The Sun.
London, England, 1845-10-23 00:00:00

The other cases hesrd were not of the least importance.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
John Spillard was charged with having pulled the nose of
John Chick Worthingtons in the neighbourhood of the Stock
Exchange.
Mr. Worthington, a dealer insraw silk, stated that on
Friday week he went to a broker in Bartholomew-lane, and
asked a gentleman with whom he entered into conversation
the price of certain shares. The gentleman beckoned to the
defendant, as a person who could give the information, but
he (complainant) declined having any communication with
the defendant, who asked the cause of such refusal, and com-
mitted the degrading assault attributed to him.
The complainant, in answer to a question, said that he had
not called the defendant a scamp until the defendant had taken
him by the nose.
S. Worthington, brother to the complainant, stated that
the defendant committed the assault upon the complainant's
refusal to do any business with him.
The defendant declared that he had treated the com-
plainant with the indigni y described because the provoca-
tion given was one of the most insupportable insults. The
complainant had, without rhyme or reason, applied the name
" scamp" to him, and the act complained of naturally fol-
lowed such a description.
Mr. Taylor stated, that Mr. Worthington asked him the
value of some shares, and, as he did not know, he called to
Mr. Spillard to supply the information. When Mr. Spillard
approached, Mr. Worthington said, " I want to have nothing
to do with you," and called Mr. Spillard a d—d scamp,
in a voice quite loud enough to be heard by those around,
upon which the operation of pulling the nose was instantly
performed, very much to the dissatisfaction of the party re-
taliated upon.
The LORD MAYOR said, the assault was clearly proved,
and he should hold the defendant to bail in the amount of
201., to answer the charge at the sessions.
GUILDHALL.
Dryden Elstoh, a young man of respectable connexions,
and dressed as an officer of her Majesty's Navy, was brought
before Mr. Alderman Wood for re-examination, charged
with being a deserter from the 3d Regiment of Dragoons.
William Ledham, a city police-constable, stated, that as
he was passing through Newgate• street on Monday he met
the prisoner, and recognised him as a person whe had been
advertised in the Police Gazette as having deserted from the
regiment in Ireland about two months ago. Witness was
formerly a private in the same regiment, from which the
prisoner had deserted twice before.
The prisoner, assuming a tone of high indignation, assured
the magistrate the policeman was totally mistaken. He never
was or wished to be a soldier. It was a most scandalous pro-
ceeding to drag a gentleman to a police-office in this way
and falsely charge him with beinga deserter. He could refer
to Mr. Jeremy, the magistrate, and many other gentlemen,
who knew him.
Mr. Alderman WooD asked the policeman if he was not
labouring under some mistake here.
The policeman said he was not. He had been in the same
regiment two years with him. He could find a sergeant of
the regiment who would know him.
The prisoner looked at the policeman with astonishment,
said it was all false, and he was a perjured man.
Mr. Alderman WooD observed that the policeman could
hardly be mistaken ; but he would let the case stand over for
a day for further proof.
Yesterday, when the prisoner was again put to the bar, he
was confronted with a recruiting officer fiom the regiment,
who is in town, who positively identified him, and the prisoner
no longer resisted the charge.
Mr. Alderman Woon committed him to the Compter for
safe custody till demanded by his regiment.
WORSHIP-STREET.
A middle-aged man of very respectable appearance, named
Thomas Giles, was placed at the har before Mr. Broughton,
charged with stealing a quantity of household furniture, the
trust property of Mr. James Van Someri of Upper Clapton,
secretary to the Stock Exchange.
Mr. Van Somer stated that some time back the prisoner
made application •to him to become tenant of a furnished
cottage at Upper Clapton, forming part of the estate of a
lunatic, of which he was trustee, and the references the pri-
soner gave appearing to be in every respect satisfactory, he
agreed to Ist him the house at a rental of 50 guineas per
year, the prisoner paying one half-year's rent in advance.
Possession was taken of the premises, r-nd nothing whatever
occurred to cast a doubt upon the prisoner's respectability
until about a fortnight ago, when witness received informa-
tion that the house had been deserted and shut up; and on
his recovering po.ssession of it he found that a large quantity
of the furniture and effects which had been let with it, con-
sisting, in fact, of almost everything that could be well re-
moved without exciting suspicio::, had been carried off. Be,
in consequence, gave immediate information to the police of
the robbery, arid on the preceding evening he had been ap-
prised that the prisoner was in custody.
Police-constable 94 N, stated that he had been engaged in
unremitting exertions to trace the prisoner's retreat ever
since the 9th instant, but unsuccessfully until the preceding
evening; when, while passing down Newgate-street, he ac-
cidentally met with him, and took him into custody. On
being informed of the charge against him, the prisoner at
once
disposeda ekri,f°, N:111 odd ged
handed thath the
m propertylB
duplicates hadr:lbaeteinn
relating
unlawfully
wa fpuol
tir-
,iao.NniNi,ducuhflreoiikt:terwisi•hich had been pledged at the shops of different
his
sr
ntlootit‘h,ee
fc,,hrarge,the prisoner disclaimed any
.itention in the conversion of the property, and
saidfrjn thatans'hy
absconding was to avoid an arrest
for debt, he having been apprised that two sheriff's officers
were lying in wait for him in an adjoining house,the servants
of which were conniving at their proceedings.
Mr. 11110uDirToN considered that a prima' fade case of
felony had been established against the prisoner, on which
it was his duty to commit him to prison, but as some formal
confirmatory testimony was requisite to complete the charge,
he must be brought tip again on that day week for its being
taken.
Elias Fiad, a boy only 12 years of age, was then placed
at the bar, charged with having stolen a quantity of jewellery
and numerous other articles, the property of his father, a
and that although eserhreiyemde,offptoehrnet
tradesman in Gloucester-street, Hoxton.
h
The father, who was much affected, said thrhawiantidgliskebprorioseohneesr,
ago it waansditheing discovered
surmisedtl atlie
had exhibited a most unaccountable propensity to thieve
yteoarsrecplaasht;l him, it had been entirely
altogether form-
' hadfljuarl a
suddenlynumberbe unsuccessful.eri uoeAfdbo About
absconded awfereokm
elude
t he
k Cp
sat
houseehnvadet.
several
iluevndah.lrseaaerd;xov
uaemsrmsoai
and
articles
eoswstbhoalot
ebfnil .
at
wearingt wasnauk me nfob
uesaornpndo:
faet something
as
ins. a large bundle, with which he had decamped. Informa-
tpuurp.
after him for four days, but he had co
he was taken by
suit until the proceeding evening, when
tion was forwarded to the police, and
natrsieNaerdchtow
two bracelets, three gold
stolen property, consisting of
five silk brooches, two ear drops, five books, and
a policeman, who found upon him the remainder__ of the
plunder by disposing of a
gradually decreasing his stock of
'ng himself on the
handker-
chiefs. It then appeared that the little rascal had been
few of the articles each day and supporting
proc, eds.
-A watchmaker named King, in the Kingsland-road, pro-
duced one of the stolen brooches, which he had purcba.ssed
from the prisoner on such an artfully concocted story as to
disarm the wittness of all suspicion.
Mr. BROUGHTON feelingly impressed upon the prisoner the
ruinous consequences of the course he had pursued, and put
it to his father, whether it was his intention to prosecute his
son ?

The father said, that the incorrigible depravity of the boy
had almost broken his mother's heart, and although it was
extremely painful to his own feelings, he felt compelled to
persevere in the prosecution, as it was evident the prisoner
was thoroughly hardened and irreclaimable.
The prisoner, who declined saying anything in answer
to the charge, was then ordered to be committed to prison.