The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-13 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Jan. 12.

WESTMINSTER. —Mr. Henry Edward Murrell,
of 1, Walbrook, auctioneer, and Capt. Thomas
Nutting, of Peckham-rye, appeared to summonses
charging them with wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Salter, barrister, conducted the prosecution ;
and Mr. Giffard, barrister, appeared for the ac-
cused. The cases were taken singly, Mr. Mur-
rell's being the first chosen.
Mr. Salter stated the case for the prosecution.
The present prosecution arose ont of an action tried

in the Court of Queen's Bench on the 4th of last

December, before Lord Campbell and a special
jury, for an assault. The plaintiff was Mr.
Isaac Barratt, an upholsterer and furnitur:,
dealer, at 103-4, Wellington-street, Woolwich,

and the defendant was Mr. henry Edward Murrell,
and amongst other pleas which the latter set up
was justification, the plea mainly depended upon in
the action, and it was put to the jury by Lord
Campbell that if the evidence for the plaintiff was
to be credited the plea of justification could not be
sustained ; but if, on the other hand, they believed
the circumstances under which defendant justified,
the determination would be in his favour, and the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
one farthing. Defendant was sworn on that occa-
sion and as the decision went on the question of
credit his evidence was necessarily material to the
issue. The facts which gave rise to the action were
these :—Mr. Murrell, as auctioneer, sold a lady's
effects, in Linden-grove Villas, Peckham, on the
3d of July last. Lot 186 was a bed, bolster, and
pillow. Mr. Barratt, who was present 'at that sale,
bid 255., and the lot was run up to 31s. 6d. Mr.
Barratt did not bid after 30s. ; and when the lot
was knocked down at 31s. 6d. nobody could be
found who had offered that sum, and in consequence
the lot was put up again, when Mr. Barratt called
" 255." There was no other bidder that time, and

the lot was knocked down at 255., but when the
auctioneer's clerk inquired as usual, to whom, Mr.
Murrell replied " Rogers" (a person who was bid,
ding and buying at the sale as a commission agent
on behalf of the friends of the lady whose furniture
was being disposed of). Mr. Barratt, finding that
the lot was knocked down to Mr. Rogers, who
had made no bidding whatever for it, protested
against the proceeding, again and again told Mr.
Murrell that he (Barratt) was the bona fide pur-
chaser, and called upon him if there were any dis-
pute in the matter—agreeably with the conditions
of the sale—to put the lot up again to the highest
bidder. but his remarks were, unheeded by Mr.
Murrell, who proceeded to the next lot, and
upon Mr. Barratt offering a price for that, Mr.
Murrell refused to take his bidding. Mr. Barratt
said he had come nine or ten miles and that Mr.
Murrell had a right to take his bidding. Mr. Mur-
rell, who had threatened to have him turned out of
the room, sent for: the police, but they refused to
take Mr. Barratt unless Mr. Murrell would charge
him, wheri the latter called his men and had him
forcibly ejected, which was the assault complained
of, and for which the action was brought to recover
damages. Mr. Murrell's answer, on which he
grounded his plea of justification, was that the
bidding of 31s. 6d. was bona fide, but that not being
able to find the person who had bid that amount,
Barratt had jeeringly said that he had lost his bid-
der, or something to that effect (in allusion as it
seemed, to a practice of auctioneers of what is
termed " trotting," or making a supposititious bid-
ding of their own). Mr. Murrell then put the lot
up again, and especially directed his attention
towards Barratt, and, seeing no one bid but Rogers
(who had himself on the trial been obliged to con-
fess that he never made a bidding at all for the lot
the second time), knocked it down to. him at 255.
Barratt then declared the sale should not proceed,
and it was in consequence of this interruption and
the confusion that followed, that defendant justified
himself in the course he had pursued. It was upon
the evidence so given by Mr. Murrell upon the trial
that the present assignment of perjury rested.
Mr. Alfred Daniel, managing clerk to plaintiff's
attorney, having prodijced the record of the action,
and Mr. John William Cook, shorthand writer,the
notes of the trial, the latter showed that when Bar-
ratt said he claimed the lot, Murrell, in his testi-
money,- had sworn that it was not his, that he had
not bid for it, arid that upon Barratt's becoming
violent and stating that the sale should not pro-
ceed, he (Mr. Murrell) went on to the next lot,
thinking that he might be quiet, but finding that
he was not, he told him he should be obliged to
ha.ve him removed; but he would not desist, and as
his manner was very violent and the noise he made
so great that the sale could not go on, he had him
put out.

- Mr. Isaac Barratt was sworn, and declared that
arbidding of 31s, 6d. proceeded from no one. He
must have heard it had it been a bidding. No pur-
chaser applied for it when it was knocked down the
first time, and Mr. Murrell never asked whose
bidding it was. The reason he put it up again, as
witness supposed, was that he did not want it in
his own hands, that he had knocked it down at that
price as a speculation, having no bona
_fide bidder.
l'Fitness never said, as imputed to him, " You have
got no bidder," or anything of that sort. Witness
stood facing him when he made the bidding the
second time, and defendant looked towards him,
and must, as he should think, have seen him. De-
fendant quoted his bidding, and when he knocked
the lot down witness thought he was booking it for
him. Witness did not say the sale should not pro-
ceed, and the only answer he got from defendant
was that he would have him put out of the room.
A man who was intoxicated there began to hiss
Mr. Murrell.

After cross-examination witness was questioned
by Mr. Paynter, and declared that he was not
making a noise or hindering the sale in any when
turned out by defendant's order.
William Henry Rogers, commission broker, said
he attended the sale for Mr. Burritt, the father-in-
law of the lady at whose house it took place. De-
fendant knew he was there for that purpose.
Witness did not bid at all the second time for the
lot, but defendant stooped over to him and inquired
what had been his previous bidding, and upon his
replying 255., defendant knocked it down to him.
That was after Barratt had bid. Mr. Barratt
insisting that he was entitled to the lot caused a
disturbance in the room, but a drunken man lamed
Burgess made.a great deal of noiso there.
In cross•examination witness admitted that al-
though not entitled to the lot, he cleared it and
took it away for the gentleman for whom he was
buying on commission. He dared say his previous
bidding was by a nod. The voice witness heard
most in the room was Barratt's, but he thought
Burgess and other persons called out. Did not
consider there was a great noise while the next lot
was selling.
Replying to Mr. Paynter, witness admitted that
he thought defendant was favouring him when he
knocked the lot for which he had not bid down to
him. He had also favoured him respecting another
article. Witness did not, however, think that that
was acting unfairly.
After some further evidence, .the case was ad-
journed till Tuesday.

SOUTHWARK.—The driver of one of the op-
position omnibuses, No. 6,640, running between
Kingsland-gate and the Elephant and Castle, was
summoned before Mr. Burcham, for loitering and
obstructing the thoroughfare in Wellington-street,
London-bridge.
Sergeant Ashley, 455 A, said that on Monday,
the 3d instant, about one o'clock, he saw the defen-
dant driving his vehicle towards London-bridge
from the Elephant and Castle, and just as he got
near the clock tower, one of the General omnibuses
was going the same way, and, near the railway,
was hailed by a lady. That vehicle stopped for the
purpose of taking her up, when defendant pulled
over, and prevented the conductor and the lady
from getting near the other omnibus. Witness
called out to defendant, but he took no notice of
him at first, but completely blocked up the road.
Mr. Burcham asked what was the other omnibus
hailed by the lady ?
Sergeant Ashley replied that it belonged to the
General Omnibus Company, and-ran the same road.
He had considerable trouble with these omnibuses,
but they were not so bad as formerly.
Mr, Burcham said such conduct must be put a
stop to ; and, as a caution to other drivers, he
should fine him 20s. and costs.

The conductor of another omnibus (No. 6.674)
was charged with overcrowding his vehicle.
Sergeant Ashley said he got into the omnibus on
Wednesday night at Kingsland, 'to come to the
Borough, and at Shoreditch church there, were four-
teen passengers inside, being two more than allowed
by law. lie told the defendant of it, but he took
no notice, and the omnibus proceeded as far as St.
George's church in that overcrowded state.
In answer to the charge the defendant said he
was very sorry for having too many persons in his
omnibus, but he was not aware ofit till told by the
officer.
Mr. Burcham fined him ss, and costs.

George Heyne, an ensign of the 15th Regiment
of Foot, residing at No. 24, Gloucester-square,
Hyde-park, was charged with riotous and dis-
graceful conduct in a private box in the Victoria
Theatre.

John Herrington, 32 L, said that he was
employed to keep order inside the Victoria
Theatre. About 10 o'clock on the previous evening
he heard a disturbance in one of the private boxes
occupied by the defendant and three other gentle-
men. He looked up, and 'perceived him and two
of his friends sitting in the front of the boxes. Two
of them were smoking cigars, and loud complaints
were made from all parts of the house. He
instantly proceeded to the boz and requested them

to desist, but they waved their handkerchiefs, and
shouted to the persons in the pit and gallery. The
defendant was the most violent of the lot, and he
was compelled to eject him from the theatre, and
take him into custody.
Mr. Burcham—Did you see the defendant
smoking ?
Herrington—No, sir, but when I entered the box
he smelt very strong of smoke.
Defendant—l did not smoke, but two of my
friends did, and I could not help that ; and I never
sat in the front of the box.

Mr. Burcham (to Herrington)—Was the defen.
dant sober ?

Herrington—Yes, sir, he appeared to be so, as
well as two of his friends, but the other was under
the influence of liquor, and he was the best behaved
of the lot. (Laughter.)
Mr. Burcham—Was the prisoner shouting P
Herrington—Yes, sir. He was calling out to the
audience in the pit as well as in the gallery. The
cries were " Turn them out, turn them out," and
for some time the uproar was so great that the
performances could not be gone on with.
Defendant—l was not very noisy, and I did not
smoke.

Mr. Burcham—lt is quite clear that your con.
duct was very disgraceful, and I am surprised that
a gentleman in your position of society should set
such a bad example. You must pay a fine of 20s.
The fine was immediately paid.

LAMBETH.—A poor woman named Newell,
living at 21, Stangate-street, Westminster-road,
applied to Mr. Norton for advice in reference to
her daughter, who had left her house since Wed-
nesday last, and whom she had not seen since, or
been able to trace, in spite of constant inquiries.
She stated that her daughter, who was about 18
years of age, had previously been engaged as a
dancer at the Olympic Theatre. Afterwards she
Fdt an engagement at her Majesty's Theatre ' • and
in April last Mr. Massol, the ballet master, had her
bound as an apprentice to him for three years, the
terms being that she was to have £lB for the first
year, £2O for the second, and £22 for the third.
On the bankruptcy of Mr. Lumley some disagree-
ment took place respecting the agreement. Ulti-
mately the indentures were given up to Mr. Mas-
sol, on payment of £4 10s. By this time engage-
ments had been made at all the theatres for the
Christmas pieces, and her daughter was unable to
get occupation. er daughter. was much depressed
in spirits through this, and wrote a note to a lady
requesting her to make interest with Mr. Massol
to obtain practice for her. She left her home on
the Wednesday in question with the avowed
intention of delivering this note.
After hearing the poor woman's statement, Mr.
Norton expressed a hope that the publicity given
to the matter would have the effect of procuring
some information about her daughter, and handed
her a half-sovereign from the poorbox.

WANDSWORTH.—The young woman Ann
Collyer, late servant in the employ of Mr. Charles
Mellor, a very aged and infirm gentleman, of West-
hill, Wandsworth, was brought before Mr.
Ingham for final examination on the charge of
wilfully setting fire to her master's house on the
morning of Tuesday, the 28th ult., whereby it was
completely destroyed.
The full particulars of this mysterious case have
already appeared in this journal.
Mr. Haynes again attended for the prisoner, at
the instance of Mr. Mellor.

Mr. Taylor (chief clerk)—ls there any further
evidence?

Payne (the officer)—No sir, none; all the wit-
nesses have been examined.

Mr. Haynes—ln that case, sir, I should like to
know what you intend to do in the matter ?
Mr. Ingham—There is no further evidence, and
as the case is complete I shall send the prisoner for
trial.
Mr. Haynes—As that is your intention, I shall
beg leave to reserve what observations I may have
to make for the other court.
Mr. Ingham—Very well, Mr. Haynes; now let
the witnesses be sworn separately.
There were nine witnesses, and. Mr. Taylor then
proceeded to read over the depositions, which were
exceedingly voluminous.
Upon the completion of the case the prisoner was
fully committed to take her trial at the next sessions
of the Central Criminal Court.