The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-19 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 19.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Frederick William Web-
ster, a broker, was charged before the Lord Mayor
with robbery under the following circumstances :
W. Henry Clarke—l am an accountant and re-
side at 5, Brunswick-square. In the early part of
October last I employed the prisoner to value some
office furniture, at No. 1, Anchor-alley. He noticed
a quantity of charcoal there, and asked if it was for
sale. I replied that it had been consigned to me
from Ireland for that purpose • that he might take
a- sample of it, and if he could get a customer I
would let him know the price. He accordingly took
a sample. I paid him for his valuation, and saw
nothing further of him till I received from him a
note, on which were the words " credit charcoal
55." with his signature. I then ascertained from
the landlord of the premises that the prisoner had
taken away the charcoal, which he had no autho-
rity to do. •
The Lord Mayor inquired how much charcoal
there was, and its value.
Prosecutor—There were about 20 bushels. It is
a new smokeless charcoal, and it cost me about 2/.
for its package and freight from Ireland. I met
the prisoner in the street an hour ago and gave him
into custody.
Prisoner—My lord, I can prove, I am sure, to
your entire satisfaction that he gave me authority
to sell the charcoal, and the reason why he has
given me into custody is that I have taken out a
summons against him for U. lls., the balance of
my charge of two guineas. The case is to come off
at Wandsworth County Court to-morrow, and he
wants to prevent my being there to establish my
claim. (To the prosecutor.) Did you not give me
authority to sell the charcoal by auction ?

Prosecutor—Certainly not.
Prisoner—The night previous to the sale did you
not receive a notice from me, that unless you fixed
a reserve the charcoal would be sold by auction for
what it would. fetch 1
Prosecutor—No.

Prisoner—Did you not receive a bill from me
after the sale, in which I told you to deduct 7s.
from my account, less 2i. expenses ?
Prosecutor—l believe there was something of
that sort on the note. _ _ _

The prosecutor then called into the box the land-
lord of the premises for the purpose of supporting
his charge. The witness, however, swore most
positively that the prosecutor had authorised him
to deliver the charcoal to the prisoner whenever he
chose to take it away.
The Lord Mayor—Prisoner, you are discharged.
Prisoner—l trust, my lord, you will do me the
justice to say that I leave the court without a stain
on my character. I declare most solemnly that
my county court summons against Clarke has been
the real reason of his giving me into custody.
The Lord Mayor—All I can •say is that the
charge against you is not proved.

GUILDHALL—Richard Paternoster, barrister-
at-law, was charged with publishing a libel on a
police-constable. Mr. Sleigh appeared for the de-
fence ; Mr. Lewis, of Ely -place, for the prosecution
The libel which the defendan twas charged with
was the following letter, received by the Commis-
sioner of Police :

"M. Temple, 3d Dec., at 2 p.m. Fountain-court.
"A boy plays with a ball as he goes along in the
court of the Temple. He makes no disturbance. No.
384 coming up, steals the boy's ball and walks away.
I think, so tar as I c)uld see, he pec it in his pocket.
He does not turn the boy c4it for noise or disturbance,
or playing ; the boy remains there. Finding he is
dett:ctel, and his number about to be taken, he gives up
to the boy nis ball, in the while I am going down stairs
after him. Then he has his number taken. Now,
then, is this &so in execution of his duty—to be coining
in hero to thieve 2 It he had done right in taking the
ball why did he give it up? If wrong, the sooner such
a clalracter is struck off duty hi the Temple the better.
We don't want thieves here under pretence of protecting.
No doubt at all of the fact that he would have kept the
ball if he had not been found out—probably for his own
children it he has any.—l make the above report.
" RICHARD PATIRHOSTER, Barrister-at-law.
" 2, Essex-court, Temple, Dec. 4 "
After witnesses had been called to prove the
publication and handwriting,
Philip Monk was examined, and said—l am a
police-constable, No. 334, and have lately been
doing duty in the Temple. I have been on duty
there about three months. On the 3d of the
present mouth I saw a boy in the Temple playing
with two marbles, bowling them along the pave-
ment one after the other. From a conversation I
bad with the boy, I took one of the marbles away,
but I did not put it in my pocket. I afterwards
returned it to him.

Cross-examined—The boy was by himself play-
ing with the marbles.

lir. Sleigh—l suppose there is no great harm in
playing at marbles.
Witness—He was making a noise with them, and
laughing, and our orders are to prevent any noise
being made.

Mr. Sleigh—There is no great harm in laughing
in the Temple. I should think the place is dull
enough.
Witness—l am ordered to act as I have done.
Mr. Sleigh—There is not much to do in the
Temple, is there ? There is not much variety ?
You have not made any arrests during the three
months you have been there ?
Alderman Wire—They are there to scare the
disorderly characters away.
Mr. Sleigh—Was not this boy the child of one
of the porters of the Temple ?
Witness—l have since found he was.

Mr. Sleigh—Aid do you consider it your duty
to put his marble in your pocket and walk away
with it ?

Alderman Wire—That is hardly a fair way of
putting the question.
Witness—This took place under the defendant's
window, but I neither saw nor heard him at any
time while I had the marble is my possession. I
did not walk more than three or four yards before
I returned the marble to the boy. After I had
given the boy his marble the defendant came up
and took my number, but did not say what for. He
said nothing about a marble.
Mr. Lewis—He speaks of a ball in his letter.
Mr. Sleigh—Ob, yes, but that is a mistake.
Witness—The defendant is constantly annoying
tls,_

appeal to
tiir fined—The boy did not cry or make any
Re_„arra.
not to Play
with.
olutant, and upon his promising
with the defendant,
him his marble again, I I afterwards saw him talk-
ingra again in the Temple I gave
Mr. Sleigh ceocinetoent that the letter in question
actinion. from a person feet:
was 4 privileg
bons. fide spirit,
jog himself wronged and
stitutto
aaupderassosnucinh authority!,:::te
.forro.
of a
com-
plaint, P 7 be construed into
a libel. He repudiated the charge of malice or any
intention to injure the complainant, and concluded