The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-16 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

The usual meeting of the board was held yester-
day ; Mr. J. TIIWAITES in the chair.
On a report being brought up from the Building
Act and General Purposes Committee, recommend-
ing that several officers who had been temporarily
employed in the engineers' and superintending
architects departments be transferred to the at:a
and receive permanent appointments,
The CHAIRMAN, in answer to an inquiry from
Mr. Roche, said that if clerks were temporarily
required in the engineers' department, it was left
to the chief engineer to select a person qualified for
that temporary appointment, and if he was found
to be a meritorious officer, it was considered right
. that he should be placed in that position which
should result in the advantage which ought to be
derived from one office to another. The engineer
asked th6t a temporary officer should be appointed,
and that being so it was left to him to name a per-
some whom he deemed to be fully qualified for the
duties.
Mr. RocHE and several other gentlemen demurred
to the system carried out, but after considerable
discussion the recommendation of the committee
was carried by a large majority.
A report was brought up from the committee on
the Gas Acts, which stated that in consequence of
a communication received by the clerk of the board
from the Home-office, he had attended there and
seen Mr. Clive, the Under-Secretary of State, who
mentioned to him that during the passing of the
bill through Parliament, on representations made by
the City Remembrancer, the question had been
referred to the law officers of the Crown, and they
had given it as their opinion that the works of the
bill excluded the City of London from its operation.
Under those circumstances the committee recom-
mended
that the resolution of the 16th of November,
ordered to be laid before the City authorities, do
remain in abeyance until further orders are received
from the board respecting it.
Mr. ECKELT moved that the report be approved,
and urged that it would be unwise on the part of
that board to place itself in antagonism with the
Government. It was quite clear that a mis-
take had been committed, and it would be well for
them to wait until the commencement of the session
to see what steps the Government would take for
the purpose of rectifying the error. It would also
be unwise to oppose the City of London, as it was
his desire to cultivate friendly feelings with them
when he could do so without sacrifice of feeling or
expenditure of money.
Mr. LEGG seconded the motion.

Mr. DOULTON moved the following amendment :
—" That the Sale of Gas Act, 1859, vests the admi-
nistration of its provisions in justices of the peace
as well in cities as in counties ; that the Amend-
ment Act of 1861 transfers all powers conferred on
the justices, so far as relates to the metropolis, as
defined by the Metropolis Management Act, to this
board, without excepting any portion of its area
from their jurisdiction ; that it has been the inten-
tion of the legislature to entrust the execution of
duties affecting the whole metropolis to this board,
as evinced by the provisions made for its equal re-
presentation. That the Attorney-General has given
his opinion that neither the Commissioners of
Sewers nor the Justices of the. City of London have
power to perform any functions connected with the
Sale of Gas Acts; that this board, therefore, re-
solves that it will take the necessary steps for carry-
ing out the provisions of the Sale of Gas Acts '
within the City; that a communication be addressed
to the justices, acquainting them with such resolu-
tion, and inquiring whether they are prepared to
transfer the apparatus in their possession to this
board, and on what terms ; that it be referred to the
gas committee to give practical effect to the fore-
going resolutions.'

This subject led to a very long discussion, but
eventually the amendment, with a modification of
the second clause, was adopted, that modification
consisting of a declaration that the legislature had
entrusted the board with the execution of duties
affecting the whole metropolis, and that it be re-
ferred to a committee to apportion the various dis-
tricts. The motion was carried by a majority of
16 to 19.

Some routine matters were disposed of, and the
board adjourned.

TILE GREAT _ROBBERY OF SILK ON

THE RIVER.

The numerous investigations that have taken
place at the Thames Police Court, relating to the
plunder of 10 bales of silk on the river on the 14th
of March last, have been confined to the persons
who were alleged to have been dealing with the
silk after it was stolen. One of them, a silk weaver,
named Peter Debock, who was engaged in the sale
of the stolen silk, to John Newton, of Derby, was
convicted at the June sessions at the Central Crimi-
nal Court, and sentenced to 18 months' imprison-
ment and hard labour. Newton and two others,
named Barker and Crane, were acquitted. James
Hunter, formerly landlord of the Red Deer, in
Cambridge-heath-road, Bethnal-green, who sur-
rendered on the sth inst., and has been twice re-
manded by Mr. Woolrych, is alleged to have been
concerned with another publican, named Agg, in
negotiating the sale of the stolen property. Agg
had fled the country, and is not likely to fall into
the hands of the police.
Yesterday the case entered into a new phase.
Charles Turnbull, Edwin Turnbull, and James Gil-
lett, lighterman, and Thomas Smith, a carman and
van proprietor, were brought up for the first time,
at the Thames Police Court, charged with being
concerned in stealing 10 bales of raw silk from the
barge Dorville, on the river Thames.
Mr. Humphreys, jun., of the firm of Humphreys,
Son, and Morgan, Newgate-street, prosecuted on
behalf of the St. Katharine Dock Company ; Mr.
Lewis, jun., of Ely-place, defended the Turnbulls;
and Mr. Stoddart appeared for Smith.
Mr. Humphreys, addressing Mr. Selfe, the pre-
siding magistrate, said the four prisoners at the bar
were charged with stealing 10 bales of silk from
the barge Dorville on the night of the 13th or
morning of the 14th of March. Two of the prisoners,
the Turnbulls, had been in custody before. They
were lightermen, and took the silk out of the barge
while it was lying in the river. Gillett, who was
also a lighterman, was implicated in the robbery, in
getting rid of the silk after it was landed, and ac-
companying it to the house of a man named Barker,
in Hope-street, Bethnal-green. From Hope-street
the silk was conveyed in one of Pickford's vans to
the North London Railway, and it was conveyed
the same night to Derby, where it was afterwards
seized in John Newton's mill. The prisoner Smith
was the proprietor of a horse and van which con-
veyed the silk to Hope-street, and was the person
who drove the van, In consequence of the lateness
of the hour he should only call sufficient evidence to
justify a remand.

John Fred. Martin, Assistant foreman A ware-
house, St. Katharine's Dock, stated that on March
14th last the barge Dorville was brought alongside
the quay, and he tallied the contents out of the barge
on to the quay. There ought to have been 411 bales.
There were only 401, and 10 were missing.
Peter Debock, a convict, who was attended by a
warder of the House of Correction, said—l have just
come from prison, and am under sentence of 18
months' imprisonment. I have given a statement of
the robbery of silk from the St. Katharine's Dock,
in which I was concerned.

Mr. Humphreys-I—Now look at the four prisoners
and say whether they are the persons who commit-
ted the robbery.
, Mr. Lewis objected to this mode of examination.
It was not because a convict bad made a statement
affecting other prisoners that he was to be assisted
hisin
identification
of the accused prisoners.
nolt:itt (/ekow.--ilhknow two of them. Two of them I do
not know ave never seen Smith before. I do
bull and CharlesCitillett Turnbull. I know Edwin Turn-
house, at 12. si I recollect Gillett coming to my
12th March iaata.t.;-street, Bethnal-green, on the
of silk to dispose :Ei said he should have ten bales
your own ?" He maid? daY or two. I said,
send two men who diallreitePlY. He said he would
following day Edwin
know,Tu°llg to the silk. On the
, rnebull and another man
whose name I. do not
sample of silk. I looked at
it
tinae and showed me a
no good to me, it was raw silk, and told them it was
leave home and satisfy others who hey asked me to
I went into Kingsland•road, Shorediet% with them.
van standing there with ten bales of and saw a
Edwin Turnbull and Gillett were both alonigi iil.
of the van.. I said I would try and sell the sikl'er
them if they liked. We went to a public-house op.
post •te`.Shoreditch Church, and had a quartern of
brandy. We then walked as far as the Victory
terns more of brandy.
blic house, and had two gua
public-house, r - ustody, with Edwin was a third man, not in c ,
Turnbull and Gillett, and he asked me to lend him
£2 upon the silk until it was sold. I said, "No, I
will do nothing of the kind." I then walked with
n-
Turnbull and the other men to the Eastern C ou
ties Railway station. By the time we got there
Gillett was gone. On the lath of March the silk
came to the house of my brother in-law, Barker, in
Hope-street, Bethnal-green. On the same day I
went to a yard near Gillett's house. Mr. Agg, Who
was then landlord of the Clown, in St. John-street,
was with me. The silk was weighed there.
Some conversation here ensued as to the necessity
of going further into the case.
Mr. Lewis said he knew the case must be re-
, theandmade
the evidenc some very strong comments on
protestationesof Deboek, who made the most fervent
when he vast innocence at the Old Bailey, and,
hands, and ealleudy. ilt..ed raised his eyes, clasped his
knew nothing of the'God to bear witness that lie
robbery. The st. Katharine

Dock Company had already charged many innocent
persons with being concerned in the robbery, and
he was not surprised other innocent persons were
now charged. Three out of the four committed for
trial were acquitted, after a ten minutes consulta-
tion by the jury.
Mr. Humphreys—At a quarter befil e 12 o'clock
on a Saturday night.
Debock wished to be heard further, and frequently
exclaimed, " I have not half done. You have not
heard me out. You have not heard me out."
He was directed to leave the witness box and be
quiet.
Mr. Stoddart—There is no case against Smith.
He has not been recognised by the convict Debock.
Porter William Dunaway, a police-constable, 129
H, said he went to the house of the prisoner Smith,
at No. 21, Princes-street, Mile-end New Town, on
Thursday night. He there saw Smith. Ho keeps
the yard described by Debock. He has a horse and
light van. He had known Smith two years. He
received information that Smith removed the silk
to Barker's house some time ago.
Mr. Stoddart—My client Smith is a most respect-
able man ; he is employed by the first firms in the
metropolis. The little evidence against him was
from a tainted source, and was not confirmed.
Mr. Lewis said the evidence of a convict ought not
to be taken at all unless it was fully confirmed.
Mr. Humphreys said all the prisoners had been
suspected and watched for six months before De-
bock gave any information. He then called
Mr. numford, superintendent of the St. Katharine
Dock Police, who said he should have material evi-
dence to give against three of the prisoners if they
were remanded. He could not offer any evidence
against Charles Turnbull.
After a prolix discussion, Mr. Selfe discharged
Charles Turnbull, and remanded the other prisoners
for a week,
Mr. Stoddart then tendered bail for Smith, and it
was accepted. Gillett and Edwin Turnbull were
sent away in the prison van.