The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-13 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

Yesterday Mr. Cooper, the honorary secretary to
the Waterman's Company, attended before the Lord
Mayor to prefer a complaint against a man named
Young, for having carried fish in his skiff from a
vessel in the lower part of the river to Billingsgate,
he not being free of the Waterman's Company.
He stated that the free watermen of Wool-
wich and Greenwich, who had served their time,
and were entitled to certain privileges, felt in
a severe manner the consequences arising from
the constant invasion of those privileges by men
who had no claims at all, so that if they did not meet
with protection from the magistrates of London, their
means of support, already greatly diminished by a
great variety of inevitable causes, must be altogether
extinguished.
James Dowse, a free waterman, stated that he re-
sided at Greenwich ; that on the 21st of October he
observed the defendant go alongside a vessel which
had fish on board ; and witness applied to the captain
for an engagement to do the work. The captain said
he did not want any man, as he had one (the de-
fendant). Witness said the defendant was not a free
waterman ; but the captain did not care about that
objection, and employed the defendant, who took the
fish on board his skiff, and landed it at Billingsgate,
for which labour the captain paid him, next day, the
sum of 1/. is.

The evidence having been confirmed by another
free waterman,

J. H. Howe (of the Waterman's Company) was
called upon to prove that the defendant was not a
freeman of the IVaterman's Company. The proof
was given ; and

The LORD MAYOR asked the defendant what he
had to say in his defence P—The defendant declared
that he considered himself to be as good a waterman
as any freeman of the Waterman's Company. It was
true he did not belong to that Company, but he had
a license, which had been granted by the Elder
Brethren of the Trinity, who informed him that it
made him equal to any free waterman, and that he
was at liberty to ply his fare, and do everything else
they did.
Mr. Cooper said the Trinity-house license allowed
the owner of boats to carry passengers, but not goods.
The LORD MAYOR said there was no doubt what-
ever of the violation of the law by the defendant, the
,very wording of whose license by the Elder Brethren
of the Trinity proved that he was not empowered to
carry goods for hire, whatever he might do with
regard to carrying persons. As, however, the de-
fendant might not have known that he was actually
transgressing, the penalty which the magistrate had
the power to inflict should be greatly reduced.

The defendant said he felt inclined to take the case
to the Quarter Sessions.

The complainant, Dowse, said the defendant, and
other men similarly situated, not only constantly in-
terfered with that privilege of the free watermen, but
added insult to injury by threatening to inflict per-
sonal chastisement upon them. The injury was the
actual loss of the means of living.
The LORD MAYOR said the defendant was con-
victed in the penalty of ten shillings.
The defendant repeated that he wished to appeal.
The LORD MAYOR—You had better consider well
before you appeal. You must, if you appeal, produce
this day security in 201. that you will prosecute the
appeal ; and if you do not prosecute it, you, or your
security, must pay that 20/. I have inflicted a very
slight fine, when I had it in my power to inflict a
penalty of 101.
The defendant took the advice, and his promise to
pay on Saturday next was accepted.
A respectable elderly man, named Richard Hold-
ing, appeared to prefer a complaint against one of the
crew belonging to the omnibuses which ply to and
from Gracechurch-street. By some accident the
wrong person was summoned, but that person also
proved to have offended. His name was John Fox,
and his badge number was 906.
_ _

Mr. Holding, who described the affair in so lively
a manner as to cause some mirth, said, " My Lord,
as I was passing along the Cross Keys Inn, in Grace-
church-street, I saw several of the omnibus con-
ductors about the neighbourhood, and one of them,
but not the man at the bar, came up to me, and,
taking me by the shoulder, he said, I say, your
name is Watson, ar'n't it ? Why, you are my father.'
No, it isn't my name,' says I, and I'd be very
sorry to have such a son.'—(Laughter.) So he shook
me again, and said he knew I was his father. Well,
I got away from that gentleman, but not far, when I
saw the defendant, and who was one of the party.
Why,' says the defendant, your name is Watson ;
I know it is. You are Watson. You are a lawyer.
I hate lawyers.'—(A laugh.) I again said that my
name was not Watson. I know it is Watson, you
old —,' says he, and he put his face up to mine ;
and you are a lawyer, and I hate lawyers.' Now I
am no lawyer; I am a miller."—(A laugh.)
The defendant, who had all the appearance of a
larking gentleman of the omnibus fraternity, denied
that he had said a word of an offensive kind.

The LORD MAYOR—The summons charges the
defendant with an assault, which was committed by
another person. If you can find the party who shook
you I shall deal with him, and if you had summoned
this man for using language calculated to lead to a
breach of the peace, I could now fine him to the
amount of 2/. As it is, I must discharge him.
Mr. Holding said he should endeavour to bring
the first offender, who called him father, before his
Lordship.
The LORD MAYOR informed the complainant that
the police would render him every assistance.