The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-12 00:00:00

z ~?.-~
~>

2 .
/ • y
- .A. -;—:. • --,
cr,..„.§.t- .114(11;:r11244'.%t; ' 44/10
k\ '
41.1... r.„,.,..),
E„
'‘' *teg• —: , t :‘
t,),
...,,, I''
-, •1V `:' st-_,,..-- LN„'-s,„
' ''`t,V.: '4ll, !! :
..1 '
.. ,
-'.. '.! , •
'.,.;;„_,
'Ztki; • 41:-:'.• ;,.,.' ',.: ,
,A 7
14 ... ..,
.„.
~:„.., ,
~. 0,..i. tiV',7? gt
.....
,
\ cv' ' , • r• '
se')
.1.,,,,.. ~.:-...,(P,%, _ti 9i,,A i ' 4'.7, „1i,,,t,7-Nls _ 0-s , , , cfy, ~,,,-+.,-t•„,1,;
~_ ;,.
1 ‘,l,-.
4 ~ ~ , # ""..y------,-A ~, - J‘e, .) L 79 , : -,-,,,,„X..,.,„-z s / , .44v , , , r. 4- ROTT. ' N ce "-- - ~.,..,1 " .s' + ,s,„„„ „I
...4-7" ••,) (,..:,:,,-:7.. "' ' r
.....-

PRICE 4D. STAMPED, 51%

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Feb 11.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Mr. Robert Fraser North,
34 years of age, of the firm of Messrs. Nickoll and
North, Russia brokers, at 27, Bishopsgate-street-
within, was brought up on remand from Tuesday
last, before the Lord Mayor and Mr. Alderman
Rose, charged with stealing, otherwise obtaining
by trick, the delivery orders for 343 casks of tallow,
of the value of £8,780 odd, belonging to Messrs. J.
Hubbard and Co., Russia merchants, of 19, Birchin-
lane, Cornhill. A new charge was also preferred
against the prisoner yesterday, of defrauding Mr.
George Goss, a Russia broker, at 80, Old
sßroad-
street, of £1,496 odd, under similar circumstances.
At the conclusion of the previous hearing, Mr.
which
s Metcalfe, the prisoner's counsel, applied to have
hi
reappearance
ea
pi:term. r
an Aldermanbut
Rose agreed to take the recognisance of two
sureties, liberatedes, each in on
l bai1,4,00 o upon,
for
h
failing to give bail to the requisite amount, the
prisoner was sent to the prison of Newgate, where
he has since been confined.
Mr. Muller was recalled yesterday and further
examined by Mr. Giffard. He said, on the 29th of
January he received a request from Nickoll and
North in the prisoner's handwriting to make out
the delivery orders for the 343 casks of tallow, in
two lots of 113 and 230 casks. That request was ac-
companied by a cheque for £8,781 Bs. 9d., drawn
by Nicholl and North on the Bank of London in
favour of Messrs. Hubbard, and payable to order.
Witness identified the two delivery orders in ques-
tion given by him on receipt of the cheque.
Cross-examined by Mr. Metcalfe—Messrs. Hub-
bard had had transactions with Messrs. Nickoll and
North for five or six years, but not to a great ex-
tent until last year,when hebelieved their dealings
were represented by £BO,OOO or £90,000. He be-
lieved Nickoll and North had transactions with
other firms, but as brokers only, and not as actual
purchasers of tallow. He was not aware that they
bought without principals. Mr. North's father
before him was a tallow-broker untillBs4. Witness
attended the Baltic Coffeehouse, where Baltic busi-
ness ,was mainly transacted. Nickoll and North
were also members. He (witness) had delivered
them goods, understanding that they would make,
not that they had made, provision at their bankers'
for the payment of them. He did not suppose a
cheque would be given unless provision were made
for its payment. He meant that funds would be
placed at the bankers' to meet such cheques at the
time of giving them. Such cheques were payable
immediately they were in his (witness's) hands and
he expected that at the time the one in question
was given provision had been made for its payment.
He did not imagine that Mr. North had £9,000 at
his bankers' at the time witness gave him the de-
livery orders in question. He believed Mr. North
would provide for the payment of the cheque when
he gave him it by raising money on those very
orders with respect to that particular tallow.
The prisoner had told him days before that he
would provide the money for it. It was a usual
and customary thing to do that at the Baltic
Coffeehouse. Witness thought the market had
been a little down when the orders were deli-
vered, but that circumstance had nothing to do
with his asking Mr. North to complete the eon-
tract. Witness did not wish to keep the contract
open, and he requested Mr. North to close it, but
did not press him to do so. It was at Mr. North's
own request that it had been kept open. He was
sure he did not tell Mr. North that unless he took
up the contract directly he would not be allowed to
remain in the Baltic trade, nor anything to that
effect. Mr. North had experienced much kindness
from him, but witness had not great confidence in
him. He did not know at that time that Mr.
North was pressed by other parties to take up
contracts. It had been said that he was in diffi-
culties about the 31st December, but witness had
not heard so at that time. Mr. North had stated
that the money for the tallow was ready whenever
witness required it. On Thursday or Friday wit-
ness requested payment ; Mr. North fixed the fol-
lowing Tuesday to pay, and witness agreed to that.
If the cheque had been paid at the Bank of London
witness would have assumed that the transaction
was all right. He should not have given Mr.
North the warrants unless he had received the
money, or something equivalent to it—that is, or
his cheque. Bank-notes would have been preferable.
Mr. Mack, a clerk in , the Bank of London,
proved that on Tuesday, the 29th ult., at the time
the cheque for £8,781 Bs. 9d. was presented, there
was only £8 14s. 2d. to the credit of Nickoli and
North in the bank. In cross-examination, he added
that the largest sum in the bank to their credit at
any time during that day was £357 odd, but he was
not sure that the debits and credits had all been
posted at that particular time. The day before their
balance was £llB 10s.

Mr. T. Scarman, clerk to Messrs. Colchester and
Woolner, Russia brokers, South Sea-house, deposed
that on Tuesday, the 29th of January, he met Mr.
North outside the Baltic Coffeehouse, which forms
part of the South Sea-house, and handed him the
cheque produced, drawn by witness's employers in
favour of Nickoll and North, for £2,400, upon the
London Joint Stock Bank, Prince's-street, receiving
from Mr. North at the same time the delivery order
for 113 casks of tallow, which he gave to Mr.
Woolner, one of the firm.
Mr. Robert Martin, a partner in the banking
firm of Martin and Co. 68, Lombard-street, was
called, and proved that 111 r. Dalton of Bucklersbury
kept an account with them. Witness was asked a
question in reference to it, which he excused him-
self from answering, for the reason that he had
received a letter from Mr. Dalton requesting that
he would give no information to any one about his
account. He was shown by Mr. Giffard what pur-
ported to be Messrs. Colchester and Woolner's
cheque for £2,400, and asked if it had been paid in
to Mr. Dalton's private account. He replied that
at that moment he did not know whether it had or
not. The cheque was crossed to their bank, and he
believed the endorsement on it was in Mr. Dalton's
handwriting, though he should not say positively
that it was. He (witness) had never seen that
cheque before. He had no objection to show any
book in the bank which might throw light on the
cheque, but he did not understand that he had been
asked to bring books or he should have donelso.
He added that Mr. Dalton is a solicitor.
On that state of circumstances, Mr. Giffard asked
the court to commit the prisoner for trial.
The Lord Mayor inquired if Mr. Metcalfe had
anything to urge in his defence, stating at the same
time it was his intention to commit him for trial.
Mr. Metcalfe said, after that intimation, he should
rather leave the prisoner's defence to another occa-
sion. _ _

The prisoner, on receiving the usual caution, said
he would leave the matter entirely in the hands of
his counsel, adding that he had nothing to urge in
his behalf, except the statement that at the time
delivery orders were given there was not the
slightest evidence of any felonious intention on his
part.
The Lord Mayor committed him for trial, and
refused to entertain an application made by his
counsel to be allowed to give bail for his appearance
until then.
Another charge was then brought against' the
prisoner at the instance of Mr. Georgd Goss, of the
firm of Goss and Co., Russian brokers, at 80, Old
Broad-street, who accuse him of defrauding them
of the amount of £1,497; but, as the facts were
but slightly elicited in evidence, and as the
prisoner will be again brought up to-day (Tues-
day), to answer the accusation, we reserve our re-
port.
Mr. Metcalfe complained that his client, a pri-
soner under remand, had been treated in thee:
at New ate as if he were a convict. He
obliged to make his own bed, clean his own
hich had
and submit to other inconveniences, Metcalfe)
already affected his health. cell,
submitted that those were circumstances (nor; into which
it would be desirable, in the publicainterest; for the
nd that, at all events,
Court to institute inquiry;
presumed to be innocent
a prisoner, whom the
until he was proved guilty, ought not to be treated
as if he were a convict.

B OW- STREET.—An Indian, named Mahommed
Ali Khan, was charged Mr. Henry with
attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat
in Whitehall, during the passage of the Royal pro-
cession on the occasion of her Majesty going to
Westminster to open Parliament, on Tuesday, the
sth inst.
Mr. Vim. Travers, the house surgeon at Charing-
cross Hospital, said that when brought there the
prisoner had a superficial wound, two inches long,
in the throat. It was not dangerous. It might
have been inflicted by the knife produced, which
would not have made a deep cut. The wound was
dressed and the prisoner remained in the hospital,
chiefly under his care, till that morning. He spoke
a few words of English. He did not seem to be
insane.
Lieut.-Col. Robert Marsh Hughes, honorary
secretary to the Strangers' Home for Orientals, at
Limehousc, deposed—The prisoner is a native of
Joonaghur, in the province of Kattywar, in the
Bombay Presidency. I have known Lim five years.

I speak his language. From 'what he
I understand he was formerly a depen
Nawab of Joonaghur, who is an independent prince
or chieftain. I saw him in Coldbath-fields Prison
in October. I invited him to come to the Home at
the expiration of his sentence. He came on the
18th October, and I admitted him. I had several
conversations with him, and he told me that if Sir
Charles Wood did'not give him justice he would
cut his throat before Sir Charles's eyes and
throw the petition over his head. In consequence of
that threat I obtained a warrant against him, and.
he was brought up at the Thames police-court on
the Ist November. He then promised that he would
keep in the Home, abstain from going to the India-
house, and from making any further attempt at
suicide. Believing his word I took him back. On
Christmas-day he left, and „I understand he says
that I gave him pork to eat, which is net-traa. We
allow no pork to be brought into the Home, and
all the food is cooked by Mahometans. In order
that he might have nothing to find fault with,
money was given to him to buy meat • from the
Jewish butchers, and he could see it cooked or
cook it himself. This he accepted. • When he was
ill Dr. Conder ordered him rice, sago, and arrow-
root, which were prepared for him by the l'Alabo-
metan cook. His prejudices were consulted
everything. in
On Christmas-day, according to custom,
we gave the inmates an English dinner—roast beef
and plum pudding, but everything was purchased
and cooked by Mahometans. They were all de-
lighted except Mohammed Ali Khan, who was very
angry. He said he must have some fish, which was
accordingly provided for him, and he ate it. After
dinner some tobacco was given to them, and all were
pleased but the prisoner, who refused the tobacco
and left the Home immediately.
.I have not seen
him since. He might have remained if he chose,
and I have authority to send him to India if he
will go. I haVe no reason to believe that he is in-
sane, except that he labours under some delusion
about buying a claim on the Government. There
is no foundation for that notion.

The prisonerF stated, through the interpreter—l
am not mad. I neither drink wine nor spirits, and
I have a very good head. I want my rights, which.
are set forth in my petition. The East India Com-
pany have instructed Col. Hughes and the other
gentlemen at the Home to send me off to India,
but I will never go till I get my rights if I stay
till the day of judgment.
Mr. Henry said he bad allowed Col. Hughes to
go into the matter because of the imputations raised
by the prisoner. The prisoner, having once before
been tried on a similar charge to the present -must
b© well aware that an attempt against his own li!e
was a serious offenc against our law. Had he not
beery interrupted b the constable he might have
killed himself on this occasion. The matter became
very serious, and it would be his duty as a magis-
trate to commit the prisoner for trial at the Central
Criminal Court.
The prisoner, who said he was " quite ready,"
was committed accordingly.

LAMBETH.—THE DELICATE INVESTIGATION
CASE.—Yesterday having been appointed for the
further investigation of the charge of assault pro-
fermi by Mr. Charles Perceval against Samuel
Copping, late a sergeant, and Adam Saunders, for-
merly a constable of police, the court was crowded in
every part ; and since the examination of Young-
man for the Walworth murder, there has not been
so many persons present. In addition to the charge
of assault, committed under somewhat peculiar cir-
cumstances, there was' a second complaint made
against the defendants of conspiring to commit a
breach of the peace by breaking and entering into
a tenement in the occupation of the complainant in.
a riotous and forcible manner ; and in this charge
Mr. S. J. Clark, a respectable retired tradesman,

was included.
Mr. Hutchinson attended for the prosecution ;
and Mr. Sleigh, instructed by Mr. John Hubbard,
from the office of Mr. Merriman, of Austin-friars,
for the defendants. Mr. Pearce, the barrister, was
also present to watch the case on behalf of Mrs.
Clark, whose name is mixed up in the proceedings.
Mr. Hutchinson, in opening the case, observed.
that from what transpired on the former day his

worship was aware of the facts as related to the
defendants Copping and Saunders, and as regarded
the third defendant, Mr. Clark, he was in a
position, if his instructions were correct, to show
that he not only incited the other two men
to commit the assault, but had given them
£5 to break into the house for the purpose of
obtaining evidence in a matter to which it was not
necessary to advert, and it was quite clear, there-
fore, that he had made himself a party to the con-
spiracy to commit a breach of the peace. He (Mr.
Hutchinson) should further be able to show that
Mr. Clark had offered to pay the landlord of the
house £2 for the damage the other defendants had
done, and had mixed himself up with them in such
' a way as to make himself equally amenable to the
charge of conspiracy. It was not to be borne with,
that Mr. Clark should take upon himself to do that
which the judges of the country would not sanction,
and could not authorise, having a couple of men to
commit without the slightest colour of authority,
one of the grossest outrages that could be well con-
' ceived ; and if he did so he must take the conse-
quence. After laying all the facts before his worship,
he should feel it to be his duty to call for the com-
mitment of the defendants Copping and Saunders,
on the double charge of assault and forcible entry,
and the third defendant for the conspiracy.
The complainant, Charles Perceval, was here
called, and was about to be examined by his attor-
ney viva voce, when the magistrate suggested that
his evidence on a former day should be read over to
him, and this was adopted. He was further exa-
milled, and stated that after the former examination
on Wednesday, the 30th ult., he returned to his
lodgings and found the defendant, Mr. Clark, in
the shop of Mr. Hogswood, his landlord, and heard
the former say, " I have sent those men, and I must
pay for it," and tendered two sovereigns for the
damage they had done. The landlord refused the
money, saying that they had gone too far, and he
should have nothing to do with it. The witness then
stepped forward and told Mr. Hogswood to be
careful of what he said to defendant, as he would
swear anything, upon which Mr. Clark said that if
he was 20 years younger, he should punch his head
for him. (Laughter.)
In cross examination by Mr. Sleigh the witness
said that on the night previous to the attack he
slept in the back room of the first floor, and that
neither on that night or on the following morning
was there a lady in his room. Mrs. Clark occu-
pied the second room on the same floor, and in her
room the only bed was an ottoman, There was a
door in a cupboard which formed a communication
with both bedrooms, but Mrs. Clark kept the key,
and she alone could unlock the door. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hogswood—That door, your worship, is for
the convenience of the lodgers. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Perceval, in continuation, said there was a
bedroom upstairs which he had occupied, but not
on the night in question.
Mr. Sleigh was olosely pursuing this line of deli-
cate investigation, when it was objected to by Mr.
Hutchinson, who observed that it was evidently
with the view of getting evidence for another
Court.
Mr. Elliott—lf persons suppose that, to get.,lgi
with;
out for another Court, they arejustifled, "
out the slightest authority, to break into pello°11.n1;
houses, they will find themselves very 711: ~
3 '
ceived. (Loud cheers and clapping of Prtanwitness,
Mr. George Hogswood, was the 12
and his evidence given on the former occasion WKS
read over. He further stated thatkonplteheee dthaey
de-
which the former exaMinattion.
too i
fondant (Mr. Clark) came o his sthop,tatl and
dthe havingrttle
come to se
stated his name, said he was
affair, and put down two sovereigns tho payf fordthe
injury that . had been done ; u ere use to
saying that the case hadgone too far. Mr.
accept it,
Wane in, and Mr. Clark and he had.
Perceval then
an altercation.
Mr. Hubbard, clerk to the defendant's attorney,
was next called, and in reply to the questions of
Mr. Hutchinson, he denied all knowledge of the
defendant, Mr. Clark, giving Copping and Saunderg
ten sovereigns, and said he had not heard Saunders
complain of Copping having kept £3 10s. out of
the £5 they had received.
Mr. John Clark, the son of the defendant, Mr.
Clark, and the husband of the lady whose name
has been mixed up with this inquiry, was next
called, and denied having any communication with
his father on the subject.
Mr. Hutchinson said this was his case, and he
wished to add that, in the statement that had gone
forth it might appear that Mrs. Clark had left her
husband and home without any cause, but this, he
could assure the Court, was not the fact, as she had
had ample grounds, as would be shown hereafter.
Mr. Sleigh submitted that there was not a tittle
of evidence to prove the charge against Mr. Clark,
an opinion in which the magistrate at once
acquiesced, and discharged the summons against
that gentleman.
Mr. Sleigh next urged the magistrate to take
the whole of the case into his own hands, and at
once deal with it, observing that a pecuniary fine
would meet the justice of the case.
Mr. Elliott said that it was not to be tolerated
that persons without the slightest authority should
break into persons' houses, and the case must
therefore be sent to the sessions.
His worship's decision was hailed with loud
cheers, and Mr. Hutchinson requested that it might
be understood that he meant to indict for the form.,
ble entrance as well as the assault.
Copping and Saunders were then committed to
the Surrey Sessions, but were admitted to bail,