The Sun.
London, England, 1842-09-24 00:00:00

assembled to see the performances of punch, they
would often find dirt, and sometimes a dead cat, and
sometimes a stone thrown by an idle boy. That
would happen at every meeting, and were they to
have policemen brought there to give evidence of
the meeting being disorderly, because sticks and
stones were flying about ? But where was the evi-
dence of any body being hurt? There was no evidence
of any body being struck, except a policeman, who
had on an old hat, which received no injury from the
blow. In what consisted the illegality of the meeting?
Where was the proof of its disorderly conduct ?
There was none.
The RECORDER—HOW is it that we have no evi-
dence as to what the meeting was assembled for.
Mr. CHAMBERS—I have no evidence to offer on that
point.

- The RECORDER—There may have been a riotous
assemblage, but all the evidence we have is, that
this man came out of a public-house, flourished his
hat, and made the short address alluded to, and was
then very properly marched off to the station• house,
to prevent his doing mischief.
Mr. CHAMBERS—I am entirely in the hands of the
Jury and the Court.
The RECORDER—There can be no doubt that a
meeting assembled for a breach of the peace is an
illegal meeting; but we have no evidence here as to
the character of the meeting. We have only this
very ridiculous man making that very ridiculous
speech, and that made still more ridiculous by
being marched off to the station-house. He appears
to have been as harmless a hero as can well be imagined.
The Jury then acquitted both prisoners.
Munday was then discharged, and Checketts, for
the assault of which he had been previously convicted,
was sentenced to be imprisoned one month in the
Penitentiary at Milbank.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YE STE RDAY.)
GUILDHALL.
Joseph Potter and Eliza Goodwright were charged
with stealing a silver watch, three wedding rings, a
silver box, a steal chain, and 9s. 6d. in money, the
property of Joseph Potter, a pensioner in Greenwich
Hospital.
The prosecutor stated that the male prisoner was
his son, and on Wednesday took away the property
named. The female prisoner admitted having pawned
the watch. The other articles were not found.
The prisoners were remanded till Tuesday.
CLERKENWELL.

John Burdon, a working jeweller, employed at Mr.
Jones's jewellery establishment, Red Lion-street, was
charged with assaulting Mr. Ashcombe, surgeon,
Gracechurch-street. Complainant said he was walk-
ing on Pentonville-hill last night between nine and
ten o'clock, when he was struck a violent blow by a
drunken man, to whom he had not given the slightest
provocation ; he tore his shirt; and treated him in the
rudest manner. Witness turned round for the pur-
pose of giving the assailant into custody, when the
prisoner, who was perfectly sober, struck him a violent
blow on the left eye. The prisoner was subsequently
taken into custody.
Mr. GREENWOOD—Why did you not give the
person who assaulted you into custody ? Mr. Ash-
combe—l begged of police-constable N 150 to take
him into custody. I showed him my shirt, which was
all torn, as well as my dress, but he refused taking
him into his charge.
Mr. GREENWOOD—This seems very strange. Po-
liceman, why did you not take the first person
who assaulted this gentleman into custody ? Police-
constable—Because there was no mark ofviolence on
the body of Mr. Ashcombe, and because the drunken
man gave Mr. Ashcombe in charge as well as Mr.
Ashcombe the drunken man.
Mr. GREENWOOD—SO a gentleman walking quietly
along the street may have his dress torn to tatters off
his back, and no policeman will take the ruffian who
so maltreats him into charge, because his flesh
is not cut or bruised. is it possible that
such a rule can exist among the police force ?
Here a gentleman has his dress torn ; the party he
complains of is drunk and disorderly, and is given
into charge by the person thus grossly assaulted, and
the policeman refuses to take the charge ; and the
cause of all the riot is allowed to walk off unmolested.
Such conduct is most reprehensible.
The prisoner was fined 75., or seven days' imprison-
ment and hard labour.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Frederick Hawkes Nottage, described as an author,
who stood charged with having unlawfully disposed
of four sets of navels belonging to Mr. Hancock, the
proprietor of a circulating library in the City-road,
was put to the bar for further examination.
Mr. Shepherd, the Secretary to the Duke of
Argyle, now attended, and informed the Magistrate,
that in consequence of an application from the pri-
soner, his Grace consented to become a subscriber to
his work, and the Duchess gave him permission to
publish her name as a patroness. The sum of 10s.,
the amount of the Duke's subscription, was forwarded
to the prisoner, but, upon receiving it, he wrote a
laconic and peremptory letter to her Grace, demand-
ing, rather than requesting, her to send him a similar
remittance.
The policeman, Cross, stated that he found at least
three hundred letters at the prisoner's lodgings, from
persons of distinguished rank, amongst which there
were about twenty from the Secretary of her Ma-
jesty, Prince Albert, and the Duchess of Kent. He
had prepared a list of the noblemen from whom the
prisoner had obtained money, and it appeared that the
Duke of Newcastle had regularly transmitted him 11.
per week for nearly a twelvemonth.
The MAGISTRATE inquired whether there were any
fresh charges of felony against him ? The policeman
said that six other cases had been discovered, only one
of which, however, was complete.
Mrs. Martha Haynes,i of No. 60, Basinghall-street,
deposed, that in the early part of the present year
she kept a bookseller's shop in the City-road. During
the months of April and May the prisoner visited her
shop daily, and obtained an immense number of works,
which he failed to return.
Mr. BROUGHTON said that he should commit the
prisoner upon the charges preferred by Mrs. Hancock
and Mrs. Haynes, both of which he considered clear
cases of felony. ,
After preparing the depositions, Mr. Vine, the
Chief Clerk, intimated to the Magistrate that about
six years ago, when he officiated at Bow-street, the
prisoner was committed from that Court upon a
charge of forgery, of which he was afterwards con-
victed and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation,
but by what means he obtained his liberty he was
unable to state.—Remanded until Tuesday.
UNION-HALL.

Yesterday policeman 117 L was charged with re-
fusing to take a man into custody, who had, it was
alleged, committed a robbery.
John Spilling stated, that he lived at No. 7, Bull's
Head-court, Strand, and that on Saturday night,
having been to see some friends on the Surrey side of
the water, as he was passing the Black Prince in the
Walworth-road, he observed two men and a woman
standing near the door of the house. When he had
passed the house a short distance, one of the men fol-
lowed him, and, seizing him by the leg, threw him
down ; but he recovered himself, and on rising
he was struck by his assailant, and he re-
turned the
blow. While they were scuffling with
one another in the road, the other man and woman
rushed on, and at the moment he (complainant)felthis
watch drawn from his pocket. He immediately cried out
for assistance, and the defendant coming up at the
moment, he related what had previously occurred to
him, and also the fact of his being robbed of his
watch, and charged one of the men with being the
person who took it, desiring the policeman to take
him into custody. Defendant, however, refused to
a complainantina
nbeingt)h in
had
iblueonr
darth i k time,ng
previously but
o althoughth
take the charge, on the ground, as he said, of the
e
h ( c (complainant)
outrage, yet he was perfectly sensible, and had the
use of all his faculties, and recollected everything
that passed on the occasion. lie added, he did not
bring the charge forward out of any vindictive feeling
towards the policeman, but merely for public justice.
The defendant said, that he was disappointed in the
attendance of witnesses, who would he enabled to
prove that there were no just grounds for the accu-
sation made against him, and that if the case was
allowed to stand over, he should be enabled to refute
the charge.
Mr. COTTINOHAM said, that the charge was one of
such a grave nature, as affected the policeman, that
he should allow the defendant the benefit of having
his witnesses in attendance to rebut it, if they were in
a condition to do so ; and a day was accordingly ap-
pointed for that purpose.

LAMBETH-STREET.
Yesterday 'Michael Rowan and Thomas Allen, two
well-known thieves, were brought before Mr. Henry,
for final examination, on a charge of daring highway
robbery, accompanied with great personal violence.
From the evidence it appeared.that on the night of
Sunday fortnight, between the hours of eleven and
twelve o'clock, the prosecutor, Mr. John Allen, while
proceeding along High-street, Whitechapel, was at-
tacked by the prisoners, one of whom cave him a
violent blow, which knocked him down, and the other
instantly placed his hand over his mouth to prevent
his giving an alarm. They then tore open his waist-
coat, and snatched away his watch from the guard.
A little boy who witnessed the robbery swore posi-
tively to the identity of the prisoners as being the
persons who had committed the robbery, and they
were fully committed for trial.
A foreman in the employment of the widow of a
master carman, applied to Mr. Henry for his assist-
ance, under the following circumstances : -
The applicant said, that the daughter of his mis-
tress, a girl of twelve years of age, had got to her
mother's cash-box and made free with from 41. ,
to 51. of its contents. After possessing herself of
the money, she proceeded to the shop of a bird-fancier