The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-04 00:00:00

UNION-lIALL.

Two policemen named Gough :6nd Brooks, of the
L division, were charged with the following miscon-
duct towards Thomas Thornton, an inspector belong-
ing
to the Phoenix Gas Works. The charge was
sent by the Commissioners of Police for investigation
at this Court, and Mr, Grensell, the superintendent of
the division to which the defendants belong, attended
to hear and report upon the result.
The complainant stated that on Saturday week,
about one o'clock in the day, as he was crossing from
the end 'of Suffolk-street to Blackman-street, he was
followed closely up by the defendants, and when he
g(it to the other side of the street they both came up,
one on each side of him, and asked him what he had got.
Before he had time to answer, they hurried him throv-n
an iron gate near the footpath, when Gouct, feeling
his trousers pocket, inquired what hq naegot there,
Complainant, surprised at such a situation, imme-
diately drew forth a memorandum book, saying that
he had nothing but that, upon which tha defendants
said he must accompany them to the station-house,
Brooks saying to the other defendant, " Charley, let
us take him to Tower-street," and he was then taken
to .the station-house in that street, and when the In-
spector Fergusson saw him, and was informed of the
circumstances under which he was brought there, he
said that he had known him (complainant) for several
years, and that there being no pretence for charging
him with an offence, he should discharge him. Com-
plainant added that he had been twenty years in the ser-
vice of the Phoenix Gas Works, and that having always
borne an irreproachable character, he, for his own
sake as well as the public, considered he was called
upon to bring such a case under the consideration of
the Commissioners, to whom he represented the cir-
cumstances.
Gough upon being asked what he had to say in
answer to the charge, replied, that he mistook the
complainant for another person, against whom he had
a charge of felony. He admitted that he felt his
pocket, as described, and that he afterwards took him
to the station-house, where, upon finding that he had
made a mistake, he expressed 'nis readiness to apolo-
gise to the complainant,-wlito rejected it, and would
not be satisfied unless Ile" consented to insert an apo-
logy in the newspa;,ers. With this latter demand he
could not comlAy, the Commissioners not allowing
him to make a public apology, and the complainant,
therefore, resorted to the present proceedings against
him. (jtough then spoke of his not having used any
degree of harshness towards the complainant, and in
t-,king him to the station-house held his umbrella over
him to shelter him from the rain.
Brooks made a similar defence, saying they were
mistaken in the man, but that he did not lay hands
upon the complainant at all, and who also expressed
his willingness to apologise to the complainant.
In reply to Mr. Trail!, the complainant said that he
knew Mr. Brooks before, and mentioned to him who
he was, but no attention was paid to what he said,
and he was complied to go to the station-house. Ile
addedth that it was a degradation to be taken through
for
etraergetsinign
himcustody
wlth
aany offence.
withoutotche.e slightest grounds
Mr. Tama. said it was obvious the defendants had

made a mistake in the business; and that, under
that impression, he should dismiss the complaint ; but
it was still in the power of the complainant to bring
an action for assault and false imprisonment, at all
events against Gough, if he was not satisfied, or re-
ceived compensation for the inconvenience to which
he had been subjected on the occasion.
The complainant seemed to be surprised at the de-
cision, and left the court with two friends.
WORSHIP-STREET.

William Bear, a schoolmaster, in Brick-lane, Spi-
talfields, was charged with having most cruelly treated
one of his pupils, a little boy, nine years of age, named
Crowe.

The substance of the little fellow's evidence (which,
from his extreme youth, was naturally rather imper-
fect) was, that while cleaning his slate with his hand
in the school-room, on Thursday week, the master,
without uttering a word of remonstrance, came be-
hind him and cut him a great number of times across
the head and ears with a thick cane. On the next
day, in consequence of his having soiled his own
brother's book, the defendant kept him in until all
the rest of the scholars had left the school but three
of them, whom the defendant ordered to stop for the
purpose, and then almost stripped the child, and whilst
the three bays held him to prevent his making any
resistance, beat him very severely all over his back
with four canes tied together so as to resemble a rod.
He complained of suffering great pain from the in-
fliction of the punishment, and his person still exhi-
bited traces of the extreme violence that had been
exercised towards him.

The child's father (Police-constable 70 II) stated,
that on coming off duty, at ten o'clock on the night
of Thursday week, he heard the child, who was irk
bed, breathing very hard and groaning loudly, in
consequence of which he examined him, and was ac-
quainted with the treatment he had received from his
master. Pulling down the bedclothes, he found the
whole of the child's back, from the shoulders to the

feet, so shockingly scarified that it resembled a piece
of raw meat, the canes having completely cut into
the flesh. His wife urged him to take summary re-
taliation upon the master, but he resolved, instead,
upon bringing him to this Court ; and it being at that
time very late, and having to go on duty again early
the next morning, he saw nothing more of the child
until he returned home the next (Friday) night, at
nine o'clock. On entering the room he found the
child's face and neck completely covered with blood,
owing, as he said, to the violent usage he had again
sustained from his master ; and on examining his
person he found that one of his ears had been nearly
cut through, and that there were several other ter-
rible cuts about his head and face. The injuries were
so severe, that witness was obliged to seek the assist-
ance of a medical person, who prescribed lotions ;
but although these were applied, the child continued
very restless, and could not sleep for three continu-
ous nights.
The defendant gave the child a very bad character,
said he had smeared his own and another boy's books
(as defendant thought) intentionally, and he con-
sidered that he was only doing his parents a service
by correcting him. He was not aware that -he had
cut the boy in the back in the manner described, and
declared that it must have been accidental, while the
child was trying to screen himself from the other
blows. On the second occasion he made the other
boys hold him to prevent the child's kicking them,
and that punishment was inflicted with a rod, in the
usual way, and not with the four canes, as the child
stated. He concluded with an appeal to the magis-
trate, saying that he was a married man himself, and
had children of his own.

To contradict the defendant's statement, Mr. Bryer,
an officer of the Court, and Fitzgerald, one of the
warrant officers, were examined ; the former said the
boy was cut all over his hack, from the shoulders to
the loins, and that a great deal more violence had
been used than was at all proper for so young a child.
The latter stated that the father of the child had
stripped him for his inspection in one of the cells
attached to the Court, and that he found the child
" scored, from the bladebone all down the thighs."
The injuries had certainly been inflicted with canes,
and not with a rod ; and Mr. Broughton, who sat
when the summons against the defendant was applied
for, and who witnessed the state of the child, had
ordered him to attend before. Mr. Bingham and give
evidence.

Mr. BINGHAM said, that considerable latitude must
necessarily be allowed to schoolmasters in the in-
fliction of chastisement on obdurate or contrary
pupils, but in this instance he was clearly of opinion
that the defendant had gone much beyond the mark.

He was very strongly inclined to send the defendant
to the sessions to answer the charge ; hut as the
father of the child was in somewhat needy circum-
stances, the justice of the case would perhaps best be
met by permitting a compromise, and preventing the
expense of further proceedings elsewhere. He should
therefore allow him to step out of Court with the
father, but in the event of the parties not coming to

a satisfactory adjustment he should send the case to
the sessions.

The parties retired, and in a short time returned,
the father of the child intimating to the magistrate
that he had received a satisfactory compensation.
A fine young fellow named William Magness,
dressed in the full regimentals of the 49th Regiment
of Foot, was charged with being a deserter.
As 56 N was on duty on the preceding night in
Brunswick-street, Hackney-road, the prisoner's
father, a highly respectable man, called to him and
told him that his son, who was then out, would shortly
return home, and that, as he was a deserter from his
regiment, he required that he should be taken into
custody. Witness waited about till eleven o'clock,
when the prisoner returned, and then he took him to
the station-house.
The prisoner said he had obtained leave of absence
from his commanding-officer to see his mother, who
was in a dangerous state of illness, and on the expira-
tion of his parol he called at the War-office to
obtain the necessary papers to procure his trans-
mission to his regiment at Weedon barracks, but
that, unfortunately he met several acquaintances,
who induced him to *take a farewell glass with them,
and he got intoxicated. On recovering himself, his
leave having expired, he was ashamed to face his
officers, and went home again, where he had since
been staying until given into custody by his father,
whose object in so doing he could not account for.
He was very fond of the service, and intended to give
himself up the next day, had not this taken place.
Had he intended to desert he should not have walked
about in his regimentals, as the magistrate then saw
him ; and he trusted, under the circumstances, the
magistrate would consent to let an officer accompany
him to the recruiting officer who would be convinced
of his intentions and pass him to his regiment, with-
out the disgrace of his being sent to prison.
Mr. BINGHA M intimated to the prisoner that he
should communicate with the War-office, and endea-
vour to make matters straight for him, but he was
compelled to detain him until he received an answer
from the military authorities.—He was then removed.
THAMES POLICE.
On Friday Coulson Douglas, master of the Thomas
Baker collier, appeared to answer informations laid
by Mr.:Barber, the registrar, under the Coalwhippers'
Act, for a violation of the statute, which requires that
before discharging the cargo of any collier application
be made at the coalwhippers'-office a . for vo" .ig of
registered men, and if the price offered tic deemed
sufficient the bargain is closed. S
the master is at libert, ^D. tiould it be refused
y
.ter the performance of cer-
tain formalities '
LO employ any gang, whether re-
gisteredr not, provided he pay no higher sum than
wnatil had been
been previously refused by the registered
men at the office, and this was the offence which the
defery-1.,.....-4 appeared to answer. A clerk from the
coal waippers'-office proved that the defendant had of-
fered 4d. per ton, which was refused. A coalwhipper
named Aveling stated that he assisted in whipping the
Thomas Baker on the 25th of August, and received
7d. per ton, not from the defendant, but from Bowd-
ley, the basket man, by whom he was engaged. Mr.
Pelham, who conducted the defence, whilst Mr.
Hobler appeared for the prosecution, called William
Bowling, who swore that he engaged to clear the
vessel, which was of 368 tons burden, for the sum of
Si. 17s. Bd. He engaged with the men for 4d. per
ton, but afterwards gave them a gratuity of 225.,
which would make it amount to 7d.
Mr. BALLANTIN E, after commenting on the evidence
of the last witness, who evidently edged very closely
on perjury, fined the defendant Si., which was in-
stantly paid.
A pawnbroker named Cranbery, of Shadwell, ap-
peared to an;wer informations laid by Birch, the no-
torious informer, for having demanded and takai
more than the legal rate of interest. The article was
pawned by the informer's wife, and the defendant
pleaded guilty, urging that the offence was owing to
the mistake of a lad, wbo was not sufficiently initiated
into the routine of the business, having been only
three months behind the counter.
The defendant was fined 10s. and costs.
In the course of the afternoon Birch applied to the
magistrate for a moiety of the fine, not so much, he
said, for the amount, as to try a question.
Mr. BALLANTINE said he would have no objection,
if the application were made by a poor person who
had suffered from an overcharge, but he had doubts
about doing so at all in what appeared to have arisen
from a concerted plan. The allowance would be made
in cases where the poor were benefited, but it was an•
other matter when a trap was laid. He should, how-
ever, consider of it.
Birch—Am I to understand, then, Mr. Ballantine,
that lam refused ? Mr. BALLANTINE—Yes, for the
present.
Birch—When am I to apply again ? Mr. BAL-
LANTINE—I don't know ; you must take your chance.
CLERKEN IVEL L.

On Friday John Clemenson, son of a gentleman of
fortune, was charged with deserting his child,
whereby it had become chargeable to Islington parish.
Mrs. Lane, the wife of a labourer residing at
klington, deposed that on the Bth of Septetoher, 184