The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-29 00:00:00

FOURTH COURT.

William Swaine, a respectable-looking man, aged
49, and described as a clerk, pleaded guilty to an
indictment charging him with embezzling and steal-
ing the several sums of £3 Gs., £1 Gs. 3d., and £B,
the moneys of George Evans, his master. He also
pleadedrguilty to a second indictment charging him
with obtaining money under false pretences.
Mr. Orridge, who appeared for the prosecution,
informed the Court that the prisoner had been in
the service of the prosecutor, a warehouseman, car-
rying on business at 44, Cannon-street, City, for
two years and a half, and had commenced robbing
his master within six months after he had entered
into the employment. He had, however, in order
to hide his delinquencies, systematically falsified the
books of the firm.

The prisoner, in explanation, said he had unhap-
pily listened to the voice of the devil, and from the
moment he had commenced his dishonourable course
he had been a prey to the bitterest remorse.
The Recorder observed that this was a very bad
case ; for in addition to his dishonesty, the prisoner
had falsified the books of his employer ; a circum-
stance which greatly aggravated his offence. The
sentence of the Court was, that the prisoner be kept
in penal servitude for the term of three years.
Henry Jackson, 31, dealer, and Eliza Jackson,
28, his wife, were indicted for Obtaining from Henry
Sowdon and another, by means of false pretences,
divers quantities of household furniture to the
amount of £l5B 16s.

Mr. Metcalfe appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Best defended the prisoners.
It appeared that in the month of July last the
male prisoner called at the warehouse of the prose-
cutor in Commercial-place, Old Kent-road, and
ordered a large quantity of furniture, carpets, cur-
tains, and other articles necessary for a house, to be
sent to No. 5, Grove-place, Hill-street, Peckham.
He gave the name Edward Lowe, and said he kept
a banking account with Messrs. Hill and Sons,
Smithfield, and that his family had been cattle
salesmen for a century. He added that he was
about to be married, and that the bride elect would
call and select other articles. Cn the following day
the female prisoner, accompanied by her servant,
called at the warehouse, and was introduced by the
male prisoner as the lady to whom ha was about to
be married, and that she had come to select some
goods. The lady accordingly selected goods to the
amount of £27 more, which were sent also to the
prisoner's residence. Upon application for pay-
ment the soi-disant Mr. Lowe was never to be found
at home, and finally, it was discovered that all the
goods had been disposed of by the prisoner to a
Mr. Best, a furniture broker, in the Westminster-
road. It was also proved that a Mr. Edward Lowe
banked with Messrs. Hill, and was a cattle sales-
man, but that he knew nothing of the prisoners, and
had never authorised them to u3e his name in any
way whatever.
Mr. Best declined to address the jury on behalf
of the male prisoner, but contended that the female
was entitled to an acquittal.
The Jury acquitted the female, but found the male
prisoner guilty.
Henry Jackson and Eliza Jackson, his wife, were
again tried on another indictment for obtaining
from Mr. Pace, ironmonger, 42, Blackman-street,
Borough, goods to the amount of £5B, by means of
false pretences.
The case was precisely similar to the former one,
and
The Jury found the man guilty, and acquitted
the female.
The Recorder
i)tint
i,
dse3n3:erinhcQeedm hgaimer, tow 4142
inmoanictthesa'
fcirim-
prisonment with hard labour.

feloniously killing and slaying Sarah Tenfold, his
wife.

Mr. Cooper prosecuted, and Mr. Best defended.
The evidence adduced disclosed that the prisoner
and his wife lodged at 3, York-place, Pitt-street,
Old Kent-road, and that on the 12th November inst.
the landlady, Mrs. Jones, was attracted by scream-
ing and quarrelling in their room, which she en-
tered, and found the wife lying all in a heap behind
the door. The wife stated that her husband (the
prisoner) having refused to give her any breakfast
she had pulled his hair, and he had struck her a
blow which had knocked her down. She seemed in
great pain, and was removed to a neighbour's room,
and remained there for some time. The prisoner
was then very kind to her, and sent for brandy to
relieve her, and applied a plaster to her side. She
was then taken to her own bed, out of which, how-
ever, she fell, and died on the following day. A
post mortem examination disclosed that the spleen
had been ruptured, and had caused her death. The
medical man attributed the rupture to a heavy fall,
caused by a blow.
Mr. Best addressed the jury in an able speech,
contending that the injury might have been caused
by the fall out of bed.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recom-
mended him to mercy, and
The Recorder sentenced him to eight months'
hard labour.

The Court then adjourned to Monday, Dec. 16.

POLICE IN2ELLIrT'ENCE, Nov. 28.

MANSION-HOUSE. A respectably-dressed
young woman, about 24 years of age, named Eliza-
beth Rush, and described as a domestic servant,was
brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with forg-
ing and uttering a cheque of £5 18s., purporting to
be signed by Mr. W. P. Bennett, with intent to de-
fraud Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Co., bankers,
London.

Mr. Mullens appeared to conduct the prosecution
on the part of the Bankers' Protection Association.
Mary Peacock, a young woman in the service
of Mr. Rayner, of Clapham-rise, butcher, said
she had known the prisoner for about two years.
In Just last she paid her a visit at Clapham-
rise, and told her that she was then living
at Mrs. Tollitt's, who kept a boarding-school at
Colnbrook, near Slough. The prisoner stopped in
town three days, and she (witness) lent 3s. Gd , and
after she had left she sent her some dresses, as she
had requested her, which amounted to lls. 6d. On
the 30th October she received from the prisoner a
letter, which enclosed the cheque produced for £5
18s. upon Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Co., stating
that a young man with whom she had been keep-
Qs' company had died, and asked her to get the
cheque cashed, or, if she could not get out, to lend
her what she could to enable her to go to his
funeral, She accordingly presented the cheque at
Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Co.'s, and was detained
there until she had given an explanation as to how
she became possessed of it.
Mr. Evison, cashier to Messrs. Smith, Payne,
and Co., said the cheque produced was presented to
him by the last witness, and he immediately saw
that it was not Mr. Bennett's signature.
Webb, a detective officer, said he apprehended the
prisoner,at Stoke Newington, and on telling her the
charge she said the writing on the cheque was hers,
and she was sorry for what she had done. He had
also ascertained that the prisoner had been living at
Mrs. Tollitt's, and Mr. Bennett was lodging there.
Mr. Mullens asked for a remand, that Mr. Ben-
nett might be brought to London.
The prisoner was accordingly remanded.

CLERKEN WELL.—CARD-I'LAYING IN PUBLIC
HOUSES.-Mr. Wm. Monks, of the Cheshire Cheese
Tavern, Dean-street, Holborn, was summoned for
knowingly. permitting gaming with cards to be
carried on in his premises.
Mr. Lewis appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Samuel Wheeler, police-constable, 18 E, stated
that on Tuesday night last, about a quarter past 11,
in company with another constable, he visited de-
fendant's house, and on entering the skittle-ground
he discovered four men engaged playing cards. He
asked them what they were playing for.
Mr. Lewis said he must object to that mode of
proceeding. The men might be called and their evi-
dence taken. It was:not his intention to dispute the
faet of the playing at cards, but the gaming.
Witness continued—There was no beer about that
he could see. He went to the defendant's g ife and
asked her if she was aware of the card-playing i n
the house. She said she was, and that they were
playing for beer, and that she did not see any harm
in a game at cards.
Robert Lambert, 135 S, the warrant officer, said
when he served the warrant the defendant said he
saw no harm in playing a game at cards.
Mr. Lewis contended there was no evidence to
prove the gaming except the words of the wife, and
he submitted that the husband was not responsible
for the words she had uttered, for that was not evi-
-1 deuce legally. She might be the agent in the con-
ducting his business, but not his agent to speak.
Mr. D'Eyncourt—The defendant's wife managed
the business, and he must also take it that the de-
fendant sanctioned it, and that there was gaming
for beer,:which he looked upon as proved by the
words of the wife in his absence. .

Geo. Winster said he was one of the four playing
at cards on the night when the constable came in.
They had been playing at all-fives. The defendant
joined them in the game, and was playing when the
police-constable came in, and he said they were only
having a friendly game.
John Cornelius said he was also in the house at the
time, and played at cards, he believed at cribbage.
There were no stakes played for. The answer the
party made, who was asked by the constable, was
that they played for beer sometimes. There was a
pot of beer standing on a table which belonged to
some men who had won it at a game of skittles.
Mr. D'Eyncourt remarked that the witness was
proving another act of gaming.
Mr. Lewis said that was nothing in connection
with the present case, which he contended still re-
mained unproved.
Mr. D'Eyncourt said he should not like to believe
the witnesses had come there to commit perjury,
but he still felt inclined to credit the statement of
the:constable. The defendant allowed an agent—
his wife—to conduct the business, and he must be
held responsible for acts which ho sanctions, for if
that were not so, a man might employ an agent
who committed wrong for him, and then he could
turn round and say he was not bound by what he
did. He would, under the circumstances, and sup-
posing the witnesses had made a mistake, call upon
the defendant to pay the cost of the summons.
Mr. Lewis contended that it had not been proved,
and called upoir his worship to dismiss the charge.
The constable was recalled, and said he heard
distinctly that they were playing for beer.
Mr. D'Eyncourt said as Mr. Lewis had insisted
upon a decision, he should take time to consider it,
as he had never heard the objection made by him
before. He (Mr. Lewis) had made every possible
objection to its being settled by the payment of the
cost of the summons, and he should, therefore, con-
sider the points of the evidence, and give a decision
in a week.

MARYLEBONE.—RIGHT OF REFUSING SEATS
IN OMNIBUSES.—IMPORTANT TO THE PUBLIC.—
Thomas Baugham, a conductor of one of the London
General Conveyance omnibuses, running front the
Royal Oak, Paddington, to the Bank of England,
appeared on a summons for refusing to admit into
his vehicle, on Thursday the 21st inst., three gentle-
men who were desirous of taking their places
therein, in which there was plenty of room.
Mr. William Garton, the road inspector of the
company,*was in attendance to watch the case.
Mr. Levison, a gentleman, deposed that on Thurs-
day morning last, at a quarter past nine, he and two
friends went to the Royal Oak, and wished to enter
the defendant's omnibus as passengers. They were
not allowed to take their seats, though there was
room enough inside for four persons.
Mr. Mansfield—When you were about to get in,
what did he say to you ?
Complainant—He said, "We are full and cannot
take you. The seats that are empty aro already
engaged."
Mr. Crossley, of Westbourne Park, one of the
parties who was with complainant at the time, was
called, and corroborated his evidence.
Mr. Mansfield—What is your answer to this ?
Defendant—Places were engaged by Alderman
Phillips and his sons, who regularly ride with him
into the City, and these places are kept for them.
This being the case, he could not let them in.
Mr. Mansfield—lt does not appear to me that you
have a right to refuse admission where there is room.
His Worship, after referring to the act, consulted
with Mr. Phillips, the chief clerk, when he said
(addressing the defendant)—lf you can point out
anything in the Act of Parliament which will show
there is power to reserve seats you can do so. Is
there any one hero to prove that the vacant seats
had been paid for ?
Defendant said there was not.
Mr. Garton observed that such was the case, but
that the parties who had engaged the seats were not
now present.
Mr. Mansfield, after 'some further proceedings
had been gone into, said he (defendant) was not
justified in refusing the parties admission to his
vehicle. He should fine him 10s., and 2s. costs.

---
LAMBETII.—THE GREAT SMOKE QUESTION.
—Mr. W. Moon Sheriff, solicitor, of 7, Lincoln's-
inn-fields, appeared before Mr. Elliott, to answer to
a summons taken out against him by Mr. Frank
Whitaker Bush, chancery barrister, of 9, Old-square,
Lincolu'rinn-fields, charging him with hßTiog used

towards him language calculated to lead to a breach
of the peace.
Mr. Giffard, the barrister, attended on behalf of
the defendant.

Mr. Bush said that on the morning of Saturday, I ,
the 16th inst., he was coming to town by train on ,
the South-Western Railway, and at the Barnes
Station observed defendant get into the compart-
ment of a first-class carriage next to that which he
was in. The defendant's friend got in first, and
observing the defendant himself put a short pipe
into his mouth before getting into the carriage, he
called to him and said, " Will you have the good-
ness to put that pipe out ?" Nothing more occurred
at that time; but as the train had reached the
Waterloo Station, and just as he had got out of
the carriage, the defendant came up to him and
said, " Are you the person who spoke to me at
the Barnes Station ?" and he replied " Yes."
The defendant then said, " Why did you, a per-
fect stranger and a person I do not know, speak
to me in that way." He (Mr. Bush) re-
plied, " Because I saw you were smoking, and
asked you to put your pipe out." The defendant
said, "Itis a lie." Witness said he saw him put
the pipe into his mouth and saw smoke issue from
it. The defendant replied, "Itis a lie, a d—d lie,
and you are a d—d infernal liar." The defendant
continued to follow him, and said, "I have a great
mind to hit you, to teach you not to speak to me
again :" and made use of an expression which he
did not wish to repeat. Ho asked him his name,
but he refused to give it, and on reaching his cham-
bers he (Mr. Bush) committed to writing all that
had been said. This he submitted to some of his
friends, to take their opinion as to what he should
do in reference to the matter, and they were of
opinion that he could not pass it over ; and he ap-
plied for and took out the present summons.
In cross-examination by Dlr. Giffard—Mr. Bush
said he was not aware that the train at the Barnes
station had passed the platform ; but said that
neither the defendant or his friend were about to
get into the carriage that he was when he called
out to the former to put out his pipe. Was quite
certain ho prefaced the request with the courteous
expression, " Will you have the goodness," and that
the demand was not made in a peremptory and in-
sulting tone. On the contrary, his tone and manner
were gentlemanlike.
Mr. Giffard, in his address to the Court, in reply
to complainant, said that the morning in question
was a very frosty one, and his friend and client,
Mr. Sheriff, as well as the gentleman who accom-
panied him, had smoked their pipes from their resi-
dence to the Barnes station, but discontinued on
reaching that place. On reaching the station the
train had slightly shot beyond the platform, so that
Mr. Sheriff and his friends had some slight difficulty
in getting into a first-class carriage. Having an
umbrella in one nand and his pipe in the other, and
requiring the use of both hands, he, at the moment,
thought his mouth would be the safest place for his
pipe. He placed it there, and, while getting into
the carriage, heard somebody exclaim, "Put that
pipe out;" but at the moment thought it came from
some friend, or some person who knew him, and
who said it in a joke. Finding, however, that it
came from a stranger, and showing to the gentle-
men who were in the carriage with him that he was
not smoking—on the contrary, that his pipe was
out—he had determined on asking for an explana-
tion. He did ask for that explanation ; and when
Mr. Bush had repeated that he had seen smoke
come from his mouth after his denial of the fact, he
did say the assertion was a lio. The complainant,
however, could not complain much if he chose
to doubt and disregard the assertion of a gentle-
man, and thereby give the lie pointedly, if he re-
ceived the lie direct.

Highly respectable witnesses were called whose tes-
timony bore out the statement of the learned gen-
tleman, and said the tone of the complainant in the
first instance was that of a person in authority, and
emphatically denied that the defendant had made
use of any disgusting expression.
Mr. Elliott observed that when a person was seen
with a short pipe in his mouth it was but natural to
infer that he was smoking, and he did not see the
impropriety of any passenger asking him to put the
pipe out. The language of the defendant was cal-
culated to provoke a breach of the peace, and he
must therefore put in bail for six months.