The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-12 00:00:00

ture to the bill was in his handwriting. "%Vitae, ss in
the mean time proceeded to Chelsea and made s acne
inquiries with respect to the genuineness of the si;. ma-
ture to the bill, and the result was that he discovered
it to be a forgery.
Mr. TWYFORD—Then you have not been defrauded
by the prisoner ? Witness replied the only loss he
had sustained was the loss of time in making in-
quiries of the prisoner's uncle, who said he had not
seen the prisoner for the last two years, and had never
authorised him to put his name to a bill.
Henry Spratt, a bootmaker;stated that Mr. Hagger
was upwards of ninety years of age, and had lodged
at his house during the last five years. During the
first three years the prisoner had been ii; the habit of
visiting Mr. Hagger. Witness was positive the sig-
nature to the bill produced was not in the hand.
writing of Mr. Hagger.
The prisoner with reference to this case, sail he
would reserve his defence until he had an opportunity
of consulting with his professional adviser.
He was next charged with having attempted a si-
milar fraud upon Mr. John Smith, a publican, in
Vere-street, Clare- market, and in which he was
more successful; for according to the eviienee of the
prosecutor, the prisoner, who owed him a hill of 21.,
came and tendered in payment a bill for 51., awl re-
ceived the difference, after which prosecutor discovered
that the bill was a forgery.
Mr. Wells, the landlord of the Sir Hugh Middle-
ton, adjoining Sadler's Wells Theatre, stated. that. in
the month of March last the prisoner gave him a hill
for 91., in payment of a score which he had taug up at
witness's house. He had since ascertained that; the
bill was a forgery.
The next victim was Mr. Williams, the
of the Clown, public-house, in St. John—treet-road,
opposite the Sadler's Wells Theatre, who took the
other 9/. bill of the prisoner, in payment of a score of
11.95., and handed the prisoner the difference. The
prisoner was remanded for further examination.

MARLBOROUGH-STREE
A French lady, named Louise Pessault. living at 73.
George-street, Portman-square, who appeared to have
recently sustained severe injury, complained to the
Magistrate that as she was walking along Castle-street
about one o'clock, a man, who was an entire stranger
to her, and who was running with his head held down,
suddenly butted her in the face, and knocked her
down with such violence that she was stunned for the
moment. The ma,: ran off as fa-t as he cowl 1, 1-nit
was taken by a person who saw her knocked down.

The mother of the man who committed the assault
said her son was a little eccentric in his conduct, and
he had, no doubt, committed the assault under the in-
fluence of a fit of eccentricity.
Mr. HARDWICK said he could not allow a man to
escape without punishment who knocked down people
in the street and nearly fractured their skulls, merely
because he was supposed to labour under eccentrici•y.
The man mu-t be brought before him, and he would
then entertain the charge.
The defendant was speedily produced in Court, and
the charge of assault having been clearly proved, he
was fined 405., or one month's imprisonment.
HAMMERSMITH.

Mr. Armstrong, a gentleman, residing at No. 102,
Mount-street, Grosvenor-square, appeared before Mr.
G. Clive, the sitting magistrate, on summons under
the Metropolitan Carriage Act, (6 and 7 Vict., c. 86,
sect. 7), at the instance of John Perrin, conductor
of the omnibus No. 2,043, for refusing, on the 28th
ult., to pay one shilling, the lawful fare, for riding
with the complainant's omnibus from Knightsbridge
to Black-lion-lane, Hammersmith.

The refusal of the defendant to pay the fare de-
manded (one shilling) having been proved, the de-
fendant said he did not deny having refused to pay
one shilling as the fare for the short distance he had
ridden in the omnibus. He had done so on public
grounds, with a view to have the point settled as to
what was the legal fare, and whether the conductors
or drivers of omnibuses are empowered to charge
what they please. He and several of his friends had
suffered so much from such impositions that he was
determined to have the point settled.
Mr. CLIVE said, by the Act of Parliament under
which Mr. Armstrong had been summoned, it was
enacted, section 7, that the proprietor of every me-
tropolitan stage carriage "shall, on the inside of every
such carriage, keep distinctly painted, in a conspicuous
manner, a table of fares to be demanded of passengers
in such carriage, and the fares therein specified shall
be deemed to be the only lawful fares, and may be
recovered by the driver or conductor, as in the case
of hackney carriages, in a summary way, before any
justice of the peace; and every proprietor making
default in the premises, shall forfeit the sum of 203.
for every offence." By the 33d section, also, "every
driver or conductor who shall demand more than the
legal fare from any passenger' or who shall refuse to
admit and carry at the lawful fare any passenger for
whom there is room, and to whose admission no rea-
sonable objection is made," is liable to a similar pe-
nalty. His (Mr. Clive's) opinion, therefore, was that
the proprietor of every metropolitan stage carriage
has the right of putting up whatever table of fares
he pleased, and of recovering those fares by summons.
If he chose to put up " Fares—Sundays, ss. ; Mon-
days, Is. 6d.; Tuesdays, half-a-crown," and so on for
each day, he could do so, and could recover such fares,
the public not being required to ride in an omnibus
so priced unless they chose.
Proof was then gone into that in the omnibus in
question the fares were stated as follows :—" Fares,
Is.; four miles, 6d.; Sundays, ls."
The defendant was then adjudged to pay the fare,
with costs.