Saturday, 17 November 1888
John M'Carthy, 28, was charged with being concerned in assaulting and robbing Michael Hadsburgh, of 3, Well-street, Whitechapel. Prosecutor said on Thursday evening he went into a publichouse and had some drink, when he saw the prisoner, who said to him "Are you 'Jack the Ripper?'" He replied he was. Witness had some more drink, when prisoner suddenly caught hold of him and held him. Four or five other men then commenced knocking him about, and robbed him of 5s. which he had in his trousers pocket. All the men ran away and witness called for the police. The men were taking him to the police-station when they robbed him and they then ran away. Constable 484 H said while in Leman-street he heard cries of "Police". He saw a crowd running. Prosecutor complained of being robbed and kicked by five men. Soon afterwards he gave prisoner into custody for robbing him. Prisoner said prosecutor came into the house and said something about "Jack the Ripper". I said "I believe he is 'Jack the Ripper', and am a good mind to give him into custody." I then caught hold of him to give him into custody, as he was such a suspicious looking man, when he called out "police." Prosecutor recalled, said when prisoner asked him if he was "Jack the Ripper," he also looked round him and said "Have you got any revolver?" Prisoner denied assaulting and robbing prosecutor and called a witness. The latter, a man named Murphy, said prosecutor was dancing about in the house, saying he was "Jack the Ripper." He also commenced writing and had a lot of Yankee notions about him, and that caused a crowd to get round him. Prisoner did not take hold of prosecutor. Mr. Lushington committed the prisoner for trial.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir, - With reference to the debate last night in the House of Commons, I trust I may state that I have never to my knowledge in any way contested the lawful authority of the Secretary of State over the Metropolitan police force; and the insinuation that I have in any way contested the administration of the police being subject to Parliament through the Secretary of State seems too ridiculous for me to contradict.
In many cases, while accepting directions given me which were to all appearances contrary to the statute, I have entered a protest; and in thus protesting I have acted in accordance with the advice of the legal advisor appointed by the Secretary of State, the late Mr. J. Davis, formerly stipendiary magistrate of Sheffield.
I can only express my astonishment at the statements attributed to Mr. Matthews last night, and I venture to assert that an entirely different impression would be conveyed to the public mind about my action if the correspondence were to be made known.
44, St. George's-road, S.W. Nov. 16