The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-06 00:00:00

Upon his cross-examination by the prisoner's so

citoi, the witness said the prisoner introduced him to
the berth, but not without hesitation. The prisoner
trembled very much when he saw what was going
forward. The witness was understood here to intl.
mate that he found the screw in the berth of the second
engineer, who had run away upon finding that the
vessel was about to be searched.
The prisoner's solicitor—Now, did you not know
the exact spot in which the packages lay, before you
went into the vessel at all ? Witness—Not the exact
spot. We had information of the neighbourhood in
which the tobacco was deposited, but not of the exact
spot.
. _ _

- The prisoner's solicitor—And you pretend that the
discovery arose from your ingenuity ? Witness
The discovery of ithe exact spot arose from our in-
genuity, certainly. We knew that the tobacco was
about the engine-room. I don't think you would
have found it, Sir, if with the same information you
had been there.—(A laugh.)
The prisoner's solicitor—Did you not handcuff the
man ? Witness—Certainly. We would not have
done so if we did not know him to be guilty, and we
did so becaus we knew he would have escaped if he
had an opportunity. We were convinced that he and
another were guilty. The other got away.
The prisoner's solicitor—Pray, are you not an in.
terested party in this case ? Witness—Of course I am.
The prisoner's solicitor—To what extent ? Wit-
nese—The informer gets a third, and I get a sixth.
The prisoner's solicitor—Did you ever see this
man engaged in a matter of this kind before ? Wit-
ness—Never. I never saw him before at all.
The prisoner's solicitor—And you cannot say any-
thing against him as to any former charge ? Wit-
ness—Nothing at all.
The prisoner's solicitor submitted that it would be
unjust to commit his client under such circumstances.
He had been two years on board, and had a wife and
family, and could not have entertained an idea of ex-
posing them to the destitution consequent upon his
detection in an affair of this kind. It appeared that
one of the engineers was the party really engaged,
and the prisoner was, at all events, entitled to the be-
nefit of the doubt.
The LORD MAYOR said there appeared to be no
mitigatory circumstances in the case at all. It was
quite evident the prisoner must have had guilty
knowledge that the tobacco was on board, if he was
not a participator in the fraud. It was evident, too,
from his behaviour when the officer went on board,
as well as from the fact that a great deal of time must
have been occupied in depositing the tobacco, that
he was perfectly aware of everything connected with
the offence.
The prisoner was then adjudged to be guilty, and to
pay the penalty of 100/.
BOW-STREET.

Yesterday Mr. G. W. Jones, the Secretary of the
Hammersmith Suspension-bridge Committee, attended
in obedience to a summons obtained at the suit of Mr.
G. Lewis, Secretary to the Master of the Horse to
her Majesty, to show cause why he had exacted a toll
from Mr. W. J. Goodwin, her Majesty's Inspector of
Stables, on a pair of horses drawing one of the royal
carriages, on the 21st ult., contrary to the provisions
of the Company's Act, by which the Queen's horses
are specially exempted.
Mr Bolton, of the firm of Bolton and Price, Lin-
coln's Inn, attended for the complainant, and was
about to open the case, when
Mr. Thomas, the defendant's counsel, questioned
the jurisdiction of the Court, and urged that the Ham-
mersmith ben'ch was the proper one to take cognizance
of the present case.
Mr. Burnaby, the chief clerk, observed that, as a
general rule, all matters appertaining to the Palace
and her Majesty's household were submitted to this
office, as the chief Police-court.
Mr. JARDINE said, there could be no doubt as to
the jurisdiction of the Court, and, as the summons had
been granted by Mr. Twyford, he should not hesitate
to hear the complaint.
Mr. Bolton, after directing attention to the several
provisions of the sth George IV. (the Company's Act),
by which her Majesty's horses were exempted from
toll, stated the particulars of the alleged demand, and
observed that the complainant had only been induced
to request the interference of a magistrate by the
frequency of these interruptions on the part of the
Company's officers, and the impediments and imper •
tinence to which her Majesty's servants had been con-
sequently exposed.
111 r. Goodwin examined—l am inspector of stables
and veterinary surgeon to her Majesty, and had occa-
sion to pass over the suspension bridge on the 21st of
October with a small britschka and a pair of horses
belonging to her Majesty; the former had the royal
arms emblazoned upon it. I was accompanied as
usual by a servant in her Majesty's livery. On
reaching the toll-office Mr. Jones, the defendant,
stepped out and requested me to atop, at the same
time demanding where I came from and whither I
was going. I refused to tell him, but said he knew
my grounds for claiming exemption, and if he de-
manded the toll I would pay it, and he must take
the consequences. Mr. Jones was a stranger to me
personally, but the toll-keeper knew me well, as I
had been in the habit of going over the bridge for
years previously, sometimes as often as three or four
times a week, without paying toll.

Cross-examined—l have been asked questions be-
fore, but have invariably refused to state where I was
going, as I felt that the inquiry was impertinent. I
have always stated that the horses and carriage be-
longed to her Majesty, and were therefore exempt.
On the occasion in question I was going from Hamp-
ton-court to the Queen's-mews at Pimlico, on her
Majesty's business ; but I admit having repeatedly
passed over the bridge in the same carriage on my
own business, and having then also declined to pay
the toll.

Mr. Thomas—Then, I think, the case ought to end
here.

Mr. JARDINE—Were you on those occasions with
her Majesty's carriage and horses? Witness—Cer-
tainly, your Worship.
Mr. JARDINE—Then the Act clearly exempted
him, inasmuch as it specified " her Majesty's horses,"
without any restriction whatever as to the service in
which they might be engaged.
The witness was further cross-examined by Mr.
Thomas, but nothing material was elicited from him,
except an acknowledgment that Mr. Jones and the
toll• keeper were both civil to him, although he consi-
dered the inquiry relative to his mission an imperti-
nent one.

Mr. Jones explained that about five years ago, in
consequence of a complaint made by the Company
upon this point, the secretary to the Master of the
Horse authorised him to ask persons who claimed
exemption in the Queen's name, the question which
he had put, as civilly as possible, to Goodwin, but
which he refused to answer. Defendant denied that
he had applied for the toll ; it was paid by Goodwin
without any demand being made. He also denied the
assertion of the latter, that he claimed exemption.
Mr. JARDINE thought that no one could suppose
that Mr. Jones had been impertinent, in the general
acceptation of the term, but; on this occasion, seeing
that the carriage had the royal arms on it, and that
the defendant might have known from the toll-keeper
who and what Goodwin was, he was of opinion that
the question ought not to have been put. He would
hear the next case before poonouncing his decision.
A second charge, precisely similar in its nature,
was then preferred against the toll-keeper, William
Moore, for demanding the toll of Goodwin on a sub-
sequent day.
Mr. JARDINE repeated his conviction that the de-
mand, in the face of the Act, was altogether unjusti-
fiable. He felt it hia duty, therefore, to inflict the
mitigated penalty of 51. in each case.
Mr. Thomas said the decision would be appealed
against.