The Sun.
London, England, 1861-09-26 00:00:00

POLICE IN2ELLIGENCE, sept. 25.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Emanuel Levy, who was
brought up on Thursday last charged with having
in his possession two country bank notes of the
value of £5 each, which were stolen from a post
letter i❑ transit from Louth to London, well-know-
ing them to have been stolen, was again brought up
for further examination.
Mr. Mullens, solicitor to the Bankers' Protection
Association, attended to conduct the prosecution ;
and Mr. Sleigh, barrister, appeared on behalf of the
prisoner.
From the evidence adduced on the former exa-
mination it appeared that on the Wednesday the
prisoner presented a promissory note on the Wis-
beach and Lincolnshire Bank for payment at Messrs.
Barclay's, and it was found that it was stopped:
Tilcock, a detective officer, was called in, and told
the prisoner that the note was one of a number that

were stolen from a letter, in February last, on its
transit through the Post-office from Louth to Messrs.
Prescott's bank, and asked him what account he
could give of the possession of it. The prisoner said
that he kept an oyster shop at Boulogne, and on
Wednesday, Sept. 17, three men went into his shop
and had three dozen oysters. He told them to make
haste, as he wanted to go and get some English
money, as he was going to England that day. One
of the three men said he would give him some, and
gave him two country notes for £5 each, one Bank
of England note for £5, and £5 in gold, for which
he gave him French money in exchange. The officer
then asked him if he had any other notes about him,
and he handed him another country note for £5,
and also a Bank of England note for £5. On being
searched at the station £25 10s. in gold and silver
was found upon him.
Witnesses were called, who proved the posting
of a letter in Louth, addressed to Messrs. Prescott,
containing notes and cheques, of which the two
country notes produced by the officer formed part,
and also of the non receipt of the letter at Messrs.
Prescott's bank.

Mrs. Lynch, of 3, Camden-place, Camberwell,
then deposed that on the 16th of August last she
received £lOO in Bank of England notes from
Messrs. Linton and Clerke, stockbrokers, and a few
days after that she was going from the city
homeward, and took an omnibus at the Elephant
and Castle. She then had her purse in her pocket
containing some of the notes given to her by Messrs.
Linton, and on reaching home she found her purse
was gone.
Mr. Gordon, clerk to Messrs. Linton, deposed
that the ,E 5 Bank of England noteproduced by the
officer Tilcock bore the same number and date as
one of those which he paid to Mrs. Lynch on the
16th August.
Mr. Mullens then applied for a further remand in
order to make inquiries respecting the Bank of
England note, which he did not know until that
morning had been stolen.
Mr. Sleigh said he was rather surprised that his
learned friend should make such an application,
and contended that there was not a tittle of evidence
to show that the prisoner knew the notes were
stolen, and said that the prisoner's statement when
he was taken into custody was quite consistent and
probable, and the very course thieves would adopt
would be to get rid of the notes where they could.
He should, therefore, ask his lordship to discharge
the prisoner at once. He showed his lordship a
certificate from the Commissioner of Police at Bou-
logne, stating that the prisoner had resided there
for the last 18 years, and was a very respectable
man, bearing a very good character.
Mr. Mullens said the peculiarity of the case was
that the prisoner was found in possession of por-
tions of the produce of two distinct robberies.
The Lord Mayor said there was no doubt that
there were agents through whom stolen notes got
into circulation, and that such agents might have
the results of two robberies in their possession at
one time, and would pass them where they could,
and if those notes passed into the hands of persons
of good faith, they would naturally go the Bank to
get them changed on arriving at London. He
thought if the prisoner had been aware the notes
were stolen, he would hardly have run, as it were,
" into the lion's mouth." He thought, under the
circumstances, however, he would hardly be justi-
fied in discharging him, but he would`remand him,
and take bail for his re-appearance.
The prisoner was accordingly remanded, bail
being taken—himself in .£lOO, and one surety
in X5O.

-
GUILD HALL. —STRANGE RECOVERY OF A
LOST BROOCH AND COMMITTAL OF THE FINDER.
_Hugh Hunter, Eliza Wisbeach, alias Hunter,
his wile, and Geo. Rugg, a commissionaire, who
had been formerly in the Scots Fusilier Guards,
were summoned before Arr. Alderman Finnis, for
having unlawfully in their possession a curious and
valuable brooch, without being able to render a
satisfactory account of it.

From the evidence of Acting inspector Speck and
Police-constable Halford, 336, it appeared that on
the afternoon of Wednesday, the 18th inst., the
female prisoner offered a valuable gold cameu brooch
for sale at Mr. Lawley's, a pawnbroker in Farling-
don-street, and as her appearance was inconsistent
with the possession of such an article of jewellery,
the officer Halford was called is, and in answer to
his inquiries she said that Hunter, who was her
brother, gave her the brooch to sell, and that he re-
ceived it from a man who was waiting outside, and
who had promised him ss. for selling it. At the

station-house, in Fleet-street, Hunter's account of
the brooch was, that his sister gave it to him to
raise money on to send to their sick mother in
Sheffield. Speck then asked the female prisoner
if she were the sister who gave Hunter the brooch.
She said she was, and accounted for possession of
and the difference in their names by stating that
her brother made her a present of it five years ago
in Australia, where she married, but since then she
had lost her husband, and returned to England.
She said the name of the brother who gave it to her
was John Hunter, and that he was a sergeant in
the 12th Foot. Speck then asked her if there were
any marks on the brooch, he having previously ob-
served something peculiar on the back of it by
which it might be identified, and she replied in the
negative. She also said that none of her friends
would be able to satisfy the court that she had it
in her possession any time within the last four or
five years, as she always kept herself to herself, and
never allowed any one to see her trinkets ; but on
being told that her statement was not satisfac-
tory, and that she and Hunter, who is in reality
her husband, and not her brother, would be
locked up and taken before a magistrate, Hunter
said it was no use detaining them, and that he
would tell the truth. He then stated that Rugg,
the commissionaire, they had seen outside, had
offered them ss. if they would sell the brooch for
him ; his account to them being that he had pur-
chased it at Cremorne for half-a-crown. Rugg was
then brought into the station, and he gave his num-
ber as a commissionaire, C C 121, and his address
11, Robert-street, Brompton. He admitted that he
gave the brooch to Hunter, and added that he
bought it in Dublin four or five years ago, and that
Hunter's story was all a lie. Under these circum
stances Hunter and his wife were detained and
taken before the Alderman at this court on the fol-
lowing day, when Rugg attended and made a
similar statement, the result of which was that the
prisoners were discharged ; but the facts of the case
subsequently appearing in the newspapers, Capt.
Williams applied to the police, in whose hands the
brooch remained, and identified it as the property
of Mrs. Gray, who was at present staying at
Brighton on account of ill-health, and therefore un-
able to attend. This information at once gave rise
to fresh inquiries, and it was ascertained that the
address given by Rugg was a false one, and as the
brooch was supposed to have been lost at Cremorne
Gardens on the occasion of the grand fete on the
29th of last month, where he as a commissionaire
was on duty, Speck immediately took out sum-
monses against all the defendants on the present
charge, in support of which the following addi-
tional evidence was given.
Halford, 336, said—The defendant Rugg also gave
his address as Jiving at the office of the commis-
sionaire in Wilton-street, which is incorrect. I
have ascertained that he was on duty at Cremorne
Gardens on the night the brooch was lost, and that
since then he has exhibited it among his mess-mates,
and stated he bought it of a prostitute at Cremorne
for half-a-crown.
Alderman Finnis—ls there any one here to prove
that statement and to inform the Court what Rugg's
previous character has been ?
Speck—Yes, Sir. One of the commissionaires, and
the sergeant-major of Rugg's corps.
Alderman Finnis—Very well, call them, for I
will hear any evidence that will throw light on the
matter, as it is important the conduct of these par-
ties should be thoroughly investigated.
CommissionaireNo. 64 said—The defendant Rugg
has been connected with his corps about five months,
and during that time has been appointed to the
duty at Cremorne Gardens. On the 18th of the
present month I was in the mess-room with several
others, when Rugg showed us the brooch in ques-
tion, and asked if we were judges of gold and could
tell him the value of it. He said that a female came
to him at Cremorne Gardens a few nights previous
and asked him to advance her 2s. 6d. on the brooch,
at the same time alleging that she gave 30s. for it,
and that on his asking her afterwards for the money,
and offering to return the brooch, she told him to
go to the devil, for she had no half-crown. He also
told us that ne knew the brooch was gold, as a
jeweller had valued it at £3 3s.
Mr. Martin (the chief clerk)—Were you present
when Hunter and his wife were charged at this
court last week ?
Witness—l was, sir.
Mr. Martin—Then why did you not mention what
you have now stated ? You heard him say that he
bought it in Dublin four or five years ago.
Witness—l heard him say so, but I did not then
think of the story he had told us in the mess room.
Sergeant-Major Platt said the defendant Rugg
was formerly in the Scots Fusilier Guards, and was
discharged, on account of wounds and the loss of an
arm, with a pension and excellent character. He
was appointed to Cremorne Gardens, and was paid
by Mr. E. T. Smith, the proprietor, £1 per week
for his services. Mr. E. T. Smith is most particular
in all matters of this kind, and provides for the
restoration of property lost in the gardens in the
same manner that he did at her Majesty's and
Drury-lane Theatres. A book is kept in which
every article found is registered, so that any one
applying to Mr. Smith may recover their lost pro-
perty if it has been found. It was therefore the
duty of every one employed in the gardens to deliver
all such property to the proprietor of the gardens,
and bad Rugg done so this brooch would have been
restored to the owner, as application was made for
it on the following day by Captain Williams.
Laura Drake, lady's maid to Mrs. Gray, identified
the brooch as belonging to that lady, and said—l
remember Mrs. Gray going to Cremorne, merely to
walk in the gardens, and she returned home in the
carriage. I observed the brooch was defective in its
fastening when she went out, and when retiring for
the night I missed it. The value, of the brooch is
about £lO, as it is gold and a garnet cameo.
Speck—l think the value is considerably more,
as it is worth £6 to break up for the gold alone and
the garnet cameo is very valuable on account of the
exquisite workmanship. Captain Williams, after
applying at Cremorne, did not advertise the brooch,
believing that the finder being ignorant of its value,
would endeavour to dispose of it and get into
trouble accordingly, and he consequently watched
the police reports in the newspapers daily, confident
that he should hear more of the brooch from that
source. Had it not been for the report of the first
proceedings it is probable that nothing further
would have been discovered.

Hunter and Wisbeach declared they were entirely
innocent, being merely the dupes of Rugg.
Rugg—l am in the habit, sir,of lending money to
persons in the gardens, and it was in the manner
stated to the officer that the brooch came into my
possession.

- Alderman Finnis—This is a case in which you
have all by your own falsehoods placed yourselves
in a very eerious position. With regard to you,
Hunter and Wisbeach, you have given so many ac-
counts of the matter that I am induced to believe
you had a guilty knowledge in reference to the
value, as well as to the manner in which Rugg be-
came possessed of it. It is an open question whether
the brooch was lost or stolen. Had I been satisfied
that it was the latter I should deal with the case
very differently. Ido not believe Rugg's story at
all. I believe that he picked up the article, and the
fact that he employed the others for a considera-
tion of ss. to sell is for him shows that he knew he
was acting improperly.
Halford—l have ascertained, sir, that during
Rugg's employment at Cremorne-gardens only two
articles, a common bracelet and a gold ring, ol
trifling value, have been given up to Mr. E. T
Smith, to be returned to the owners, if claimed.
Alderman Finnis—The public must be protected.
You, Rugg, were employed in a responsible position,
on account of your presumed good character as a
commissionaire. You have fought for your coun-
try, and have won the confidence of the public ;
but the confidence reposed in you you have abused.
You have offended in every way against the law,
the regulations of the institution you belong to, and
the rules of the establishment you have been em-
ployed in. It is my duty, therefore, to make an
example of you. Had you, in the first instance,
given a straightforward account of the brooch I
should have looked more leniently upon your
offence, but you have, by your own conduct, for-
feited all claim to indulgence in consideration of
previous good character. I now commit you all
three to prison for fourteen days, and I trust it will
be a caution to you all as long as you live against
dealing with property that does not belong to you.
It is only due to Mr. Lawley, the pawnbroker, to
state publicly that his conduct has been most praise-
worthy ; and if all persons would act in a similar
manner it would be creditable to themselves, and
more conducive to the ends of justice. This is the
third case which has been brought before me this
week in which Mr. Lawley has been instrumenta
in bringing criminals to justice.

HAMMERSMITH.—ThE MOULVIE'S FAMILY.
EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS. - Mahomed
Moulvie Musseeh Ooddeen, KM., appeared before
Mr. Ingham, to answer a summons charging him
with an assault upon his wife, Clara Jane.

There was another summons taken out by Eleanor
O'Riley, a middle-aged Irishwoman, against
Madame Moulvie, for committing an assault upon
her, and, as that summons had priority, it Was
heard before the other.
Mr. Poland appeared for his Excellency, and
they both sat at the solicitors' table while the case
against Madame Moulvie was heard.
The complainant's case was that she was in the
service of Madame Moulvie, at her residenceierroande-
dock Villa, St. James's-square, Notting.hin,o week up to the 9th inst. She was to have left on
the Saturday before, but at the request of the de-
fendant she consented to atop. Oa the following

Monday the defendant was very cross, called her by
an offensive name, and ordered her to leave the
house. She was proceeding up the stairs for a pur-
pose when the defendant caught her behind like a
cat, and pulled her back, and she injured her leg.
She called her landlady, Mrs. Downey, to prove
that she came to her in a very feeble state after the
violence she had received. She first stated that
when the complainant came home she had a black
mark on her leg, but she afterwards explained that
it was a little black the first day, and that the
bruise subsequently turned black.
This was the assault complained of; but the de-
fendant denied the statement, and called an Indian,
who had been their man-servant, to prove that
nothing more took place than a pull of her clothes
from behind.

Madame Moulvie also stated that she ordered her
to leave the house on account of her dirty habits.
Mr. Ingham asked the complainant to show him
the bruise upon her leg, and she then bared the
part, after which his worship told her that there
appeared a great many other spots like it upon her
leg. He could not distinguish the bruise from any
other mark.
The defendant handed in a letter which had been
sent by the complainant's sister, and one passages
read by Mr. Ingham, stated that the complainant
had been so ill from the effects of the treatment that
it was only through the mercy of God that she had
been able to stand upon her legs.
Mr. Ingbam was bound to say that he could not
see any mark of the kind upon her leg, and he was
not satisfied with the manner in which she had given
her evidence. He discharged the summons, as he
thought it was an attempt to extort money.
His Excellency then took the place of his wife
in front of the table, and madame proceeded to the
witness-box.

On being sworn, the complainant asked for an
adjournment, for the attendance of her witnesses.
Mr. Poland said he wished to proceed with the
case.

The complainant said that her husband had pro-
mised not to use violence in future, and she came
to the court on Tuesday to withdraw the summons
at his request. In the evening he deserted her.
She had attended that day without her witnesses.
Mr. Ingham inquired of Mr. Poland wh3ther an
arrangement could not be made between them.
Mr. Poland said it would be the best way ; but
she had stated that she was the wife of the Moulvie,
and that was not correct. He wanted a summons
against her, for on Friday last she removed four
boxes, containing papers and documents referring to
property belonging to the King of Oude. She had
refused to return them until the Moulvie had paid
her £2,000.
Mr. Ingham said he could grant a summons for
detaining them, provided they did not refer to pro-
perty of greater value than £l5.
Mr. Poland spoke to a gentleman who sat next
to him, and then said the papers were of great value
to the Moulvie, but they were not worth £l5.
They referred to accounts and expenditure of money
belonging to the King of Oude.
The complainant said that she was married to tho
Moulvie. She also stated that she had not the
papers in her possession.
Mr. Ingham Said in that case he could not grant a
summons. They would have to be recovered by
action of tiover.

Mr. Poland said he could trace the boxes and
their contents to her possession. She had threatened
to burn them if the money was not paid.
The complainant said she knew what she was
doing. The papers related to property belonging
to the King of Uncle, and she intended to see Sir
Charles Wood in a few days, and if he considered
that it was requisite for the Moulvie to receive them,
she would give them up. The Moulvie wished to
obtain possession of them and then to desert her.
Ultimately Mr. Ingham granted a summons for
detaining- the papers, and it was agreed to hear
both cases on Tuesday next.