The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, FEIMITA BY 15, 1866.

This Day.

posed theatre, which was manifested by the presentation
of petitions in favour of it to the Lord Chamberlain.
The site occupied by the building had become
a receptacle of decayed vegetables, stagnant
water, and other matter of an offensive description.
That nuisance had been abated by the erection of a
theatre, and it appeared strange that the plaintiffs should
object to what had been the means of doing a great ad-
vantage to their property. Vice-Chancellor Wood, as
trustee of the Doughty estate, gave his sanc-
tion to the erection of the theatre, which was to
bo completed within a given time under a penalty of £l,OOO.
The defendant also became liable to the Court of Chancery
for a rent of £4OO a yeai for 60 years. The excavation
commenced in November last, and considerable progress
was made before any exception was taken to the erection of
the building. The site had been enclosed, and a large board
posted outside describing it as the site of the Holborn Theatre,
while notices had been served on the different tenants in
the neighbourhood apprising them of the - erection of the
intended building. In law a notice to a tenant was de facto
a notice to a landlord or a landowner. Nethwithstanding
that, it was not before July last that any objection was
made to the erection of the building. He contended that
the plaintiffs had acquiesced in the building of the theatre
by not opposing it before, and that they were not conse-
quently to call the court into action on their behalf.

His Honour doubted whether non-opposition up to a
certain period could be construed into acquiescence.
Mr. Malins said that if his Honour's views were correct
it would put an end to the construction of any large build-
ings in the metropolis. The learned counsel then pro-
ceeded to cite several cases bearing on the question at issue.
(The case was proceeding when we went to press.)

PJLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

-a-

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
THE POLICE AND THE PUBLIC—CHARGE OF RESISTING
AND ASSAULTING A CONSTABLE AT A FIRE.—Mr. Thomas
Walton, assistant to Mr. Squires, chemist, 227, Oxford-
street, was charged before Mr. Knox with resisting and
assaulting police-constable Thomas Beal, 119 0, while in
the execution of his duty at a fire at Messrs. Laurie and
Manner's, the coachbuilders, in Oxford-street.
Beal said that on the previous night between nine and
ten o'clock he was on duty at a fire in Oxford-street, and
saw the defendant pushing his way through, stating that
he wanted to see an engine work, as he had never seen
one. He pushed the defendant back, when he resisted a
good deal, became very violent, and struck him in the
mouth, and he was obliged to get assistance to take the
defendant to the station.
The defendant said that he had been looking at the fire,
and walked through between two police-constables, the
fire being then nearly out, and very few persons about.
The constable (Beal) who was then standing on the pave-
ment made a rush at him, and pulled him back amongst
what crowd there was. Another constable then came up
and interfered in his (defendant's) behalf, and told him that
persons were not admitted through during the fire. He
told that constable that that was common sense, and the
way persons should be treated, and not roughly used. He
never struck the constable (Beal) at all, and the constable
never thought of taking him into custody till he went up
afterwards to him, acting upon the advice of a gentleman
who was in court, and an entire stranger to him, to take
his number.
Mr. Woolley, No. 1, Upper Montague-street, said that at
the time in question there were about 50 persons standing
in Union-street. Several persons pushed their way
through, and the constable (Beal) was very insulting to
some of them in the remarks he made, saying to a gentle-
man's footman in livery, "Don't you want to go to No. 7?''
not that he (witness) knew what that meant. The con-
stable was very excited, and ho believed the worse for
drink.
Mr. Knox asked the witness whether be understood him
to charge the constable with being drunk ?
The witness said he did. In fact he saw him leave his
post and go to a publichouse with others. He observed the
defendant walk in the centre of the road, and the constable
then ran after him and handled him very roughly, tearing
his coat, and pushed him back amongst the people. The
police allowed some persons to go through, and there were
plenty of persons walking about the street besides the
police. He (witness) went up to the defendant and advised
him to take the constable's number for the rough way in
which ho had treated him. Shortly after the defendant
went up to the constable to take his number, and the con-
stable then spoke to some other constables, and rushed
back and took the defendant into custody. On the way
down Bond-street a young man (not a constable) walked by
the side of the constable a short distance, and he walked
to the other side of the defendant and took hold of his hand
(not that he was wanted). About 300 persons followed,
and the constable turned round and said, "Now, you go
back. You have no occasion to follow me. I am good
enough for two any day." He (witness), however, did fol-
low, and, when near Bruton-street, the constable spoke to
300 A, and ho al No went to the station with the defendant.
The constable asked the witness whether he did not see
the defendant strike him in the mouth while he was taking
his number ?
fen twtiV4 EtintagteZlPtia-sCdfo-li nothing about d-
Tho constable asked whether tho defendant's coat was
not torn through trying to get away.
The witness said the defendant did not attempt to get
away, and that the coat was torn through the constable's
violence.

Mr. Knox asked whether the inspector who took the
charge was in attendance.
Sergeant Bason, 12 C (acting-inspector), said the de-
fendant was brought to the station last night, charged
with resisting a constable and assaulting him at a fire in
Oxford-street. The constable said that the defendant
tried to push his way through ; that he desired him to go
back, and that then the defendant struck him in the mouth.
The constable said nothing about the defendant taking his
number.
Mr. Knox discharged the defendant, and told the Ser-
geant to let the case be a matter of report to the Commis-
sioners of Police, for an inquiry into the constable's
conduct.