The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-19 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall.—(Before Mr,
Baron Bramwell and Common Juries.)
BREWER V. POOLE.-FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

This was an action for false imprisonment and
slander. The defendant admitted the false impri-
sonment by paying £2O into court, and as to the
slander pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. Metcalfe were
counsel for the plaintiff.

Mr. Edwin tames and Mr. Henry James ap•
peared for the defendant.

- It appeared that the plaintiff had formerly been
in the employment of the defendant, who is a cattle
dealer, as a purchaser on his behalf of cattle in
Holland. After the plaintiff had left the defend-
ant's service, he was given into custody by the
latter for stealing a hat-box, and after a week's
remand on the charge he was discharged from
custody. The slanderous words complained of as
having been used by the defendant were, " Here is
my hat-box, and I have now found the thief."
Evidence having been adduced on both sides,
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the
false imprisonment, damages £3O, and with regard
to the slander, they found for the defendant.

P OLICEIE N OE, Jan. 18.

GUILDHALL—George Gibson, alias Elliot,
was again brought up for further examination,
charged with being concerned with three other
men in committing a burglary upon the premises of
an aged widow lady named Humphreys, residing
at Stamford-hill, in April, 1856, on which occasion
money, plate, and jewellery, to the value of about
£2,000 were carried away by the ruffians who
plundered the house.
Mr. Lewis, jun., appeared for the prosecution;
and Mr. Beard, of Basinghall-street, for the
defence.

Mr. Lewis said—l will now call a witness,
whose evidence will trace the prisoner into the
sir,
company of the man named Fleckard, who was
convicted of this robbery, and sentence of death
recorded against him. I will also prove that he
was seen coming from the direction of Mrs. Hum-
phreys' house on the morning of the robbery, and
also that he made his escape through an adjoining
house to that in which Mrs. Perkins, who was tried
with Fleckard, lived on the day she was appre-
hended.
Alderman Humphery—l thought you were
going to prove that the prisoner is the same man
who was transported for 10 years in the name of
Elliot ?

Mr. Lewis—That is already proved by Kelly,
who saw him convicted.

---
William Hammond was then examined, and said
—I am a bricklayer, and on the morning of the
25th of April, 1856, I was engaged clearing out
the river Lea, just below Lea-bridge, on the left of
Stamford-hill. I saw four men, and they appeared
to be coming from Stamford-hill. They were
walki▪
ng on the Essex side of the Lea River, and
were coming towards Temple Mills. They were
walki▪
ng four abreast. They passed near me, and

as they did so I Made an observation to one of -my
mates which appeared to attract their attention,
and the two short ones turned round and looked
at me, as much as to say they would come back
and give me something if they dared.
Mr. Lewis—Look round, and see if either of the
four men you then saw is present.
Witness—The prisoner is very much like one of
the four men,but I should not like to swear to him.
Alderman Humphery—How long after the rob-
bery was it when you first heard of it ?
Witness—About three days, sir. I was examined
on the trial in 1856, and identified Fleckard as one
of the four men I saw on the morning of the rob-
bery. Fleckard was one of the two tall men.
Alderman Humphery—Look at the prisoner
again, and say if you can be quite sure he was one
of the four men.
Witness—He certainly is very much like one of
them, but I cannot swear positively to him.
Alderman Humphery—How long did you watch
these men ?
Witness—About ten minutes, sir.
Alderman Humphery—What induced you to
watch them all that time ?
Witness—Because I thought they were four very
suspicious characters.
Alderman Humphery—Had they any bulky par-
cels with them ?
Witness—They seemed to have some bulky
weight about them, land the man like the prisoner
carried a handkerchief with something like a box
in it.
Alderman Humphery—You did. not seem in-
clined to stop them to ask what they had ?
Witness—No, sir, for they seemed to have that
with them that might have stopped me.
Alderman Humphery—But you missed a great
prize in not doing so, for it seems they had 900
sovereigns with them.
Witness—But they might have put me in the
same mess with themselves. (The witness said this
in allusion to a common practice among thieves to
claim as accomplices any one interfering with them
in their marauding expeditions.)
Geo. Smith said—l am a plumber, painter, and
glazier. I was examined on the trial against Fleck-
ard and Horwood for this burglary. I first heard
of the burglary four days after it was committed.
Alderman Humphery—Do you know the pri-
soner at the bar?
Witness—l believe him to be the man I saw with
Horwood and Fleckard in a publichouse in Wal-
worth about ten days or a fortnight before I heard
of the robbery. I have no doubt he is the man. I
saw him again on the 4th of May, while at the
house of Mrs. Perkins. I heard a noise in the
street, and on opening the street-door I saw two
men running away. They turned their faces to-
wards me as they were turning the corner of the
street, and I believe the prisoner was one of them.
Mr. Beard—What took you to Walworth ?
Witness—l met Horwood there. He is my
brother-in-law.
Mr. Beard—lndeed ! That is something new.
Witness—Yes ; and I knew of this robbery being
arranged before it was committed.
Mr. Beard—Oh ! then, you were an accomplice ?
Witness—l told the police that the robbery was
planned, and by whom ; and they told me to watch
and hear all I could about it. Horwood's wife was
in Mrs. Humphreys's service before they were
married.
Alderman Humphery—That accounts for infor-
mation they must have obtained about the money
and valuables which were afterwards stolen. This
is a very important feature in the case, for if the
police knew of the robbery before it was committed,
it was surprising they should have taken no steps
to prevent it. What were the names of the police-
men you informed of the intended robbery P
Witness—Jeffries of the N division, and M‘Walter
of the T division, of the Metropolitan Police.
Alderman Humphery—Are these two men still
in the police force ?
Witness—l believe they are, sit.
Alderman Humphery—Were they examinedupon
the trial of Fleckard ?
Mr. Lewis—They were not, sir, but it was known
at the trial that these two policemen were in-
formed—at least it was so stated—of this robbery,
but it was all satisfactorily explained at the time.
Alderman Humphery—This all seems most ex-
traordinary. If these men were on duty at Stam-
ford-hill, and knew of this robbery being arranged,
they should have prevented it ; and I am surprised
that Sir Richard Mayne, the commissioner, should
not have made inquiry into the circumstance.
Mr. Lewis—So far from there being any laxity
of duty on the part of the police in this case, Lang-
don was made an inspector and another officer was
made a sergeant immediately after the trial.
Alderman Humlahery—But this is the case before
me :—The sister of this witness was in the service
of Mrs. Humphreys, and she gives Fleckard and
the others information of what property is in the
house, and the robbery is shortly after committed ;
but before it takes place this witness informs the
police, and yet no steps were taken to prevent it.
(To witness).—Did you give this evidence on the
trial of Fleckard and Horwood ?
Witness—Yes, Sir.
Mr. Beard—And Horwood was acquitted.
Witness—l went more to Walworth after I gave
information to the police and the attempt to rob
the house than before.
Alderman Humphery—Was anything promised
you for your share of the proceeds of this robbery ?
Witness—No, Sir. It was not likely, after my
telling the police about it.
Alderman Humphery—When was the attempt
first made to rob the house ?
Mr. Lewis—About a week or so before - the bur-
glary was committed four men and two women
were seen in the neighbourhood of Stamford-hill.
One of the men, who was identified as Fleckard,
went to Mrs. Humphreys's house with one of the
women named Perkins, and presented a letter pur-
porting to come from Mr. Rush, Mrs. Humphreys's
solicitor, stating he was taken very suddenly ill
and wished to see her. They tried to persuade
Mrs. Humphreys to send Eliza Cook, the only
other person in the house,to Mr. Rush, but in vain.
They then feigned illness, and Mrs. Humphreys
gave them wine and spirits, and Fleckard after-
wards said he had not the heart to rob the old lady
because she was so very kind to him. The robbery,
however, took place shortly after.
Mr. Beard—This witness seems to have known
everything
,connected with the robbery before it
took place.
Alderman Humphery—lt is very strange indeed.
When you heard of this robbery being arranged,
what did you do ?
Witness--I first went in search of Inspector
Langdon, but, not finding him, I mentioned it to
the two constables I have named.
Alderman Humphery—How came you to know
the parties ?
Witness—Horwood married my sister.
Aldernian Humphery—Didyou ever hear what
money Mrs. Humphreys kept in the house ?
Witness—My sister had often said Mrs.
Humphreys had money in the house, and that she
had taken some of it herself.

Alderman Humphery—What do you .mean by
taking the money herself?
Witness—Why, my sister stole it; and after
Fleckard failed in robbing the house on the night
they went with the letter they said they would
wait till Annie's (Mrs. Perkins s) brother (Slark,
who is now in America) came home.
Alderman Humphery—This is a very mysterious
case altogether, and the man's conduct is certainly
very strange. I do not think the city police, having
information of a burglary being arranged, would
have allowed it to be committed.

Mr. Beard—l do not think the Court will say
this witness's conduct in this matter is free from
suspicion.
__ _

Alderman Humphery—l never heard a more
extraordinary thing in my life.
Thos. Smith was then called, but did not answer.
. _ _

Alderman Humphery—What is he to prove?
Mr. Lewis—That he salv the prisoner escape
from the house next Mrs. Perkins's at the time
she was arrested. I will call him on the next
examination, when I shall be prepared with some
most important evidence, which will enable me to
complete the case.

Mr. Beard—l have hitherto objected to these
frequent remands, but if Mr. Lewis will pledge
himself to complete his case next week I will not

oppose it further.
Mr. Lewis—l will pledge myself to do so.
Mr. Beard—Most important evidence has come
out to-day from a witness who, Ido not hesitate to
say, has acted throughout this transaction rather
like an accomplice.
Alderman Humphery remanded the prisoner,
who seemed to treat the matter rather as a good joke
than as involving the serious penalty of transpor-
tation or penal servitude for life.
BO"

OW-STREET.—Charles Comber, police-con-
stable E 159, was charged with violation of duty in
improperly taking into custody Mr. G. Smith, a
cowkeeper, in Eagle-street, Red Lion-street. The
charge arose out of a complaint made by Mr. Smith
to the Commissioners of Police, who referred the
matter to Mr. Jardine for decision.
Mr. Smith stated that on the 6th inst., at about
three in the afternoon, he was passing along Hol-
born in a cart, at a foot pace, and was very much
hemmed in by omnibuses, before, beside, and be-
hind him. The driver of one of these, by pulling
up in an incautious manner, impeded' him, and,
being unable to stop, he was obliged to force his
way forward, so that he came into contact with a
light four-wheeled vehicle, and drew it a little way
round. As soon as he could stop he got out of his
cart, left it in the care of a stranger, and went back