ...5„.....
Mr. CIIIMBERS—You knew the seizure was
made on Thursday, and therefore had abundance of
time to produce evidence to clear yourself of the
charge if
you could. The case must be decided
this day.
Defendant—l can only declare that I was con-
cerned merely as the wharfinger, and that I have
had nothing whatever to do with the manufacture
of the article.

Mr. cliAlkillUßS—,l3oth myself and colleague agree