The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 6, 1861,

prisoner on his surrendering as a deserter.—Pos-
sibly I might ; it is doubtful.
Sergeant Isaac Irish, Royal Marine Artillery, was
called by the prisoner. The sergeant stated that in
August, 1856, he took the prisoner by order of the
adjutant at Portsmouth Barracks, and deliveredhim
over to the commanding officer of the Colossus, when
that officer said to the prisoner, " You have made
a pretty mess of it." Captain Turner sent for
the master-at-arms, and the prisoner, by
order of Captain Turner was put in irons.
The next time he saw the prisoner was within
three months. He was then in barracks at Ports-
mouth, dressed in the uniform of the Colossus.
The prisoner told him that the commander of the
ship had written to the commanding officer of his
regiment, who had disowned him. The prisoner
was then on leave from the ship.
Patrick Foley, No. 1,452, private, 17th Lancers,
said that he served with the prisoner during the
camp at ICadikoi. The prisoner was in hospital
two or three days before he went away. The pri-
soner complained of pains In the head and giddi-
ness.

Captain Turner was recalled.
The prisoner put the following question :—Do
you recollect my stating the reason for giving my-
self up as a deserter from the 17th Lancers after my
being away so long from the corps ?-1 have no re-
collection.

By the Court—Captain Turner, do you recollect,
as you were the commander of the Colossus, any ono
being brought on board the ship by an escort of
Royal Marine Artillery at Portsmouth as a pri-
soner ?—I do not recollect.

By the Court—When did you leave the Colossus?
—Some time in October, 1857.

A gentleman from the Admiralty produced a
War-office letter, dated the 19th of August, 1856,
wherein it stated that the prisoner, Private Henry
Warner, alias Fisher, 17th Lancers, deserted in the
Crimea, and he afterwards surrendered himself as a
deserter to her Majesty's ship Colossus. The com-
munication was made by the Secretary of State to
the Admiralty to his Royal Highness the General
Commanding-in-Chief, who said that he had no
desire to claim him. The letter was signed "B.
Hawes:' The back of the letter showed that a
communication had been received from .the com-
mander of the Colossus on the subject of the pri-
soner.

The. Court was then closed. The issue of this
extraordinary trial will not be known until the
proceedings have been laid before her Majesty.

-----
POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Nov. 5.

LAM BETIL--IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT IN
TILE LAW.—THE OMNIBUS AND THE TRAMWAYS.
—George Phillips, the driver, and Charles Smart,
the conductor of one of Mr. Ball's Brixton omni-
buses, No. 6,006, attended before Mr. Elliott, to
answer to two summonses taken out against them
by Mr. Knell, a gentleman residing in Abbey-gar-
dens, St. John's-wood, and charging them, the
former with wanton driving, and other misbe-
haviour, and the latter with using insulting and
abusive language, contrary to the statute.
Mr. John Scard, of St. Mary-axe, attended as the
attorney of Mr. Knell, the complainant, and Mr.
Beard for the defendants.

The present proceedings, it will be recollected,
arose out of a case in which Mr. Knell had been
summoned by the defendant Smart, for the refusal
to pay fourpence fare by his omnibus on the day in
question ; and the summons in that case was ordered
to stand over to abide the present investigation.
Mr. Scard having briefly stated the nature of the
complaint, called
Mr. Knell, who said that on Monday fortnight
he got into a Brixton omnibus, of which the de-
fendants were the one the driver and the other the
conductor, in Oxford-street, and the vehicle went
on at a regular steady pace until it had reached the
Westminster-road ; the driver then urged his horses
on, and got before one of the tram cars then pro-
ceeding the same way, and, getting on the rails,
did all that he could to annoy the driver of the
tramway carriage. While driving, the defendant
Phillips pulled up several times so quickly, that the
poll of the tramway carriage had narrowly escaped
running into the omnibus, and had it not been for
the caution and dexterity of the tramway car
driver, serious injury would have been done.
Mr. Elliott—Was there any necessity for the
driver of the vehicle you were in to pull up in the
way you have stated ?
Mr. Knell—Not at all, sir, there was plenty of
room at the time on both sides of the rails for
different vehicles, and therefore the act was done
wilfully and wantonly. One one occasion the driver
drove partly off the rails, and drove quickly on again,
and had it not been that Mr. Train's man had pulled
his horses on one side, a serious collision must have
taken place. Considering that we must have an
accident, I called out to the conductor to let me out,
but he appeared so excited by chaffing the driver of
the car that followed, knocking on his own vehicle
and bawling out to his driver, that he did not pay
any attention for two ox three times I called to him,
but at last stepped at the Horns, where I got out,
with four or five other persons. When I got out I
at once gave the conductor my card, saying that I
should bring his misconduct before the public, and
therefore I should not pay him. I did not use an
offensive expression to the conductor, but he used
several towards me when I refused to pay him. He
said he would have it out of me, and called me a
scamp and no gentleman.
Mr. Elliott—Had you an opportunity of seeing
the driver, or observing his conduct ?
Mr. Knell—No, I had not ; but being seated next
to the door, I had ample opportunity of seeing the
conductor, and from his knocking on the omnibus
and calling out to his driver, I have no doubt he it
was who egged the driver on.
The witness was cross-examined at considerable
length by Mr. Beard, who did notsucceed in eliciting
anything favourable to his clients.
Mr. Knell said he was not interested either
directly or indirectly in tramways, and all he knew
of them was his riding twice in the carriages on
them. He denied having called the conductor a
d—d scamp and a blackguard, or using any offen-
sive expressions towards him. Ho did not ask the
number of the conductor at the time, nor had he
taken any steps to bring the defendant's conduct
before the public as ho threatened, until the con-
ductor had summoned him to this Court for his
fare. _ _

Mr. Davis, a gentleman who had been a passenger
on Train's car on the occasion, and who having been
in front with the driver, had a perfect opportunity of
witnessing all that took place, corroborated much of
the statement of Mr. Knell, and said that had it
not been for the care and dexterity of the driver of
the tramway carriage' a collision and serious acci-
dent must have resulted from the misconduct of the
defendants.
Police-constable, 137 L, said he was at the Horns
between eleven and twelve o'clock on the day in
question and saw a crowd of persons collected there
in consequence of the passengers getting out of the
omnibus attended by the defendants. The persons
who omnibus complained of the mis-
conduct got out
ofthoef thedriver,
andthe conductor seemed a
good deal excited, but he did not hear any bad lan-
guage, From what took place he felt it necessary
to take the number of the vehicle, as well as those
of the badges of the defendants.
Mr. Beard addressed the bench for some time on
behalf of the defendants, and said that the real
parties to the present complaint were those con-
nected with the tramway, which he designated as a
perfect and dangerous nuisance, but one which he
hoped the public:would soon get rid of, as it, as well
as the parties who sanctioned it, were at present the
subject of an indictment. He contended that his
clients had as perfect a right to drive along the
tram way as Mr. Train, and the real danger, if there
had been any, was occasioned by the tramway-car
keeping so close to the omnibus. In conclusion, he
said that nothing would have been heard of the pre.
sent proceeding if his client had not thought proper
to summon Mr. Knell for the faro due from that
gentleman to his master.
Mr. Elliott observed that there could not be the
slightest doubt from the evidence that the conduct
of the defendants was most improper, and it would
be well that such persons should know that in the
last session of Parliament an act was passed, which
came into force on the first instant—a clause from
which he should read, and which stated—" Who-
soever, having the charge of any carriage or ve-
hicle shall, by wanton or furious driving or racing,
or,other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect,
no or cause to be done any bodily harm to any
person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof,
shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be
imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years,
with or without hard labour," and this he hoped
would check the reckless conduct of those entrusted
with public vehicles. it was not for him to offer
any opinion respecting the tramroad, but it was
his duty to protect the public from such conduct as
that of which the defendants had been evidently
here guilty. The conductor, being the greater
offender, must pay a penalty of 405., or 20 days,
and the driver 205., or 14 days, and the summons
against Mr. Knell be disharged.
The penalties were paid.

THAMES.—FEAEPUL CASE.—Annie Vale, a
midwife, aged 39, late of No. 6, Henry-street,
Limehouse-fields, near Stepney Old Church, who
has been in custody since the 14th ult., was brought
up on remand before Mr. Woolrych, charged with
administering to Anne Horne, a noxious drug, with
intent to produce abortion, whereby the life of the
said Anne Horne was endangered.
The prisoner's husband, Benjamin Vale, an