The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-27 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

ASSAULTING POLICE-CONSTABLES.-011 Thursday Thomas
Jessup, keeper of the Victoria Wine-rooms, in Catherine-street,
Strand, appeared before Mr. Hall upon two summonses that
had been issued against him at the instance of the Police
Commissioners, for having, on the 16th instant, unlawfully
assaulted constables Mervine and Matthews, F division, while
in the execution of their duty.
Mr. Humphries appeared for the defendant, who pleaded
not guilty to both charges.
Constable Mervine stated that, shortly after five o'clock in
the morning, a gentleman who appeared to have received
considerable injury from the fact of his face being covered
with blood, came to him on his beat, and complained that
he had been assaulted in the defendant's house, requesting
that he would assist him in taking the person who had done
so, and who was still in the house, into custody. In conse-
quence of such information, and what he had seen, he
knocked at the door of the defendant's house, which was
opened by a person who told him to go about his businesss,
as he could have nothing to do with any person inside the
house. Witness, however, remained a few minutes on the
steps, dunng which he saw two gentlemen admitted by the
defendant,: and, on requesting that he would permit him to
tell him about the assault, he refused to listen to him, and
pushed him violently by the arm down three steps, which
would have caused him to fall in the street but for the crowd,
desiring him to go about his own business.
In cross-examination witness said that the gentleman came
to the station, as also did the defendant, who said that the
person who made his way into the house was a thief, and had
been immediately ejected. He never saw the gentleman
since, and did not know where he lived. Witness told the
inspector on duty that the defendant had assaulted him, and
lie was subsequently admitted as bail for a person who had
taken his (witness's) number, in doing which he pulled his
collar, for which he took him into custody.
Mr. HALL observed, that the inspector was bound to accept
the defendant as bail, as he was known to be a person of sub-
stance, and a summons might be taken out against him if
he had committed any assault.
Constable Mathews stated that he also had attempted to
enter the house, but was refused by the defendant, who told
him twice to go about his business, and placing his hand
against his breast, pushed him off the step, although he de-
sired him not to touch him a second time, as he was not in-
terfering in any way. There was a crowd about the door at
the time.

Mr. Humphries submitted that two more trumpery com-
plaints were never brought before a magistrate, inasmuch as
it was not pretended that the slightest injury had been sus-
tained by either of the constables. The account given by the
defendant was perfectly correct, for he said that as the man
was a thief he was ejected, with which the police had nothing
whatever to do, and which reflected much credit on the de-
fendant for the manner in which he conducted his business.
The officers had gone to the house without any authority for
entering it, for the purpose of seeking for some person that
had been represented to have committed an assault, and in so
doing they were committing a trespass, as it was not a public-
house, into which they certainly had a right, under certain
circumstances, to enter, respoctiug which he was provided
with the opinion of the first law officer of the Crown, which
he would submit to the Court.

Mr. HALL said that he never attended to any legal opinions,
but decided upon the merits of each case that might come
before him for adjudication.
Mr. Humphries said that the fiath clause of the Police Act
gave constables a power, without a warrant, to take any per-
son into custod.v for an aggravated assault, even if they were
not present when it was committed. The assault in question
was merely a bloody nose, and the injured man might have
obtained a summons had his object not been to cause a dis-
turbance in the house. He contended that the defendant had
a right to refuse the police to enter his house, which
was private, and had an equal right to remove them from the
steps of his door. If the Court was of a different opin►on, he
considered that any fine which might be inflicted ought to be
merely nominal. . _ _

Mr: HALL said it would be quite useless to decide upon the
general question of the right that officers had to enter houses
in which liquors were sold, for contrary opinions had been
expressed upon the subject by the most eminent lawyers of
the day, and he was merely called upon to decide if an
assault had been proved. It was difficult to say that an
officer was not to attend to the call of an injured person be-
cause no weapon or a mutilation of his body was exhibited,
it being sufficient for the constable, from general appear-
ances, that there were just grounds to conclude that an
aggravated assault had been committed at an unreasonable
hour of the night, when no police-court was open to obtain
a warrant. The resistance to the authorities was uncalled
for; and, confining himself to the circumstances of the case,
he could not avoid coming to the conclusion that the defen-
dant had acted rashly, by setting a bad example to the per-
sons who were present, in committing the assaults, for each
of which he should order him to pay a fine of 305., or go to
prison for fifteen days for each offence.
The fines were instantly paid, and the defendant was dis-
charged.