Update on Constable Hutt

It would appear that there was a Police-constable Hutt, although I am not quite sure why he was not listed in the 1881 Census. Maybe someone else could find out and let me know. I am sorry for any confusion that my confusion may have caused - no point of malice intended.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

A CLOWN IN A NEW CHARACTER. - John Cox, a cabdriver, was charged with being drunk, and driving a horse to the common danger; and Thomas Lovell, 43, described as a clown, residing at 25, Oxford-road, Islington, was charged with being drunk and assaulting the police. - Police-constable Pegram said at a quarter to two o'clock on Monday morning he was on duty in Fleet-street, when he saw a horse drawing a cab at a slow pace, and he found the driver was asleep on the box. On awaking him he saw that he was drunk and that there was a fare in the cab. He succeeded in getting the driver off the box, and was about to take him to the police-station when Lovell said he must have Cox to drive him home. Witness told him that the man was not in a fit condition to drive, but Lovell still insisted, used abusive language, and acted like a madman. - Lovell said although it was his duty to resist the police on the stage, he would not think of doing it in reality. He called Police-constable Hutt, who said he had known him all his life as a respectable gentleman, and he was sorry to see him in such a position. - Mr. Alderman Gray said he also was sorry to see him in such a position, but the offence of resisting the police was a serious one, and he would have to pay a fine of 20s. - Cox was remanded for the production of his licence.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, January 2, 1887, Page 4

Police-constable George Hutt was known to have written many letters and statements to the local newspapers, but it seems that his knowledge of the law was quite sketchy at times.

A Kingston Hill reader thinks that Mr. George Hutt is at fault in his comments about the finder of the great necklace. He says: "Mr. Hutt states in the issue of the 5th inst. that "a person who finds property, provided it was handed in to the police, if not claimed within 6 months, was entitled to it. Before that lapse of time the finder would be entitled to ten percent of its value." He qualifies this saying, "Unless the law is.."
Now, sir, I have had the pleasure of serving not in the City of London, but in the Metropolitan Police, and I can state that I know of no such law that he has mentioned. On the otherhand, I believe that H.M. Judges have had a rule - that the finder of lost property is the best entitled to it against the world over, bar the right, but when he (the owner) has made a claim the property must be given to him without any deduction or subject to the payment of any fee or reward, which is left entirely to the owner as he/she pleases. This, as I have said, this is the law of the judges of our courts. Now, I therefore ask our friend Mr. Hutt to quote his authority for the statement he has made above - viz., "that a finder...is entitled to ten per cent of the actual value," and so enlighten your humble servant, also Mr. H, who no doubt will be highly grateful if Mr. Hutt's statement is true, according to law."

Source: Lloyd's Weekly News, October 12, 1913, Page 16

Constable George Hutt's response to comment above, which appeared one week later:

In regard to the finding of lost property, about which one or two of my readers have had something to say, Mr. George Hutt wishes to add that when he suggested that the finder of lost property was entitled to a percentage of its value he was taking as his authority the Metropolitan Stage Coach and Hackney Carriage Act. He is aware that this only applies to articles found in public conveyances, and is glad to have the opportunity to acknowledge that the finder of articles in the street would not be legally entitled to any such percentage.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly News, October 19, 1913, Page 16