The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY -EVENING, JUNE 28, 1859,

LA TV INTELLIGENCE—Tune 27.

BAIL (C;C: )URT.
Sittings at Nisi Prriu,,,(l 3cforc Mr. Justice Hill
and Commoi i Juries.)
SEUPWAT V. COLLIN GRIDGE.-LIBEL.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
baptist minister, against the defendant, for a libel
published in the City Press.. The defendant simply
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Kenealy and Mr. S. Jacobs were counsel for
the plantiff ; Mr. Lush and Mr. Rowley represented
the defendant.
The plaintiff had been engaged by the deacons
of a baptist congregation at F;ible Hedingham, in
Essex, as a preacher for twelve months, and had
become highly popular. After some time he re-
ceived a notice not to preach, and on the following
Sunday he found the doors of 'the chapel locked
against him. An injunction was afterwards
obtained in the Court of Chancery to prevent his

preaching.
In his cross-examination the plaintiff stated that
he had been brought up to the trade of a tobacco
pipe manufacturer, and had been a preacher nine
years. About twenty years ago he had been on
the stage ; only five or six times. He was married.
!le had notice to attend a meeting of the deacons to
answer a charge of trying to seduce Mrs. Letch,
the wife of one of the members of the chapel. His
wife was living with him at the time. He was
summoned before the magistrates of Castle Heding-
ham, and was fined £1 and costs for the assault.
After that the doors of the chapel were locked
against him. He had not forced open the doors,
but he went in and occupied the pulpit. He was
not aware that his partisans remained in the chapel
all night smoking and drinking, but he had heard
so. He had paid for bread and cheese and beer
for them. The locks were taken off the doors and
others were put on. His partisans had kept pos-
session of the chapel until an injunction was ob-
tained from the 'Vice-Chancellor. He had appealed,
but the appeal had been dismissed with costs. He
was living in Mr. Letch's house when he was
charged with attempting to seduce his wife. He
denied most positively that he had done so. He
had been once charged with drunkenness. On the
Sunday in question about 750 of his friends were
in the chapel. There had been service there in the
morning and afternoon. He had denied the charge
against him generally. He had heard of the meet-
ing of ministers in the City alluded to in the libel.
He had never been charged with an assault on
another female. He had not been forbidden to
visit the house of Mr. Solomon in Cannon-street on
account of his sister. He had never been charged
with taking liberties with her. He had brought
other actions in reference to this matter. He had
not contributed to a publication called the "Earthen
Vessel" for some time. He had given a bill of sale
of his furniture.
Re-examined—He had given it to his solicitor,
as he had no means of paying the costs of the
Chancery suit. He was summoned for an assault
on Mrs. Letch. There were clergymen of the
Church of England on the bench. They had re-
fused to allow the case to be sent to the quarter
sessions, though he desired it to be tried by a jury.
He had been fined for a common assault. Mrs.
Letch made no charge against him for six weeks
after the alleged assault, and she and her husband
in the mean time visited at his house on the usual
terms. There was no truth in the statement that
he had taken-liberties with Miss Solomon.
The libel complained of was then put in evidence.
It was as follows :
" Extraordinary Gathering of Baptist Ministers
in the City.—On Monday morning a large assem-
blage of ministers was held at the office of Mr.
Mote. It appears that a minister of a Baptist
church at Sible Hedhigham having conducted him-
self in a manner unbecoming a Christian, as it ap-
peared to the trustees and deacons, they prohibited
him from further officiating therein. Subsequently
he and his friends took forcible possession of the
chapel, and the trustees had filed a bill in chancery
to regain the same. An action for libel had been
brought, and a resolution was passed that Mr.
Mote would be justified in defending the action."
The concluding passage complained of was, " We
may add, from being an ear witness of what
transpired at the meeting, that should the case be
brought into court, it will expose to the world one
of the saddest careers in the history of a minister
which was ever disclosed."
Mr. Kenealy having summed up the evidence for
the plaintiff,
Mr. Lush addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages. The defendant, who was an utter stran-
ger to the plaintiff, had published merely a report
of a meeting, and he had no means of justifying his
statement, not knowing the circumstances. Could
it be tolerated that a man convicted of an indecent
assault should be allowed to continue as the minis-
ter of any congregation ? All the circumstances
had been before the world long before the alleged
libel was published, and it could have inflicted no
injury on the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Hill, in summing up, left it to the
jury to say whether the publication was a libel,
and if so, was it true. He thought that if a man
had any regard for his character, he would have
written to the publisher of the paper, and asked
for the name of the author, but without giving the
defendant any opportunity of justifying, this action
had been brought.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages 40s.
THE SAME V. PARTRIDGE—LIBEL.
Mr. Kenealy and Mr. S. Jacobs were counsel I
for the prosecution ; Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff and
Mr. Daly for the defendant.
This was also an action arising out of precisely
the same state of facts as in the last case against
the defendant, who is the publisher of the Christian
Cabinet, and he pleaded not guilty and a justifica-
tion. The libel complained of was a copy of what
appeared in the Earthen Vessel, and without
comments.
In this case also the jury found for the plaintiff
—damages 40s.
BENNET V. LEVY—BETTING TRANSACTIONS.

This was an action to recover the sum of £352
3s. 10d., the balance of an I 0 U for £490, after
deducting 1137 16s. 2d. for goods supplied.
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Joyce appeared for
the plaintiff, and i Mr. lluddlestone and Mr. Cax-
ton for the defence.
It was stated that the plaintiff, a young man
22 years of age, was a clerk in the city and a betting
man. He had begun life as apprentice to a chemist
at the West-end, and had acquired from his master
a taste for betting. He was successful as a betting
man, and became possessed of a considerable sum
of money. •In 1857 he walked by accident into a
jeweller's shop, in Great Queen-street, which was
at that time kept by the defendant, and bought a
brooch. This led to a little conversation, and after-
wards the parties became intimate. The defendant
introduced the plaintiff to Cremorne, and to
theatres, and there were bill transactions between
them. The plaintiff was enabled to take up his
bills, and he also lent the defendant money. On
April 13, 1859, the defendant gave the plaintiff an
I 0 U for £490 ; on the 4th of May the plaintiff
called at the defendant's shop, when the defendant
made out his claim for 1137 16s. 2d. for goods
supplied, leaving due the balance now claimed.
In the course of the examination of the plaintiff
it appeared that a great mass of accounts were in-
volved in the case ; and there was also a cross
action. In addition it was imputed that the I 0 U
in question was a forgery.
Under these circumstances a suggestion of his
lordship was accepted, and both actions were re-
ferred to arbitration.
HIBBS V. WILKINSON-LIBEL.
This was an action for damages for libel, and the
only plea was not guilty.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. C. Pollock appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Lush and Mr. Watkin Wil-
liams for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a clergyman of the Church of
England, and the defendant was the registered
proprietor of the National Standard newspaper.
The plaintiff had been curate to the Rev. Mr.
Drummond, of St. Thomas's Episcopal Chapel,
Edinburgh, but in 1854 their connection termi-
nated, in consequence of some dispute which had
arisen. The merits of the dispute were stated on
one side and the other in print, and in 18.58 the
plaintiff published a pamphlet called " Truth Vin-
dicated." A review of this pamphlet was written
by the Rev. W. W. Duncan, and forwarded to the
defendant's paper. A copy of this review was also
st eo ntthteo
defendant'st the plaintiff bypa s Campbell,per. she
wasinformed
e di b utthator
it would be printed. The plaintiff r t this time was
abowt to publish a third edition of his pamphlet.
He inserted among "Opinions of the Press" ex-
tracts from the review forwarded to him by Miss
Campbell. This review contained some strong re-
marks in reference to the Rev. Mr. Drummond,
but some of the epithets used were cut out before
the copy was inserted in the paper. The plaintiff
having made his extracts from the copy sent to
him by Miss Campbell and not from the paper,
they were of course incorrect, and on the sth of
March an article was inserted which imputed to
the plaintiff that he had wilfully garbled the ex-
tracts. This was the libel complained of. The
plaintiff's counsel, in conclusion, said that his client
only wished to vindicate his character, and did not
seek for large damages.
Under these circumstances, it was suggested by
the jury that the parties could probably arrange
their differences.
The counsel on both sides endeavoured to carry
out this suggestion, but after a good deal of discus-
sion they failed.
The defendant's counsel said he was prepared to

make a full and ample apology to the plaintiff, and
to withdraw any imputation upon his character.
A question remained as to how the costs were to
be paid, and upon that the parties could not agree
and the trial consequently went on.
His lordship in summing up directed he jury
that if they believed that the article in question
was written with the honest intention of maintain-

ing the truth, and that the strong language was
used without any corrupt motive, then they were
at liberty to find for the defendant. In support of
this ruling his lordship quoted the language of
Lord Ellenborough, who said that a plaintiff com-
plaining of libel was bound to show that the de-
fendant was actuated by malice, and that the de-
fendant could discharge himself by proving the

contrary.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
TIIE WOLVERHAMPTON NEW WATERWORKS COM-

PANY V. HAWKSFORD.-ACTION FOR CALLS.

This was an action to recover £375 for calls
upon 100 shares in the plaintiffs' company, and
also interest upon the amount.
Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Mellish appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Millward
for the defendant.

The plaintiffs' case was that the company was
incorporated in 1855, the defendant at that time
being solicitor to Mr. Holyoake, one of the pro-
moters of the company. An act of Parliament was
obtained in which the defendant was named as one
of the directors, and his name appeared upon the
registers of shareholders. The defendant had also
given Mr. Holyoake a proxy to vote for him at a
meeting of the company, and a prospectus was
issued in which the defendant was named as a di-
rector. Each of the calls made was for the sum of
12s. 6d. a share ; but it was admitted that as to the
first of them there was an informality, and that
that call could not be recovered.

After some evidence had been given, it was ar-
ranged that the further hearing of the case should
be continued this (Tuesday) morning.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster.—(Before
the Lord Chief Baron and Common Juries.)

GAMPART V. SUMNER.-INFRINGEMENT OF COPY.

ItIGHT.

The declaration in this case stated that the plain-
tiff was the proprietor of two prints engraved in
Great Britain, entitled, " The Departure, Second
Class," and " The Return, First Class," and that
the defendant had published and exposed for
sale divers base copies of the same, to the injury
of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Charles Pollock was counsel for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. Serjeant Thomas for the defence.
It appeared from the case for the plaintiff, who
is a print-publisher, carrying on business in Ber-
ners-street ,that he purchased two pictures entitled
"The Departure, Second Class," and "The Return,
First Class," from the artist, Mr. Solomon, for 500
guineas. One of the pictures had been exhibited
at the Royal Academy, and the subject of the other
as a companion picture was suggested by the plain-
tiff himself. The subjects are a young lad and his
mother in a second-class railway carriage, the for-
mer being about to enter the navy, and in the com-
panion picture he is represented as a young officer
seated in a first-class railway carriage in conversa-
tion with an elderly gentleman, and a very pretty
young lady. These paintings having been so pur-
chased, were engraved for the plaintiff at a total
cost of £1,200. The proofs were sold at £4 4s.
each, and the prints at D. ls. They had a very
good sale for the first year, the plaintiff having sold
of his edition about 350 pairs, but after a time some
spurious copies were exposed for sale, at different
stationers, &e., and the sale of the plaintiff's publi-
cations was all but extinguished in England. The
plaintiff had warned several of these persons that
they were infringing his copyright, and in all cases
where they had signed a declaration that they would
not sell any more imitation copies, he did not pro-
ceed against them, merely requiring the payment
of any attorney's costs which might have accrued.
He also issued an advertisement cautioning the
trade not to sell spurious copies.
The plaintiff's brother proved that he had pur-
chased two sets of the imitation copies at the shop
of the defendant, in Edgeware-road, and Mr.
Charles Dod, the plaintiff's attorney, stated that he
had written to the defendant, who stated that he
had sold no others of the prints, but he declined to
make a declaration to that effect. In the first
letter there was a demand for a pound as a penalty,
and that the defendant should agree to insert an
advertisement in the newspaper expressing his
regret for infringing the plaintiff's copyright, but
that was waived in the second letter, of which the
defendant took no notice.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas submitted there was no
case to go to the jury, as there was no proof of
knowledge on the part of the defendant, which was
essential under the Ist sec. of the Bth Geo. 11.,
c. 13.

His lordship held there was evidence to go to the
jury, but reserved the point.
The case for the defendant was, that he had pur-
chased only one set of the imitation copies from a
hawker, and those he placed in his windows. They
were those purchased by the plaintiff's brother,
who asked if he could not have more. At that very
time the hawker was in the shop, and the defen-
dant took another set from his portfolio' and sold
them to the plaintiff's brother. The defendant
denied that he had any knowledge that he was in-
fringing the plaintiff's copyright, and his father-in-
law deposed that on his calling at Mr. Dod's office,
with the view of arranging the matter, the clerk
said the defendant must pay six guineas costs, and
sign a declaration. The witness had no authority
so to act, and thus the matter went off.
The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, said that
this action had not been brought by the plaintiff to
recover damages, but simply to establish his rights.
The jury immediately found a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages 40s.
BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
This concluded the business for these sittings,
and on Wednesday the Court will sit at Guildhall.
The court will hold a sitting in banco on the 11th
of July, in order to give judgments in cases pre-
viously argued.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Jane 27.

MANSION-HOUSE.—SHAMEFUL TRICK ON A
LICENSED VICTUALLER.—Dennis Shea, Michael
Lee, Patrick Lee, and Cornelius Croley, four coster-
monger lads, were charged with wilfully destroying
eight gallons of brandy, the property of Ephraim
Green, licensed victualler, at the Box Tree public-
house, Gravel-lane, Houndsditch.
The prosecutor said that on Saturday, between 12
and 1, three of the prisoners went to his skittle-
ground with another man, and played there till
about three o'clock, during which time they had
only two pots of ale. Three of them then went
away, leaving the fourth behind them " speechless
drunk," and very shortly after the three who had
gone away returned, with a number of other men,
making nine or ten altogether, and a barrow, on
which the drunken man was placed and wheeled
away by one of the gang, while the others remained
in the skittle ground, where they played for about
another hour, and then again went away, some of
them evidently the worse for liquor, although they
had been supplied with a very small quantity of
drink from the bar. They returned a third time
with some more fresh faces, and again went away,
after an hour's stay, and under the circum-
stances. When they returned a fourth time his sus-
picions were aroused, for he remembered that there
were two quarter casks of brandy in the skittle
ground, bath with spile-pegs in, and he determined
to ascertain what was doing. So he pounced upon
them when they had been on the ground about 10
minutes, and ho found the four prisoners all col-
lected round one of the casks, from which they had
removed the spile, while the brandy was running
out "as if he had turned the engine," and one of
them, he could not say which, he was so excited,
was holding a bottle to cat th it. Hastily securing
the cask in a proper position he went off the skittle
ground, fastening the door behind him, and so kept
the prisoners safe until policemen arrived, when he
gave them into custody.
Police-constable 664, deposed that he took the
prisoners into custody, Shea being so drunk that
they were compelled to carry him to the station-
house on a stretcher. The other prisoners had also
evidently been drinking, but were able t) walk to
the station-house. After their arrival at the sta-
tion-house, another officer went to Lee's house and
found two men lying there so drunk that medical
aid had to be called in.

All the prisoners denied. that they had been to
the prosecutor's more than once, and were equally
positive in their denial of having touched the
brandy, although Pat Lee admitted candidly that
he would have had his dose of it if he had
seen it, as it was very tempting, while Shea
accounted for being intoxicated, by stating
that he had been waiting at market all day for
some cherries, and that when his friend offered to
treat him with some beer, he accepted his offer and
drank all he could.
Mr. Alderman Carter inquired the value of the
brandy.
The prosecutor said about eight gallons were gone
altogether, about one gallon being lost on the
ground, and he had some suspicion that portions
had been carried away in bottles on each visit.
Alderman Carter—Was it not very incautious to
leave two casks of brandy exposed in a public
skittle-ground ?
I Prosecutor—Perhaps it was; but mine is more

of a subscription than a public ground, and if I had
been at home when they first came I should not
have let them in.

Alderman Carter—Well, I should not like to
convict on this evidence, and especially since you
cannot identify the man who was holding the
bottle. You acted very incautiously in leaving the
brandy there, but I will remand the prisoners to
give you time to produce additional evidence if you
can.

The prisoners were then discharged upon giving
;heir promise to appear again on Thursday.

GUILDHALL-DEFRAUDING TAVERN-KEEPERS.

—James Bromley, described as a greengrocer, in
business in the Queen's-road, Chelsea, was brought
up in custody, charged with stealing a knife and
fork from Lake's tavern and dining-rooms, Cheap
side, under the following circumstances :
Charles Pimm said he was a waiter at Lake's
dining-rooms in Cheapside, and on Saturday last,
about half-past 12 o'clock, he received information
that the prisoner, who had been dining, had put a
knife and fork into his pocket. He missed a
knife and fork from the prisoner's table, and as he
was going out accused him of the theft, and found
the articles in his coat-pocket. Witness also ascer-
tained that in paying for the dinner the prisoner
had withheld fivepence for refreshments which he
had had.

Sir James Duke asked how the prisoner could
cheat the waiter with regard to the price of his
dinner.

Mr. G. M. Hill, the proprietor of Lake's dining-
rooms in Cheapside and Gracechurch-street, said he
dined as many as 2,000 persons in a day at his two
houses, and he was consequently a great victim to
this system of petty depredation. It was left to
the honour of the customer to enumerate the re-
freshments he had had, and that confidence was
frequently violated by a class of unprincipled per-
sons whom they were finding out in such frauds
every week, and almost day by day.
Police-constable, 496, said he had made inquiries
about the prisoner, and found he was in a respect-
able way of business at the address he gave, and
that he bore a very good character in the neigh-
bourhood.

The waiter said the prisoner had been several

times at their dining-roams on previous occasions,
and although knives and forks in great numbers
had been missed from the rooms, he could not say
the prisoner had taken any before.
Mr. Hill said he wished to put a stop to the sys-
tem, as the proprietors of dining-rooms in the City
were subject to considerable losses from the causes
he had stated.

The prisoner's landlord gave the prisoner an ex-
cellent character, and said when he let him his pre-
mises he had the highest references.
Sir S. Duke said it appeared the prisoner was a
respectable man, and if his appearance had not
justified that supposition he would not have been
admitted to dine with respectable persons, and it
was, therefore, the more necessary to make an ex-
ample, in order that others might be deterred from
following the same course.
The prisoner said he could only accouut for it by
stating that it arose from absence of mind, as he
knew not what he was doing when he put the
knife and fork into his pocket.
Mr. Hill said there could not have been much
absence of mind in taking the knife and fork, as ho
had also defrauded the cashier out of 5d., and then
offered the waiter 10s. to compromise the affair of
the knife and fork.
Sir J. Duke said, if a man in rags and tatters had
committed such an offence he should not have been
surprised, but when, as in this case, the person
charged was a respectable tradesman, with plenty
of money, and was found committing a double
fraud upon the prosecutor, he considered it his duty
to impose a severe penalty, which was that the pri-
soner should go to prison for one month, with hard
labour.
BOW-STREET.—John Burke, a clerk in the
Post-office, whose salary and emoluments amount
to £l7O a year, was charged with stealing a letter
from one of the mail bags in the sorting tender on
the London and Cambridge Railway.
From the evidence of Mr. Gardner, the prisoner's
senior clerk, it appeared that he (the prisoner) was
employed once a week on the above tender, leaving
town at half-past eight o'clock on Saturday night
and returning at five o'clock on Monday morning.
For some time complaints had been frequent of the
loss of letters on that line at the periods of the pri-
soner's journeys ; and it was determined to test his
honesty. For this purpose a money letter was made
up, and directed to a fictitious address at Midhurst.
This letter was inserted, togethei with another ad-
dressed to Tunbridge Wells, in the Romford tender
bag, which was delivered to prisoner at Romford.
When that bag reached the General Post-office, the
letter for Tunbridge Wells was found in it, but not
that for Midhurst. On being questioned by Mr.
Gardner the prisoner denied that he had found any
Midhurst letter in the bag, and said that if he had
he would have returned it in the bag to the Gene-
ral Post-office. Upon being searched there were
found on him, amongst other moneys, the contents
of the test letter, two marked half-sovereigns and
12 postage stamps. He said that he found them at
the bottom of the bag, and persisted in saying that
he had seen nothing of the letter.
The prisoner had been eleven years in the service.
He was committed for trial.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.— Charles Peter
Duval, aged 17, was charged on re-examination
with discarging a loaded pistol at Susannah Hin-
ton, of GA, Bury-street, St. James's, while passing
along Jermyn-street, on the afternoon of the 20th
inst., with intent to kill her.
From what the prosecutrix stated, it would seem
that she had formerly lived at an antiquarian shop
in Jermyn-street. kept by a Mr. Bryant, where the
prisoner and his parents were lodgers; that they,
being unable to pay. the rent, had had their furni
ture seized, and, I eing in consequence ejected, she
(prosecutrix) was placed in charge of the house.
She was unable to assign a motive for what pri-
soner had done, but thought it possible he might
fancy she had in some way been concerned in expe-
diting the seizure of his parents' goods.
Mr. Tottill, surgeon to the C division of police,
said he had examined the wound at the back of the
prosecutrix's neck, which was somewhat larger than
a shilling, and was of opinion that it had been pro-
duced from the wadding fired from a pistol very
near to her, and from which she was yet suffering.
Mr. Lewis, in defence, said he had been heard to
complain for some time back of a swimming in the
head, and there could be no doubt he was labouring
under some strange and unfortunate delusion at the
time he did the act with which he was charged.
His father had lately died in a lunatic asylum, and
his sifter was not right in her mind.
Mr. Beadon said he should commit the prisoner
for trial, and his state of mind must be proved in a
superior court.
The prosecutrix during her short examination
seemed very weak and in much suffering.

WORSHIP-STREET.—SamueI Bromley, one of
a numerous gang of thieves, living in Thrall-street,
Keate-street, Flower-and-Dean-street, and George-
yard, Whitechapel, who are a terror to all respect-
able people residing or passing near them, was
charged with the following daring robberies :
A married lady named Cunnington, on a visit to
town from Nottingham, said—l was walking
alone in Whitechapel between three and four on
the afternoon of the 14th inst., when the prisoner
suddenly appeared before me, and so violently,
tugged at my gold guard-chain that it broke from
my neck, and he got away with my chain, my watch
three seals, and a key, and ran down George-yard
with them. I called out " Stop thief," and ran part
of the way down the yard after him, but he somehow
disappeared, and I saw no more of him. The value
of my property was £25. I could not see a police-
man all the time, and therefore gave information at
the Leman-street station. lam quite sure prisoner
is the man who robbed me.
Prisoner—She is mistaken, for I am not the man.
Constable—There is a second charge, Sir, and
another lady here to prove it.
Mrs. Mary Clifton—l am a widow, residing near
Bermondsey, and was walking along,Whitechapel
between one and two in the afternoon of the 27th
ult., when, just as I reached the same spot, near
George-yard, as in the last lady's case, some man
came suddenly in front of me, seized my gold chain
with trinkets and seals attached, broke the chain
into halves, scattering the seals and trinkets upon
the pavement, and ran down George-yard with my
watch and chain. My watch cost 70 guineas, and
the chain 17 more, and I pursued the thief as fast
will
stop that man," but it was useless, for he got away
with the property, and all that I recovered was thetrinkets, which some person picked up from the
e
pavement and afterwards kindly restored to me. I
really cannot say that the prisoner is the thief, the
act was so silent and sudden, nor can I say he is not.
A cabman, however, swore positively to the pri-
soner, whom he saw glide in slippers before the lady
and rob her.
Prisoner—l am entirely innocent of both charges,
I assure you. There are plenty of others like me
going up and down Whitechapel.
Reid, 105 H—l know the prisoner well ;he has
been convicted of felony. I had him myself in 1855,
and my belief is that he has only recently come out
of prison for another offence. He belongs to the -gang
in that locality, so many of whom are frequently
here.
Mr. D'Eyncourt--I shall send this man for trial,
and the officer must then mention to the Court the
shocking state of this district, where these robberies
so continually occur both by day and night.