The Sun.
London, England, 1861-09-10 00:00:00

POLICE

'OE—Sept.. 9,

The prisoner, who had nothing to say, was corn.
mitted for trial,

Mr. Corrie—lt will be better if you can offer
some explanation of the matter, then. Why did
he yo there P_

Mr. Beard said he could explain everything.
The defendant, a poor foreigner, with only a partial
knowledge of the English language and customs,
had the misfortune to have a very bad wife,
whose conduct had driven him to commence
proceedings for a divorce. He had lately
heard that his wife had been repeatedly
photographed by different artists, in compa-
nionship with her guilty paramour; and when the
defendant read in the newspapers that a woman
had been charged at Bow-street, and that photo-
graphs representing her as caressing some man, had
been found in her boxes, he (defendant) was natu-
rally anxious to see these pictures, to ascertain if
the woman was his wife. He may not have gone
the right way to work, being a foreigner ; but cer-
tainly he had intended nothing wrong in what he
did. A gentleman of great respectability, Mr.
Hamilton, who was present, advised him to go to
the police-station, where the defendant was referred
to Mr. Brown by one of the inspectors, who ac-
.tually wrote Mr. Brown's address on a card. It
was possible that the defendant might have said he
was sent by the "superintendent," not understand-
" inspector," but
cohmarge of false pre •
cfornsidered it disgraceful
tti
enh
ng e
re
ea the term
aa r
ise
dr
no
oh
etgo
mob
ground
rn differentdßeforard
the
to the police that they took such a paltry charge
at the station.

It being admitted that the defendant did obtain
Mr. Brown's address at the station,

Mr. Come said he did not think the defendant
had any improper intention, and was willing to
believe that a misunderstanding had led to the
present charge. The defendant, therefore, might
be discharged.

CLERKENWELL.—TIIE METROPOLITAN RAIL-
WAY COMPENSATION CASES.---The three cases of
compensation that occupied two days in hearing
were decided to day. The cases were those of Mr.
Edwards, milkman, of Acton-place, who claimed
£289, the company having offered him £7O; Mr.
Briggs, of 4, Acton-street, who claimed £l4O, and
was offered 60 guineas; and that of Mr. Newbury,
who claimed £l2O, and was offered by the company
£52.

Mr. M'Donnell attended for the claimants; and
Mr. Borchelt for the company.
Mr. D'Eyncourt, in giving judgment, said—The
first case before me is that of Mr. Edwards, and it
is the only one in which any difficulty has presented
itself. Mr. Edwards claims compensation not only
for the four months unexpired term in his premises
up to Christmas next, but also for the damage he
will sustain by the loss of his tenancy beyond that
period—a loss, he says, occasioned by the act of the
company, as but for them be would have remained
a yearly tenant of Mr. Silcock. I cannot regard this
notice to quit as the act of the company. The land-
lord gave the notice not as the agent of the corn.
pany, but in order to get possession of the house for
business. I have therefore only to assess the damages
upon the loss of the net profits of the business for
four months, for the fixtures, for some delay in ob-
taining a new house suitable for his trade, the time
given him for seeking a new house being shortened
by the company taking possession, and for a slight
loss by removal, perhaps to another place in the first
instance. Taking all these items together, I deter-
mine that the company do pay Mr. Edwards as
case.
a.ostfei
le4f for
)r.tiv companyaTkrhi.
This
sNg zoaepwausbrssudetrsiyspni,
co
Inu
do
ef
sh
theis premises,value
o
thee
itc nho thiscspoues costs.
sum of
do pay him £Bl 10s. saaync Ida sse£,s4sia4kfsoi. rngc
costs.
o
that the
stalls
matters into consideration, I determine
In Mr. Brigg's case the award will be by consent of
the parties for £B6 10s., he being at litie t to
r yre-
move the tenant's fixtures. The company would
also hive to pay- £4 4s. costs.

The decisions seemed to give satisfaction.
EXTENSIVE ROBBERY.—George Church, of 11,
Church-way, Somers Town, was charged before Mr.
D'Eyncourt with stealing a valuable gold brooch,
and a large quantity of jewellery, the property of
Mr. Shaw, surgeon, of High-street, Hampstead.
The prisoner was further charged with stealing a
quantity of floorcloth from near Somers Town.
Mr. Hubert Wood appeared for the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner forced his company
on the cook engaged by Mr. Shaw, under the pre-
tence that he would marry her. One Sunday even-
ing while the family was at church, the house was

MANSION-HOUSE.—EMBEZZLEMENT.—Chas.
Cullom, a porter in the employment of Messrs. E.
Moses and Son, Aldgate, who was brought before
the Lord Mayor last week, charged with embezzling
the sum of £4 6s. 3d., was brought up yesterday
for final examination.

It appeared Cult the prisoner's duty was to take
out parcels and receive the money for them. On the
evening of the 19th of August the head porter gave
him two parcels to deliver, one for £3 11s. 3d., and
the other for 155., which he was to receive and ac-
count for next day. On the prisoner's parcel-book
being examined a day or two after by, a young man
named Wilson, the head porter, he discovered that
the two amounts for the parcels mentioned had not
been entered. He spoke to the prisoner, who said
that he had lost a sovereign of the money, and- did
not like to pay in the balance until he had made it
up. He spoke to Mr. Adolphus, the head ware-
houseman, who asked the prisoner what he had done
with the balance, and he replied that it was up-
stairs in his box. He was sent up for it, and as he
was gone a long while, Mr. Adolphus sent Wilson
to look after him, and he saw him coming down the
stairs with a bundle, and asking him what he was
going to do, he said he was going to pawn his clothes
to raise the money. Mr. Adolphus asked him how
much he had got left, and he handed him £2 ss.
11d., and said he had lost a sovereign, and made use
of the rest.

BOW-STREET. INGENIOUS FORGERIES.—
Frederick Golding, a young man, under 20 years of
age, was brought up on several charges of forgery
preferred by Messrs. Shoolbred and Co., the exten-
sive drapers, &c., of Tottenham-court-road.
Mr. A. Warrand, the solicitor to the Association
for the Prosecution of Swindlers and Shoplifters,
appeared for the pr3secutors.
From the evidence of Mr. J. J. Knight, one of
the firm, and Mr. T. Harrison Durham, their ma-
naging assistant, it appeared that the prisoner's
mother was employed to make hassocks for the
establishment, and when they were delivered the
prisoner was in the habit of roooiving the money
for them on her behalf. Re usually presented the
bill for examination, and when the initials of Mr.
Knight and the signature of Mr. Durham were en-
dorsed upon it, they constituted the authority to
the cashier to pay the amount. Evidence was
given, however, to show that three bills, for the
amounts respectively of £1 Bs. 5d., £1 75., and £1
Os. ld., were entirely fictitious, the prisoner having
made out the bills and imitated the signatures with
sufficient skill to deceive the cashier, who paid the
.noney accordingly.
Mr. James Shoolbred stated that the prisoner
had succeeded in defrauding the firm to the extent
of £l5 in this manner.
The prisoner, who offered no defence, was fully
committcd for trial.
EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE AGAINST A FOREIGNER.
—A well-dressed middle-aged man, who wore a
profusion of beard of the blackest hue, and gave
the name of Lupino Jacob Levisohn, was charged
before Mr. Corrie with having falsely represented
himself as a detective in the City police.
The complainant, Mr. T. Johnson Brown, archi-
tect, of 2, Robert-street, Adelphi (the prosecutor in
a recent case investigated at this court), stated that
on returning to his home about seven o'clock on
Saturday evening last, he was informed that a
foreign gentleman had been waiting for some time
to see him. He (complainant) went into the office
and saw the prisoner, who said "I wish to see
you about the case of the female servant you have
lately had at Bow-street." Witness said, " Wino
are you ?" He replied, "I am a detective officer
in the City, and I want to see the woman's
things, which I understand are now in your
possession." Witness said "They are all locked up
and in the custody of the officer, therefore I can-
not show them to you." He asid " I must see
them, and particularly the photograph which I
have read of in the newspapers, and which repre-
sents the woman as having her arms round the
neck of her male companion." Witness repeated
that he had no power to show them, and as the de-
fendent became importunate, and insisted on see-
ing the woman's clothes, witness asked him by
what authority he had come to him at all ? He
then produced a card having the name and ad-
dress of witness written upon it, and said it had
been written by Mr. Durkin, the superintendent
at the Bow-street police-station, to whom he was
first referred by Mr. Inspector Hamilton. Wit-
ness said he did not believe the story at all, or
that the defendant was an officer, and therefore
ho should give him in charge unless he would
go to Bow-street. Witness accompanied de-
fendant to the station-house, and asked if the
writing on the card was Mr. Durkin's. The In-
spector said " Certainly not," and that the defend-
ant was not in any way connected with the
police; upon which witness gave him into custody.
Mr. B-ard, solicitor, who attended for the de-
fendant, cross-examined the complainant, and said
that his client had been misunderstood and grossly I
ill-treated.