The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-21 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,—A young man, named Matthew Spurdell,
was tried yesterday before Mr. Sergeant Adams, at
the Sessions-house, Clerkenwell, charged with steal-
ing a pair of stockings from my shop ; he pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to one month's imprison-
ment. What I have to complain of is, that the Judge
would not allow me to say a word, although Mr.
Henry, the magistrate who committed the prisoner,
requested me particularly to inform the Court that
the prisoner was an old offender, and that his father
had a short time since imposed on the magistrate by
obtaining is. from the poor-box, on the promise that
he would send his son home to Dorsetshire, but in-
stead of doing so got intoxicated with the money.
The fellow on the second occasion tried to dupe the
magistrate, but did not succeed. Tradesmen fre-
quently suffer themselves to be plundered rather than
take the trouble of attending to prosecute; hut with-
out any vindictive feeling, I consider the Judge ought
to have listened to the above facts before passing sen-
tence.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant,
EDWARD THOMAS.
75, High-street, Whitechapel, Nov. 20, 1844.

Fool. RACE roe la—Tuesday a 100 yards foot-
race came off near the Brecknock Arms, Camden-town,
between Harry Bromley (the host of the above-named
inn) and a sporting gentleman ; the attendance of spec-
tators was numerous, and much betting took place. The
distance having been measured, the competitors appeared
at the starting mark, and at the signal went away at a
rattling pace. Bromley then took the lead, which he
maintained, and wou easily by 10 yards.
LIVE INSECT VOIDED BY THE NOSTRILS.—MISS—,
tetat. 19, strong constitution, affected for the last two
years with a supra-orbital eephalalgia on the left side, at
first slight, but gradually increasing in intensity ; all
the remedies prescribed failed in giving relief. On the
31st December, 1842, after a violent fit of sneezing, she
felt something move in the left Nostril, and, on blowing
her nose, a live insect escaped ; the pain ceased imme-
diately, and did not return, and the general health soon
became perfect. The insect, which lived seventeen days,
when examined, proved to belong to the order of Myria-
podes of Latreille ; the genus Scolopendra ; and the
species Scolopendra electrics, itrica, of Ln wens ; it was of a
b
pale red colour, with a
rown ray on its back ; its body
was one-tenth of an inch in breadth, and one-fifth in
length. The author concludes that the ovum was acci.
dentally deposited in the fosse
.oasalis. and there deve-
loped itself, undergoing its • s
s. metamorphoses, until
violently expelled.—Medical Ti
we,, Tuesday
morning, about four ' 1
fire broke out in one of the upper rooms 07e lc' a
i 6
Charles-street, Drury-lane, the whole of which
Ns
nightly lodgings. It appears that the fire originated
through one of the men having been lighting a pipe with
a Lucifer match, and smoking in bed, by which the bed-
ding wai set fire to. The fire was soon extinguished.
This was the second similar occurrence in the same
house within a seek.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY—Nov. 20.

THE 31ARQUIS OF HERTFORD V. LORD LOWTHER.

The arguments in this case, which came before the
Court upon exceptions to the Master's resort, occu-
pied the Court the whole day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 20.
The Vice-Chancellor of England was occupied the
whole day with causes of no general interest.

(Before Sir J.WIGRA7.I.)
COOKE V. ESTER--JUDGMENT.

This case, in which his Honour gave judgment
this morning, came before the Court on further direc-
tions. The question at issue is the sufficiency of a
settlement proposed to be made by the defendant on his
wife, who was the daughter of Sir Gregory F. Turner.
At the time of his (laughter's marriage this gentleman
was in a state of mental derangement. The treaty
for the marriage between Mr. Fryer and Miss Turner
was pending during the month of July 1838, when
a petition was presented to the Lord Chancellor, pray-
ing for his sanction to the marriage, according to the
Act 4th of George IV., c. 76, sec. 17. The petition
stated the nature of the marriage settlement proposed
to be made on the lady, and it was referred to the
Master for consideration. He made his report ap-
proving of the marriage settlement, and the marriage
took place by banns, at Southampton, in the
month of August, 1838. Subsequently to the mar-
riage, Mr. Fryer wished to make an alteration in the
settlement, by substituting another description of
property as the trust, to that stated in the proposal of
the petition to the Chancellor ; the alteration, how-
ever, making no difference in the actual value of it.
The suit was instituted by one of the trustees on be-
half of Mrs. Fryer, to ascertain the suffi-
ciency of the trust property proposed to be
substituted. On the part of the defendant, it
had been submitted that under the circumstances re-
ported to the Court, there had been substantially a
performance of the articles required. On the part
of Mrs. Fryer it was prayed that the Court would
direct the settlement to be made according to the ori-
ginal articles.
His Hostous said, if the Southampton articles of set-
tlement, differing as they did from the proposals
carried into the Master's office for approval, had been
less beneficial to the parties interested than
those first proposals, considerable difficulty might
perhaps have arisen in the admitting of the South-
ampton articles to be properly substituted for the
original proposals. But a perfectly satisfactory ex-
planation had been given of the case, leading to the
conclusion that the parties had acted with perfect
bona fides, and that the property comprised in the
articles, so far as it differed from that men-
tioned in the first proposals, had in truth repre-
sented the property which was the subject of
the settlement before the Master. He was there-
fore satisfied that, as there was no difference of
benefit in either settlement, he was doing the best
for all parties, by accepting the Southampton articles,
especially as Mr. Fryer had imported into those
articles the personal estate, if any, to which the lady
might be entitled, upon a question of comparative
benefit to the parties. The circumstances of this case
were so special, that he thought he might
safely adopt the Southampton articles for the
original proposal without a reference to the Master,
and in so doing he apprehended it was not likely the
case would ever be drawn into a precedent. With
respect to costs, it was impossible for him to say that
the trustee was not justified in seeking the opinion of
the Court in the case, and he was therefore of opinion
that Mr. Cooke must have his costs, and that it be
referred to the Master to approve of the settlement in
conformity with the Southampton articles, Mr. Fryer
consenting that the personal property, if any, to
which the lady might be entitled hereafter should be
included in that settlement.

Sergeant was proceeding to cite cases in favor of this
view, when— _ _

Mr. Justice MAULS observed—l suppose the last
e,ate is the tine n ohiltieh th 4 tioliom magistrate laid
down that a coffee-house keeper had a right to detain
his guest until the bill was paid ?
Mr. Sergeant SHEA. said—No; the case his Lord-
ship referred to was that of Dando, the oyster eater,
which stood on its own authority.—(A laugh.) That
was regarded as a case of " animus errandi et non
revertendi."—(A laugh.) The Learned Sergeant
having continued his argument to a great length,
Mr. Sergeant CRANNELL replied.
Their Lordships took time to consider judgment.
BURGESS P. BEAUMONT.

This was an action for services in the tuition of the
defendant's family.
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had
been guilty of dishonest and immoral conduct,
and was not fit to fill the situation of governess in a
gentleman's family. To this plaintiff demurred, and
the argument came on this day.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd appeared in support of the
demurrer, and the Court, after hearing Mr. Sergeant
Ryles for the defence, resolved that the plea was bad.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 20.
(Before Sir C. F. WILLIAMS.)
IN RE J. A. GILES, LL.D.
The insolvent, a gentleman well known in the
literary worl3, and formerly head master of the
London School, appeared this day before Sir C.
Williams, on his final examination.
He was opposed by Mr. Crew, for a builder named
Mann, a creditor to the amount of 1,5001., and by a
gentleman for another creditor. The examination
lasted for above three hours, when

Sir C. WILLIAMS gave judgment. He thought the
insolvent fully entitled to the benefit of the Act, for
it did not appear to him (Sir C. Williams) that, at
the period of contracting the debts, he was not in
a condition to pay them. He wa3 then in
receipt of 1,0001. a year, as head master of the
London School. His name was distinguished as a
scholar, and therefore his literary exertions might be
calculated upon as an additional security. He was
afterwards from ill health obliged, it was true, to
resign that situation, and his literary efforts did not
meet the success ha had contemplated. Still that was
an error in judgment, and not of the heart. There
was no appearance of fraud, however much he might
be imprudent; and, therefore, again he said that the
insolvent was entitled to the benefit of the Act.

THE SUN, LONDON, 11_11,VB$DAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 21. 184:.

criminal law of France. He ciepoabfl t the legality
of the French warrant, and the course of proceeding
from which that warrant resulted.
The LORD MAYOR said that he had looked very
iirtic.:tilarly itsto the Act, and as the person accused of
fraudulent bankrufttcy 6tiid tot he committed for
such an offence in this country, he did not see how
• he, as a magistrate, could be justified in issuing a
warrant for the apprehension of an individual so
charged.
Mr. James impressed upon his Lordship the very
grave importance of such a decision. If this warrant
could not be granted, the whole object ,and intention
of the Act would be defeated. The object of the
Convention would be frustrated if a large and liberal
construction of the Act were not given. It was not
necessary that the crime should be a crime known to
the laws of this country. It was a crime against the
laws of France, but must be supported by such evi-
dence as, if it were a crime by the laws of this country,
would justify a magistrate in committing.
The Loan MAYOR—He is charged as being an
accomplice ?
Mr. James—No. He is charged with having com-
mitted a crime of " complicite"—a very different thing.
The Learned Counsel then cited French authorities
upon the subject, and urged his Lordship to grant
the warrant.
The LORD MAYOR said he was not convinced, by
what he had heard, that he would be justified in
acceding to the application.
Mr. James—Really the effect of this decision of
your Lordship will be to neutralise the important
objects of the Act of Convention.
The LORD MAYOR—I have looked through the Act
with great care and attention, and I cannot come to
any other conclusion.
Thom.; Batt, a labouring man, was charged under
curious circumstances.
On Saturday last the prisoner was brought before
the Lord Mayor.
A policeman stated that at nearly half-past ten
o'clocls that morning he saw the prisoner in the street
with a cask on his head, and stopped him. The pri-
soner said, upon being questioned, that a person
named Darby had given it to him to carry. This ex-
cuse, in such frequent use with thieves, and the igno-
rance of the prisoner as to the contents of the cask,
caused very strong suspicion that the property had
been stolen out of some cart or warehouse.
The prisoner, upon being asked by the LORD
1 1 Mavon what he had to say about the matter, de-
clared that a Mr. Darby had given him the job at the
end of the Minories, and had told him to go to the
corner of Chiswell-street, where they would meet,
but the policeman thought proper to take him to the
station. house.
The prisoner was remanded, and inquiries were
directed to be made respecting the cask, which was
found to contain mustard.
Yesterday, when the prisoner was placed at the
bar, a man of respectable appearance, who stated his
name to be James Darby, came forward and ex-
pressed much regret that the prisoner, who had not
committed the slightest offence, should have under-
gone four days' imprisonment, and be placed at the
bar as a common felon.
In answer t) questions from the LORD MAYOR,
the witness who thus came forward stated that he
resided at No. 5, Paradise-place, Finsbury, and was
a drysalter. That on Saturday morning, as he was
sitting at his breakfast, the prisoner, of whom he had
no knowledge, called upon him with a recommenda-
tion from a person with whom he was well ac-
quainted, for e-nployment, if any opportunity should
occur. Having been requested to call in half an hour,
the prisoner was punctual, and walked with witness
to the top of the Minories, near Tower-street, where
witness gave him the cask of mustard, and desired
him to go on with it to the bottom of Chiswell-street,
where they would meet. Witness never had seen
the man since until he saw him at the bar, and ac •
tually thought that he had been run over in the
streets, and probably consigned to an hospital.
The LORD MAYOR asked how it happened that the
witness delivered the cask of mustard to the prisoner
in the street, and not at his house or warehouse ; and
intimated that the very remarkable description of the
delivery was of itself calculated to excite suspicion
against more than one party.
Mr. Darby handed to the Lord Mayor an invoice
of the cask of mustard, which it appeared had been
purchased at a house near the spot in which he had
delivered it to the prisoner. He stated at the same
time that he was not obliged to let people know his
way of conducting his commercial transactions, and
he asserted that the officer had no right to stop the
prisoner, but ought to have accompanied him to
Chiswell-street, where the whole mystery would have
been solved at once.
The LORD MAYOR said the policeman was perfectly
justified in apprehending a man under such suspicious
circumstances, similar as they were to those under
which numbers of thieves were daily taken into cus-
tody. Whatever might be the opinion of Mr. Darby
as ito the confinement of the poor man, he (Mr.
Darby) certainly was the cause of it himself by the
extraordinary course he had pursued.
Witness—l shall deliver my goods how and where
I please.
The LORD MAYOR thought if the witness did so
he might subject his messenger to similar treatment
at another time.
The prisoner was then discharged.
BOW-STREET.
John Smith, No. 5, Charles-street, Drury-lane,
was charged with stealing a bedstead from the door
of Mr. W. J. Hall, broker, No. 29, Great St. An-
drew-street, Seven-dials.
The prisoner did not deny the offence. He had
tried to get work and could not—he was almost
starved to death and covered with rags, and he took
the bedsteads with a double intent. The intent was
to sell it and get food, if he got away with it clear,
and if he was taken in the act he knew he should get
a shelter in prison, and food, which he could not get
outside.
Mr. JARDINE said it was lamentable to see a man
in such destitution and distress, but still his duty as
a magistrate forced him to decide on committing him
for trial.
The prisoner left the bar apparently quite delighted
at being committed.
On Tuesday morning, an elderly man, of respect-
able appearance, who gave the name of Thomas
Daley, described as a gentleman, residing at the Im-
perial Hotel, Covent-garden, was placed at the bar
before Mr. Jardine, charged with stealing a news-
paper from Upton's Eating-rooms, 228, Strand, under
the following circumstances
Charles Cole, a waiter, in the service of the prose-
cutor, stated that about eight o'clock on Monday
night the prisoner came to his master's rooms, where
he took some refreshment, and after delaying some
time, he paid the amount of his bill. After he left
the room, the Morning Chronicle was missed from the
table at which he was sitting, and as he was passing
down stairs, witness, accosting him, demanded the
newspaper he had just concealed on his person,
when he drew a parcel from his pocket and deli-
vered up the property, saying it was through inad-
vertence he had removed it. He was then given in
charge to a constable.
The prisoner being called on for his defence, said
had a magistrate been sitting when he was taken into
custody he would have been instantly discharged.
Was it possible that a gentleman of fortune and high
birth, as he was, would steal a newspaper ! Thank
God, he was possessed ot thousands a year, and could
it be supposed under such circumstances that he
would steal such a thing as a newspaper, the in-
move mos yenpent:. bth:
in-
trinsic value of which was absolutely nothing. He
had not read the 21fetning Chronicle nor the Times
in the room, as he had seen them in his chambers in
the morning, but it was the Globe he had just laid
down, and was looking over an application made to
him from one of his estates, soliciting that he would
continue his subscription to a charitable institution,
when the waiter accosted him. He was a father, and
even a grandfather of many children, and he should
not have gone into a place of the kind, but wee
pressed en a former occasion to dine there with a very
old friend, who was obliged of late years to live in a
more frugal manner than he was accustomed. He
had been to Gravesend during the day with his
nephew, who was starting for India, and after taking
dinner, in bundling up his papers he must have inad-
vertently put the Morning Chronicle into his pocket,
under the impression that it was a provincial paper he
occasionally carried about him.
In answer to the Court, the witness saicklie stood
behind the prisoner thesievhole of the time lie was in
ttahht tgleitaetisnri,tasahtonemdarn,era.lsdwahe was `issiaitieesbe never attempted to
take any paper of aprivate tkathre from his pocket.
He could also positive swear :That the prisoner stole
another newspaper on ursday night, which streng-
thened
andy Ta another
was,hoe rishet
ehrwrao ata
reason
aohnioteoe
for
r was other
watchingpersonappris
e d inthetohfe th e
formerroom
prisoner'sa t
his suspicions" on his missing the paper in
osefo nseurohs aai d
constableit thing,
tool: c o ua
s,l could
fromhn eot
wasbeh i
mp possible se:
well
helnesis
l.
knownncgou
tol
the
man of ample fortune, as would appear from th
out 601. in gold, with a quantity of valuable
persondocu-
ay you know
resideow yo ; at
ptrhi e.
Hotel,aJlannsrsE
--
- -wi tse a nyyo u s
I was so shocked I did not know what address
seeing such a paltry malicious charge made
ARDrNE inquired what led to the supposition
prisoners
missed had
after committed
fromt the
e prisonert the
e r
o ao room
leftrobberyonTthheror
room,
odtmah:
kind on a former occasion ? The waiter said°
e
e
e
mabeldeiahteerl
stslaabbmrti
ici uoohmob.sep
The
give,
Imperial
guiltys:rf: :i. .
...r
is.
articles
ingr
c.
ye
produced a parcel containing a
Onimst
neuveTmnhbineer of letters addressed to Colonel Sewell, with
edwer:t the
boakth3geirre.nd
joc?AlumpThieNneEts
prisoner
nre rtrht replied, he
whobank
.

house of Messrs. Ransom, of Pall-mall, where he had
been known for several years.
Mr. lA/trims-4 shall discharge you because I can't
reconcile the conflicting circumstances connected with
your case. A person of your age having such docu-
ments and property in your possession, could scarcely
be supposed guilty of such an extraordinary act, and
as there is a doubt, although the waiter speaks in the
most positive terms of the circumstances, I cannot
see my way clear enough to send you to be tried, as
I think a jury would not convict you. Under all the
circumstances I am bound to discharge you, at the
same time thinking no fault was to be imputed to the
waiter, as the subject was well worthy of inquiry.

CLERKEIV WELL.
Four fashionably-dressed young men, named
Walter Safe, William Allen, William Fey, and
Charles Ross, were charged with knocking at
doors, ringing bells, breaking windows, and otherwise
annoying the inhabitants of Brunswick-square and
its vicinity, on the previous night. Ross described
himself as a clerk in the office of an army agent.
Police-constable Dunne, 71 E, deposed that being
on duty in Hunter-street, Brunswick-square, on the
previous night, he heard the prisoners, with six others,
shouting and hallooing in Hunter-street. Soon after
he saw Saffe and Foy knock at the door of 26 and
27, Brunswick-square. A lady came to the window
in her night-dress, apparently much alarmed. Ross
then rung the bell of Mr. Maddox, a surgeon, in the
square, very violently. They then returned to Hun-
ter-street, throwing halfpence at the windows as they
went along, and shouting loudly. They continued
this conduct along Judd-street, and into thP New-
road. Witness once attempted to stop their pro-
ceedings, but they pushed him away, and seeing so
large a number, he thought it better to follow them
until he could meet assistance, which he did in the
New-road, where the four prisoners, who were by far
the most ill-conducted, were captured. It was them
two o'clock.
Mr. George WTorrall, 28, Hunter-street, Bruns-
wick-square, deposed that himself and family were
greatly alarmed by the shouting and the smashing of
glass. -A
pane in his parlour window had been broken.
Emma Andrews, servant to the Rev. Mr. Cum-
ming, deposed that Mrs. Cumming had been so much
alarmed by the noise that she was still in a state of
great nervous excitement. Her mistress was under
the impression that the house was on fire, and jumped
out of bed and knocked at witness's door in the
greatest terror.
Mr. Herbert Sniggs, of 17, Hunter-street, deposed
that his family had been greatly alarmed from a similar
cause. A pane of glass, value Bs. 6d., had been
broken in his window.
The prisoners said that they had been at a harmonic
concert in Lamb's Conduit-street. They denied the
charge.
Mr. COMBE said it was most disgraceful conduct,
and their demeanour in court, which was expressive
of anything but regret, was not at all creditable. Be-
sides, they had imputed gross perjury to the police-
man, who, it was evident, told the truth. He would
fine them each in the full amount of damage proved
to have been committed by them, I Is. 6d., and 21., or
a month's imprisonment.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Thomas Wright, a shabbily-dressed young man,
was charged with feloniously assaulting Mrs. Mary
Taylor, a respectable married woman, putting her in
fear, and robbing her of an umbrella and shawl.
The prosecutrix stated that she was residing with
her husband and family, at No. 8, Queen-street, Soho-
square. Last night, between ten and eleven o'clock,
as she was passing along Sutton-street, Oxford-
street, she was accosted by the prisoner, who stated
that he was a gentleman's groom out of place, and in
great distress. Out of charity she gave him the price
of a pint of beer. He then joined another man, who
was waiting for him at a' short distance. She (pro-
secutrix) walked on, but had not proceeded a dozen
yards, when the prisoner came up behind her and
attempted to snatch her umbrella out of her hand.
She, however, firmly grasped it, although he struggled
violently with her to wrest it from her. He then
struck her a tremendous blow with his clenched fist,
and knocked her down and took the umbrella from
her. As she was attempting to get up, the prisoner
forcibly tore her shawl off her shoulders, and set off
running with it, on which she screamed " Murder"
and " Stop thief!"
Police-constable No. 94 of the F division stated
that he saw the prisoner running, and, hearing the
cries of the prosecutrix, he stopped and secured him.
At a few yards from him, in the direction in which he
had been running, he (witness) found the shawl
which the prosecutrix had been robbed of.
Mr. HARDWICK asked if the prisoner was known
to the police ? The constable said he had frequently
seen him in the company of known and convicted
thieves.

The prisoner asserted that prosecutrix had accosted
him in the street ; and, while standing talking to her,
he felt her hand in his pocket, and, "uf course,
knocked her down."
The worthy MAGI6TRATE of course, paid not the
slightest attention to the defence, but committed the
prisoner to Newgate, for trial.
Amelia Jarvis, a well-grown girl, fifteen years of
age, but looking at least eighteen, was brought before
Mr. Hardwick by her own mother, and charged with
robbery.
Elizabeth Knox, of No. 2, Pulteney-court, the
mother, said the girl at the bar had that morning
stopped her little brother and robbed him of two six-
pences, which he had just received for washing. The
girl had remained out the whole of the previous
night, and witness had not been able to obtain any
trace of her nail an hour or two ago, when she saw
the prisoner in St. James's-park with a couple of
girls of loose character, eating chesnuts, which
she had purchased with part of the stolen money.
The mother went on to say that she had been
obliged to take strong steps against her daughter
in consequence of indications of early and seem-
ingly incorrigible profligacy. Her daughter by her
misconduct had nearly ruined her. She was a
laundress ; but, owing to her daughter's reckless con-
duct, she was afraid she should soon loose her con-
nexion, and consequently her means of support for
her family. The girl at the bar, about four months
back, was a most hardworking well-conducted girl,
but since that period she had got acquainted with
some depraved boys and girls from Peter-street, and
the result was that she had become as depraved and
as reckless as her associates. She has stopped out re-
peatedly all night, without giving any account of
herself the next morning. She had set everybody at
defiance ; and when she was in want of money she
did not hesitate a moment at breaking open drawers
and boxes, rifling them, and pledging or selling their
contents. The only way to save the wretched girl
from absolute destruction was to adopt means to
separate her from her companions.
Mr. llAanwtot asked the mother what she in-
tended to do. Did she mean to press the charge of
robbery ?
The mother said she had no wish to deal harshly
with her child. She thought if the girl had the
awful consequences of her conduct pointed out to her,
and if a short punishment were awarded by way of
foretaste of what she must expect if she did not re-
form, that this might produce a beneficial result,
Mr. HARDWICK asked the girl if she had ever re-
flected on her scandalous conduct? Was she aware
that the life of infamy she was pursuing would pro-
bably lead to transportation ? The girl, who ex-
hibited complete indifference, muttered that she had
no wish to keep up the acquaintances she had recently
made.

The mother said when she found her daughter in
the Park, her daughter told her she did not intend to
return home again. _ _

Mr. HARDWICK said he would remand the girl for
a week to see what eff't,‘ct a short confinement would
have on her future conduct. The prisoner was then
removed.

UNION-11ALL.
77zomal TVOodeoek, a well-dressed young man, was
tharged before Mr. Cottenham with robbing several
houses under the following circumstances :
A few nights since he engaged a bed at a public-
house in the vicinity of this Court, and when the
family retired to rest, he got up and groped his way
into the room of a gentleman sleeping on the same
floor. The gentleman being so fast asleep did not
hear the noise, and the prisoner succeeded in taking
a whole suit of clothes with which he
got away, leaving an old pair of boots behind him.
On another occasion he took lodgings for the night in
the house of a poor widow, and as in the former case
he got up in the middle of the night, went down
stairs and robbed the parlours of a great variety of
articles, amongst which were gowtiS, and tithe
things, and then let himself out of the house. Two
other charges of a similar description being adduced
against the prisoner, he was committed.

THAMES POLICE.
THE LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT.—MY. George
Walton, a respectable plumber and gas-fitt4r, of No.
5, George-terrace, Commercial-road, Stepney, and
John S'ealloch, a lad in his employ, were brought
before Mr. Broderip, on a charge of stealing one of
Deffrie's patent dry gas meters, value 71., stated in
the police-sheet to be the property of William Cor-
mack, of the firm of Banks and Cormack, gas-puri-
fiers, of Church-row, Limehouse.

Air. Walton, who was much agitated, said that a
few days ago he entered into an agreement with
r Banks and Cormack to fit up a gas apparatus for
them, and after the job was commenced Mr. Cormack
requested the loan of a meter which he kept in his
shop, for the purpose of trying some experiments on
a gasometer the firm had lately erected. He agreed
to lend them a patent dry meter, on their promising
to take particular care of it, and conveyed it to their
premises. Having done work and furnished mate-
rials to the amount of 151., and knowing very little
of the firm or their resources, he waited upon Mr.
Cormack that morning, and asked him for an advance
of money. Mr. Cormack refused to advance any-

hing, and he would not pay a farthing till the job
was completed. He said he could not proceed with
the work till he received an advance of 51., and Mr.
Cormack immediately directed his foreman to pro-
ceed to the nearest gas-fitter's, and bring him to the
premises to complete the fitting-up of the apparatus.
He then said he should take home his gas meter, and
took it up and gave it to his boy. Mr. Cormack im-
mediately sent for a policeman, and gave him into
custody for stealing his own property.
Mr. BRODERIP—Then you are in custody for
merely taking away your own property, which Mr.
Cormack refused to give up !
Mr. Walton—Yes, Sir, I lent it to the firm of
Banks and Cormack for a day or two. It is my pro-
perty ; and there are persons in court to prove it. I
have had the mortification of being taken through
the streets as a felon, pointed at by my neighbours,
and followed by a crowd of persons, to many of whom
I was known, in open day. It is too bad, Sir.
Mr. BRODERIP—Too bad! it is indeed. (To the
policeman)--You should not have taken these parties
into custody at all. You should have known better
than to have arrested a man for stealing his own pro-
perty, under such circumstances. What time did
you apprehend them ? Policeman—About eleven
o'clock.

Mr. BRODERIP—And it is now twenty minutes
past two. The man and his servant have been ille-
gally in custody for about three hours and a half, and
no prosecutor has ventured to appear against them.
The policeman said he took the parties to the sta-
tion-house to settle the matter amicably.—(A laugh.)
Mr. BRODERIP—I must beg of you, Mr. Symonds,
to mention this to the superintendent of the division.
It has happened before, and must not be repeated.
The liberty of the subject is not to be trifled with in
this manner. Every person engaged in the detention
of Mr. Walton and his servants are liable to an action,
and I have no doubt a jury will give the aggrieved
parties very heavy damages.
Ellis, the usher, said he knew Mr. 'Walton to be a
most respectable and upright tradesman. . .

Mr. bRODERIP—He leaves this court without a
stain on his character. It is a monstrous infringe-
ment of the liberty of the subject.
The prisoners were then set at liberty, and Mr.
Walton took home his gas meter.