The Sun.
London, England, 1859-09-09 00:00:00

=_—
.POLICE IN2'ELLIGENC.E.—Sept. 8.

GUILDHALL.—CharIes Wellbeloved, described
as a " betting man," residing at 2, Luton-street,
Edgware-road, was brought up before Sir H. Mug-
geridge, charged with obstructing the thorough-
fare in Poppin's-court, Fleet-street, under the fol-

owing circumstances :
Mr. Charles Pearson, the City solicitor, attended
to watch the case for the prosecution; and Mr.

Sleigh conducted the>defence.
This case was brought before Mr. Alderman
Cubitt a few days ago, when the defendant asked
for a remand, in order that he might have the
assistance of counsel to contest the right of the
police to interfere with the betting fraternity in
the public thoroughfares.
Luke Moseley, 588, said—About half-past one
on the 2d of September, I saw the defendant and
seven other persons obstructing the thoroughfare
in Poppin's-court, Fleet-street, and knowing them
to be all betting men I requested them to go away.
They all left except the defendant, who said to one
of them, " Oh, never mind, don't fear him, we are
not doing any harm." At the station he refused
his name and address. 1 have seen him several
times with others round Poppin's-court, where
these men congregate to make their bets.
Mr. Sleigh—The fact of his being seen at other
places at different times cannot be evidence in this
case.
Mr. Pearson—But it may go to show his inten•
tion in being there.
Mr. Sleigh—l should like to know the precise
charge against the defendant.
Mr. Martin (the chief .clerk)—The charge is for
unlawfully resisting the constable in the execution
of his duty, and that is founded on the 18th and
19th sections of the Police Act. The 18th section
enacts " That it shall be lawful for any man
belonging to the said police force to take into
custody,. without warrant, all loose, idle, and dis-
orderly persons whom he shall find disturbing the
public peace, or whom he shall have good cause to
suspect of having committed, or intending to com-
mit any felony, misdemeanour, or breach of the
peace," &c. ; and the 19th section enacts " That if
any man shall assault or resist any man belonging
to the said police force in the execution of his duty,
or shall aid or excite any person so to assault or
resist such man belonging to the said police force,
every such offender convicted thereof before any
justice of the said city shall, for every such offence,
forfeit and pay such sum, not exceeding 15, as the
said justice shall think meet, or, in the discretion
of the justice before whom he shall be convicted,
may be irf prisoned for any term not exceeding the
space of one calendar month." Under the 18th
section the policeman suspected the defendant was
about to commit a common nuisance, which is an
offence at common law, and in the execution of his
duty he endeavoured to prevent it, in which he
was resisted by the defendant.
Police-constable 588, cross-examined, said—l was
on duty expressly for the purpose of suppressing
the nuisance arising from the congregation of these
betting men at that spot. I considered the defen-
dant had been guilty of an offence in breaking the
rules for keeping the thoroughfares from being ob-
structed. He was talking to a lot of betting men,
and so blocked up the way that passengers would have
found a difficulty in getting past. The defendant.
when left alone, stood with his back against the
wall, and his feet on the kerb, so that he occupied
the whole of the pavement He told me he was a
respectable man, and as he was not doing any harm he
had a right to stand there, He did not strike me,
nor attempt to do so. 1 suspected he would com-
mit a breach of the peace, because he was obstruct-
ing the pavement, and a disturbance might have
occurred if any person had attempted to pass ; for
these betting men, if asked to allow persons to pass,
generally insult them. Ido not suppose he would
wantonly have assaulted or insulted any one.
Sir H. Muggeridge—To whom did you speak
first when you saw the seven persons standing in
Poppin's-court ?
Offices-1 spoke to the whole lot at once, but the
only advised one of them not to go.
Sir H. Muggeridge—Did you believe that the
obstruction of the thoroughfare would provoke a
breach of the peace ?
Officer—l did, sir. •
B.e-examined—There were several persons ob-
structed by these betting men on this occasion, and
they passed with great difficulty, like squeezing
through a crowd. That was before I warned them
to go away. I have not any one here who was ob-
structed, but there are several inhabitants of the
neighbourhood here who have complained of the
nuisance.
Mr. Sleigh said, this is a matter, sir, of very con-
siderable importance, inasmuch as it is a serious
interference with the liberty of the subject, and I
am glad that the City Solicitor is present, for he
will, I am sure, advise you that the police, who are
a very useful body of men, and perform their duties
in an irreproachable manner generally, have, in
this instance, acted most improperly. I have yet
to learn upon what authority a constable exercises
the right to take into custody a respectable gentle-
man for no offence known to the English laws, and
if such an interference be sanctioned. it will only
be getting the thin end of the wedge in which
would hereafter be found to have a most mis•
cbievous effect, as regards the liberty of the sub-
ject. A great prejudice had been thrown over
this case by describing the defendant as a bet-
ting man ; but, supposing he is a betting
man, it is no more an offence than are th
transactions on the Stock Exchange, the Corn
Exchange, and many places I could name. It is
till gambling, arid why should my client be con-
victed for making a bet any more than a stock-job-
ber for buying Consols on the Stock Exchange.
The infringement, if any, of the law was the same
in both cases. By the 19th section the officer is
authorised to take any one into custody for resist-
ing him in the execution of his duty ; but what is
his justification under the 18eth section ? Why, that
he must have good cause to suspect a breach of the
peace was about to be committed. Now, does the
evidence disclose that he had good cause for such
suspicion ? Certainly not, and having arrived at
that conclusion, as I feel' you must, you will find
that the resistance was not made while the officer
was in the execution of his duty, and that he was,
therefore, not justified in taking the defendant into
custody. The defendant merely asserted his right
to strand in her Majesty's public highway, and it
was no part of the policeman's duty to interfere. I
have, however, a stronger point, which must put
an end to this charge at once. By the general con-
strUctien of the English law, the first term used in
any act must govern the rest, so that the terms in
the section in question, " assault or resist" evidently
was intended to mean a personal resistance other
than that described by the officer.
Sir H. Alugieridge said—l have given great at-
tention to the cese, and am satisfied that this is not
one in which I can convict ; but, at the same time,
let me inform you, defendant, that you are a fortu-
nate man, as the officer warned the others away
before he charged you with this.offenee. I would,
however, recommend you to consider the sections of
the Police Act more carefully, and to remember
that, if the nuisance is continued to the obstruction
of the thoroughfares the police will prosecute all
such cff: nders to conviction.
The charge was then dismissed.

BOW STREET.—Edward Thomas Isaacson,
who d been remanded on bail, on charges of
conspiracy to obtain goods by false pretences
from Messrs. Shoolbred and Co. of Tottenham-
cotrt-road, drapers, &c., and from Messrs. Osler and
Co., of Oxford-street, chandelier-makers, appeared
before Mr. Henry in discharge of his recogmsances.
The prosecution, as on the former occasion, was