The Staffordshire and Potteries Examiner. — 1881-02-05 (Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England)

INDIAN PRINCE" IN COURT.  At the Marylebone Police Court, London, a man named Clarke has appeared to a summons charging him with having assaulted Annie Appleyard, of Lancaster Villa, Tavistock Road, Paddington.—Mr. E. Kimber prosecuted, and Mr. Forrest Fulton detended.—lt appeared that the complainant had entered into partnership with a Miss Robson at Lancaster Villa. That lady afterwards introduced a person named Dave Singh, who represented himself to be an Indian Prince, as a tenant. This individual had afterwards entered the house in company with Miss Robson, Clarke, and a third party, and alleged that £2OO worth of property had been stolen from him. Upon complainant wishing to be present during the search Dave was desirous of making, she was thrown down the stairs by defendant and much injured. Complainant, inanswer to Mr. Coolie, said when the parties were in the house the defendant told her he was the son of the " great " Clarke. Among the several witnesses, one of the constables said the defendant stood before the complainant, and stopped her from going into her rooms. The defendant remarked that he stood at the bottom of the stairs, and did not touch the complainant, and it was he who let in the policeman. Mr. Fulton urged that Miss Robson had a perfect right to be in the house, and having heard from the prince that he had lost a quantity of goods she w cut to the house with the defendant to look for them. Miss Robson confirmed this, and said the complainant went running about the house saying she was going to be murdered and robbed. Mr. Bradford, the defendant's solicitor, stated that the complainant had seen him once or twice since the occurrence, and had not said one word about the assault. The prince's boxes had been broken open, his goods taken away and pawned, and his golden. gods had been stolen. Mr. Cooke said he could not rely upon all the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, for it was at times contradictory. Miss Robson Had the right to go to the house with the Indian Singh, tne prince's servant, and see whether any of the prince's property was there, but the question was as to the defendant's right there. He had been a sergeant in the police force, and must have known perfectly well he had no right to go to the house even by the consent of Miss Robson, and make a search of the complainant's rooms without a search warrant. He (the magistrate) believed the defendant led the complainant to assume that he was a detective, and he was carrying about fictitious cards, but his worship had not to try him for personating a detective. That was a matter which he might have to answer for in another way. .As to the assault, it seemed to be greatly exaggerated, though not intentionally. The defendant did certainly obstruct the complainant in different parts of the house, and his assumed authority.aggravated the case. What right did the defendant think he had to go into a person's house, without authority and without warrant, and do this? It was a monstrous thing to do. He would fine him £5, with full costs, or in default would commit him to gaol for one month. His worship said this was independently of any other proceedings that might be taken against the defendant for personating the police.—The fine was paid.— There were summonses against Miss Robson and Dave Singh for assaulting Mrs. Appleyard, but they were dismissed, the evidence of assault being very slight.