The Sun.
London, England, 1832-10-08 00:00:00

been distinctly told several times that they wanted

to apprehend a man for felony.
Mr. Moore declared that Clapham had an oppor-
tunity, when the van was at the Cross Keys, ►o
take the sailor into custody, and the passengers were
not to be detained all day because he neglected to
do so. But the fact was, the first charge against
the sailor was that he was in debt, and the inge-

nuity of the officer, for his own purpose, converted
the debt into a felony. . . . .

Clapham distinctly swore that the accuser pointed
out the sailor as a thief, and called upon him to ap-
prehend the man for felony. The sailor gave some
evidence of the truth of the charge himself by his
conduct, for he pulled off his shoes and stockings,
which formed part of the alleged plunder, and threw
them from the van to the officer. As to the op-
portunity of taking out the sailor at the Cross
Keys, he (Clapham) had made the attempt, but
without success, for he had no assistance.
The LORD MAYOR asked the coachman whether
he was not aware that if any fatal accident had
happened to the officers while the horses were
going at that furious rate, he would be tried for
murder ?

The coachman said he had no idea that the officer
was hanging to the coach as it went along, and he
solemnly declared, that he took it for a fact, from
all he had heard, that the sailor was a mere debtor
in the matter. He added that he acted all through

'or the protection of the passengers and the horses,

as he was baund to do.

A gentleman, named W. F. Walker, stated that
he saw what occurred at the bottom of the bridge.
He saw the officers endeavouring to get hold of the
sailor and hanging to the coach, and was convinced
that they would have succeeded had it not been for
the efforts of the coachman to counteract them.

The LORD MAYOR immediately ordered that the
defendants should be bound over to appear at the
next Sessions, to answer any charge that might be

brought against them by the officers, for a very se-
rious obstruction in the performance of their duty.

BOW-STREET.
ST. MARTIN'S-IN-THE-FIELDS.—The parish offi-
cers of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields applied to the Ma-
gistrates to sign a poor-rate for the ensuing half-year.
Mr. Fenn and several of the inhabitants of the
parish attended to protest against the rate as illegal.
Mr. Alley appeared on the part of the Select
Vestry, and contended that they were authorized to
make the rate.

Mr. Fenn, on the other side, argued that the right
was vested in the' Ancient Inhabitants."

A very long discussion ensued, interesting only to
the rate-payers of the parish, the same question
having been frequently mooted ; and it at length
ended in the Magistrates giving their sanction to
the rate, subject, however, to an appeal to the Court
of King's Bench, which we understand will be made.
SINGULAR CASE.—John Carter, alias Ignatius
Cavendish Coyne, a fashionably-dressed young man,
was brought up, charged by a Mr. Israel Alexander,
who keeps a horse and carriage repository in Gos-
well-street, with having defrauded him of 401. under
the following ciicurnstances :
Mr. Alexander stated, that on the 16th of June
last, the defendant came to his repository in com-
pany with a person of the name of Levi, of whom
he had some previous knowledge, bringing with him
a phaeton, upon which, he said, he was desirous of
raising 401. He stated that he had purchased the
phaeton in Long-acre for a bill drawn on Mr. S. A.
Bayntun, Member for York, for 140 guineas. After
some conversation, he agreed to advance the money
required, and gave the defendant a cheque for 351.
and five sovereigns, upon condition that if the phaeton
was not redeemed within two months, it was to be
nisidered witness's property. The defendant
stated, that he lived at No. '2, Parliament-street.—
Two months having elapsed, and the defendant not
appearing, witness sold the phaeton, according to
agreemenr, to a Mr. Tilbury for 451., who subse-
quently sold it for fifty guineas. He afterwards
discovered that the phaeton had been let to Mr.
Bayntun for six months, and was not the property
of the defendant.
Mr. Felton, a coachmaker, in the neighbourhood
of Belgrave-square, stated, that he let the phaeton
in question for six months from last Saturday week,
to Mr. Bayntun, the Member for York, and from
information he had received, he went to a livery-
stable over Westminster-bridge, where he found it
in charge of the prisoner. He claimed it as his pro-
perty, but the prisoner refused to give it up without
the authority of a Magistrate. He then went to
Union-hall,leaving a policeman in charge of the phae-
ton. Mr. Chambers, to whom he appealed, having
heard his story, told him to get possession of it in the
best manner he could, arid by force if requisite. Under
this advice, he returned to the livery-stables, but
ascertained that, in his absence, two men in livery
came with a pair of horses, and, in defiance of the
policeman, drove it away. He heard no m9re of
either the defendant or the phaeton till some time
afterwards, when he saw the latter taken into the
Pantechnicon. He immediately went into the esta-
blishment, and demanded it as his property, stating
the circumstances under which it had been obtained
from his possession. It was given to him without
objection, on stating who he was, and he took it
back to his factory.
The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he had
lived with Mr. Bayntun in the character of an
agent, and entered into some details, of which we
have no doubt that gentleman will give a very dif-
ferent version. He said that, shortly before he
went to Mr. Alexander, Mr. B tyntun went down
to Brighton, for the purpose of getting some money
from his father; but, on his return, he said "he
could get nothing out of him, but that his father
had promised to give him the means of paying his
debts in two months." He then said that he
wanted to raise 401., and desired him (the prisoner)
to take the phaeton, and endeavour to " raise the
wind" to that amount, at the same time stating
that his brother, Mr. Mortimer Bayntun, had ar-
ranged with Mr. Felton for the purchase. Under
these circumstances he went to Levi, stating the
object he had in view, and Levi undertook, for two
sovereigns, to take him to a person who would
comply with his wishes. On his agreeing to these
terms, Levi took him to Mr. Alexander, who ad-
vanced him, not 401. but 351., and he wrote a me-
morandum in his book, describing the conditions on
which the advance was made; he added that Mr.
Hill, an attorney, in Chancery-lane, was a witness
to the transaction. He denied that he had said any
thing about a 401. bill, for that Levi, who was pre-
sent, and knew the whole of the circumstances,
could at once have contradicted him.
Mr. Alexander again stepped forward, and de-
clared most positively that he had given the prisoner
46/. under the representations he had described, and
that no memorandum whatever had been made on
the subject.
Mr. MiNsimu, remarked, thut it appeared some-
what extraordinary, for a man in Mr. Alexander's
situation to advance a sum of 401. to a person of
whom he had no previous knowledge, without a re-
ceipt, or some memorandum by which the transac-
tion might afterwards be corroborated. He might,
however, if he chose, indict the prisoner and Levi
for consp ring to defraud him.
Levi, who was in the office, said he had no more
to do with the affair than introducing the prisoner to
Mr. Alexander.
Mr. MINSHULL, under all the circumstances, di-
rected that the prisoner should be detained, and
brought up at 7 o'clock, and, in the interim, that
Mr. Hill, the attorney, should be sent for.
In the evening, the prisoner was again brought
up, when Mr. Hill, the attorney, attended, and stated
that he was present at the transaction described by
Mr. Alexander, and saw him give the prisoner a
check for 3a., arid five sovereigns. He denied most
positively that any memorandum whatever was made
on that occasion.
This was the whole of theevidence adduced,when
Mr. Norton, the solicitor for Mr. Alexander, sub-
mitted that, under the statute 7th and Bth Geo.IV.
cap. 29, this was obtaining money under false pre-
tences, and that the prisoner had been guilty of a
misdemeanour.
Mr. Roberts, the attorney on the part of the pri-