The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-18 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Nov. 171

WESTMINSTER.—Mr. Arnold was occupied
, some hours in the hearing of an adjourned case, in
which Emile Ponti, a young Italian, said to be of
good of family, was charged with stealing some
gold chains, rings, and other property from the
house of John Pothers, 19, Stanley-street, Pimlico.
From the evidence given on the former exami-
nation, it appeared that on the 19th of October,
Ponti charged Pethers at the court with using
threatening language to him, and the result was
that Pethers was ordered to find bail, and being
unable to procure the required sureties, was cool,
mitted for a month in default. As that complaint, ,
andhad rimy,—
MITI; NY bich.
-11—y occurred betwer;,l
•
L 0
c parties, had arisen out of ari 7,iiiproper intimacy
between Ponti and Mrs. Pethers, Mr. Poynter
cautioned Ponti—as Mr. Arnold had previously
done—to abstain from visiting Mrs. Pothers ; but,
regardless. of this, directly he found her husband
was locked up he went to her house, cohabited with
her during the whole of his absence, and on the
night before his release from prit,on; carried her off
hteli gave the room
Ponti where
into they dressed, to Charleg-street, Trevor-square. The husband
traced them there, and finding two boxes of pro
dPet -
hey
custody we
ureptoongetthheer

sent charge. In the course of the examination it
was distinctly shown that Mrs. Pethers was not
only intimate with Ponti, but that other men com-
monly enjoyed her favours not unknown to her
husband.

Mr. Smyth conducted the prosecution; Mr.
Davis the defence.

Before commencing the proceedings Mr. Davis
submitted whether this could possibly be a case in
which an indictment for larceny could be sustained.
He urged it on the ground that the rule of law
never could be appliedin the case of a man going off
with a common prostitute, although married,
whose husband, as he alleged, was receiving the
proceeds of her infamy. Further, there was no
evidence to show that the prisoner assisted in
taking the articles which belonged to the wife,
which articles might have been (given or lent to
her.

Mr. Arnold observed that there was a very diffi-
cult and serious point of law involved in the case. It
had been laid down that if a man eloped with
another's wife and property, and committed adul-
tery with her, he was guilty of larceny ; he could
not say whether that rule would apply where a
woman's own clothes and jewellery were only taken,
as she could not go away without something on her
back, and. therefore if the rule were to apply, every
man who eloped with another's wife might be
charged with larceny. It was very doubtful how
far the rule of law, founded on fiction, could apply to
the elopement of a woman living as a prostitute with
the consent and knowledge of her husband. An-
other question might also arise—as to whether the
wife could be called as a witness. On that point he
must say, as the prosecution was at the suit of the
Crown, he thought she could be. The worthy
magistrate having stated that he was not at the pre-
sent moment determined upon the point of law
adverted to in the early part of hie remarks,
Mr. Davis cross-examined Pothers at consider::
able length, in the course of which he said he had
formerly been a gentleman's servant, and now got
his living as a bootmaker. The house he kept, 10,
Stanley-street, was a respectable house, not a
brothel. He had known his wife to have gentlemen
there, but had done all he could to prevent it.
Mr. Davis—Have you not slept in the house at
the same time, and knowing that she was sleeping
with a gentleman there ?
Witness—Yes, on one occasion ; but I have tried
to persuade her to be quiet.
Mr. Arnold—What do you mean ? You admit
that at least on one occasion you permitted your
wife to sleep with a man in the house ?
Witness—l have been very silly in doing so.
Mr. Arnold—Silly, indeed : I call it something
else.

Cross-examination continued—Kept a house in
York-street previous to going to Stanley-street.
Did not know whether it was a house of ill-fame.
Prisoner came to lodge there and slept with wit-
ness's wife a good many times ; not always ; some-
times she slept with him (the husband); she would
go to the prisoner. Witness endeavoured to per-
suade her not, and once, when he endeavoured to
prevent it, prisoner knocked him down on the stairs.
Witness then admitted that three girls had lodged
in bis house who had " friends" come to see them.
He did not know, however, that they were common
prostitutes, or what was termed " gay." His wife
might have given him money to pay the rent, but
it was from her lawful earnings as a milliner and
dressmaker.

In answer to a question from Mr. Arnold, he ad-
mitted that the adulterous intercourse between his
wife and Ponti might have been going on a month
before he took any steps to prevent it.
Hannah James, prosecutor's servant, was called
by Mr. Davis, and said she remembered a gentle.
man sleeping with her mistress one night. Her
master slept down stairs in the front kitchen that
night. She also slept out one Saturday night, and
brought some ornaments home in the morning.
Gentlemen came to her mistress three or fear times
a week, but did not stay all night. They asked for
Mrs. Hill ; her mistress had told her that she-went
by that name. They would send out for wine, and
she got it downstairs, and decanted it in her mas-
ter's presence often—he knowing his wife had a
gentleman with her. Her mistress had money from
them, and the gentlemen gave witness presents as
they went out. The house was " gay. Witness
had lived in a gay house before. Her mistress did
not work at millinery or dressmaking.
It having been stated that there were several
more witnesses to call on both sides, Mr. Arnold,
who repeated that it involved an extraordinary and
important point of law, extended accused's recogni-
sauces till Saturday.

TILE RELIGIOUS DISTURBANCES IN
ST. GEORGE'S-IN-TEE-EAST.

At the Thames Police-court, George Edward.
Reynolds, a shoemaker, of No. 22, New Gravel-
lane, Shadwell, appeared before Mr. Yardley, on a
summons, charged with assaulting Mr. John Sell,
a clerk in the Customs, and a chorister of the
church of St. George's-in-the-East.
The ease arose out of the unhappy differences in
the parish of St. George's-in-the-East. It appeared
from the evidence of the complainant, a respectable
young gentleman, that after the rector's Litany
Service, which is very unpopular, on Sunday after-
noon last, the Rev. Mr. Lowder, the curate, and
the choristers, proceeded towards the Mission
Church, in Calvert-street, where the High Church
services, which have given so much offence to the
parishioners, are carried on as they are in the
parish church. A mob of 2,000 persons, according
to the complainant's account, followed the curate
and the choristers from one place of worship to the
other, hooting, yelling, hissing, and shouting all
the way. The complainant, who offered no offence
to any one, was twice kicked behind, but he could
not say by whom.
In answer to questions put by Mr. Yardley, the
complainant said he could not identify the person
by. whom he was kicked. The defendant was
arrested by the police, and taken to the police-
station; but as he was very well known, and gave
his name and address, he was allowed to depart.
The witness took part in the choral services of the
Rev. Bryan King, at the parish church, and the
Mission Church, in Calvert-street.
Police-sergeant Ketteritigham' No. 7K, confirmed
the evidence of Mr. Sell, and added that he saw
Reynolds, the defendant, kick the complainant on
the left leg twice. The people assembled were very
disorderly, and upon reaching the swivel bridge
over the London Dock entrance, in Old Gravel-lane,
there were cries of " Rotten eggs," " St. Barnabas,"
" Tluow him over the bridge." He took the defen-
dant into custody directly after he had kicked the
complainant, and he was allowed to go at large on
giving his name and address.
M. Felix Le Bran, commission agent, said-1 was
among the disorderly mob who followed the curate
and choristers from St. Georges Church to the
Mission Church, on Sunday last. I followed them
to Old Gravel-lane. I thought the clergyman
would be ill-used. I went there for the purpose of
protecting the clergyman and choristers. I saw the
complainant kicked by Mr. Reynolds. There was
a cry of " Rotten eggs."
The defendant—Did you hear me say anything ?
Witness—Yes. You called the complainant a
rogue and. a villain.

Ketteringham here said he saw rotten apples
throWn at. the curate and choristers, but not rotten
eggs.
It may be here necessary to state that the words
" Rotten eggs," " St. Barnabas," so freely made use
of in the disturbances on Sunday last, has allusion
to a charge against the Rev. Mr. Lowder for incit-
ing some persons to throw rotten eggs at a mans
carrying a placard relating to the election of -Mr.
Westerton, churchwarden of St. Paul's, Knights-
bridge.
The defendant, in reply to the charge, merely
said—l did not commit the.offence alleged against
me, I am aft inhabitant of New Gravel-lane,
Shadwell. Old. Oravel-lMne is in the parish of St.
Geoff-ga, He then called
F4oaolarii Nyho said, he was a boarding-house
keeper in Upper CoraWdll-streefi St. George's-in-
the-East. He was not in St. George's Chtirch on
Sunday last, ite saw the mob outside the church.
Ile was following the mob down Old Gravel-lane,
The mob pressed upon the ettate and choristers,
and called out "No Popery," " No -raseyism," He
spoke to the defendant and, said " Let the see this
gent," meaning the complainant. The defendant
was theft 10 yards away from the complainant. Ile
saw no kicking at all, Witness then dealt in vague
generalities about the affair, and said the complain-
ant was ring home when the transaction occurred.
Mr. lardley--A.re you a parishioner of St.
George
Withess—Yes) I aini •
Ketteringliam was recalled, and said the defend-
ant took an active part in the riot, and that he took
him into custody in Old,, draVehlalibi St: George,
which Was hot the Way from gt. thoige's Uhtirdti th
New Ciravel-lane, Shadwell; When the ,defendatit
kicked Mr. Sell b? ``,vas lo,§e to them: lie
110121 6il {tie complainant and the other on the de-
- ic
;emiant, and said to Mr. ben, Here is the roan
who has kicked you twice,"
Mr. Yardley said to duiendant—There is no doubt
you forined part of this disorderly mob, and thefe,is,
no doubt you committed an act of violence. There
call be no greater folly than this. It was not only
absurd but very cowardly. There were 2,000 per-
sons pusrsliing: these gentlemen. Whatever their
conduct' as. fir NCliatever opinions they
may entertain, I don't presume to state any-
thing or to make any declaration, but they are not
to be_hounded down and ill-used, If you fancy
the complainant is doing wrong, stay away from

the place. There are plenty of good ministers you
can follow.

Here there was some interruption and excitement
at the back of the court, and the words " Popery"
and " Puseyism" were distinguished.
Mr. Yardley—Turn everybody out who makes
the slightest disturbance. I will have the utmost
quietude here.
Silence having been restored,
Mr. Yardley said the defendant had not the
excuse—the most wretched excuse—of being a
parishioner of St. George's. No doubt the defendant,
like many others, thought he could enjoy his pro-
pensity for a row at a cheap rate; but he must tell
him that he was part of a mob of 2,000 or 3,000
persons, which formed an unlawful assemblage to
assail a few persons differing from them in opinion
and he believed everyone in that unlawful assem-
blage was answerable for the acts of the others.
He begged leave emphatically to state he was not
going into the question of good and bad ministers,
or who was in the right or wrong at the church of
St. George's-in-the-East; but if the defendant or
any one else thought such disgraceful conduct as
this to be tolerated, they were very much mistaken.
The defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible
and cowardly. He was of opinion the assault was
clearly made out, and he fined the defendant £3.
The penalty was instantly paid.