The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-04 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—fan. 3.

MANSION-HOUSE.—A well-dressed man,
named Henry Bell, who was stated to be very re-
spectably connected, was brought before the Lord
Mayor, charged with felony, under the following
rather peculiar circumstances. The prisoner ap-
peared to be very faint and weak, and he was
allowed to be seated during the investigation.
Mr. Wontner, the solicitor, appeared in support
of the charge, and Mr. Beard attended on behalf of
the prisoner.
Mr. Wontner briefly opened the case, and said,
that the prosecutors were Messrs. Croesdell, Brock-
sopp, and Co., wholesale cheese-dealers, in Miles-
lane, and they charged the defendant with having
defrauded them of their property in a very impu-
dent manner. Having given a brief narrative of
the facts, the following evidence was adduced:—
Mr. Frederick Croesdell deposed that he carried
on business in partnership with Mr. Broeksopp, as
wholesale cheese-factors, in Miles-lane, and about
two months ago the prisoner called upon him and
purchased some goods, for which he paid. He
came again and wanted more goods, but in conse-
nuence of information witness had received, he told
him distinctly that he would not let him have any
goods unless he paid cash for them. The prisoner
after this did purchase some goods, but witness
gave the carman instructions not to leave them
without the money, and as the prisoner would not
pay for them the carman brought them back. The
prisoner came again to the warehouse on Wednes-
day, and selected goods to the amount of I:12 2s. 7d.,.
and witness told him distinctly that he would not
let him have the goods unless he paid cash for
them, and the prisoner told him that he would send
the money back. by the carman. At the time the
goods were sent away he gave the carman an in-
voice upon which there was a stamp, and gave him
strict injunctions not to leave the goods without
the prisoner gave him the money.
Mr. Beard asked the witness whether the first

transaction that took place between him and the
prisoner was not to the amount of £63 and whether
he did not receive that sum from the prisoner, and
he admitted that this was so.
Richard Rowland, the prosecutor's carman, de-
posed that he took the goods to the prisoner's shop
in Clarence-place, Hackney, and found him there,
and handed him the invoice, and at the same time
said that he had orders not to leave the goods
without the money. The prisoner told him that if
he would bring the goods into the shop he would
pay for them, and not without. He agreed to take
the goods into the shop upon that condition, and
took them out of his cart and placed them where
the prisoner directed him. He again demanded
the money, but the prisoner only laughed at him,
and made use of very foul language, and said that
*now he had got the goods he would see him
before he would pay him for them. He then com-
menced cutting up the bacon he had taken to him,
and asked him in a jeering manner whether he
should not like to have the goods back again. Ha
waited for about an hour and a half in the hope
that the prisoner would pay him, and at length the
prisoner threatened that if he did not go away be
would kick him out of the shop, and he then went
back, and told his master what had taken place.
Mr. Arthur Brooksopp, the partner of the first
witness, stated that, upon hearing from the carman
what had taken place, he went in the evening to
the prisoner's shop and asked him to pay him for
his goods. The moment he did so the prisoner ordered
him to leave the shop, and made a rush at him, and
said that if he did not go he would stab him, and ho
was obliged to make the best of his way out of the
shop. Having procured the assistance of a police-
man he gave the prisoner into custody. The witness
then stated that upon examining the things in the
shop he found that the greater portion of the arti-
cles were " dummies," and consisted of composition
painted over to resemble cheeses ltd half-firkins of
butter. (A laugh.)
Mr. Beard asked the witness whether it was not
a very usual thing for persons in the cheesemougery
trade to make use of those dummies in their busi-
ness.

Mr. Brocksopp replied that some cheesemongers
did so, but ho did not like the practice, and his
firm made it a rule not to trust persons who adopted
the system referred to.
Mr. Beard, at the close of the case for the prose-
cution, asked for a remand, as he said he should be
able to prove that there was an understanding that
the goods were sold upon credit. He also reminded
his lordship that it was admitted that goods to a
very much larger amount had been paid for, and
these would also have been if immediate payment
had not been insisted upon. This annoyed the
prisoner, and had led to his certainly having acted
with indiscretion, but he submitted that the charge
of felony had not been supported. He asked for
a remand in order that he might have an opportu-
nity of bringing witnesses forward who would
prove that the goods were sold upon credit.
The Lord Mayor, upon this representation, con-
sented to remand the prisoner, and allowed him to
go at large upon entering into his own recognisance
in £BO, with two sureties in £4O each.

CLERKENWELL. IMPORTANT DECISION
UNDER TIIE NUISANCES REMOVAL ACT.-Mr.
Thomas Lewis, 82, Upper street, Islington, the
owner of the premises situate at John's-place, Great
Arthur-street, St. Luke's, was summoned before
Mr. Barker, by the parish authorities of St. Luke's,
to show cause why an order should not be made
under the provisions of the Metropolitan Local
Management Act, 1855, requiring him to pay to
the vestry of the said parish of St. Luke's, Middle-
sex, the sum of £12105., being the expense of cer-
tain work executed by the vestry at John's-place,
within their district, under the Local Management
Act.

Mr. Stable, from the office of Mr. Parson, vestry
clerk, attended to support the complaint, and Mr.
Lewis for the defence.

The case having heedfully argued on both sides,
the following points were left for the magistrate's
decision :-Ist. That the vestry could not turn a
privy into a water-closet. 2d. That no notice had
been given to do the works done; and 3d. That
the act was to be construed with the Nuisances
Removal Act, and before the works could be done
there must be an order ofjusticcs to do the work.
Mr. Barker said—l have considered this case
with attention, and also the different clauses of the
act of Parliament. I cannot see anything to justify
the converting of a common privy. into a watercloset.
The case of Tickler P. the Board of Works for the

Wandsworth District, had been cited by Mr. Lewis, 1
and it is plain from that th at the powers sought for
by the complainants cannot be taken under the
Nuisances Removal Act. Lord Justice Turner in
tiiat case says—" The notices served by the defen-
dant upon the plaintiffs upon Jan. 27 and June 8,
1857, purport to be given under the Metropolis
Local Aianagement Act, 18 and 19 Vic., cap. 121,
and they are entitled under both these acts, for it
seems clear that the defendants cannot justify their
proceeding in this case under the latter, the Nuis-
ances Removal and Diseases Prevention Acts. That
act gives no authority to enter upon any premises
in such a ,:ase as the present, except in the event of
disobedience' to the order of the justices ; but there
has been here no order of justices. If, therefore, the
case of the (lei Pendants can be supported at all, it
must be under th e Metropolis Local Management
Act, and indeed upon that act the defendant relied."
This decision is pl'eC'elY
like this, because they had
done nothing.
the Nuisances Removal Act.
I have looked into tccase with great care, and
at
-the complainants woult.l
am clearly of opinion th,
not be justified in converL 'ng a privy into a water-
closet. I cannot therefore .feel myself justified in
making this order.
The
case have quoted is pre-
cisely on all fours with the pres.'nt, and after the
decision given by Lord Justice Turn,:r I cannot make
the order. I cannot ace that is the slightest pos-
sible difference between the cases. Of cUurse, alter
the decision given in the courts, a court much sup e-
rior to this, I shall have no objection to have my-
judgment reviewed. The only difference between
this case and the Wandsworth one is, that here only
one watereloset is concerned, while there there were
altogether more than 30. Lord Justice Knight Bruce
in giving judgment in the same case was equally
clear, for he said—" The defendants claimed, and
claim that power solely under the 18th and 19th
Victoria, cap. 120 and cap. 121, often mentioned,
and of necessity much discussed during the argu-
ment, but especially the cections 81 and 85 of cap.
120. Remarkable as some of the provisions of that
statute seem to be I am of opinion that they do not
deal with the rights of property in such a way as
the defendants contend they do, nor can I find in
' the two statutes, or either of them, any warrant for
what the defendants have b: en attempting, and now
insist upon. The question is, not whether they have
power to cause or order privies within their district
to be put in a proper or decent state, but it is
whether they have the right or power to force on ,
the plaintiff the mechanical contrivance of water- I
closets, with their requisite apparatus, for whioli he
is to find water supply as best he may, instead of
the privies (sufficient as privies, if kept in a concU-
ton proper for such conveniences), which are upon
the land for the purposes of his thereon." After such
an expression as this, I cannot myself see how I
can make any order, and I' think if your attention
had been directed to this case, you would not
have proceeded further in the matter.
Mr. Stable—Will your worship give us a case to
' the Court of Queen's Bench, so that we can appeal
against your decision ?
Mr. Barker—Yes, most certainly; but you had
better look at the case I have referred to.

Mr. Lewis applied for costs, as they had been
brought to the court two days.
Mr. Barker remarked that there had been £l2
lOs spent on the premises, and suggested that
nothing more should be said about the question of
costs.

Mr. Lewis said that his client had reaped no
benefit. The work was only completed on the
Saturday. No account was rendered to his client,
but on the Monday following the present summons
was applied: for. He applied for costs because it
was one private individual against a large parish
with plenty of funds, and it was a hardship on his
client.

Mr. Barker said if the costs were pressed for he
must allow them, but he should have thought that
so much work having been done, that would have
been sufficient.

Mr. Stable said he should most certainly apply
for his case within the three days allowed.
Mr. Barker allowed one guinea costs, and dis-
missed the summons.