The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-20 00:00:00

arrears of ground rent amounted to about SOU., and
work had been done by the simple contract creditors to
about 12,000/. ; and Mr. Ladbroke had it in his power
to work a forfeiture, but he was willing to continue the
leases on the payment of the ground-rent. The object
of the application was, therefore, to clothe a creditor
with the office of assignee, in order that the buildings
might be completed and sold for the benefit of the
creditors.
The CHIVE' COMMIE:MONZA asked whether the insolvent
was in attendance ?
Mr. WOODRUFFE said he was not, but he supposed he
would like to be ; he was in Reading gaol.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said -he meant whether
he showed cause ; he might have been out on bail.
The COURT ordered Mr. Laurence to be appointed
assignee.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
BURGLARY.—Thomas Howell, Frederick Smith,
and Robert Franklin, were brought up for final ex-
amination. It will be recollected that two of the pri-
soners were found concealed in a chamber at the
George and Vulture, Cornhill.
The depositions of the witnesses were read over and
signed, and the parties were duly bound over to pro-
secute.
Howell and Smith were then fully committed on
the charge of burglary, and Franklin as an accessory.
The prisoners displayed the most hardened indif-
ference throughout, Howell humming a tune the
greater part of the time.
Howell addressed his Lordship about the cab fare
having been taken from his pocket. It was 4s.
LORD MAYOR—Apply to the Court at the trial.
Howell—Till then I suppose my wife must go with-
out. I never rode in the cab. It is not proved.
The LORD MAYOR—I cannot interfere.
The prisoners were then removed.
GUILDHALL.
A smartly-dressed young man, of the name of Ellis,
who is supposed to be some City warehouseman, was
charged with having offered a dozen silk handkerchiefs
in pledge, the same being suspected es stolen.
Mr. Attenborough, the pawnbroker, of Fleet-street,
said that on Friday afternoon the prisoner came to his
shop, and desired to pledge a piece of silk handker-
chiefs for four shillings. There appearing something
suspicious about his behaviour, he was induced to ask
him several questions respecting where the property
came from, and where he lived. The prisoner replied
that he had purchased it in the early part of the week
for 10s., at a public-house, and that he resided some-
times in Laurence-lane, and at Cole's-place, Com-
mercial-road East. He them requested him to walk
with him (witness) to the former address, so as to
ascertain whether he spoke correctly, and on their
way there the prisoner stopped and admitted that
he had told falsehoods respecting his address. Wit-
ness then, believing that the property had been im-
properly obtained, gave him in custody to the first
policeman he met with.
Mr. Alderman MUSGROVE—WeII, prisoner, per-
haps you will tell me where you got the handker-
chiefs, and your right address ? The prisoner gave
the same story as he did to Mr. Attenborough, and
remarked that he should not have attempted to pawn
them, had he not been pushed for a little money.
Mr. Alderman MUSGROVE wished to know whether
the prisoner was known.
The prisoner said his friends were highly respect-
able. He had two brothers filling very important
situations in the City.
A person here, in the body of the Court, cried out
that the prisoner's friends were highly respectable,
but they would not help him now he had got into such
a disgraceful situation, as he had mixed with bad cha-
racters.
Mr. Alderman MUSGROVE observed that he could
not part with the prisoner until some inquiries were
made about him, and accordingly remanded him till
Wednesday for that purpose.
WORSHIP-STREET.
William Tluraites, a weaver, was placed before Mr.
Broughton, for final examination, upon a charge of
embezzling upwards of 401. worth of silk velvet, which
he had been employed-to weave for Messrs. Everson
and Co., silk manufacturers, in Spitalfields.
Mr. Humphreys attended for the complainants.
The prisoner, it appeared, had three looms, and at
different times since September, received materials to
make three pieces of velvet of thirty yards each, re-
ceiving, as the work progressed, a more than usual
advance of cash on account of wages. Mr. Gascoigne,
the foreman, visited occasionally to inspect the works,
and on the last occasion, in December, the prisoner
said, "if you come on Christmas-eve you shall have
the whole 1' When he next went, however, he found
the place empty and locked up, the looms and the
whole of the property were gone, and the prisoner
had absconded. Last week the prisoner was discovered
at work at Loughborough, and there apprehended,
brought to London by railway, and delivered in
custody at this Court. It was now proved that dur-
ing the progress of the work he had contrived to draw
his wages in advance to the amount of upwards of
101. from his employers, whose loss altogether was
little short of 50/.
The prisoner admitted having made away with the
work, but alleged that he had been driven to it by the
persons employed under him, who got from him more
than he received, and reduced him to distress.
Mr. BROUGHTON said it was a most aggravated
case, and a person plundering his employer of even a
twentieth part of the property, under other circum-
stances, would be liable to transportation, but he
could only sentence the prisoner, under the Silk Act,
to three months' imprisonment—a punishment wholly
inadequate to the offence.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
An information against Mr. Hunt, the proprietor
of Morland's Hotel, Dean-street, for keeping (as
alleged) his house open for the sale of liquors
after twelve o'clock on Saturday night, was heard
before Mr. Hardwick, the sitting magistrate.
Inspector Squires, of the C division, proved that he
went to the defendant's house about half-past twelve
o'clock on the previous Saturnay night, and on gaining
admission he went up-stairs, and in a room on the
first floor he saw nine or ten gentlemen seated around
a table, with refreshments before them. Everything
wore the appearance of a convivial and social meeting,
and one of the party was singing at the time witness
made his appearance. When witness entered the
room he was told by the company that the society
was a literary one, and that they were in their own
club-room. Witness went over the defendant's
house, but with the exception of one person before
the bar, and the gentlemen up-stairs, there was no
one in the house. The lights were also extinguished,
and the house was otherwise closed.
Mr. Duncombe, who appeared for the defendant,
said his answer to the complaint was, that the police
had intruded themselves into a place where they had
no business to show themselves. A number of lite-
rary gentlemen and artists of celebrity had for many
years rented rooms of the defendant. In these rooms
they established a club, the members of which met to
discuss subjects connected with literature and the arts,
and to refresh themselves with a social glass. They
had a right, he contended, to remain in their own
room as long as they pleased, and to be exempted
from the surveillance of the police. The information
could not be sustained against the defendant, he being
charged with "keeping his house open for the sale of
liquors after twelve o'clock on Saturday night," be-
cause the principal witness himself proved the house
for business purposes was closed, and that the only
part of the house in which persons were found was a
club-room, over which the defendant had no control.
Besides, no proof had been given that liquors had been
served after twelve o'clock.
The proprietor of the hotel proved by the books of
the club proceedings, that the room in which the ten
persons were found by the inspector was rented of
him lsy a number of gentlemen, who paid him a yearly
rent, and who had appropriated the room to the pur-
pose of a literary and scientific club.
Mr. HARDWICK said it had been distinctly proved
that the room visited by the inspector, although
forming part of the defendant's house, was in reality
in the nature of a separate tenement. The landlord
received a yearly rent for his room, and therefore
the right of occupancy was entirely vested in the
members of the club. The renters of these rooms
had a right to use them for their own purposes, and
if they so pleased, to remain in them all night. He
must therefore consider that everything done in these
club-rooms was precisely the same as if done in the
next house, or any house not a public-house.
The members of the club had a perfect right to
indulge their convivial tendencies, but then, if the
landlord of the house supplied them with refresh-
ments after the hour of twelve on Saturday night,
the landlord committed an offence and was clearly
liable for: having violated the provisions of an Act of
Parliament. The evidence before him went only to
show that a number of gentlemen were in their own
club-room with refreshments before them, but in a
case like the present he considered it was his duty, in
order to justify a conviction, to have proof that the
defendant actually served liquors after twelve o'clock.
Inspector Squires said he had a witness who would
prove that a person came out of the house with a pot
of porter after twelve o'clock at night.
Mr. Duncombe, with considerable warmth, pro-
tested against the course pursued by the inspector.
The inspector had closed his evidence, but finding he
had not stated enough to ensure a conviction, although
sworn to speak the truth, and the whole truth, he at•
tempted to re-open the case by introducing evidence
of a totally different character. Had the inspector
attempted such a proceeding at the Central Criminal
Court the judge would have instantly ordered him
out of Court.
Inspector Squires said he had only partly given his
evidence, when he was interrupted by the defence set
up by Mr. Duncombe.
Mr. Haunwicx. said he actually thought the evi-
dence on the part of the police had ceased; otherwise
he should not have offered the ramarks which he had
just uttered. He did not see that he could with pro-