The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-29 00:00:00

Mr. M'Dunald—The Committee believe that to be
false.

Mr. RawerNsost—Have you ever been to visit the
case, to know whether it is true or false ? Mr. M'Donald
—I hare been, but did not see Mrs. Perks.
Mr. RAWLINSON—I say there is just cause, and I can't
think of being so inhuman as to strip a child naked.
What is the value of the article detained ? Mr. M'Do-
nald—l should say about ss.
Mr. RaweiNsoN—l am sure the clergy would never
wish me to do what I should call an inhuman act, and I
shall dismiss the summons, as I believe a just cause has
been shown for detaining the things.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Yesterday Mr. John Shafe, a gentleman of property.
residing at Shacklewell, appeared before Mr. Bingham
upon a peace-warrant, charged with using violent and
threatening language towards Mr. Charles Packer, a
medical gentleman, in practice at Hoxton.
The complainant stated that on Friday last the defen-
dant entered his surgery, and in a very menacing and ex-
cited manner demanded whether he knew him ? Witness
invited him into the parlour, which the defendant entered,
but had no sooner done so than he thrust his face insult-
ingly close to the witness's, and repeating his former
question, exclaimed, " You thief and scoundrel, I am
the man whom you made that infernal solicitor of yours
rob of 71.," at the same time brandishing a heavy stick
in his face, and threatening to strike his spectacles
through his head. Witness requested the defendant to
quit his house, and he then walked back to the surgery,
but he there again resumed his threatening and offensive
language, and used such exasperating conduct to induce
him to strike him, that witness was at length compelled
to send his assistant for a policeman, on which the de-
fendant hastily quitted the premises ; but his animosity
towards the witness was so uncontrollable, that he was
apprehensive he should sustain some serious personal
violence if the defendant were net restrained by the
magistrate.
In answer to the charge, the defendant, who still ex-
hibited considerable excitement, stated that in the month
of April, 1842, he was driving home through the City-
road in his phaeton, when he accidentally and unfor-
tunately knocked down two little children, who, upon
being raised by some of the passengers, were carried into
the complainant's surgery. Having ascertained the ad•
dress of the children's parents, he (the defendant) called
upon them to make compensation for the injury they
might have sustained, but was told by the parents that
the children bad escaped entirely harmless, a statement
which was afterwards corroborated by the complainant,
who told him that he had no charge to make. About
three weeks subsequently, however, he was greatly sur-
prised at the receipt of a bill from Mr. Packer, in which
he made a charge of 31. odd for his attendance upon the
children, and he (defendant) having demurred to paying it.
after what the complainant had told him, legal proceed..
ings were instantly taken for its recovery, and these ran
up the bill to more than 71., which he was ultimately
compelled to pay. He (defendant) was suffering at the
time from an inflammation of the eyes, and the vexatious
conduct the complainant bad pursued towards him had
so greatly aggravated the disorder, that his sight had in
consequence been almost totally destroyed. He had
since studiously avoided coming into contact with Mr.
Packer, not being able to control his feelings, until the
day in question, when, on accidentally passing his house,
he was irresistibly impelled to enter it, and expostulate
on the treatment he had received.
The complainant said that the children had been far
more seriously injured than the defendant had stated,
and that so far from his having any ground of complaint,
his charge for attendance upon them had been unusually
moderate ; but the defendant, notwithstanding, had
exhibited such an implacable enmity towards him after-
wards, that he was compelled, in defence of his profes-
sional character, to institute fresh legal proceedings
against him for slander, and bad only foregone them on
the defendant making an ample written apology for his
intemperate conduct, and engaging that it should never
be repeated.
Mr. BINGIIAZI said, that whatever might be the merits
of the misunderstanding previously subsisting between
them, and into which it was not his province to enter, it
was impossible to justify the violent and threatening
conduct the defendant had exhibited, and as the com-
plainant was apprehensive he should sustain some per.
sonal injury at his hands, the defendant must gnd bail

their principles, and their constituencies, and their votes
were very different from their promises.
Mr. Mum. having assured the meeting that he would
be both consistent and true,
The Rev. G. ROSE, a Dissenting minister, moved the
following resolution :—" That this meeting, believing
that the principles upon which Mr. Miall has consented
to stand as a candidate for the representation of
wark are of paramount importance, and at* Bitch as the
majority of the electors of this borr,":git adopt, is deter-
mined to reject all comnr,:;ll,,, and to carry him through.
the poll in the fi.t!lConfiaence of his triumphant success.'
Mr. AIDERSON having seconded it, the motion was
Fe:. and passed.
Thanks were then accorded to the Chairman, on the
proposition of Mr. Miall, and the meeting separated.

- -
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
Yesterday William Desmond, a journeyman tailor,
was brought before Mr. Alderman Farebrother, charged
with illegally pawning a coat, the property of Messrs.
Moses, the cheap tailors at Ahlgate.
Ann Headley, the wife of a journeyman, residing in
King-street, stated that on Tuesday night she bad given
the prisoner the materials for a coat which was to be
made in a limited time, and yesterday morning she found
that it had been pawned, and that the prisoner had left
the duplicate for her on his shopboard. She consulted
with her friend, who was her security with Mr. Moses,
and she gave the prisoner into custody.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER supposed the middle-
man system, which so much contributed to lower the
rate of wages, and which his society had very much
broken up in the shirt-making trade, was practised
among the tailors. Messrs. Moses gave out their work
at a price considerably below the ordinary rate, but the
persons who took it out heeded it over to others at a
still lower rate of wages.
Mrs. Headley said that was not the case here.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER asked what she was to
receive for making the coat ?—She replied Bs.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER asked what she was to
pay the prisoner ?—She replied Bs. She gave it out to
the prisoner because it was to be done by a fixed time,
and her husband had other work in hand.
The prisoner said that was the case. He made one
half of the coat while another man did the rest, because
it was to be done in the best manner.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER said, there could be no
doubt the coat was turned out in the best manner. What
price would be paid for making the coat for an ordinary
master tailor, or for his customer?—The prisoner said
he should have charged 165.; if it had been the Alder-
man's coat, probably 18s.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER wished the public would
leave off dealing with these extraordinarily cheap shops.
The very cheap clothing could only be blown together
at the price. The price regulated the length of the
stitches.
The prisoner said not exactly so. He was obliged to
put very good work where he received only half the
proper wages.
Mr.'Alderman FAREBROTHER said, he made a point
of dealing only with tradesmen who sold their goods at
a fair price that would allow fair wages to the workman.
Upon inquiring into the case, it appeared the prisoner
had pawned the coat for Bs., being the amount of his
wages, and only to enforce immediate payment.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER said he must draw a
distinction between this case and the ordinary charge of
illegal pawning, where the pawner obtained the most he
could, doing it recklessly to gratify some propensity,
and wilfully wronging the owner. A workman might
perhaps detain work till he received his wages for it ;
but it was illegal to pawn the work for the amount of
the wages, and the penalty for unlawfully pawning
might be as much as three months' imprisonment and a
whipping. AE the prisoner intended to do no wrong, he
would discharge him with this warning. The com-
plainant had the duplicate, and that cancelled the claim
for wages.
The prisoner was discharged.
MARYLEBONE.
Mary Perks, a poor widow with a family of four chil-
dren, some of hem laid up with the small-pcx, appeared
to a summons taken out at the instance of the Committee
of the United National School attached to the Rev. Mr.
Dodsworth's church, Albany-street, to show cause why
she detained a suit of clothes, worn by one of her chil-
dren whilst a scholar in the school.
Mr. M.Donald appeared on the part of the Committee,
and said the present proceeding was adopted by the
Committee for the purpose of recovering a suit of clothes
which was given to the children belonging to the United
National School for Sunday wear. The rule of the
Committee was this—to so many children a suit of
clothes was given to wear on Suadays, and after it had
been in wear twelve months it was to be given up, and
on application being made to the Committee it was
given to the children to wear every day; a child of the
defendant was a recipient of these clothes, but about
three weeks back he left the school, and not returning
the clothes, application was made to the mother for
them, and two notices were sent signed by the Rev. Mr.
Dodsworth. The clothes not being returned a summons
was taken out against the mother for detaining them.
In answer to the complaint the poor widow said, that
her boy being eleven years of age, he was taken from
the school for the purpose of going to place. The clothes
he bad belonging to him were in rags, and he was com-
pelled to wear those which had been given him at the
school. The poor boy, however, was too weak for the
place, and was now at home. She had made an appli-
catiou for the clothes, in charity, but had received no
answer to her application.
Mr. M'Donald said no application could be enter-
tained by the Committee until after the clothes were
returned.
The defendant having promised to give up a portion
of the things, the summons was ordered to stand over
until yesteray, when the parties again appeared.
Mr. M'Donald put in copies of the notices which had
been sent to Mrs. Perks, signed by the Rev. Mr. Dods-
worth—the first to the effect that no application could be
listened to until the clothes were returned, and the
second, that " severe measures would be adopted, and a
summons taken out, to compel her to make restitution of
the clothes." She had given up the jacket, waistcoat,
cap, and hag for holding the clothes, but now retained
the trousers.
Mrs. Perks said that the Rev. Mr. New, one of the
curates, called on her last night (Wednesday), and said
she must bring the clothes in. She told him she had
nothing to put her boy on, and what was she to do ? He
replied that she must strip him, and put him to bed.
Mr. RAWLINSON said, the law of the case was this:—
that if the parties detained the things without just cause,
then the magistrate had the power of ordering them to
be given up. In the present case, he thought the fact
of the child being naked was a just cause fur detaining
them.