The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-10 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Nov., 9.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Thomas Brooks, 20, was
charged before Mr. Alderman Wire with having
forged it request for delivery of a cheque-book at
the London Joint-stock Bank.
Mr. F. K. Hewitt, cashier at the London Joint-
stock Bank, said that on the 15th October the re-
quest produced was presented to him over the coun-
ter, purporting to come from Mr. H. C. Groom,
9, Lime-street, who had an account at the bank.
Witness gave the person who presented it a
stamped cheque-book, and took his receipt, which
he signed in the name of " John Robertson,"
but witness could not say whether the prisoner
was that person, his impression being that he
was not. The cheque-book produced was the
one referred to, but twenty-three cheques had
since been cut out. The whole of these cheques
had been presented at the bank, but not paid, as
the forgeries were at once detected. They were all
made payable to newspapers, and purported to be
drawn by parties in the habit of advertising exten-
sively—such as Edwin Smith and Son, Savory and
Son Anthill and Co., and E. Moses and Son, but
E. Moses and Son was the only firm of the whole
who kept an account at the bank.

Jarvis, detective, who had the prisoner in charge,
handed a letter which the prisoner, after being in
custody, addressed to his mother, and which was as
follows : " City, Nov. 8, 1859.
" Dear Mother,—You now see what your unkind
treatment has brought me to. I am taken this day
for forgery, and a good thing too, for I cannot ex-
perience more unhappiness than you have caused me
the last week or two. I hope I shall be sent abroad,
for I never want to see England again. So farewell,
my dear mother; try and forget me. lam very
sorry that you have been troubled with this affair,
but it will be the last time, so good bye ; may God
protect you from any more troubles, and believe me
when I tell you that I am so far gone now that I do
not care what becomes of me. lam now very ill,
and have not had three hours' sleep since I saw you.
I remain, yours, &c., " THOMAS BROOKS.
Mr. Alderman Wire—How comes it that this
letter is signed " Thos. Brooks," when the receipt
for the cheque-book is signed " John Robertson."
Jarvis—Brooks is his right name, I believe. He
has been before eonvicted of a similar offence at the
Old Bailey, and had 12 months for it.
Sergeant Frankling, 23 E, said—From informa-
tion I received, I went last evening to a house in
Little George-street, Hampstead-road, from which I
saw the prisoner come out. I followed him, and told
him I wanted him for some forged cheques, though
I could not tell him how many, as I was not in pos-
session of the facts, and that he must go with me to
see Jarvis, a City detective. He then said," Who are
you, then ?" and I replied, " My name is Frankling.
D.on't you know me ? I am the one that had you in
custody before." He said, " No, I don't recollect
you at all." I put him into a cab, and we drove
towards Bow-lane, but as the cabman did not ex-
actly know where the station was, I put my head
out of the window to tell him where to turn. On
looking round again, I observed that the prisoner
had no hat on. I said, " Where is your hat ?" He
replied, " Oh, it has fallen outside, but never mind;
it is of no consequence ;" and I told the cabman to
stop. I saw a person pick up the hat, which he
gave to me, and on looking inside it, I found this
cap (black velvet), and inside the cap this cheque-
book, with 23 cheques cut out. As soon as he saw
the cap, he said, " Give me the cap," and I gave it
to him, saying at the same time, " Look here, here
is a cheque-book," upon which he said, "I know
nothing about that. Somebody must have put it
into my cap." I then took it to the station.

•
Mr. Alderman Wire—Are you prepared to prove
the forgeries with regard to the 23 cheques?
Mr. Hewitt—We only charge him with forging
the order for the cheque book.
Mr. Alderman Wire—But I think it important
that the forgeries should be traced. The cheques
were all passed away in such shape.
Mr. Hewitt—They all came back to the bank,
either over the counter or through the clearing-
house, but none of them were paid by us.
Mr. Alderman Wire—l must have some evidence
with regard to the forgeries, in which the prisoner
appears not to have been concerned alone.

Jarvis—lf the prisoner is remanded, my lord, I
have no doubt I can get evidence.

Mr. Alderman Wire—Then let him be remanded
for a week.

He was remanded accordingly.

BOW-STREET.—Two bricklayers' labourers,
named John Barry and James Hennetann, men of
largo frame and muscular development, were
charged with being drunk and creating a disturb-
ance at the Lord Nelson public-house, Clement's-
Inn-passage, and assaulting several persons.
One of the committees of the bricklayers and
plasterers now on strike, or " locked out," is held
at the above house, and on Tuesday the men
attended to be paid the allowance they receive from
the union. At about three o'clock the prisoners
and' several other labourers presented themselves
and demanded money. They were told that only
bricklayers and plasterers were paid there, and were
directed by Mr. J. W. Gifford, the treasurer, to go
to their own (the labourers') committee. They then
went away, but shortly returned, burst open the
door of the committee-room, and forced their way
in, declaring that they would not go till they got
some money. Barry made a blow at the treasurer,
who, however, avoided it, and ran to the other end
of the room, carrying his cash-box under his arm.
Mr. S. Gifford, the landlord, and a number of brick-
layers, interfered to protect the treasurer, who ma-
naged to keep himself and his cash-box out of reach.
The landlord, however, received several blows in
the face, blackening his eyes. A bricklayer named
Butcher was knocked down, trampled upon, kicked
about the head and face, and much disfigured.
Another man, named Wm. Tan, and some whose
names were not mentioned, were also assaulted. The
police being called in, speedily put a stop to the dis-
turhance, and took the prisoners in custody, but their
companions (some half-dozen in number) succeeded
in making their escape. The prisoners were drunk.
The prisoners said they were brought there by a
bricklayer, who told them that was the place to get
paid. But they denied that they had commenced
the disturbance, alleging that some man was being
illtreated by the bricklayers, and that they only in-
terfered to protect him.
The landlord and the treasurer both declared
that nothing of the sort had taken place.
Mr. Jardine could have no doubt as to which side
was entitled to credit, seeing that the prisoners were
drunk and the witnesses sober. This could hardly
be 'considered a mere assault ; it amounted to a
positive riot. But, taking into account that they
had never been charged with any misconduct be-
fore, and also that, to men in their position, a few
shillings was as much as so many pounds would be
to some people, it might be sufficient to fine them
40s. each, or in default commit them for 21 days.

CLERKENWELE.—SERIOUS CHARGE OF AS-
SAULT AGAINST A CLERGYMAN.—The Rev. William
Woolhouse Robinson, 1\1.A., the incumbent of Christ
Church, Chelsea, appeared before Mr. Tyrwhitt to
answer a summons which. charged him with unlaw-
fully assaulting and beating pnlice-constable Henry
Tyler, 42 G, while in the execution of his duty.
The complainant said—On Tuesday, the Ist of
November, I had -to execute a warrant for felony
against a female named Rodgers. From informa-
tion I received I went to the house of the defendant,
28, Smith-street, Chelsea, in company with Mr.

Rodgers. The door was opened to me by the de-
fendant, and I asked him if Mrs. Rodgers had
come in. He said " Yes ; she is up in my drawing
room ; will you walk up ?" I was in plain clothes.
I said•l would. I then opened the street door, and

told Mr. Rodgers to come in for the purpose of
identifying the person, Ho followed me up stairs
into the drawing-room, where I saw Mrs. Rodgers.
I asked her her namo in the presence of the defend-
ant. She said her name was Rodgers, and I said,
" I am a police-constable, and I hold a warrant for
your apprehension on the charge of bigamy." I
had no sooner said the words than the defendant
seized.me by the throat with one hand, and put his
other round my neck. His wife clung hold of me
from behind round the waist. I had a very severe
struggle with them, and during the time :Mrs.
Rodgers made her escape, but was afterwards
taken. The defendant and his wife held me in the
drawing-room. When I got to' the foot of the
stairs I found the door locked, and the servant girl
said that Mrs. Rodgers had left the house. Mrs.
Rodgers got over the wall into the next house.
Cross-examined by a solicitor for the defence—l
called at the defendant's house more than once. I
said I wanted to see Mrs. Rodgers, that I had come
from Lincoln's-inn-fields, t;nd that I had a letter of
great importance to give her. After Mr. Rodgers
had gone the defendant asked me to let him look at
my Ay:arrant. I produced the warrant before she
escaped. When the defendant had read the war-
rant he said that Mrs. Rodgers must be taken.
Mr. Thomas Rodgers, an independent gentleman,
residing at Birch Villa, said—l went with the last
witness to the house of the defendant. When the
complainant went up stairs he said to Mrs. Rodgers
" I am a constable, and I apprehend you for felony
or bigamy." The defendant then took hold of his
neckcloth, having his knuckles next his throat. At
the same moment Mrs. Rodgers rushed out. I ran
towards the door, and as I did so I saw Mrs. Ro-
binson seize the constable round the waist. Mr
Robinson (the defendant) also had one arm round
the constable's-neck, and with the other hand he
was holding his'neckeloth.
Cross-examined—l was formerly a clergyman of
the Church of England. The officer produced his

warrant. He was opening the warrant as he went
up stairs. I have been connected with the police.
The solicitor for the defence said he did not think
there was any case to answer.

Mr. Tyrwhitt said the facts of the case lay in a
very small compass, but the law must be asserted
and vindicated. The assault was not violent, and
was the emotion of the moment. He should fine the
dekndant 10s. to mark the impropriety of the act.

MARYLEBONE.—ROBBERY BY A SERVANT.—
Thomas Loftus Wa3 placed at the bar charged with
having robbed his master, Edifard Dresden, Esq.,
2, Devonshire-place, Portland•place, of property of
different descriptions.
It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner
had for misconduct received notice to quit, and that
on‘ the previous night prosecutor told him that he
should make an examination of the plate, &c., in
order to ascertain if everything was correct, when
he admitted that he had pledged a number of
knives, as also plated spoons, forks, &c., at the
same time giving up 13 duplicates, and- alleging
that it was his intention to have redeemed the
whole of the things as soon as he was able. The
prisoner was then given into the custody of Ser-
geant Knight, 19 D.

Some of the stolen property was produced by
pawnbrokers and identified by the prosecutor, and
the prisoner, against whom there will on another
day be a charge preferred for obtaining goods under
,false pretences, was remanded till Wednesday next.

LAMBETH. -- BUILDERS' STRIKE. —THREATS
AND INTIMIDATION.—Stephen Jenkins, Wm. Stan-
ley, and George Davis, journeymen bricklayers,
appeared before Mr. Elliott, to answer to summonses
taken out against them by John Roy, and charging
them with having unlawfully used towards the
complainant certain threats and intimidation for the
piirpose of forcing him to belong to a certain asso-
ciation of bricklayers, and to contribute to a common
fund thereof and pay certain fees in relation thereto,
against the statute, &c.
Mr. Chipperfieldappeared on behalf of the com-
plaint, and Mr. Lewis, jun., for the defendants.
The former gentleman, in opening the case, read
the following applicable and appropriate extract
from the able addrees of the late Sir W. Tindal to
the grand jury in the memorable Stafford Combi-
nation Case :—" In the case supposed (said his lord-
ship), that is,, a dispute between the masters and
the workmen as to the proper amount of wages to
be, given, it was probably thought by the Legisla-
ture that if the workmen on the one part refused
to work, or the masters on the other refused to em-
ploy, as such a state of things could not continue
long, it might fairly be expected that the party
must ultimately give way whose pretences were
not founded on reason and justice—the masters if
they offered too little, the workmen if they demanded
too much. But unfo'tunately for themselves and
others, those who were discontented did not rest
kre. Not satisfied with the exercise of their own
right to withhold their own labour, if they were
discontented with the price they received for it,
they assumed the power of interfering with the
right which others possessed of exercising their
discretion upon the same point; and accordingly
you will have numerous cases here before you in
which large bodies of dissatisfied workmen in-
terfere by personal violence, and by threats
and intimidation, to compel others who were per-
fectly willing to continue to labour in their calling
at the rate of wages then paid, to desist from their
work against their own will, to add themselves to
the number of the dissatisfied party ; than which a
more glaring act of tyranny and despotism by one
set of men over another cannot be conceived. If
there is one right which, beyond all others, the la-
bourer ought to be able to call his own, it is the
right of the exertion of his own personal strength
and skill in the full enjoyment of his own free will,
altogether unshackled by the control or dictates of
his fellow-workmen. Yet, strange to say, this very
right which the discontented workman claims for
himself to its fullest extent, he does, by a blind per-
versity and unaccountable selfishness, entirely re-
fuse to his fellows who differ in opinion from him.
It is unnecessary to say that a course of proceeding
so utterly unreasonable in itself, so injurious to so-
ciety, so detrimental to the interests of trade, and
so oppressive against the rights of the poor man,
must be gross and flagrant violation of the law, and
must be put down, when the guilt is established, by
a pioper measure of punishment." In conclusion,
Mr. Chipperfied said he had no doubt that after
hearing the evidence he should place before him,
his worship would be satisfied that a gross violation
of the law had taken place in the case before him,
an'd serious injury and injustice done to his client.
Mr. Elliott, finding that the offence was not fully
set but in the summonses, amended the charge by
adding to it the words in the same clause in the
statute; and which he was empowered to do by the
provisions of Jervis's act. viz., " That if any person
shall, by violence to the person or property, or by
threats or intimidation, or by molesting, or in any
way obstructing another, force or endeavour to force
any journeyman, workman, or other person hired
or employed in any manufacture, trade, or business,
to depart from his hiring employment, oa work, and
every person so offending, or aiding, or abetting, or
assisting therein, being convicted thereof, shall be
imprisoned and may be kept to hard labour for sny
term not exceeding three calendar months.'
The complainant, John Roy, who appeared a very
decent and intelligent man, was here sworn, and de-
posed that on the morning of the 2d he was employed
by Mr. Hunt, who is building some cottages in
Montpelier-road, Camberwell, to go to work on the
building as a bricklayer. On that day nothing par-
ticular took place. On the following day (Thurs-
day) the 3d, on his returning to the building from
his dinner, and while standing close to the building,
the defendant called to him and asked him if he
was not a " black " He asked him what he meant,
and Stanley repeated the question, when he replied
he was a bricklayer. Stanley next ask,rd him if he
belonged to their society, and on his saying he did
not, he told him a was a -- black, and that none
of the men, would work with him. Witness replied
that he (Stanley) did not employ him, and he pro-
ceeded to the scaffold where he had been at 'work,
but was told that no materials should be brought to
him, and Stanley said that if he came down he would
put his head in a parcel of slush, and that such fel-
lows as him should be burned alive. Jenkins, who
acted as foreman, asked him if he was a black, and ,
to join the society, saying that if he gave one of the
other men a shilling they would propose him, after
which he could pay his fees and then go on with
his work. lie replied he always held himself inde-
pendent, and never received any of the society's
money, and he did not see why the society should
have his. Jenkins then said that the men would not
workewith him, and that he must, therefore, take
his money and be off. He said he thought himself
entitled to a day's wages under the circumstances,
and should not leave the building until discharged.
Jenkins repeated that the men would not work with
him, and calling all the workmen present together,
put it to i show of hands as to whether he should
remain in the building, and all them, about 20 in
number, held up their hands against him. The de-
fendant, Davis, abused him very much, called him a
vagabond, and said he ought to be ashamed of him-
self, He also said he should not work there or any-
where else that he could prevent, for that he was a
black."

Mr. Elliott—What is meant by a black ?
Complainant—A black, Sir, is a man who goes to
work at it job while the persons formerly engaged
on it are on strike. Some years ago the men on a
job at Price's candle manufactory struck for 6d. a-
day, and I went to work at the old price, ss. a-day,
and from that time I have been called a black. It is
the practice with the society men to put the name
of a black, as they have placed mine, on a list, and
send it round to all the society's houses, so that it
may be called over every three months.
Chipperfield—Did you see Mr. Hunt, who
bad employed you, before you left the building ?
Witness—Yes, he came to me and said he was very
sorry, and that it was a great pity the difference be-
tween the men was not settled, and that it was not
his fault. I complained to him (Mr. Hunt) of the
manner in which I had been treated, and told him
I should come to this court for redress, a course
which he approved of.
The witness was cross-examined at some length
by Mr. Lewis, who failed to elicit anything mate-
rial from him.

The next witness called was Mr. James Henry
Hunt, who said he took the complainant Roy on
the work, and that the defendants .were also em-
ployed by him on the same buildings. On Thurs-
day, about 10 o'clock, the defendant Jenkins, who
was employed to keep the men's time, came to him
and said there was a man on the building, and the
other mgn refused to Work with him, and that he
had been struck against before on some other job.
I told him I did not wish to interfere, but at the
same time I wanted my work done. I went to the
scaffold where Roy was, and said it was Tel y un-
pleasant for me to hear the contentions between

iheni and he said it was very hard to be driN e
from his work, and that he had been called vile

names by them, and that they had used insulting
language towards him, but this I did not hear. I
told him that if he bad been insulted he had the
law to protect him. I heard the defendant Stanley
call Roy a black. When Roy went away the others
then went to work.

This was the case on the part of the complainant,
and

Mr. Lewis, in reply, contended that the defen-
dants bad a perfect right to object to work with
the complainant if they thought fit, and in anything
they had done, as he Should be able to show by evi
dente, they had not violated the law. He then
called and examined at considerable length three of

the men who had been present, but their testireony fact
did not alter, in any material degree, the s
sworn to by the complainant, except their denyisi
re
that violence, threatening, or abusive language fused
been used. Two of the witnesses said they fuses
to work with the complainant because he ~.*fr, of
" black," and a third said his objection was tw"
the complainant signing the document.
After a lengthened investigation, been
Air. Elliott remarked that there was, as hau
mentioned by Mr. Lewis, a most important Poi
ciple involved in these class of cases, and 008 ,
much deeper interest to the men, if they could oni
see it, than to the masters. He (Mr. Elliott)ht
it to be a violation of the law, and he said so P:
phatically, that a number of men should, by re'e,„
ing to work with him, get a workman. or inechar7e,
discharged from his employment. The law-gin
them the power to make certain rules, and lu'a not
the best price for their labour, but yet it W the
sanction proceedings such as those adopted in
and
present case. He then sentenced Jenkine
Stanley to one month, and Davis to 14 dais!
prisonment. t the
Mr. Lewis at once entered an app en- Ling
Quarter Sessions, and the necessary bail "iv' ere
been tendered and accepted, 'the defendants
for the present set at liberty.