The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-30 00:00:00

GRAVESEND POLICE.

AUG. 25.—Samuel Rowe and George Reid, servants
of the Star Steam-packet Company, appeared before
the bench of Magistrates at the Justice-room, Graves-
end (present L. P.' Staff, Esq., Mayor ' • R. Oakes,
C. Spencer, R. P. Cruden, E. Tickner,, and J. Smith,
Esqs.), to answer certain complaints made by officers
appointed by the Commissioners of Lamps and Pave-
ments, under their Act for the prevention of nuisances
and annoyances. The charges in the summonses
were for standing within the doorway of the Star
Company's offices delivering bills, and directing the
passers-by to the Terrace-pier and Star boats. There
were five offences charged against Rowe, and one
against Reid. The Justice-room was densely
crowded, and among the number present were the
major part of the Directors of the Star Company, two
of whom, Messrs. Cruden and Tickner, were on the
bench as Magistrates of the borough. Mr. South-
gate attended as solicitor on the part of the com-
plainants, Mr. Matthews as solicitor for the defen-
dants. Samuel Rowe having been called,
Mr. Cruden, addressing his brother Magistrates,
said—Mr. Mayor, before this case is called on, I wish
to address a few observations to my brethren on the
bench. Situated as I am (Chairman of the Star
Company), I have come to the conclusion not to ad-
judicate upon the subject of the complaints now about
to be brought before you ; my observations, there-
fore, will be directed to the general character of these
proceedings. These cases, like the preceding ones,
have arisen from the reduction of the steam-boat
fares, and the competition of the piers. The
reduction of fares by the Diamond Company was
necessarily followed by a similar reduction in the
packets of other companies. The Diamond Company
took passengers from the Town-pier for 9d. each, and
in their advertisements engaged to carry passengers to
London, calling at Blackwell, but not informing them
that an extra charge would be made for their journey
by the railway to London. Not so the Star Company;
their announcements were, that the fare throughout,
by boat and rail, to London, was 9d. also. It be-
came an act of justice to the public, to inform them
of the deception attempted to be practised upon them
by the Diamond Company, who are under the pro-
tection of the Corporation. The Town-pier is made
subservient to that Company; even the pier bell is in
their keeping. (Upon some observation being made
by Mr.:Oakes), Mr. Cruden observed—Mr. Mayor,
Reasonable argument I can respect, but I cannot, and
will not, endure rude interruption. Mr. Oakes is
perfectly welcome to enjoy his pleasure and amuse
himself, but not by playing a running bass to my
treble. I feel that I am only doing my duty to the
borough, and to the public at large, in entering upon
the subject. Another of the delusions practised by
the Diamond Company, was the announcement on
the Corporation boards, at the Town-pier, that the
" Ruby," their crack boat (and I am very happy to
bear my testimony to the high character of that boat),
would leave the pier at a certain hour, when, in fact,
that vessel was not at Gravesend, and even when she
was off the station for repair, an old discarded boat
is substituted, and the passage is consequently a
very long one ; the deception practised is a
most unworthy and often repeated expedient, yet
the Corporation never interfere to protect the public.
The defendants are summoned for attempting to
counteract these frequent delusions as to the fares,
and for giving the useful and necessary information
that the boats from the Terrace.pier do, as their an-
nouncements express, convey the public without the
possibility of extra charge from Gravesend to London
by the route of the railway. For this offence these
persons have been and are now again brought here,
and the summonses, being multiplied in the way we
now observe, appear to me to savour much of perse-
cution. I feel, therefore, that I am acting rightly,
even at this eleventh hour, in interposing to make a
proposition to the Bench. The defendants complain
that the decision of this Bench is not likely to be
guided by that justice they ought to receive and have
a right to demand. On former occasions, of a like
nature, evidence has been extorted from the witnesses
against the defendants by leading questions put to
them most unfairly from the Bench. Now these
witnesses, being your officers or servants, street-
keepers, or what you like to call them, ought to be
permitted to act without intimidation, and without
these efforts, at least from the Bench, to elicit testi-
mony adverse to the defendants, and from which they
(the defendants) are led to question the impartiality
of the Bench. The defendants have previously re-
quested that their alleged offences might be ad-
judicated by the county Magistrates; the applica-
tion was refused upon the plea that one of the county
Magistrates was an interested party, being a Direc-
tor of the Star Company. Is Rochester justice to be
measured by the Gravesend standard? My brother
Magistrates have moreover upon former occasions
hesitated to adjudicate upon similar charges that had
been preferred, from an apprehension of the pecuniary
liability they might entail by the expenses of sustain-
ing the convictions upon appeal. But a public body
is set in motion—the Commissioners of Pavements
came most opportunely to their aid with the public
purse. And I must be allowed to say, without for
one moment being supposed to question the integrity
of Mr. Southgate, that it does seem a little odd that
the secretary of the Diamond Company should be
found here as the solicitor of the Commissioners pro-
secuting the present defendants. I have my doubts
as to the legality of the decisions in the previous cases.
The defendants, I contend, have committed no illegal
offence; for, if so, by a parity of reasoning, every
shopkeeper who, within his own doors, announces his
goods for sale, is offending. And the plea that the in-
timation given by the defendants caused a crowd to
assemble on the footpath is untenable ' • for, in this case
every picture or carricature shop in London, or pre-
mises making a display: of goods for sale, create the
same inconvenience, and yet we hear of no prosecution
in such cases. One of the very Commissioners, pro-
secutors now, is equally an offender by placing him-
self upon the pavement in front of the door of the Star
office, and byoccupying the footpath compelling passers-
by to turn into the road. Under all the circumstances,
of the case, with the well known fact that all the
inhabitants of Gravesend are more or less biassed as
regards the two piers, or the two great Steam-packet
Companies (and if Mr. Oakes and Mr. Spencer are
not influenced by such bias, I will venture to assert
that they are the only persons in the town exempt
from it), I feel it my duty to recommend that the
summonses be withdrawn, and that the cases may be
taken before the county Magistrates, with whose
decision, adverse or favourable, the defendants
would be satisfied; and as a further reason for sug-
gesting this course I may state that negotiations be-
tween the Diamond and Blackwell Railway Directors
are in progress, by which probably an end may be
put to the existing competition and consequently to
the practices complained of.
' Mr. Matthews, the solicitor to the Star Company,
then made a formal application to the bench to permit
the five informations against Rowe, and the one
against Reid, to be adjudicated by another tribunal.
Mr. Southgate, for the complainants, said he should
claim the right to oppose such a measure even if the
Magistrates expressed a willingness to accede to the
application.
Mr. Matthews, in continuation, observed that the
grounds of his application involved a question of
revenue to the two piers and the two Steam-boat
Companies.
The Magistrates on the bench were directly or in-
directly interested. The Mayor is a Commissioner
of Lamps and Pavements and principal prosecutor.
Messrs. Oakes and Spencer are bondholders on the
Town-pier, and as such are interested in a pecuniary
manner by the exertions of the defendants tending to
promote the success of the rival pier. When the tide of
public favour set towards the Town Pier, no officers
appeared, no complaints were made; but when the
public were informed that the passengers by the
Diamond Company's boats had to pay the rail in addi-
tion to the advertised fare, disgusted with the de-
ception practised upon them, they sought the Terrace-
pier boats, because they were cheap, and their
arrangements were carried out with good faith. The
giving the public this information, which they re-
quired and ought to receive, is the offence with which
his clients were charged. They contend that the subject
of complaint was not an offence in law, yet if; after a
proper consideration and adjudication, they were cen-
sidered guilty, they would bow to the decision, and
abate the practice ; but such proper consideration
could not be given by Magistrates who were inter-
ested. He could not conceive it possible to obtain
justice under such circumstances. There was another
ground upon which he rested his application for hav-
ing the cases heard before another tribunal, which'
necessarily compelled him to state, that upon a recent
conviction in a similar case, which he attended to
defend, the Mayor and Mr. Oakes acted in a manner
in their magisterial capacity with which he did then
and must again express himself greatly dissatisfied.
After the examination in chief of the witnesses for the
complainants, and without waiting for the cross-
examination, these Magistrates chose to interfere
with leading questions in a most objectionable man-
ner, by which answers to the prejudice of the de-
fendants were obtained. Their self-interest would,
he trusted, lead the Bench to consider the delicacy of
their situation, and allow the cases to be heard before
the county Magistrates. They had the undoubted
power to do so if they thought fit.
In answer to an observation from Mr. Southgate,
Mr. Matthews said that lie did not doubt the le-
gality of the Mayor, being a Commissioner, sitting to
adjudicate.
Mr. Southgate said that he had never adverted to
the circumstance whence had arisen the nuisance
complained of. The offences charged against the de-
fendants were an evasion of the statute, as the Com-
missioners had been advised by counsel. He had
merely to prove that the acts complained of were com-
mitted by the defendants, not whether they arose from
steam-boats or rail, and that they were offences
against the law. For the judgment and integrity of
the:Bench he had the highest opinion, and he never