The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-17 00:00:00

his evidence was corroborated by Wiliam Dunn, a
park-constable, who was with hit). Neither of the
constables had any recraection of seeing the de-
fen:lant in the par!: except on this occasion.
Mr. Parry contended that the legal offence.had not
been made out, inaKnuch as the evidence did not go
far enough to show that the defendant had "inten-
tionally" insulted any one.
' Mr. BINGHAM could not presume to doubt the
evidence that had been tendered. With respect to
the point raised by the Learned Counsel, that the
legal offence had not been male out because no suffi -
cient proof of" intention" to insult had been .brought
forward, it had been constantly laid down in criminal
courts and in the superior courts, that a man must
be presumed in law to intend that which is the neces-
sary consequence of his actions. As the defendant was
not known, and was a young man, he would allow
those circumstances to operate towards a mitigation of
the term of imprisonment.

The defendant was then convicted as a rogue and
vagabond, and sent to prison and hard labour for six
weeks.

Mr. Parry gave notice of appeal. Bail was applied
for. Mr. Bingham fixed the amount in 1001. two
sureties, and 2001. the defendant himself.

A merchant living at Gordon-house, Clapham, and
a relative in the Middle Temple-lane offered them-
selves, and their bail was accepted.
About forty summonses were heard at this court
against cab drivers t.nd omnibuses for loitering and
other small offences. The police were in every instance
the informers.

Mr. Hardwick, one of the Hammersmith omnibus
proprietors, and one of the defendants, complained
that he had been served with no less than twenty-
eight of these summonses for stopping two or three
minutes at the White Horse, Piccadilly, without
having had the least intimation of the new rules
issued to the police. He also complained that the
omnibuses of the other companies were not summoned,
but that the Hammersmith companies bad only
been selected. The omnibuses had only done what
they had been in the habit of doing for years past,
and which he believed had been sanctioned by the
magistrates. It was, therefore, rather hard for the
police, without any warning whatever, to get twenty-
eight
cases all at once, some eight days old, when
one case would have been quite sufficient for their
purpose.

Mr. 13INGHAM said the law did not permit omni-
buses to stand even for a minute in the public streets
if not engaged in setting down or taking up passen-
gers.

Mr. Leadley, the chief clerk, mentioned to Mr.
Bingham that an arrangement had been come to by
the magistrates who formerly sat in this court, which
tolerated the standing of omnibuses at the White
liorpe for two or three minutes, as that was the half
journey, and was found to be of great public conve-
nience.

Mr. limo HAM thought, under the circumstances of
the case, the police ought to take the expenses in one
case only, and withdraw the other twenty-seven sum-
monses. As to the charge of favouriti%m, he could
not believe it could be substantilted, as his time was
for two days in the week taken up with these cases,
which embraced every class of hackney vehicles and
omnibuses.

Seven more summonses served in court on Mr.
Hardwick were alio ordered to be included in the
above arrangement.

LAMBETH.

Mr. john IJfaddle, whose name has been frequently
before the public within the last few months, in conse-
quence of the mysterious death of his housekeeper,
Sarah Snelling, during his absence at church, attended
before Mr. Norton to answer to a summons, calling
upon him to show cause why he detained seven gowns
and other articles of wearing apparel, the property of
the late Mrs. Sarah Snelling ; and also thirty shil-
lings in money belonging to the deceased, which he
held in his hands since the death of hii housekeeper.
The whole of the circumstances having been before
brought under the cognizance of the magistrate, when
the application for the summons had been made to
him, he, Mr. Norton, asked Mr. Maddle his objection
to deliver the property to the complainant in the case,
who it was not denied was the daughter of the de •
deceased, and who was in Mr. Norton's opinion en-
titled to it ?

Mr. Maddle, in reply, said that his only wish in the
matter was that of giving the property to the rightful
owner, and had therefore requested the brother of his
late housekeeper to take out letters of administration,
when he should at once have given up the things. This,
however, was refused, and having a good deal of trou-
ble in the matter, it was his wish not to let any on©
have the wearing apparel and goods excepting those
strictly entitled to them.
The complainant produced a note from her uncle,
in which he relinquished all claim in her favour, and
Mr. Maddle ultimately consented, on the strong re-
commendation of the magistrate, to give up the
goods and money, and thus the matter has terminated,
and both parties left the court apparently perfectly
satisfied.