Lord Nelson

At a sitting of the Magistrates at the Town-hall, this morning, Thomas Bailey, a coachman in the employ of Mr.Milton the coachproprietor, appeared on a warrant charged with assault and defamation.

The complainant, Henry Frowd, a respectable looking young man, in the service of Mr.Aldridge of Datchet, stated, that on the evening of the 6th instant he was at Egham hill, where he had been to pay a last visit on the remains of his father, who had died on the previous evening; that on the Windsor coach coming up, his brother hailed the accused, when complainant mounted behind, and after his reply to the coachman's usual question of "all right ?" the latter drove on; that, when they had proceeded a little beyond the Nelson public-house, at Old Windsor, an inside passenger called to Bailey to stop the coach, as a bag was then hanging from the roof; that immediately the accused drew up, he turned round to complainant, and asked where he got up, and upon his (complainant's) answering "at Egham," he replied, "It's a lie, you only want to rob the coach, and if you don't get down immediately I'll bundle you down." Complainant, to prevent altercation , alighted, telling the coachman he should complain of him at the office; upon this accused also got down, again charged witness with attempting to rob the coach, collared him, and repeatedly struck him on the head, although he offered to accompany accused wherever he chose.

Cross-examined by Mr.W.J.Voules. Had no previous acquaintance with the young man who sat beside him; had not seen the bag till noticed by the gentleman inside; did not hear the gentleman call out that the coach was being robbed; the accusation of robbery might have been equally pointed at the other young man; thought that the coachman's impression was, that a robbery was being committed.

William Frowd, brother to the complainant, corroborated the above statement as far as related to his stopping the coach at Egham hill, and his brother getting up behind with the knowledge of the accused.

Thomas Mills, jun., of Old Windsor, was an outside passenger on the evening in question, sitting in the front seat; remembered a gentleman calling out that the coach was being robbed when between Frogmore and the Nelson, in consequence of which the coach stopped. Observing the bag hanging from the roof, Bailey made the accusation stated by the complainant. The night was very dark, and the luggage so high, that witness had not previously observed any one behind. Saw the coachman get down with Frowd, and heard him repeat the accusation; a scuffle ensued, but did not see any blows struck; heard complainant , however, beg of Bailey not to strike him, as he was willing to go with him where he chose. When Bailey came back, he said he had got a hat belonging to the other young fellow, which, he should keep; but immediately restored it upon witness assuring him he knew the young man to be respectable. He believed that the coachman, from first to last, acted from a conviction that his employer's property was in jeopardy, and not from any intention of committing an assault on either of the parties.

Mr.W.J.Voules, for the accused, wished it to be clearly understood, that not even the slightest shadow of imputation could attach itself to the character of complainant now that he stood before them in open daylight, and the only object of his putting the various questions to Mr.Frowd was to show that his client in the course he had pursued, had acted throughout with an impression, which he now fully acknowledged to be an erroneous one, that his masters property was in danger, and not from any wish to insult or maltreat complainant. Up to a certain point, indeed, he conceived Bailey's conduct was, under the circumstances, perfectly justifiable; but when he struck complainant instead of having him taken into custody, as he should have done, that was only to be pallisted by the very suspicious circumstances of the case, by the frequency of coach robberies, the heavy responsibilities attached to the situation, and above all, to the laudable wish to protect his employer's interests. He begged leave to suggest, therefore, with the approbation of the worthy Mayor, that as the object of Mr.Frowd was to clear his own character from any stigma which this transaction might be supposed to have left upon it, and not inflict unnecessary punishment on the accused, that the parties should be allowed to retire and settle the matter among themselves, his client paying the expenses incurred, and stating publically and unequivocally , as he then did, his belief in the respectablity of Frowd, and his sorrow for what had occurred.

The court acquiesced, and the parties withdrew. On their return, complainant stated his readiness to forego further proceedings on condition that Bailey would insert an apology in the paper. The worthy Mayor thought this would not be necessary. The complainant Frowd might satisfy himself that he quitted the court with an irreproachable character, and he had no doubt that through the medium of the paper a similar impression would be conveyed to the public.