The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-06-10 00:00:00

TO THE HEALTH COMMITTEE.

GNITEMEN,—We noticed in the newspapers Mr.
Davis is reported to have told your committee he had
employed additional men in our deserted street, and as
we are told the parapet must first be completed, we ex-
pected to see greater force there : but the same man*
and his boys continued to do all that was done last week,
and to day, although it was fine for seven working hours,
the flagger never made his appearance at all ; consequently
the boys flagged for want of a director. But it is only
what we have been doing for months past for want of
customers. And now we ask, in the name of common
honesty, cannot the remaining stones be put into a small
compass, and the street paved at once ? It is perfectly
impassable, being ancle deep in mud. Are labourers so
scarce, the town so poor, or are the committee determined
to ruin Yours obediently,
OLD POOL-LANE.
South Castle-street, June 9th, 1851.

He says assistance was never offered by Mr. D.

THE MAJESTY OF THE POLICE.—Mr. Win. Ritterman,
a foreign gentleman, and James Brierley, a young man
of respectable appearance, appeared before the magistrates
yesterday to answer the charge of obstructing the police
in the execution of their duty. They appeared at the
table, having been bailed out of bridewell. Constable 684
stated that about nine o'clock on Saturday night, as he
was taking a drunken man to bridewell, the two gentle-
men named above interfered, and he swore that Ritterman
struck him, upon which he called for assistance, and took
the parties into custody. Mr. Ritterman stated that on
Saturday night, as he was returning home along Great
Horner-street, he obserired the officer 684 at the end of
Roscommon-street ; he had a drunken man in custody.
The man had previously been brought up and discharged,
whose wife was endeavouring to get him home. This,
however, did not appear to meet the idea of law and
justice held by the officer, and he seized the poor woman
by the breast, pushing her to and fro in the most violent
manner. Mr. Ritterman expostulated, and observed to
the man that, as his prisoner was proceeding quietly with
him, there was no necessity for abusing the woman in the
way he was, and concluded by hinting that he was ex-
ceedine the limits of his duty. This was no sooner done
than 684 rushes on his new foe, and, seizing him by the
coat, at once relieves that garment of two buttons, ditto
the waistcoat ; and, by this time requiring aid to retain
all his captures, allows the drunken man and his wife a
brief respite while he drags Mr. Ritterman by the collar
up and down the street, at the same time making the toms
lity resound by the echo of the blows of his stick upon the
ground—the signal for help. Ultimately this arrived in
the shape of two other officers, when the two prisoners
already alluded to, as well as Brierley, who had also inter-
fered, were conveyed to the Rose-hill station. Two ladies,
one of the name of Martin and the other of Beam, who
witnessed the scene between Mr. Ritterman and the
officer, agreed in stating that the former just tapped the
man on the shoulder in order to draw his attention to him,
and then mildly remonstrated, when he was seized by the
constable, and dragged about as before stated. Mr. Lee,
a shopkeeper in the neighbourhood, gave evidence to the
same effect, es did several other persons, who all agreed
that Mr. Ritterman never struck the constable at all.
The defendant Brierley said that he was conducting a
friend home, who, being rather intoxicated, interfered
with the officer, when he (witness) was also seized, and
taken to bridewell. This witness described the conduct of
the officer as most brutal towards the female, whom he
handled more like a horse than a woman. Mr. Bromelaw,
addressing the defendant Ritterman, said—as a foreigner
he had, perhaps, acted in ignorance of the customs of the
country ; but he should advise him in future not to inter-
fere with policemen in the execution of their duty. The
case was dismissed. Mr. Ritterman observed that he had
received a lesson he should never forget.
To THE CURIOUS.—Our readers will perceive by an
advertisement in another part of our paper that Mr.
Colles has returned to his former apartments in Bold-
street,—numerous inquiries having been made for him
during his short absence. It will be perceived likewise
that he has divided his day into two divisions,—the ad-
mission during the later part of the day being reduced to
one shilling. We do not think Mr. C. will lose anything
by this, as few, very few, will visit him who will not feel
themselves compelled by curiosity to become purchasers.