The Sun.
London, England, 1850-10-19 00:00:00

IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF WARD AND GRIFFITHS.

The bankrupts in this case were printers in Far-
ringdon•street, and came up on the question of their
certificate. Mr. Linklater supported the bankrupt
Ward. The balance-sheet shows debts to the amount
of 1,5401., while the good debts and property do not
exceed 3501. The losses, however, by realization of
the stock and machinery, are put down at 1,24 W.
The bankrupts had started with a capital of 2,3001.,
which had been lost in 1847, as well as a further sum
of 1,0001. introduced by a relative of Ward.
The bankrupts failed in October last, when they
executed an assignment for the benefit of their cre-
ditors, to secure an agreed composition which they
were unable to meet, and were made bankrupts in
May last.
Mr. 'ANIMATER referred to the particulars of the
balance-sheet, and said that he could not, under the
circumstances, ask for a certificate of a higher than
second class, to which the assignees were willing to
consent.
Certificates were accordingly granted to each of the
bankrupts.

SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS. Oct. 18.
(Before Mr. E. PENRHYN, Chairman, and Mr. GossE.)
JOHN WATKINS, APPELLANT, 11. A CONVICTION UNDER

THE POLICE ACT.

In this case the appellant, who was the landlord of
the Red Lion public-house, Pearl-row, Southwark,
sought to be relieved from a conviction for harbour.
ing improper characters in his house, under which he
had been fined in the penalty of 51.
Mr. Robinson appeared for the appellant. No•
Learned Counsel was engaged to support the convic-
tion, but an inspector of the M. division of police,
named Townson, attended to produce the necessary
documents, and apparently to conduct the case in
support of the conviction.
The evidence on the part of the police, by whom
the information had been laid, appeared to be, that on
the evening of the 16th of September two constables,
named Hunt and Jones, went into the appellant's
house, and represented that several persons of
bad character, two of them being reputed thieves,
K ere standing drinking in front of the bar.
The appellant was told the character of these
people, and warned that he was not justified
in permitting them to be in his house, end the
constables then went away, and returned two
hours afterwards, when they found two of the
Same persons again standing in front of the bar. Upon

these facts, it appeared that Mr. Jardine, who hap.
pened to be casually sitting at the Southwark Police-
court, under the new regulation regarding the attend-
ance of magistrates at the different police-courts,
convicted the defendant of the offence of " wilfully
harbouring" bad characters, and the present appeal
was brought to try the validity of that conviction.
Upon the cross-examination of the constables it
appeared that two separate informations had been laid
against the appellant for an offence of a similar cha-
racter, alleged to have been committed upon two con-
secutive days, and that the first was dismissed. It
also appeared that after the notice of the present ap-
peal had been given, another information against Mr.
Watkins of the same kind was brought before Mr.
Ingham, and was dismissed by that gentleman. The
constables likewise admitted that upon every occasion
when they went into the house there was not the least
disorder, and that the appellant asked them earnestly
to tell him what he was to do, and said that the people
lived in the neighbourhood, and he did not see how he
could help serving them with refreshment, so long as
they conducted themselves peaceably. It also ap-
peared that they were unable to prove that the persons
they referred to had remained in the house between
the period of the two visits, and they admitted that
it was possible they had left immediately after their
first visit, and had returned when they made their
second.

While the case was proceeding the inspector who
was watchi❑g it repeatedly interfered and suggested
matters which he said the witnesses could prove.
Mr. ROBINSON objected to this description of inter-
ference, and said he hoped the Court would not per-
mit it to be persevered in. There was a proper and
legitimate mode of supporting the conviction if it had
been considered necessary to do so ; and he did not
think that a police inspector ought to be permitted to
interfere.

Mr. SUMNER. said that, as one of the bar, he must
also protest against the inspector taking upon himself
to conduct the case for the respondent, as it affected
the privilege of the bar to pre-audience.
The CHAIRMAN said that the inspector must not in-
terfere any more. The Court was placed in rather an
awkard position by not having any depositions, and
no counsel being employed on behalf of the respondent,
but at the same time it was bound to take care that
the business of the Court was conducted in a regular
manner, and the inspector clearly had no right to in-
terfere in the case.

Mr. ROBINSON then made a very able speech to the
bench on behalf of his client; and
The CHAIRMAN, after a brief consultation with his
colleague, said the Court were of opinion that there
was no evidence to support the allegation that the ap-
pellant had wilfully harboured improper characters,
and they therefore considered that the appeal should
be allowed.

The conviction was accordingly quashed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

LAMBETH.

Henry Thomas Taylor, George Adams,and Charles
Gosling were brought up and placed at the bar before
Mr. Elliott for final examination, on a charge of
breaking into the dwelling-house of Mr. George Stiff,
in Streatham-place, Brixton, and stealing therefrom
301. in gold and silver, a gold box of the value of 40
guineas, and various articles of plate and other pro-
perty.
_ _ _

The particulars of the robbery are briefly these :
On ti e evening of Tuesday, the 24th of last month, a
young man knocked at the door of Mr. Stiff, and
upon being answered by a young woman named
Plowma❑ he said that a serious accident had taken
place at Mr. Stiff's publishing-office in the Strand,
that a considerable weight had fallen upon Mr. Stiff's
housekeeper, and that if her sister wished to see her
alive she must take a cab and proceed there without
delay. The young woman, believing the representa-
tion, locked up the house, took a cab, and pro-
ceeded to the Strand, where she found her sister
quite well, and ascertained that no accident
had taken place. On her return home she
discovered that during her absence the house
had been entered and plundered of the property be-
fore mentioned. From the fact that the gold snuff-
box had been taken from the interior of a pianoforte,
where it had been placed for greater safety, and also
from the circumstance of the prisoner Taylor having
stated to a fellow-workman in the service of Mr. Stiff,
that he would put Costello (a thief) on the house of
his master, suspicion fell on him in the first instance,
and he was taken into custody. Since then it had
been found that he (Taylor) had been seen, on the
evening after the robbery, to enter a notorious re-
ceiving-house in the vicinity of Drury-lane in com-
pany with the prisoner Adams, and yesterday wit-
nesses were in attendance who swore to having seen
Taylor, Adams, Gosling, and Costello (who is at
present in Newgate on a charge of burglary) in front
of Mr. Stiff's house about the time of the robbery.
The prisoner Adams, previous to his apprehension,
made some disclosures to Mr. Stiiif about the rob-
bery, and said he was present when the property be-
came a matter of dispute between thieves.
The depositions established a strong case against
the prisoners, and they were fully committed for trial.