The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-03-12 00:00:00

DISMISSAL OF TWO POLICEMEN FOR BRUTALITY TO A

FEMALE.

This was a case arising out of a complaint preferred on a
previous day, by a Mrs. Mitchell, against Thursby, the
keeper of Duncan-street Bridewell (to which place complai-
nant had been taken into custody), for using offensive lan-
guage. The charge of abuse against the officers had been
ordered to stand over until to-day, in order that the parties
supposed to be implicated might be brought forward to be
recognised by the complainant; and officers 370, 107, 301,
and 110 were placed at the bar.
Mr. Crewe, who conducted the case for the complainant,
stated, in allusion to the remarks which had been made by
the Bridewell-keeper, in referenCe to the character of Mrs.
Mitchell, that so far from her being such a person as insinu-
ated by him, she was a very respectable woman, the wife of
a Custom-house officer, one who had been in the service for
a great number of years, and who resided in Daulby-street.
This, however, was not intimately connected with the charge ;
he merely remarked it to clear the character of Mrs. Mitchell
from any aspersion which might rest upon it. He should
therefore state the facts affecting the present inquiry. Mrs.
Mitchell and her daughter on Monday night, were going up
Copperas-hill, and observed some police-officers ill-treating
a man, whereupon they remonstrated with them, saying it
was not right so to act, they were overstepping their duty,
and if the man was to be taken to Bridewell to take him
without abuse ; an attack was then made upon them (the
complainant and her daughter,) and they ran into the shop
of a Mr. M'Cartney for protection, followed by the police.
The daughter made her escape up stairs ; but the mother
was dragged out, and taken to Bridewell, and severely
ill-treated on her way thither. He should call witnesses to
prove these facts, and he thought they should be able to
identify the officers who had acted in so unmanly, brutal,
and illegal a manner.
Mrs. Mitchell was called, who described the cause of assault
as stated by Mr. Crewe. It was at the corner of Silver-street
the officers were ill using the man. Her daughter first re-
monstrated with them, when she was threatened to be taken
to gaol, and upon her (the complainant) interfering, an at-
tempt was made to take them into custody, whereupon they
ran into the shop of Mr. M'Cartney ; the officers followed ;
her daughter evaded them, but they dragged her from the
shop to Bridewell, and most grossly ill-treated her on the
way. She was lame of ohe foot, and had dropped her slipper,
which the officers refused to let her have. She had been
beaten on the arm (Mrs. Mitchell here showed her arm,
which exhibited marks of great violence). She did not know
the numbers of the officers who took her, but on looking at
301 thought he was one. She would not swear positively to
the men, but was confident that the persons who took her to
the Bridewell were they who infl;(!ted the abuse. There was
a gentleman who was passing at the time spoke to them re-
specting their conduct, but she did not know his name. When
in Bridewell she was much insulted by the allusions made by
the keeper.
It was stated to Mr Hall that the person alluded to by
Mrs. Mitchell, who had spoken to the officers, was a gentle-
man named Humphreys, who is engaged in a respectable
solicitor's office in the town, and the case was ordered to
stand over till he could be sent for. When Mr. Humphreys
came into court the inquiry was resumed.
Mr. M'Cartney stated that, on the night in question he
went to Bridewell to inquire after a Mr. Washington, a neigh-
bour, who had been taken there, intoxicated, when he met
the officers taking Mrs. Mitchell from his (M'Cartney's)
shop. She was entirely a stranger to him. Mr. Humphreys
was in the street, and sent up his name, and the prisoners
were liberated.

Thursby, the keeper of Bridewell, said he recollected Mrs.
Mitchell being brought there by Davies, officer 379, and Lup-
ton, officer 301. She complained of being ill-treated, by
being dragged through the street to Bridewell, and was ex-
ceedingly violent, and was much in liquor. She was some
time before she would give in her name, and upon hearing
she lived in Daulby-street, knowing that there were many
houses of ill-fame in that neighbourhood, it was that he made
the remark which had given offence to Mrs. Mitchell. An
individual sent up his name, and she was immediately released.
Mr. Humphreys stated, that he was in Copperas-hill, on
Monday night, and saw the officers taking Mrs. Mitchell to
Bridewell in a very improper manner ; " they dragged her as
if a dog." He could not identify the man who took her.
He had never seen Mrs. Mitchell before. He would swear
positively that at the time she was taken to Bridewell, she
was perfectly sober.
Elizabeth Williams, a young girl, stated she was in M' Cart-
ney's shop at the time Mrs. Mitchell and her daughter came
in. The young woman ran up stairs, and two policemen
took the old lady away. She would swear that Mrs. Mitchell
as perfectly sober. She did not know both the men, but at
looking at 301 she would swear that he was one, as she had
some conversation with him. Mrs. Mitchell was perfectly a
stranger to her.
Mr. Crewe said this was the evidence for the complaint,
and he thought it was of that character as to substantiate the
complainant's case. There was no doubt the woman had
been taken to Bridewell unjustifiably, and that the violence
described had been used, and that tuc ()ulcers who used such
violence had been positively identified. Under these circum-
stances he should leave it to the bench, knowing that it would
treat it in the manner it had done similar cases upon former
occasions.

The defence set up by the officers was, that Mrs. Mitchell
was drunk and very disorderly, and that in attempting to
take her she had " dragged" them into the shop from which
they had taken her. Several officers were called, but none
of them gave evidence to affect the main question.
Mr. Hall said, that from the evidence which had been ad-
duced there was one important fact established—namely, that
379 and 301 *ere the men who took the complainant into
custody. This had been proved, not only from the statement
of the Bridewell-keeper, but also in the case of one, by the
young girl, who swore positively to 301 ; and having this
fact established, there could be no doubt that these were the
parties who had dealt out the abuse, for the complainant
positively swore that the men who took her into custody were
those who had ill-treated her ; and, that she had been ill-
treated, and that severely, was proved not only by the marks
of violence she exhibited, but also by the testimony of a very
respectable witness, Mr. Humphreys, who had stated that he
was shocked at the conduct of the officers—that " they
treated 1--er like a dog." The complainant was a woman be-
tween 60 and 70 years of age, and it was impossible that she
could have been so violent as to justify them in using the
violence they had done ; indeed, the evidence of Mr. Hum-
phreys and others showed the contrary. In the defence it had
been said that the complainant was drunk ! but that she was
not, had been most positively sworn by the whole of the wit-
nesses—all of whom, with the exception of the daughter,
were perfect strangers to Mrs. Mitchell. He would state
distinctly, that there was no cause for the least imputation
against the character of the complainant or her daughter. All
that appeared to excite the choler of the officers was one of
the parties, " You are not doing your duty." Could this
expression justify such brutal conduct ? Was it to be endured,
that any respectable individual should be so treated ? All the
witnesses called were exceedingly respectable ; and their evi-
dence had flatly contradicted that given by the officers, and
went to substantiate the charge as stated by the complainant.
In all such cases the magistrates must feel considerable re-
luctance in having to act against the officers of the law ; but
still, when no doubt remained, as in the present case, that they
had abused their authority, there was but one course to pur-
sue. It was the opinion of himself and brother magistrate
(Mr. Birch) that the case had been clearly proved against the
officers, and that their conduct had been most disgraceful,—
nay, brutal ;—and that they should not be discharging their
duty unless they put it out of the power of such men to act
in such a manner in future ; the example would be good.
They, therefore, declared that Lupton, 300, and Davies, 379,
were dismissed the police force, and they stood forthwith
dismissed.

Mr. Hall then called upon Thursby to stand forward, and
told him that it was the opinion of the bench that he had
acted in a very improper manner by insulting a female whom
he knew not to the contrary was highly respectable, and which
had turned out to be the case, by imputing to her the cha-
racter he had done. No doubt he might have acted hastily,
but the bench hoped he would be more cautious in future.
Thursby acknowledged his error, and bowed his thanks to
the bench for its lenity.

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A YOUTH OF ABSTRACTING A
LARGE SUM OF MONEY FROM THE POSTOFFICE.

Yesterday, two good-looking youths, statedu be most re-
spectably_connected, were placed at the bar of the Police-
court, one of them charged with having abstracted a large sum
of money in Bank of England notes, and the other with hav-
ing received a portion of the money; (to a comparatively small
amount) but, as it did not appear that the latter was impli-
cated in the abstraction, he was dismissed, with a serious ad-
monition from Mr. Hall, to take care, through the rest of his
life, never to receive any money in such a way again. The
father of this youth, a mercantile gentleman, appeared in
court, and stated that his son was employed at his office ; that
he had always conducted himself in a proper manner ; and
that he was not aware of any immediate intimacy existing
between him and the other boy. After a long examination
of the witnesses, Mr. Hall expressed his deep regret that a
youth like the other prisoner, William Henry Forbes, should
so far have committed himself as to commit the offence with
which he was charged ; and that from the evidence from the
bench, he had no alternative left but to commit him for trial.
The informations were then taken, and from these the case
will be best ascertained.

William Hague says, I am a commission agent of No. 17,
York-street, Manchester. I and my brother, Samuel Hague,
are partners. On Saturday, the 16th of January last, I wrote
a letter, and inclosed in it one Bank of England note for
£5OO, No. 8.M., 01288, 25th May, signed Dupree, Liver-
pool ; two Bank of England notes for £lOO each ; one No.
8.5., 06454, and the other No. 8.5., 07384, and both dated
24th February, 1838, one signed Wade, and the other Vantor.
I afterwards addressed the same letter to Mr. Thomas S • -
don, merchant, Liverpool. I afterwards took the lett: •

otst
put it into the Postoffica in Manchester. Ot ther4l"
day following I received a letter from Mr. Sleddon, itt
me that the letter and money had not arrived. .. cane 0,4 r
to Liverpool and made enquiry at the 2ostoffice for t'le bet-
ter. I could not obtain any information there. On ar'4,4
morning last a person called upon me from the Branchßoa
of England, in Manchester, with one of the totes for 4011,
No. 8.5., 06454, which I found was one of those whkit a rpaf
remitted to Mr. Sleddon. This morning I came Maio to
Liverpool. I have seen in the care of James Sawley a
£5OO note, No. B. M., 01288, dated May 25th, and a 4100
note, No. 8.5., 07384, and dated 25th February, 1838. These
are two of the notes which I forwarded to Mr. Sleddon. _ 10,
letter to Mr. Sleddon was written upon the fly leaf of a Ba*
Order for £4B 16s. Od.
Thomas Sleddon said—l am a merchant, and my office is
in Tarlton Buildings, Chapel-street. The prisoner William
Henry Forbes is an apprentice to me, and has been in my
service for about twelve months, I transact business with
Messrs. Hague, of York-street, Manchester. On the 18th
of February last I directed one of my clerks to write there
for a balance of account. On the Wednesday following I
received a letter, informing me that the money had been re-
mitted to me. I informed Messrs. Hague that the letter had
not reached me. In the evening of Wednesday Messrs.
Hague came over to Liverpool. We made inquiry at the
Post-office for the letter, but could not learn anything of it.
I then made inquiry from my young man who attended the
Post-office for my letters. He knew nothing of the letter.
I did not ask the prisoner any thing about it. It wall not his
duty to go to the Post-offiee. This morning James Sawley,
Mr. S. Hague, and Mr. S. Roberts came to my office and
saw the prisoner. Roberts said he thought the prisoner was
the boy. Mr. Lightbound was also also present. Sawley
asked the prisoner if he knew Mr. Lightbound ; but he
afterwards said he knew Lightbound and Welsh's shop. I
asked what he had been doing at their shop. He said, " I
have been there to get a note changed." Sawley asked him
what amoont of note. He said " A one hundred pound
note." Sawley asked where he had got the note from. He
said, from Mr. Jones, my brother-in-law. Siwley took the
prisoner into custody. I heard Sawley ask him where he
lived. He told him. We took him there. Sawley asked
him for the key of his drawer. He gave it to him, and
pointed out the drawer. I saw Sawley unlock the drawer,
and in it found a five hundred pound bank note, four five
pound bank notes, twenty pounds in silver money, and X4l
10s. in sovereigns, and half a sovereign, and upon the pri-
soner a watch and £1 14s.
James Sawley says, I am a police officer from Manchester.
On Friday last I received some information from Mr. Hague
relative to the robbery. I have endeavoured to trace one of
the one hundred pound notes. I and Mr. Hague came to
Liverpool this morning, and called at the shop of Messrs.
Lightbound and Welsh, No. 52, Great Orford-street. I
there saw the witness S. Roberts, who gave some informs-
tion. We then went to Mr. Sleddon's office. Roberts saw
the prisoner, and said that he thought he was the boy who
changed a one hundred pound note. Mr. Lightbound was
there, and asked the prisoner if he knew him ? He said no.
I then asked him if he knew Lightbound and Welsh's ware-
house ? He said I do. Mr. Sleddon asked him what he had
been there for ? He. said to change a note. I then asked
him what kind of a note? He said a one hundred pound
note. I then asked him where he had got the note? He
said from Mr.,Jones, my brother-in-law. I said are you
telling me the truth ? He hesitated a short time, and then
said he got it from the Post-office. I said, how did you get
it there ? He said from a letter. I said, was there any more
money in the letter ? He said " ye?; two or three notes,
and a bank order." I asked him where the letter was ? He
said I destroyed it ; I burned it. I said, where is the money?
He said at home. To witness's further questions at the time,
prisoner told him where he lived, at No. 109, Mount Plea-
sant, and when they got there, he pointed out a drawer, and
gave the key of it. The money, as before stated, was found
in it, and upon the prisoner's person were found £1 14s. and
a watch. He said he had bought the watch for £4105.,
which he had taken out of the money. On being shown the
notes found in the drawer, he said they were the same be had
taken from the letter. He said he had given another boy
some soveregns at different times, and the remainder he had
spent.
Shadrach Roberts, a baker in the service of Messrs Light-
bound and Welsh, remembers the prisoner coming to their
shop, and getting change for the £lOO note. He saw the
money counted out, to the prisoner, and identified him.
This being the 'whole of the evidence, the prisoher Was
fully committed to take his trial at the sessions, and the wit-
nesses
were each bound over in £2OO each to prosecute. 'rho
prisoner is a fine-looking boy of about 14 or 15 years of age"
He appeared much affected at one period of the examination,
but finally signed his name without any apparent trepidation.
SEAMEN'S WAGES.
Yesterday, a seaman who had performed a voyage in the
sloop Susanna, to Havre and back, applied to Mr. Hall for
an order on the captain, Paul Brown, for his wages, from the
11th of September to the sth instant. The Captain stated,
in lieu of the claim, that the complainant had shipped as an
able seaman, but was quite inefficient, and therefore not en-
titled to the amount demanded. It appeared, however, by
the evidence of the mate, and others, that the complainant
had always obeyed orders ; that he was rather efficient than
otherwise, and that he was not discharged on the vessel re-
turning to port. Mr. Hall awarded that the full amount
should be paid £l4 13s. 3d., with costs. Another seaman,
named Wood, belonging to the same vessel made a like claim,
for upwards of £ll. The captain objected on the ground
that the claimant had been mutinous while at Havre; ,but of
this there appeared no sufficient proof, and the defendant was
ordered to pay the amount. The captain said he would not
pay it, and was informed by Mr. Hall, that if he did not, the
court had the power to seize his vessel.

CHARGE OF STEALING FROM A SHOP.
Yesterday, a young man named William Taylor was placed
before Mr. Hall on a charge of stealing -kom his employer,
Mr. Beckwith, silk-mercer, &c., Paradise-street. Mr. B.
said that from suspicions which he entertained, he had the
Prisoner, who lived in the house, apprehended, and there were
found in his carpet-bag in his bedroom, five Nirs of silk
stockings, which had been taken from the stock in the shop.
The head shopman identified them as belonging to Mr. B.
The prisoner said he had no intention of stealing the stock-
ings, but had taken them through to the kitchen to wet them,
as they had found it advantageous to damp some of their
goods and dispose of them as " wrecked goods." He wait
told by the girl in the kitchen that he must not make *slop
there, and he had accordingly taken them up stairs. The
story of wetting the goods Mr. Beckwith totally denied.
The prisoner was fully committed for trial.

-1.1. bt)
• • . Ot 7rN. •. • „ fek,
-

\