The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-05 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

uUILD
HALL.—(THIS DAY.)
eh Edward;,: a well-dressed young man, was
in rged With defrauding Mr. George Eastwood, dealer
coig`3ld and silver coins, of a cabinet of gold and silver
11 of the value of 52/.
the r*,Eastwood stated that about three months ago
tor Prisoner called upon him, and said that if prosecu-
ict Would let him have a cabinet of selected coins, he
hle,w a gentleman who would purchase them. He gave
i: a Cabinet of coins, with a proviso that he should
darn the coins- in the evening, in case the gentleman
Dirt purchase them, but he had not seen them since.
1 Adams, of 20, Bridge-street, Lambeth,
who oroker,
proved that the brother of the prisoner,
then,lB4 in
Court. to watch the case on the part of
had pledged part of the coins with him.
men - ,tAGISTRATE then ordered tbe brother to be
into CUStOdY•
tom The Prisoner • 11.
oner, is defence, said that the coins were
It to hun,although no bill passed between the parties.
hein aPPeared the coins were principally Justinians,
espies of originals, and worth about 2/. 108. each.
ple MA-GISTItATE, on the recommendation of the
rose
2aell, tor, treated the case as one of illegally pawn-
/ -11' fined the prisoner in the value of the coins,
and 20s. to the Queen.
110 tar
-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
fehjrlost respectably attired and good-looking young
eCartr; who gave the name of Mary Ann Clifford, was
tt thged with the following robbery from the person,
tre Adelaide Gallery.
l'artc"' Jane Batts, of N 0.36, Albany-street, Regent's
yest stated that she went to the Adelaide Gallery
otl trial.7l and that she joined hands with the prisoner
to fore lie side, and another person on the other side
Thck -,111), ',ring for the purpose of being electrified.
that 0." had just been given when witness perceived
te lop in— gown was up as if some one had been at-
atslietri-g t° gain access to her pocket ; it immediately
PieluVer°ss her mind that her pocket had been
for C whilst she was being electrified, and on feeling
ollte er /1„
r-r"e7 she found that it was, gone. She at
accused the prisoner of having robbed her, but
she s+
,born
deniedwitness, however, saw a
4,
%110 in her hand when she first accused ber, and
afterwards she heard it drop on the floor from
thertl
itD.troner's hand. It contained 10s. 6d. in silver.
cad:"ard Thompson, constable at the Lowther Ar-
ttuilPr°ved taking the prisoner into custody, and
ner to be searched at the station-house, where
14-4s.other purses were found upon her, one containing
6d., and the other 17d. in copper.
trig he Prisoner denied all knowledge of the prosecu-
She, cur e• The others found upon her were her own.
krrefused to give any account of herself.
Twrroan committed her for trial.
tor. eitail" Smith, an errand-boy, in the employ of
tati„,'", the aurist, of 369, Strand, who was re-
witVed from this Court on the charge of absconding
eke 2e4-19s. 6d., which he had been entrusted to
1,30 e to-the London and Westminster Bank, at Water-
-Plao?c,Pall,mall, to take up a bill with, was also
tort:quitted. •
514:4-

J-4,4--Y.LEBONE.—(THIS DAY.)
on?" 4, Jessop; a butcher's foreman, was brought up
th ellarge.:ofembezzling different sums of money
„"
Property of his employer, Daniel Brown.
40`'aniel Harrow-road, stated that pn-
unaer had. been in his employment about five months,
'/laa :been in the constant habit of taking round
t-*Dar to the customers, and receiving money, for
vhie,4
1' did not account to him. It had proved, by
1a,44:X-; Alon,that receipts in two cases h
re gad been given,
son ey retained. He therefoave the pri-
Ir4l2teus*,,iy..
k, cook to Mr. Johnson, produced
for wili•f,M4 in prisoner's handwriting, the money
The-- 44.1%.,1ir0wn had not received.
next Psck4er.
was then remanded till Wednesday
, ftirthei evidence.
rPtllll°N RALL,(THIS DAY.)
sisterhe
tethl of Mrs. Oxford, whose son is an inmate
to en], for attempting the Queen's life, attended
give her evidence against a man named Poole, for
littlerlng a counterfeit half-crown.
bought 'women entered the complainant's shop and
croght a. loaf, for which they tendered a base half-
thwn• They wanted back the coin, and when
e
ties complainant threatened to give them into
s. Iceman,
and approached the door to call for
"cernac, the prisoner immediately presented
, and
taxelf,
lered• assuming to be a policeman inter-
-44 and succeeded in the rescue of the two
smashers," with whom there was no doubt he was
o,„41a,_.811•c• He was about to quit the spot when the
ah:!Plamant held him until a policeman came to the
iTi."t., and it.was then discovered that the persons were
,111:le habit of uttering base coin, and had been in
Nvas°: fredqedue.ntly on charges of that nature.—He
Wt

STMINSTER REGISTRATION.
Sir 11, (THIS DAY.)
it f comas Peyton, who was registered in respect
a house" in Grosvenor-place, was objected to by
0! Liberals, on the ground that he did not occupy
LAthe 30th of July last.
I
loft appeared, from the evidence, that Sir Thomas
AC
his house on the 28th of July last, but he did not
tually
give up possession till the 30th.
viAfter htaring arguments on both sides, the RE.-
th"" BARRISTER referred to the Act of Parliament,
e Words of which were, " and shall have resided for
j!x calendar months next previous to the last day of
ttlY He (the Revising Barrister) conceived that
41s
30th of July was meant by " next previous to the
ast day," and as Sir Thomas occupied on the 30th, his
'lame would be retained.

MARYLEBONE REGISTRATION.
(THIS DAY.)
The revision of the list of voters for this borough
was this morning concluded by Mr. Alfred Austin,
4 the Court-house, Marylebone, when the learned
gentleman gave his judgment upon several cases which
nadheen reserved to this day. The principal of these
Were the objections to the names of assessed tax col-
lectors upon the registry—(which objection was al-
lowed, and the names were struck off)—and the im-
rtant question whether Peers of Parliament, or
Peers of Ireland or Scotland, were entitled to vote
in the election of Members of the House of Commons.
Ile case selected for decision as to the English Peers,
..!vas that of the Duke of Dorset; Mr. AUSTIN, in giv-
mg a very detailed judgment, said that the question of
,the right of Peers to vote in the election of Mem-
..ll; of Parliament, was judicially determined by the
Rouse of Commons in 1699, in the' case of Malden.
At the previous election for that borough the Earl of
Manchester, a Peer, voted for the sitting Member.
The vote was struck out by a Committee, and the
House, nem. con., adopted a resolution—" That no Peer
of this kingdom hath any right to give his vote in the
election for any Member to serve in Parliament."
Prom that time to the present there appeared to be
°llly one case in which the question was again raised.
The Droitwich Committee, in the case of Viscount
gnuthwell, an Irish Peer, but who, at the time of his
being registered, was not actually elected a Member
of the House of Commons, for any county, city, or
borough of Great Britain, resolved that his name
should be struck off the poll, " in compliance with the
Standing Order." According to these decisions the
names of the Peers of Parliament, on the present re-
gistry, must be struck out.
IRISH PEERS.—Lord Radstock was objected to cs
an Irish Peer. By the Act of Union (Great Britain
and Ireland) Irish Peers were declared eligible to be
Members of the House of Commons, but so long as they
continued Members of that House, they were not to
be entitled to the privileges of the Peerage, and in
"all proceedings civil and criminal," they were to be
Considered "as Commoners." It was then provided
that the " Peers of Ireland shall, as Peers of the United
lingdom, be sued and tried, as Peers, except as
aforesaid, and shall enjoy all the privileges of
Peers as .fully as the Peers of Great Britain" (ex-
cepting that of sitting in the House of Lords, &c.)
Hence, unless an Irish Peer was actually sitting in
the House of Commons, be was a Peer of the United
Kingdom, and thereby incapacitated to vote at elections.
SCOTCH PEERS.—The Earl of Dundonald was ob-
jected to as a Scotch Peer. By the Act of Union
(England and Scotland), it was provided that all the
Peers of Scotland should be thenceforth Peers of Great
Britain, and be tried as such, and enjoy all privileges
of Peers of Great Britain, except the right of sitting
in the House of Peers and on the trial of Peers. The
Earl of Dundonald, therefore, stood upon the sane