The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-17 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-42eg. 16.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Eliza Phillips, a girl 12
rears of age, who a few days ago was charged at
this court with several shop robberies committed by
her within the space of about two hours, was
brought up for further examination.
The Lord Mayor inquired whether she had yet
given her correct address, and whether any dis-
covery had been made as to her connexions.
A respectable-looking woman stood forward, and
said the prisoner was her daughter, and had for
snow time past been so perverse and disorderly that
she could do nothing with her. On Monday week

she sent her to a place which she had obtained for
her, but had since discovered that, although the
prisoner stayed away from home all night, sh(
never went near the place to which she was sent.
Lord Mayor—l don't like to send such a child to
prison, although I understand she has been then
before. But what can be done with her ? Here she
is charged with five different robberies committed on
the same morning, and it is clear to me that she
must have bad companions. Has she said anything
to you as to who those companions were ?
Mother—No; and I don't think she had ani
companions.
Police-constable 667—My lord, she has told nit
the names of three different girls who, she said.
were her companions ; but, from the inquiries I
have made, I find her statement is entirely false.
Tomkius, police-constable 587—1 had her in
charge on the 25th October last, when she was
sentenced at this court to two months' imprison-
ment for two different shop robberies which she
committed in Aldgate. At that time she gave the
name of Anne Thompson, but her proper name is
Louisa Hayes.
Lord Mayor—Well, she must be remanded till
Monday, and meanwhile I will consider whether
anything can be done to save her from destruction.
William Forge, a Billingsgate fish salesman, was
summoned, upon the complaint of William Deering.
for having offered for sale fish unfit for human food.
Mr. Lenning appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Deering said—l am clerk of the market
under the Corporation, and inspector of fish under
the Commissioners of Sewers. On Saturday morn-
ing last I received a message from Mr. Tapley to
go and inspect four pads of mackerel at his stand.
I did so, and condemned the mackerel. I was then
told there were four other pads of a similar descrip-
tion in the possession of defend int ; upon which I
inspected them, and told the defendant I condemned
them also. H esaid I knew nothing about it. As
he disputed my decision I exhibited the fish to
several salesmen, whose opinion was the same as
my own, and I seized the fish. Before I went to
defendant I had received an application to inspect
the mackerel from a man who had bought them,
and to whom Mr. Forge had refused to return the
money. I have since received a summons from the
Sheriff's Court for the value of the mackerel which
I seized.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—l had the fish
placed in a lock-up, but some of them had been im-
properly removed before I did so, and after I con-
demned them.
William Popple, a costermongcr, deposed that he
saw four pads of mackerel at the store of defendant
one of which was open, and seemed pretty good.
He bought the four pads at ss. 6d. per pad, and re-
moved them to his barrow, but a policeman, who
came up at the time, said they smelt very badly and
refused to allow him to carry them away, upon
which witness took them back to defendant, and
demanded the return of his money.
James Bateman, for 45 years a fish dealer in Bil-
lingsgate, said he examined a mackerel, which was
taken to him by Mr. Deering on Saturday morning
and found it quite unfit for human food. It was
literally rotten, and stunk most fearfully.
Cross-examined—lt was not fair to judge of a
whole pad by one mackerel ; but a bad mackerel
was not likely to be found in a pad by itself.
J. Sunshine, another fish dealer in Billingsgate,
deposed that two pads of mackerel were shown to
him by Mr. Deering, and that they were, in his
opinion, quite unfit for human food.
Lewis Laroche, for 29 years a fish dealer, gave
similar testimony ; as did also
Inspector Kilby, of the City police, who added
that so many complaints had recently been made
by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood about the
had fish sold in Billingsgate, that the police had
been ordered to report to the Commissioner on the
subject.
Geo. Farraw, a market labourer, deposed that he
carried the four pads of fish in question from de-
fendant's stand to the lock-up, and his coat stank so
much in consequence that he had not been able to
wear it since.
George Munday, Mansion-house officer, said some
of the fish were brought to the Mansion-house on
Saturday morning, by desire of Mr. Deering for his
inspection. They were brought into the lobby, but
the smell was so offensive that he ordered them to
be immediately cleared out, and afterwards he was
compelled to burn brown paper and sprinkle the
place with vinegar to get rid of the stench.
There were other witnesses for the complaint, but
it was thought unnecessary to call them.
Mr. Lewis, on the part of the defendant, said he
was a most respectable man, who had been in busi-
ness for 40 years, and in selling the fish had no
other object than to servo the interests of the con-
signees ; and as to the state of the fish he would
call witnesses to prove not only that they were not
bad, but that a part of them had been actually
cooked and eaten. He called
Robert Day, inspector of fish at Billingsgate
under the Fishmongers' Company for 20 years, who
said he saw the whole of the fish in question, which
were, in his belief, fit for human food, and did not
stink at all.
By the Lord Mayor—There has been no quarrel
between me and Mr. Deering, but Mr. Deering on
Saturday night told me I was unfit for my situa-
tion, and I wanted to know what made him a judge
of fish.
Lord Mayor—Why, his nose in this case, I should
think. Did you find no bad smell about them ?
Witness—None at all. I ate part of one of them.
Lord Mayor—Then you have a worse nose and a
worse stomach than I gave you credit for.
Benjamin Rangecroft had been a fish salesman
for 32 years. Saw one of the makerel in dispute,
and believed it to be quite fit for human food.
These mackerel fed close to the shore, and if they
were cut open the first day their guts would stink,
but that would not affect the other parts of the fish.
Frederick Richardson, for 24 years a fish dealer,
saw one of the fish in dispute, and believed it to be
quite fit for food.
Charles Smithers, for 40 years a fish dealer, saw
one of the fish referred to. s It was part good and
part bad.
Lord Mayor—Was it such a fish as you would
send me?
Witness—No ; nor any other gentlteombe eatenan.Thebre
can be no denying that it was unfit

any one.
Mr. Lewis—l have witnesses here who did eat
some of these mackerel, and I have one of the
mackerel here, which was dried on purpose that it
might be produced in evidence.
Lord Mayor—What if you hare? I could find
men who would eat anything ; and a dried mackerel
is no guide as to the state of the fish when raw.
There is no imputation on the character of the de-
fendant, who believed the fish to be good, but they
were clearly unfit for food, and he has rendered
himself liable to a penalty of £5, which, however,
I shall mitigate to 205., hoping he will be more
careful in future.

The fine was paid.
Eliza Barey was charged with stealing a florin
and other articles belonging to her master, Mr. J.
Craggs, landlord of the Green Dragon public-house,
Botolph-alley.
Mrs. Sarah Craggs said she placed a florin in the
bar till, at a time when no one else was there but
the prisoner, who was clearing up, and upon going
to the till shortly after she missed the coin. She
asked the prisoner if she knew anything about it,
and she said "No," at the same time suggesting
that if witness thought she had it she had better
search her box. Witness took her at her word ;
and although she did not find any money in the
box, she found there a pair of new kid gloves,
several new neck ribbons, and other articles, to the
value of Bs. or 10s., which were her property, and
with which the prisoner had no right to meddle.
The prisoner, however, asserted that they were her
own, and a policeman was called in, and the pri-
soner was given into his custody. Nothing was seen
of the florin then, but after the prisoner was given
in charge, witness found it wrapped up in a paper,
with some other money, which had probably been
taken from the till also, and hidden under the
kitchen clock.

Police-constable 544 said he searched the pri-
soner's boxes and found the articles alluded to by
the previous witness, upon which the prisoner con-
fessed that they did belong to her mistress. After
taking her to the station, witness went back to
search her room, when he found an ale bottle In
one of her drawers, and between the bed and the
mattress a bottle nearly full of gin.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was remanded
n order that she might be dealt with in petty ses-

BOW-STREET.—Catherine Hazel and Caroline
Cook, both young women, were charged with steal-
ing a purse, containing about 18s.,-belonging to Mrs.
Jewell, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury.

It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix
that she was walking towards Chariug-cross on
Monday afternoon, when she was stopped in Great
St. Andrew-street by two young women, who asked
her the way to University Hospital. One of them
appeared to have been crying, and after witness had
pointed out the way sbe asked if there was any hope
of her being admitted to the accident ward. Wit-
ness replied that she could not say, and the women
away at a pace which did not at all
passed on. Observing presently that they were° both runnine,
accord with their previous demeanour, witness sus-
pected she had been robbed, and on feeling in her
pocket at once missed her purse. She consequently
distance till they
followed the two females some
turned up a court, and then, seeing apolice-con-
stable, she related what had ruse& She had a

half-sovereign and eight shillings in her purse--:
the latter including three fourpenny pieces—one of
them bent in a peculiar manner.
Police-constable Weeks, 38 F, deposed to having
round the prisoners, directly after the above occur-
rence, in the passage of 22, Queen-street, Seven-
dials—ono of them being only partly dressed--but
her clothes answering the exact description given
by Mrs. Jewell. He accused them of the robbery,
which they denied, but Cook stated that a young
woman whom she knew had just asked her to change
dresses with her, and they had done so.
Mrs. Green, the female searcher, proved thatshe
found eight shillings (including the fourpenny pieces
described by prosecutor) on the prisoner Cook.
Mr. Jewell, music publisher, of Great Russell-
street, identified the bent fourpenny piece, which he
remembered having given to his wife (prosecutroo:
Hazel pleaded ignorance of the whole matter, and
Cook repeated her story about having change"
dresses with a female.
Mr. Jardine committed them both for trial.

WESTMINSTER.—Mary Minden, a very re i
6
spectable-lookine, woman, upwards of 40 years °.
age, living at 3, Omega-terrace, King's-road, Chel-
sea, sea, was charged with being drunk and incapable
of taking care of herself and child.
Police-constable Enoch. Fulford, 316 V, stated
that he found the defendant late last night in
helpless state of intoxication in Blenheim-street,
King's-road, Chelsea, She had at the time an in-
fant in h(r arms.
Mr. Arnold—What was the age of the infant?
Defendant—Eight months.
Mr. Arnold—What became of the child after ebe
was taken into custody ?
Policeman—lt was taken to the workhouse, a°
she was incapable of taking charge of it.
Mr. Arnold (to defendant)—What have you to
say ?

Defendant—Nothing, your worship.
Mr. Arnold—Do you admit that you were drunk,
with an infant in your arms ?
Defendant—Well, I was intoxicated, but very,
little overcomes me. I was in a great deal en
trouble about a boy of mine that had left his hone'
and was about a good deal yesterday. I took two
or three glasses of spirits, and they had an effect
upon me.

Mr. Arnold—What are you
Defendant—l am a married woman.
Mr. Arnold—l think you ought to be thoroughly
ashamed of yourself.
Defendant—So I am, your worship.
Mr. Arnold—l think that nothing can be more
disgraceful than a mother getting drunk with an
infant in her arms. When persons of a lower de;
gree than yourself are charged with this offence 1,
invariably remand them for a week, in order that
I may ascertain whether the infant has sustained
any injury by the mother's intoxication, and I aL
no reason why I should deviate from that course l'4
your case. You are remanded for a week.
Defendant looked very much surprised as she
removed to the cell.