The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-20 00:00:00

POLICE
_INTELLIGENCE.

,ivrANsrommusE.—Mr. Careless was sum-
d „
incite npon nn information laid by John Edmonds,
Who Charged litit With having purchased a pheasant
Of .hiin=(tbe said John Edmonds), contrary to Act
of Parliament.
The LORD MAYOR—I suppose he pleads guilty.
Mr. Hobler, jun., who attended for the prosecu-
tion—l apprehend that he intends to do so, my
Lord.

The defendant—l do plead guilty, my Lord; but
I hope that you will make the penalty as small as
possible.
Mr. Hobler said that the penalty was 5/. without
mitigation.
The LORD MAYOR--SO it appears that Mr.
Edmonds receives absolution by this.—(A laugh.)
Well, I am only to administer the laws as I find

them. I don't presume to blame any persons for
taking such steps to secure themselves. At the
same time I must say that this law is suite an

anomaly.
The penalty of 5/. was then paid to the chief
clerk, who immediately handed one-half of it to Mr.
Edmonds, whose loss was thus reduced one-half.
A 'Bow-street patrol, whose name, as appeared
from the Mansion-house list, is Tomlinson, was
brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with hav-
ing exceeded his duty in a most offensive manner.
A lad of good character, it was stated in evidence,
was going along in the neighbourhood of Watling-
street, with a bag containing chaff on his shoulder.
The patrol, upon seeing him, went up and asked
him what he had in the bag, but as the person did
not appear to the lad to be authorized to make such
inquiry, the answer returned was not quite so satis-
factory as the dignity of the interrogator required.
Indignant at not having met with a submissive ex-
planation, the patrol seized the boy, shoved him into
a shop, said that he knew him to be a bad charac-
ter, and insisted upon knowing the contents of
the bag. Some persons who observed the con-
duct of the defendant, who was evidently intoxi-
cated, expostulated with him, and asked him by
what authority he treated the lad with such in-
dignity ? He immediately threw down his staff,
and said, "By that !" This important personage
then shoved some people about, and acted with the
greatest insolence. It, therefore, became necessary
to stop him in his career, and he was brought to
answer.for his blackguard behaviour to the Chief
Magistrate.
The LORD MAYOR asked whether the defendant
was a Bow street officer ?

An answer was given in the affirmative.
His Lordship then asked the patrol what he had
to say for himself.
" Why," said he, with his arms folded, " I was
going down Watling-street, and I saw this boy with
a bag. He looked like a bad one I have seen at
Islington, and I took him for the same, and asked
him what was in the bag. ' What's that to you ?'
said he. So I took him into the shop to see whe-
ther my suspicions were correct." The defendant
added, that the language he had been subjected to
was such as to cause him to retaliate.

The LORD MAYOR—Let the City Solicitor be
instructed to prosecute this person. If the people
of the city of London are to be assaulted by drunken
police-officers, I don't know what we shall come to
by-and-by. There must be 24 hours' notice of bail.
Police-officers are extremely useful ; but if they mis-
conduct themselves, and abuse the power they are
entitled to exercise, no persons can do more mischief.

Two officers of the establishment of Bow-street
stated that they attended by direction of the Ma-
gistrates, to ascertain the nature of the charge against
the defendant, who had been an officer only si;days.
The LORD MAYOR was glad to hear that so much
interest was' felt with respect to the conduct of the

police.
WOR S H IP-S TREE T.— Thornas Johnson was
brought before Mr. BROUGHTON for re-examination
on a charge of uttering a forged 51. note.
Richard Rush, of Great Burstead, Essex, on Wed-
nesday week was at Romford-market, and had a
pony to sell, for which he asked 5/. The prisoner
was there, and offered to purchase it; but he re-
fused to give so much as Si. saying it was more
than the animal was worth. They were occupied
about three hours before they struck the bargain,
and at length the witness agreed to give him back
le. out of the Si. The prisoner then gave the
witness the note produced as a Bank of England
note for 51. and he, gave it to his, friend, Samuel
Peck, whom he called up as a witness to the
transaction. The horse was then in the yard of the
King's Arm's Inn, and was delivered into the pri-
soner's possession the moment that he paid the .51.
note. He immediately mounted and gallopped off.
Peck returned the note to the witness, and said it
was a bad Si. Bank of England note. The witness
went into the King's Arms and asked Mr. Lord,
the landlord, for change, but he could not give it.—
The witness and Peck then went to the Romford
Bank, and asked for change, stating the circum-
stances under which the note had been received, but
the clerk at the Bank, returned it saying it was
forged.

Mr. BROUGHTON.—As you can't read, how do
you know the note returned to you was the same
you had presented ?
The witness could swear it was the same note, for

it was never out of his sight. The clerk merely took
it in his hand, and laid it on the counter, saying it
was a very bad one.
The witness then returned to the King's Arms,
and inquired of Mr. Lord about the man to whom
he had sold the horse. Mr. Lord had seen them to-
gether in his house, as they went in to drink, when
they were concluding the bargain; but before the
note was paid, he told the witness the prisoner's
name, and gave him a direction to a constable named
Pye, at Cheshunt, to whom the prisoner was well
known. The witness and Pye came to London in
search of the prisoner, but did not meet with him,
and returned back toßurstead. On Saturday, how-
ever, Mr. Pye informed him that Johnson was in
custody. The note had remained in his possession
ever since, until yesterday morning, when he deli-
vered it to the constable, Pye. He had never seen
the prisoner before the time in question. He did
not then ask his name or address, and did not know
either until told his name by Mr. Lord.
Mr. Isaacs, the prisoner's attorney, cross-examined
Rush, but without eliciting any thing in favour of
his client.

Thomas Pye, the constable, said, the prosecutor
Rush, came to him at Cheshunt with a letter, describ-
ing the prisoner. He knew him from that and Rush's
description, and came to. London in search of him.
He afterwards gave information to Joshua Arm'
strong, of this office, who took him into custody.--
The prosecutor gave the note to him yesterday
morning. It is numbered 31,567, and signed "
Clough." The witness knew the prisoner at Ches.
hunt. His father,' he believes, is a doctor (a vete-
rinary surgeon.)
Mr. Fish, an inspector of the Bank of England,
produced the note in question, and declared it a
forgery in every particular. It was presented at the
Bank on the 12th of April, stamped " forged," and
returned to the individual who presented it.
Mr. BROUGHTON—Is there a person at the Bank
named Clough, authorised to sign notes ?
The inspector replied " Yes, ' Mr. Clough is one
of their cashiers."

Mr. BROUGHTON—And is it customary with the
Bank to return forged notes after they have been
presented
The inspector said it. was their invariable custom.
Mr. BROUGIITON—You presented the note at the
Bank, did you not; Rush ?—Yes, Sir.
And what did. they do with it ?—They forged it j
and then gave it back to me.
[The countryman's mistake in alleging that the
Bank clerk had forged the note, caused a genciq
laugh, in which the inspector heartily joined.]
Rush explained, that he meant they bad stamped
the word " forged'rcin4s-nOte.
Samuel Peck was iwoin, and stated that what

Rush had deposed-wasilrus, so far as he was con-
cerned.
Mr. IsAAcs, in very confident terms, asserted
that his client had .fies guilt* knowledge that the
note was a forgery.
Mr'. BRouGHTazi would remand the prisoner for
a week, for it was necessai that they should have
the evidence of Mr. Lord, and of the clerk at the
Romford bank.

;rm. Powell was re-examined, on a charge of
having been concerned in robbing a Hertfordshire
farmer, named Jonathan Rundell, of 36 sovereigns.
The prisoner said, that for several years he had
held situations as steward in the Navy, and in the
East India Company's service also. He had been
employed under Capt. Parry, and should still have
been with him, had he not been disabled by rheu-
matism; and within the last two months had kept
an eating-house at Liverpool.
He was remanded.