The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-27 00:00:00

so situated, and he considered it quite sufficient to point out
the circumstance to a police-officer without the fear of being
made a prisoner. He had consulted several persons upon the
subject, and their impression was that the highest penalty
ought to be inflicted; but he would mitigate the fine to 3/.,
or imprisonment for three weeks.
The defendant immediately paid the fine, and he was dis-
charged.
Mr. Hogg repeated that he came forward on public
grounds; and, as it would not be worth his while to bring
an action against the Commissioners, he wished to know if
the defendant would be allowed to remain in the force after
such conduct?
Mr. TWYFORD said he had no control over such matters,
which rested entirely with the authorities at Scotland-yard.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Thnrhday George Craig, shopman in the service of Messrs.
Butler, haberdashers, in High-street, Shoreditch, whose
former examination, on the charge of obtaining money under
false pretences, by uttering vouchers for the payment of small
sums, denominated " premiums," and " shaving tickets," we
published on Friday week, was again brought up before Mr.
Bingham for final examination.
The solicitor for the prosecution (Mr. Shepherd, we be-
lieve) then stated, that having been consulted by his client,
1 Mr. Butler, who had placed the documents alleged to be
forged in his hands, he did not think, upon examining them,
that a sufficiently strong case could be grounded upon them
to support an indictment against the prisoner, and lie had
therefore felt called upon to advise his client not to proceed
any further with the prosecution. No further evidence would
consequently be offered, and he should now leave the case in
the Magistrate's hands.
Mr. BINGHAM said, if that was the case, the prisoner must
be discharged, as none of the evidence as yet given had been
supported by any confirmatory testimony, which it was in-
dispensable should be produced to carry the case any further.
The prisoner was then discharged, and congratulated by.
several respectable friends who were present.
Another case arising out of this came before the Magis-
trate in the early part of the week, the %hort facts of which
were as follows :—A labouring man named John Charlton
was charged with exhibiting a printed placard opposite the
shop of the prosecutor in the last case, and thereby causing a
large crowd to assemb!e.

Sir. Lloyd, the prosecutor's head shopman, stated that at
half-past seven on Saturday evening, he saw a crowd of
several hundred people congregated in front of his employers'
shop, and, as the attention of everybody appeared to be di-
rected to their premises, he went to the door to ascertain tho
cause of it, and saw the prisoner marching about the pave-
ment, bearing on his shoulder a pole, at the top of which
was a large board, having on each side of it an equally large
placard, on which were displayed, in fancy capital letters, two
poetic lines, importing that any ladies who had been well
" shaved"at that shop before, might be so again, if they chose,
but that gentlemen who were so disposed must call next door.
The instant the witness showed himself at the door he was
received with such shouting and jeering by the mob, that
unable to endure it, he was obliged to retire. Mr. Butler's
brother, however, went out and spoke to the prisoner, desir-
ing that he would move away, or he should be obliged to give
him into custody. The prisoner at first appeared willing to
go ; but, as soon as he attempted to move, he was stopped'
by several well-dressed men, who told him to stay where
he was, and, whatever were the consequences, they
would " stand the racket." The prisoner, therefore.
obstinately maintained his position, and although spoken
three times to by a policeman, still refused to leave. At this
moment a half-drunken costermonger rushed into the
shop, and, after using some insulting observations to
a lady who was seated at the counter, flung down one of
the noxious placards before her, and ran rapidly out
again, loudly cheered as he came out by the crowd
for the action. As the street was now rendered perfectly
impassable, and it was impossible either that any other
customers could enter the premises, or those already there
could leave them with safety, however unwilling to do so,
Mr. Butler was compelled to send for a constable and give
the prisoner into his custody. Mr. Lloyd, in conclusion,
stated, that as the publication of the proceedings in the case
of the impeached shopman, Craig, had given rise to a great
deal of comment by the public, which was greatly prejudicial
to his employer, Mr. Butler, he wished to be allowed to give
a short explanation, which Mr. Butler had requested him to
make, relative to the practice of " shaving the ladies," as it
was termed, and which was, in substance, that Mr. Butler
being in the habit of purchasing bankrupts' stocks and other
goods at a cheap rate, was accustomed to retail them at a
price equally low, and that to encourage his shopmen in re-
commending goods somewhat out of season to customers, lie
had consented that they should receive the same advantages
as other shopmen employed in other houses did ; but this
practice only extended to three or four descriptions of arti-
cles, and on those the allowance never exceeded 5 or 6 per
cent. ; while the goods were sold at a greatly reduced price.
He hoped this explanation would receive the same currency
as the compulsory and imperfect explanation he had before
given had received.

Mr. BINGHA3I said he had nothing to do with this, and
called upon the prisoner for his defence.
The prisoner said he had been employed by a neighbour of
the prosecutor to carry the placard, which he was told re-
lated to a hairdresser down a court adjoining, and' was in-
tended to draw custom to his shop; but he was certainly, he
said, very much astonished at the amazing interest the pub-
lic appeared to take in the success of the barber. He only re-
ceived Is. for the job, and was sorry now he had had anything
to do with it.

Mr. BINGHAM told him he was liable to a fine of 403. un
der the Police Act, but as he had acted under a misappre
hension, and was evidently the tool of other parties, hi
should discharge him on his recognisance not to offend that
way again.