The Sun.
London, England, 1844-10-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, Oct. 3.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron POLLOCK.)
Yesterday morning William Nash, an omnibus
proprietor, whose omnibuses run between Bayswater
and the City, was brought up on habeas from the
New Westminster Bridewell, to which prison he had
been committed by Mr. Jardine, one of the magis-
trates of Bow-street, for the period of one calendar
month, on a charge of furious driving, opposite St.
Clement's Church, in the Strand, in the custody of
William M'Ken, one of the warders of the prison.
William Ramsden, a conductor of one of the Shep-
herd's-bush omnibuses, was also brought up before
the same Learned Judge on habeas, from the City
Compter, in order to be discharged, from a conviction
of Mr. Alderman Farebrother, charging him with
wilful misbehaviour in having deceived a passenger
relative to his destination.
Mr. Lewis, of Ely-place, attended on behalf of the
prisoners, and the magistrates' clerk of Bow-street,
and Mr. Martin, from the office of the City Solicitor,
appeared to support the convictions.
It appears that the magistrates of the different
police-offices throughout the metropolis have come to
a resolution, in consequence of the numerous cases of
complaints of furious driving, as well as misbehaviour
of omnibus drivers and conductors, in order to pro-
tect the public from danger, imposition, or incivility,
that in every instance where the offence is fully made
out to their satisfaction that they will commit the
parties complained against to prison, for the period of
one or two months, instead of inflicting a fine, which
the magistrates maintain is not an adequate punish-
ment, as the fines, however heavy, are invariably paid
out of a fund established for that purpose. The City
magistrates have also come to a similar resolution, and
during the last two days, the two prisoners having
been convicted, were accordingly committed for the
above term.
Mr. LEWIS, on behalf of the prisoner Nash, now
argued at some length that the conviction was lost on
the face of it, and that the complaint should have
been made, in accordance with the terms of the Act
of Parliament, within seven days after the offence had
been committed. In this instance the cause of com-
plaint arose on the 20th ult., and that therefore, tak-
ing the following seven days, the complaint should
have been made before the 27th, instead of which it
had been made eight days after, and the magistrate
had no jurisdiction. Mr. Lewis cited a great number
of cases in support of his argument, independent of
which he said he had two other objections to the con-
viction, which conviction he was inclined to think
that his Lordship would at once say was bad in law
The commitment did not describe the description of
vehicle that he was furiously driving; and the
complaint alleged to be on the oath of Mr. Bain-
bridge and others, and the commitment did not specify
that the oath was administered in the presence of the
magistrate, or by him, and therefore he contended
that the magistrate had not shown that he had any
jurisdiction. In the case of " Regina v. King," Mr.
Justice Patteson had clearly laid it down that the
jurisdiction must be distinctly shown, and in that
case, where the want of jurisdiction was apparent on
the face of it, the Learned Judge said that he could
not assume that the magistrate had jurisdiction, and
it was a defect which rendered the conviction bad in
law, and his Lordship consequently discharged the
prisoner.
The Lord Chief BARON intimated that it would be
the more convenient course to hear Mr. Lewis in
Rainsden's case before he gave his decision.
Mr. Lewis informed his Lordship that some of the
points' were the same, which he would not again
argue ; but he would principally rely, that the com-
plaint was made after eight days, and also that the
party alleged to have been deceived with respect to
the route of the omnibus was not the complaining
party, and consequently it was not an offence under
the 28th section of the Metropolitan Carriage Act.
His LORDSHIP overruled most of the objections, but
said that as there were one or two very important
points for consideration, he would not at present pro-
nounce on the legality of the conviction, but would
take a day or two to consider, and should, therefore,
adjourn the case till Saturday, when the prisoners
could again be brought up. The prisoners were then
removed in custody.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Oct. 3.
There were about a dozen cases put down for hearing
before Sir Charles F. Williams, but they were all un-
opposed, and therefore uninteresting.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
A young man, named John Hitchcock, was brought
before the Lord Mayor, charged with having stolen a
great number of pairs of boots in the house of Mr.
Smith, of Barge-yard.
The prisoner, who was in the employment of a
tradesman in the same building, was in the habit of
going into the prosecutor's warehouse, and having in-
curred the suspicion of one of the shopmen, was
seized and searched, and a pair of boots, which were
identified as the prosecutor's, was found in a basket
which he was carrying. The policeman into whose
custody he was given found upon him several dupli-
cates for boots pledged at a great variety of places,
and those boots were ascertained to be the property of
Mr. Smith.—The prisoner was committed for trial.
Two girls, named Ellen Hart and Emma West,
who had very much the appearance of country-bred
girls, were charged with having plundered a shop in
Greenwich of about thirty yards of doe-skin cloth,
value 4/.
Mr. Lowe, jun., who is connected with the shop
which was plundered, stated that the piece of cloth
was exposed at the door, and had been suddenly missed
from the place. The firm had been very often robbed
by shoplifters.
One of the servants of the concern stated, that in
consequence of information which he received, he
went to the railroad, and 'saw the two prisoners go
into one of the carriages. The train was just about
to start at the time, and witness got into another of
the carriages, determined to follow and cause the pri•
soners to be apprehended. Upon the arrival of the
train at the London terminus he saw the two pri-
soners get out and-take a cab, into which they both
went, and as soon as the cab reached Gracechurch-
street he directed a policeman to take them into cus-
tody. At the bottom of the cab the piece of cloth was
found. It was identified.
The prisoners both declared that a woman had
given the piece of cloth to them at Greenwich to take
for her to Aldgate-pump, where she promised to meet
them.
The policemen present, upon being asked whether
they knew the prisoners, replied that they had never
seen either of them before.
The prisoners declared that they had never before
been in such a place, and that they did not know
what it, was to be before a magistrate. They were
committed for trial, and upon being introduced to the
lodge at Newgate, were immediately recognised as
persons who had been tried at the Central Criminal
Court fur shoplifting, at which act it was stated they
were particularly clever.
GUILDHALL.
Two precocious varlets, the one thirteen, and the other
fifteen years of age were placed before Mr. Alderman
Farebrother, charged with picking pockets.
Alderman FAREBROTHER addressing the younger
prisoner—Have'nt we met before ? Prisoner—No, I
never was took before.
Alderman FAREBROTHER—Ob, yes, we did though.
We met in Newgate.
The two juveniles were sent', to where it was sup-
posed they would be better known by the officers.
Sarah Smith, a woman with a child in her arms, was
charged with breaking five squares of glass in the window
of Mr. Butterfield, licensed victualler, Farringdon-street.
The shopman said that the prisoner was in at the bar
yesterday drinking with her husband, and as she was
quarrelsome and fighting he put her outside, when she
broke the windows.
Alderman FAREBROTHER—The husband, having the
money, was kept inside of course. How much did he
drink ?—Only half a pint of beer.
Alderman FAREBROTEIER—Ob, more than that. You
ought to have turned the husband out, and the wife
would then have gone away quietly.
The husband was then called in, and after some few
questions and replies, the Alderman discharged the
prisoner.

CLERKEIV WELL.
BROKERAGE EXTORTION.—Mr. James Pullen, a
broker, residing at 62, Eagle-street, Red Lion-square,
was summoned to answer the complaint of Thomas
Davis, residing at 34, Liquorpond-street, Gray's Inn-
lane.
The complainant deposed that he was a milkman.
He had been distrained upon by Mr. Pullen for rent
due to his landlord, Mr. Gunston, living in tho same