The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-14 00:00:00

BOTV-STREET.

On Monday last Mr. Walmsley, a pawnbroker at the
corner of Blackmoor-street, Drury-lane, appeared upon
summons to answer to a complaint exhibited against him
by Major Michael Brown, under the 39th George 111., for
unlawfully refusing an inspection of his book of sales, which
the complainant, under the statute, had a right to demand.
The penalties under the clause of the Act in question are
extremely heavy, being 101., and three times the value of
the goods pawned.
Mr. Brown stated that in August, 1833, he pledged a
gold watch at the defendant's shop for 91. He did not
redeem it ; and on the sth instant he called, and having
paid a penny, as required by the Act, he demanded an in-
spection of the books, in order that if the watch, when
sold by auction, had fetched more than the amount of the
principal and interest, and the expenses of sale, he might
claim the overplus. He at the same time held the dupli-
cate in his hand, near enough to the defendant for him to
read the entry upon it, but Mr. Walmsley refused to per-
mit him to inspect the books unless he gave the duplicate
into his hand. An altercation ensued, and it ended in Mr.
Walmsley positively refusing to allow witness to look at the
book.
The defence set up was that the complainant merely
showed the duplicate at a distance, and that defendant
could not see to what it referred.
Sir F. ROE said that under the circumstances he must
convict if pressed to do so, but he would postpone the case
in order that the parties might have an opportunity of com-
promising the matter, which would be the best course in
such a case.
Yesterday the parties again appeared, and stated that no
arrangement had been come to, and the complainant prayed
judgment.
Mr Stafford, solicitor for Mr. Walmsley, made an ob-
jection that there had not been a written information lodged,
as required by the statute, but that the summons had been
issued upon a mere verbal complaint.
Sir F. ROE differed from Mr. Stafford.
Mr. HALLS, after a long conversation, was of opinion
that a written information was necessary under the Act.
Sir F. ROE—Then, of course, the information must be
dismissed, and I am rather glad that I have this loophole
afforded me to avoid ordering a penalty, because I think
an improper degree of petulance was exhibited., At the
same time my view of the general principle is the same.
The case was then dismissed, Sir F. Roe observincr that
the complainant could consult a legal adviser, and if the
law allowed it he could lodge a fresh information.
The complainant adopted the course he did upon the
advice of Sir F. Pollock, and he should certainly not let
the matter drop.

MARLBORO UGH-STREET.
Peter Scott,:a remarkably diminutive personage, brought ,
Samuel Palmer before Mr. CONANT, " for having," as the
warrant expressed it, " against the peace of our Lord the
King, assaulted and beaten him on Monday last."
"May it please your Worship," began the complainant—
" my business is obstructed, my person threatened, my life
in danger, and my wife and family thrown into bodily fear,
by the conduct of the defendant, who keeps a cobbler's
stall close to the door of my own shop."
Mr. CONANT—WeII, state what he does? Complainant
He never sees me, your Worship, but he gives a whistle, so
(whistling), and cries " Snob! " Three weeks ago, I was
white-washing my airy, when, hearing the usual . sound, I
lifted up my visible hopticks, and saw the prisoner whistling
and singing out " Snob !" I flew into the house, and, from
the corner of the kitchen window, upon my sacred oath I
saw him pull a latch key out of his pocket and burglariously
try to open my street door with it. 1 called my wife and
family and lodgers to come and be witnesses ; but he, find-
ing it would'nt fit, made his escape, having, however, again
whistled, and cried out " Snob ! "
Mr. CONANT—Confine your statement to the assault.
Complainant—This is important. Three days after this
my wife having told me that the kettle would'nt " bile" for
ten minutes, I went in to my neighbour, Mrs. Dart's, shop
to have a pennorth of hoisters. " Mrs. Dart," says Ito
her, " I've-got two feather-beds to sell, one is 30s, and—
Mr. CONANT—Come to the assault at once. Com-
plainant—" And the other el., because I've just had the
ticking scoured." "If that's your price, Mr. Scott," said
she, " then we can't deal."
Mr. CONANT—What has all, this stuff to do with the
assault ? Complainant—l wish your worship to be in pos-
session of the whole of the scandalous proceedings. So as
I was eating the hoisters, in comes the defenant, who
again whistled, and sun.- out " Snob !" at the same time
laying his hand on my shoulder with a push, which in the
eye of the law is an assault.
Mr. CONANT—And have you taken out a warrant for
such a trumpery proceeding? Complainant—A trumpery
proceeding ! What! is a tradesman to have a man always
whistling at him and snobbing at him ? If such attacks are
not repressed by the extremities of the law, there's no know-
ing what sanguinary things may take place.
The defendant, a pale, peaceable-looking journeyman
cordwainer, assured the Magistrate that he was the %ag-
grieved party ;• for the complainant usually set up a number
of hackney-coachmen to annoy him when at w,ak in his
stall, and on one occasion the complainant, 10,10, though a
pigmy in person, was a Goliah in pluck, 'nail violated the
privacy of his sanctum by making a forcible entry therein,
and threatening to assassinate him with his own awl.
The complainant then called Mrs. Dart, who confirmed
the fact of the "hoiste;s," but negatived the assault.
Mr. CONANT therefore dismissed the warrant, and ad-
vised the defendant to restrain his penchant for whistling in
future.
The Complainant, who was as red as a turkey-cock at
the issue, darted an indignant look at the victorious cob-
bler, and marched out of the office.