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

The latter, on being sworn, said that, about half-
past four on the previous afternoon, the prisoner
and two others came into his house and entered
the parlour, where they had some ale. He noticed
the men go several times into the yard while they
were there, but he had no suspicion as to their con-
duct, having known the prisoner some time as a
neighbour. About half-past five the prisoner was
standing in front of the bar trinking. when Mrs.
Price had occasion to go upstairs to her bedroom.
No person unconnected with the house could pass
upstairs, therefore their bedroom door, during the
daytime, was left unlocked, and the key inside.
What was her astonishment to find the door locked,
She instantly called out to witness, who ran up-
stairs, and he was compelled to break open the door,
and, to his surprise, he perceived that the room had
been entered by thieves. The window overlook-
ing the yard was open, and all the drawers forced
and ransacked. He missed his wife's gold watch
and chain, three gold rings, two gold brooches. two
gold pins, and various other articles of jewellery,
worth upwards of £5O. Witness immediately de-
scended to the bar, and finding that the prisoner
and the others had left the house, he suspected
them, and gave information to the police.
Mr. Burcham asked what made him suspect the
prisoner of being concerned in the robbery, as he
was a neighbour.
Mr. Price replied, that a short time ago, while
conversing with the priqpner at his bar, he told him
that he must look out, as he knew that a robbery
was intended at his house, and it seemed very sin-
gular that he should introduce two men on the very
day of the robbery. The robbery was effected by
climbing upon a shed in the yard and opening the
bedroom window, which was left unfastened.
Mr. Burcham asked if any of the property had
been found.
The constable who apprehended prisoner replied
in the negative. He had found at his lodgings
39 pawnbrokers' duplicates relating to wearing-
apparel, and he should like to have a remand to
make inquiries about them, as he believed they were
connected with several robberies lately committed.
Mr. Burcham asked whether he knew anything
of the prisoner.
The constable replied that he had seen him in
company with several of the most notorious skittle
sharps in the metropolis, and he had reason to be-
lieve that the men who were with him on the pre-
vious night were connected with the gang, and that
they committed the robbery with his connivance.
The prisoner denied all that the officer had stated.
Ifs was a respectable man, and had lived two doors
from the prosecutor for some time. It was not
likely that he would be connected with such a rob-
bery. As for giving Mr. Price notice, that was
true. A few days ago he was in a public-house,
when he overheard some men say that they intended
to rob his house, consequently he told him to be on
-his guard.
Mr. Burcham observed that there was not suffi-
cient evidence before him to justify him in remand-
ing the prisoner, therefore he should order him to
be discharged, at the same time he should direct
the constable to detain the duplicates for a week, so
that he might be able to make some inquiries about
them.

WANDSWORTH.—EXTRAORDINARY FRACAS
IN A FIRST-CLASS RAILWAY CARRIAGE. THE
SMOKING QUESTION.—Mr. Herbert Playford, the
celebrated aquatic sportsman, residing at No. 10,
The Terrace, Putney, appeared before Mr. Arnold
to answer the complaint of Mr. T. Bent, on behalf
of the South-Western Railway Company, for un-
lawfully interfering with the comfort of certain
passengers travelling in a first-class carriage on the
29th ult. _ _ _

The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. H. G. Bohn, the well-known bookseller of
Covent-garden, residing at Twickenham, stated that
on Tuesday night, the 29th ult., he was a passenger
in a first-class carriage by the eleven o'clock train
from Waterloo Station. The defendant was also a
passenger in the same carriage, and sat opposite to
him. Soon after the train had started the defendant
pushed his foot between the door and witness's
trousers, and rested it upon the cushion upon which
he sat. He remonstrated with him, and iie then put
up the other foot, and in a violent way pushed it
between his legs on to the cushion. Witness then
forced the defendant's feet down, upon which he
commenced kicking hisshins, and expressed a hope
that they were well bruised. The defendant had a
friend with him, and they both commenced chaffing
him, and he complained to the guard both at the
Vauxhall and the Wandsworth Stations. The wit-
ness added that he attributed the annoyance to his
being a known objector to smoking.
Mr. Robert Weir, an officer in the merchant ser-
vice, residing at Battersea-rise, confirmed Mr.
Bohn's evidence. He also stated that he was in the
same carriage with a friend who was accompanied
by a lady, and in consequence of the defendant's
languege he was obliged to interfere and called his
attention to the fact of a lady being present. In the
first instance the defendant came to the door of the
carriage and asked if smoking would be offensive;
and Mr. Bohn told him that he objected to it. The
defendant, however, afterwards got into the car-
riage with his friend. The witness further stated
that he had travelled a great deal, but he never saw
such conduct in the presence of a lady. Ho thought
the defendant was under the influence of drink.

George Newell, the guard, said he had his atten-
tion called to the matter at Vauxhall, but he did not
notice that the defendant was the worse for liquor.
The defendant denied putting his foot on the seat
upon which Mr. Bohn was sitting. Mr. Bohn had
placed his feet between his legs, and he was unable
to put them where ho ought. In order to avoid
Mr. Bohn's feet, he put his foot on the strap on the
door. Without any reason, Mr. Bohn put his foot
on his shins, and for self-protection he kicked his
shins. He denied using the language imputed to
him, and also that he was under the influence of
liquor. He called as a witness
Mr. Charles Schlotel, a member of the Stock
Exchange, residing at No. 2, Lake-terrace, Wands-
worth-common, who was also summoned for a
similar offence, and he corroborated the defendant's
statement. He also said that they never made any
inquiries about smoking.
Mr. Arnold said he would hear Schlotel's case
before he gave his decision in the other.
Mr. Bohn was again examined, and he said that
the only complaint he had to make against him was,
that he was very insulting, and assisted the other
in his annoyance.
Mr. Arnold was of opinion that the summons
could not be sustained, as be thought the bye-laws
of the company must apply to an interference with
the physical comfort of the passengers, and not to
ins.sultrt.in.wgeirsaid h
language.ehe had to complain of Mr. Schlo-
tel's conduct. He then stated that he had to call
his attention also to thed)resence of a lady, and he
told him that if he,,
outgound.
would give him a at Wandsworth he
Wandsworth with hisil friends,"rounding." g . 'a'
and
d He eh
the
alighteddefendant
t
also got out and insulted himn the station.
The defendant said in the carriage Mr. Weir
called him names.

Mr. Weir denied it to a certain extent, but ad-
mitted using a certain expression. '
Mr. Arnold told Mr. Weir that if he used such
expressions iu a rAilway carriage be met expect to