The Sun.
London, England, 1845-10-08 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MAIRLBUROUGH- STREET.
A journeyman coppersmith, named Evans, was sum-
moned before Mr. Hardwick fur breach of contract with
his employer, Mr. Styles, coppersmith, Lisle-street,
Leicester-square.
Mr. Styles proved that the defendant entered into a-
' written contract to engage himself for six months, at the
wages of 235. weekly. The defendant came to work two
or three days and then left him entirely.
➢dr. Pontifex, the coppersmith, said the defendant hail
some time previously engaged himself to him for several
months. The railroads made the trade so busy that it
was of importance not to lose the services of even one
man. He hoped the defendant would be obliged to fulfil
his original engagement.
Mr. Styles said he had no vindictive feeling towards
the man, who was otherwise a good workman, and when
not drawn away by liquor a steady man. But it was
important to teach journeymen that they must not, after
having engaged themselves to an employer for a stated
time, leave their work and upset business with impunity.
Had this been the defendant's first offence of the like
sort he should perhaps have looked over it ; but as the
defendant had done the same before, and had thereby
set a bad example to others, he had determined to put
the law in force against him.
Mr. HARDWICK said, in order to teach him that he
must not enter into engagements and break them capri-
ciously, to the great injury of his employers, he would
send him to prison for one month.
The defendant's solicitor said Mr. Styles would, of
course, pay the man his wages all the time he was in
prison.

Mr. Styles said he would do whatever the magistrate
required.
Mr. HARDWICK looked over the Act, and came to the
determination, instead of directing Mr. Styles to pay a
proportionate amount of the wages, of cancelling the
contract altogether.
The defendant was then committed to hard labour for
a month.

niMargaret t,rawley and Emma Evans were charged with
annoying gentlemen in Hyde-park.
Police-sergeant No. 102 of the A division stated that about
eight o'clock last evening. he saw the defendants in Hyde-
park, near to Park-lane, accost and annoy different gentle-
men as they met them. The gentlemen turned out of their
way to avoid their obstruction. Witness knowing them to
be nightly infesting the park took them into custody.
Inspector Plume, of the C division, said that Evans was
brought before this court on Friday last, charged with in-
tending to drown herself in the Serpentine River. She then
represented that she had been in service at Reading, and
that her father was cAector of assessed taxes and parish
clerk of Wallingford, and, that she had been inveigled from
her service by a young farmer, who had deserted her.
On the case being heard Air. Hardwick ordered 10s. to be
given her from the poor-box, and that one of the officers of
the Court should see her off by the railway train to her
parents home. On the•way to the station the officer ascer-
tained that she was not the character she had represented
herself to be, but had been known in the neighbourhood of
Kilburn and the parks for many years. On this information
the officer brought her back to the Court, when Mr. Hard-
wick, from a compassionate feeling, discharged her, ordering
2s. to be given to her for her immediate wants, with a cau •
tion not to be brought before this Court again. (This case
appeared in the evening edition of The Sun on Friday last.)
The defendant Crawley was also identified as an old
offender.
Mr. HARWICK said that after dark persons like the pri-
soners should not be allowed to infest the parks. It was well
known that their purpose was robbery, and that they had
men accomplices with them to carry out their intentions.
He should impose a fine of 405., or one month's imprison-
ment, on each of the defendants. Not being able to pro-
cure the money they were of course sent to gaol.
CLERKEN IV ELL. _

Thomas Hitchin, late a beer-shop-keeper in Goswell-street,
was charged with representing hims.ff to be a police con-
stable, for the purpose of obtaining admission into the house
of Mr. Lewis Jones, Chairman of, the Licensed Victuallers'
Protection Society, and proprietor of the Coach and Horses,
in Fawn-street, in the liberty of Glasshouse.yard.
The complainant stated that, on Monday night, the de-
fendant and another man came to his house, and wished to
go up stairs, where there was a philanthropic society then
assembled. He was told that no stranger was admitted
unless introduced by a member; and he then said lie was a
police constable, No. 39 K, and was in search of a party who
had robbed the friend that was with him. Witness, dis-
believing him, told him that if lie would go out and
bring an officer in his uniform, he would afford him
every facility ; on which the accused went into
the street, and pulling from his pocket a truncheon,
said, " Now, am I a constable or not ?" At this
instant a boy whispered into witness's ear the true character
of the defendant, who immediately started off. He (com-
plainant) followed him, and gave him into the custody of
police-sergeant S 4. His " friend" escaped.
Mr. CoSInE asked the defendant what he had to say for
himself?---The defendant said a " friend " of his had cer-
tainly been robbed, but that no proof was adduced to support
that assertion. He further stated that, two years ago, lie
was sworn in as a constable at the Thames Police.

Mr. COMBE observed, that the latter remark satisfied him
there was no dependence to be placed on his defence, as the
magistrates had no power to swear in constables except on
special occasions, such as riots and elections; and he ad-
journed the case for further investigation.
BOW-STREET.

Monday a dark-featured, middle-aged man, described
as John Conatich Clinton, merchant, of Somerset-street,
Whitechapel, was brought before Mr. Hall, on a warrant
granted by his Worship, under the Act of Treaty be-
tween; her Majesty and the United States of America,
for " giving up criminals fugitive from justice," &c ,
charged with being concerned in the forgery by which
the Messrs. Little and Co., bankers and stockbrokers, of
New York, were defrauded of 23,000 Mexican dollars
in April, 1841.
The prisoner, it may be remembered, was apprehended
on the same charge upon the warrant of the Foreign
Secretary of State, and taken before Mr. Jardine on
precisely the same day (October 6), in 1843. On that
occasion he was discharged on two grounds—it being
the opinion of his Worship, in the first place, that the
clause in the Treaty Act passed in 1842, which directed
that " copies" of the depositions taken in America should
be produced, had not been complied with. the "original"
depositions having been forwarded instead ; and, in the
second place, that the magistrate, not having been pre
viously applied to for a warrant for the apprehension of
the prisoner (as the Act directed), had no authority in
the case. From that time to the present, it appears, no
further steps had been taken. A Bill amending the
original Act had received the sanction of the two States.
and on Sunday last the prisoner was again taken Into
custody by Inspector Haynes, the warrant having been
granted by Mr. Hall the same morning.
Mr. Mullins, of the firm of Bush and Mullins, attended
for the prosecutors, and Mr. Sheard, from Mr. Parker's
office, for the prisoner.
Mr. Sheard said, he had only just received informa-
tion of the prisoner's apprehension, and begged for a
short remand to enable him to have the assistance of Air.
Chambers, who defended the prisoner on the last occa-
sion. There were other important reasons why a re-
mand would be essential to the prisoner, who rt quired
time to produce witnesses.
Mr. HALL felt bound to proceed with as little delay as
possible, and certainly without ccntemplating the neces-
sity for a remand.
Mr. Sheard said, material objections would be raised.
on the prisoner's behalf, to the application of the Treaty
Acts, passed after the alleged offence, to his case. Mr.•
Chamlieni, who had urged these points on a former oc •
casion, should therefore, in justice to the prisoner, have
an opportunity of being present.
Mr. HALL had no objection to wait a short time, until
Mr. Chambers had been sent for.

At the expiration of about an hour Mr. Sheard re-
turned with Mr. Clarkson, the barrister, with whom
was in consultation on the bench, when Mr. M. Cham-
bers, Q.C., who had been previously retained by Bush
and Mullins for the prosecution, arrived to conduct the
case for his new clients aid former adversaries.

This circumstance appeared to astonish Mr. Sheard,
who had calculated upon the co-operation or the Learned
1-`.otansel by whose advocacy the prisoner gained his ac •
quittal on the last occasion.
_ _

Mr. NI. Chambers briefly stated the case, which was
one of considerable national importance. He alluded to
the Treaty Act of August,lB42, and also to the subsequent
Bill to amend the same, the latter of which merely re-
moved some of the difficulties which had been experi-
enced in the operation of the former one, and in conse-
quence of which the prisoner was discharged when taken
before Mr. Jardine in 1842, on a charge arising out of
the same transaction. No question could now arise
upon the subject, as the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs had certified that the requisitions of those Acts
had been fully complied with. It would be the duty of
the magistrate, therefore, simply to act upon the written
and oral testimony whtch would be submitted to his
judgment regarding the prisoner, as he would anordi-
nary person who had been apprehended within his own
issue
of The difference could be only in the
of the case—the prisoner at the bar being sent to take
his trial before the tribunals of another country, instead
of being tried by our own.
Mr. Clarkson applied fur the immediate remand of the
prisoner, who bad been apprehended under the most ex-
traordinary circumstances. In the year 1843 (and he
would call upon his friend, Mr. Chambers, who was then
the advocate of the man whom he now opposed, to con-
firm what he stated), the same parties were in motion
against the prisoner, who, after being kept in prison
from June to October, was discharged by the magis-
trate because they failed in making out a case against
him. He had been ever since a resident in England,
and if any evidence, got op in another country in his
absence, were to be admitted against him, it would be
no more than sheer justice to allow him copies of the
depositions, and an opportunity,iniotrtsesohoi le,cn.:tfe prisoner
rrntf:ei s
mtfohcht
noeTret
bank),
thrirequiredthereabouts,
prosecutorsljaa‘ tvnvi
recoverydsnhconse-
quently, What
i enpt p,
(0(ea)-sf. of
miph.
icoai
doogn commenced
handsts
mßhoueafbe
pnnayt( hnrceeeodb2cupia:
sqvmhthiitiatoeeedeendnptslitlarnyli:ingd:;httindhhhrte:
d
the amount, Judgment open which was to be pronounce.d
in the city the very next day. The prosecutors knew this,
and hence the course adopted by them. He (Mr, Clark-
son) had been so hastily instructed on the matter,
that he hoped his Worship would, by remanding the
prisoner for a week or a fortnight, enable him to do jus-
tice to his client, and his client to do justice to him
self, by examining more minutely the multifarious
circumstances of the case as alleged against him. He
apprehended that nothing so monstrously unjust as send-
ing the prisoner out of the country before this oppor-
tunity were given him could be contemplated by his
.Worship, who was expressly enjoined by the Act to
judge of the case as he would one of every-day occur•
rence within the jurisdiction of his own Court. He
might refer to other important points in this case, in
which, he should contend, the Act could have no refer-
ence whatever, being of subsequent date ; but for the
present he should confine himself to his application for
an immediate remand.

Mr. Chambers was unwilling to object to the applies-