The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-07 00:00:00

THU SUN, LONDON, TI{IYRSDAV .7EVENIN6r, NOVENIBMR, Y, MIL

Woo'rye'', 'who could elicit nothing of importance
from him.

Mr. J. P. Mumford, superintendent of the St.
Katherine Dock Police, said—l have had a conver-
sation with the prisoner this day in the clerk's
office here. He said," I have had nothing to do
with this transaction. I can challenge the world,
and have told Mr. Leech to say so. No one can
say anything against my character." The prisoner
also said, " I was a fool to go down to Derby.
Barker saw me there, and came up and shook hands
with me, and said I knew his father." Since the
robbery was committed and the stolen silk dis-
covered, I have sought everywhere for Hunter. A
reward has been offered for his apprehension, and
large posting bills have been issued.
By Mr. Leech—The rewards offered by the Dock
Company were £2O for Agg, £2O for Hunter, and
£2O for another matter connected with the affair.

Mr. Humphreys, jun.—l now ask for a remand,
sir. I have further evidence to produce against the
prisoner at a future time.
Mr. Leech had no objection to a remand, and his
client, Mr. Hunter, courted the fullest inquiry. He
submitted the prisoner ought to be bailed, for three
reasons. First, it was the prisoner's own free will
and desire—his anxious wish—to surrender ; se-
condly, there was no case against him up to the
present time ; if any case, it was of the very weakest
character; and thirdly, the prisoner was an inn-
keeper of unspotted reputation, keeping a ilarge
and respectable house, and was also a liveryman of
London. The prisoner had hitherto maintained an
unspotted reputation, and had left his wife and
family to meet this charge. He hoped his friend,
Mr. Humphreys, jun., would not oppose the appli-
cation, or allow the prisoner to be incarcerated for
one moment. Gentlemen of property and fortune
are ready to bail the prisoner for more than the
value of the silk.

Mr. Woolrych—Did the prisoner surrender?
Mr. Humphreys, jun.—Yes, he certainly did,
and gave me notice he would do so.
Mr. Woolrych—l will take bail for the prisoner
to appear on Wednesday next, himself in £5OO, and
two sureties in £250 each. I must have good bail.
A host of persons tendered themselves as bail.
Two were accepted, and the prisoner was liberated.

POLICE INIELLIGENCE: .11rov. 6.

MA ItYLEBONE.-1,013r, before the hour for
commencing the business of court, a large crowd
had assembled to witness the arrival of the two men
who were remanded on the charge of assaulting Mrs
Sarah Green, a lady of independent property, re-
siding at 5, Fulham place, Paddington, with intent
to murder her; also with stealing a gold watch and
a quantity of plate.

Shortly before one o'clock the two prisoners,
William West, hairdresser, of 42, King•street,
Borough, and James Barker, hawker, of 3, Wal-
worth-gardens, Wa'worth, were placed in the dock
to answer the charge.
Mr. Lewis, jun., of Ely-place, appeared for the
prisoners.

Inspector Steer, of the D division, said that he
wished for a remand for another week, as he ex-
pected to have two ether men in custody before long
for being concerned with these men.
Mr. Lewis submitted that there was not sufficient
evidence to keep the prisoners in custody, and they
ought to be at once discharged. It was a question
of identity, and the servant Askew only thought
the prisoner West was the man. She cannot swear
positively.
This witness having been recalled and further
examined on the point,
Mr. Mansfield said—l do not think there is evi-
dence sufficient to convict either of the prisoners,
and therefore they are discharged.

WESTMINSTER-----Mr Arnold gave his decision
upon an adjourned case under the Hackney Car-
riage Act. He said the question he was called
upon to determine was whether when two adults
and a child under ten years of age were con-
veyed in a cab the driver was entitled to charge
for luggage. He (Mr. Arnold) had given the
matter his fullest consideration, and had had much
difficult in coming to his present conclusion, with
which he was by no means satisfied. The present
summons was taken ont by a cab-driver against a gen-
tleman for 10d. for the carriage of five parcels, and
it had been urged by the driver that Mr. Dayman,
magistrate at Wandsworth, had recently decided
that where the third person carried was an infant
in arms the cabman was entitled to charge for the
luggage. He (Mr. Arnold) had since communicated
with Mr. Dayman on the subject, and found that
that gentleman had now changed his opinion, and
upon giving the case mature consideration thought
he was wrong in the decision quoted, which had
been given without sufficient consideration. He
(Mr. Arnold) had also consulted his colleage, Mr.
Paynter, who was strongly of opinion that the
driver was entitled to charge. There was no dis-
tinction in the Act of Parliament between an infant
in arms and a child who occupied a seat. By the
IGth and 17th Viet., cap. 12, sec. 14, it was enacted,
" That two children under ten years of age shall be
considered as one adult person for the purposes of
this clause," and he therefore thought that that de-
finition of a person for the purposes of fare was
limited to that clause. Turning to the schedule of
the previous act, it stated, "That where more than
two persons shall be carried inside any hackney
carriage with more luggage than can be carried
inside the carriage, a further sum of twopence for
every package carried outside is to be paid by tie
hirer." The whole question, therefore, he repeated,
turned upon whether a child was a person, and the
clause regulating the fare for the conveyance of
passengers used the word " adult," while the sche-
dule relating to the charge for luggage omitted it,
having the word "person" to be treated with its
general significancy, and therefore he thought it
must mean a person, no matter of what age. By
another section of the act cab-drivers were liable to
a penalty for refusing to take a fare, and if a person
under ten years of age—a boy of nine—wanted to
be driven anywhere, and called a cab, the driver
would incur a penalty, and therefore it must be
fairly argued he would be a "person," and would be
liable to the usual fare for his conveyance. The law
did not draw any distinction between the child of
nine months and nine years, and he (Mr. Arnold)
therefore thought that an infant came within the
definition of a person.
An order was then made upon the defendant for
10s. and costs, which his footman paid.

LAMBETIL—AWKWARD CASE OF MISTAKEN
IDENTITY.—A young man of respectable appear-
ance, and who described himself as a medical as-
sistant out of a situation, was placed at the bar, on
a charge of stealing a gold watch and chain, of the
value of 10 guineas, belonging to Jane Doddington,
who described herself as a married woman, and the
wife of a hairdresser.

The prosecutrix, a showily-dressed, but dingy-
looking little dame, said that, on the night of Sun-
day fortnight, she met the prisoner in the Water-
looroad at about eleven o'clock, and, at his request,
accompanied him to the York Hotel, at the corner
of York-roiid, where he gave her something to
drink, which had a very stupifying effect on her.
On leaving there the prisoner, who up to that time
was a perfect stranger to her, accompanied her
home to her house.

Mr. Elliott—l thought you just now said you
were a married woman.

Witness—So I am, but my husband does not
always live with me.
Mr. Elliott—.Go on with your statement.
Witness—Well, sir, before I went to bed I locked
up my watch and chain in a drawer, and put the
key into the pocket of my dress, and on my awaking
at four o'clock on the following morning, in a des-
perate state of perspiration, I found myself alone,
and the prisoner gone. lat once thought of my
drawerwatch
chai chain, looked for the key of the
they were safe, but I could not find
it anywhere, and on forcing open the drawer I dis-
covered that my watch and chain were gone. I
have since looked out for the prisoner, but did not
see him again until last night, when I met him at
the Oxford, and gave him into custody on a charge
of stealing my watch and chain, and I am quite
certain lie is the man.
Police-sergeant James King, 292 A, said he took
the prisoner into custody on the charge of the last
witness.

The accused declared that the statement of the
complainant respecting him was a tissue of
falsehoods from beginning to end, and that
until the night before he had never seen her.
On the day in question, he said, he dined with
a friend at Peckham, and was at home at his lodg•
ing in the Euston-road shortly after 11, and when
the complainant accused him on the night before,
at the Oxford Music Hall, of robbing her, he called
a policeman himself and threatened to give her into
custody for making such a vile accusation.
He then called the person he dined with on the
day in question to prove the fact, and his landlord,
who swore positively that on the night of Sunday
fortnight he was at his house by 11 or shortly after,
and slept there the whole of the night.
Sergeant Bell, 89 P, said ho knew the accused
for some years from seeing him in the company of
medical students, and always believed him to be a
respectable gentleman.
In discharging the accused, Mr. Elliott animad-
verted on the conduct of the police in locking up a
respectable man on the charge of a prostitute with-
out first making some inquiries on the subject.

GREENWICH.--EXTRAORDINARY FRAUD AND
CREDULITY.—John Fuller, aged 49, a seafaring
man, was charged on remand with obtaining various
sums of money under false pretences.
The court WAS crowded with the prisoner's dupes