The Express.
London, England, 1851-10-28 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 28, 1851.

Gab, ilittelltgence.

SOUTHWARK COUNTY COURT.—YElenume.

Prnaa O. flare, De.
Ovownt. v. Kr, NETT, A LICENSED VICTUALLER.—
EnTAAOILDI NA RT CAM

This was an action brought by John Stowell, a person
connected with the metropolitan stage department of the
Inland Revenue, to recover the sums of 211. 10s. and
101.10 s. from Mr. Robert Kennett, the landlord of the Hoop
and Grapes Tavern, Broadway, Westminster, on two
1 0 U's for money lent.
Defendant pleaded that he was not indebted, inasmuch
as he had paid the money, and the I 0 U's were kept back
from him.
Mr. Morrie, instructed by Mr. Davies, appeared for the
plaintiff, end Mr. Prescott for the defendant.
The plaintiff stated that he had known the defendant
some years. and had frequently been in the habit of lend-
ing him money. In the early part of January, 11150, he
cane to him and asked him to lend him 201. He did
and received defendant's 1 0 U for 211. 10s, the extra sum
being the consideration for the loan. In February he ad-
vanced hint 101., for which he received another I 0 U for
10!. 10s. Being unable to obtain payment for the I 0 U's lie
brought the present action.
In cross-examination, witness said he had never received
the money at any time. He did not call at defendant's in
February and receive 211. 10s. from Mrs. Kennett, neither
did lie receive the 101. 10s. at the Elephant and Castle. Ile
had never received any money from Mr. Kennett since his
bankruptcy. Ile lent Miss Masters, the defendant's sister-
in-law, 301., which Mr. Games applied for and received.
Thomas Stowell, brother to the plaintiff, was next called
—lie said he was clerk to Mr. Davies, the attorney. lie
served notices on defendant some time ago, but he had
nothing to do in the present action. The defendant sent
a letter promising to pay the money on the 1 0 U's. The
letter proiluced is in defendant's handwriting.
Mr. Prescott, for the defendant, contended that the
whole transaction on the plaintiff's part was a gross swindle
and attempt to extort money unjustly from his client. lie
should be able to prove that all the money on the I 0 U's
prmluceil in court had been paid, and that the letter re-
ferred to by last witness was merely promising to pay the
plaintiff what MS client owed him prior to his bankruptcy.
He called
The defendant, who Mated that he kept the Hoop and
Grapes public-house, Broadway, Westminster, had known
the plaintiff some time, and he frequently came to his
house mid enjoyed himself. In January, 11-50, he borrowed
201. of him for our month, and gave his 1 0 U for 21'. 10s.
Plaintiff came to his house on the 28th of February, and
had dinner in the bar parlour; after which his wife
Caine into the PORT and paid plaintiff 211. 10s. in WitllCSs'll
presence, when he immediately entered the transaction in
his day bunk, which is produced in court. Witness asked
Stowell fa the 1 0 U, when he put his hand to his pocket
and made an excuse, saying he had left his pocket book at
home. Witness borrowed 101. from him afterwards, and
gave him nu I 0 U fur 101. 104. He paid that to hint at the
Elephant and Castle on the 111th or 19th of March. A clack
to Mesas. Calverts, brewers, was with him at the time. lie
excused himself of the second 1 0 U, stating that lie had
left it at home, and would send both of them to him the
next day. The reason of his paying him without receiving
the 1 0 U. or an acknowledgment, was that he believed he
was an honest man, and would send them to him. lie was
Always well treated at his house. end never went about
without a handsome present. Witness had borrowed some
loom y of Stowell, pi evious to his bankruptcy, but he pre•
mised to pay him, and the letter produced related to the
money owing previous to his bankruptcy.
Ihdenilant's day-book was here put in, and he pointed
out the entry of the 211. 10s. on the 28th of February,
aineng other items paid on that day.
His Honour asked in what part of the Elephant and
Castle he paid the 10/. 10s. ?
lie replied iii trout of the bar, and lie put the money on
smile as he counted it.
Mrs. Kennett, defendant's wife, was then sworn—She
stated th.ot she had known the plaintiff some time. Remem-
bered her husband borrowing money of him subsequent to
the bankruptcy, which he had been in the habit of doing
for noire than two year, to pay duties, her husband being
a cab proprietor as well as a publican. In January, 1840,
her husband borrowed of the plaintif 201., fur which he
gave an IU U for '2ll. 10.4. to be paid in a month. On
that day Stowell came and she paid him the money. She
asked him for the I U U, when he felt his pocket and said
he had left it on his table at home, but he would send it
over. My husband made an entry in the day-)wok at
the time. Witness lent him a leather bag to put
the money in. She counted the money on the table. It
was behind the bar, in the bar parlour, that she lend him.
Witness urged her husband to send for the I 0 U several
times afterwards, but he made excuses and said his house-
keeper had mislaid it.
Alfred Younger, clerk to Mr. Young. an auctioneer,
said that on the Ibtti of March, 800, he called at Mr.
Kennett's, on business for Messrs. Culverts, the brewers.
Whilst there Mrs. Kennett gave her husband some gold and
silver, and they bath went to the Elephant and Castle.
While lie was standiug in front of the counter a gentleman
came in and woke to the defendant. lie then heard some
money counted at the back of him. Ile believed the plain-
tiff to be the person to whom the money was paid. He was
certain of it.

Mr. Hume haying replied,
His Honour said it was the duty of • plaintiff to make his
case so clear as to thoroughly convince the court that his
claim was just. Under the present contradictory state-
ments, he did not think I. lout made it sufficiently clear
for him to give judgment in his favour. The plaintiff and
his wife had both distinctly sworn that the money on the
1 0 U's bad been paid, and unless he could get better evi-
dence he must believe :heir stgteincuts. Under all the cir-
cumstances of this Extraordinary case he must nonsuit the

been to Mr. Broome's public-house, but he knew nothing I
about him. When they were at ?twot the prisoner gave on "
I 0 U fur ZOO,. to a person nem Foster, and he gave hint
mic also for the same amr ant. Ile believed that this
motley was lost in betting upon the odd and even numbers
in the race cards, and it had nothing whatever to do with
the horses. Foster bad asked hint whether Bishop was
" se;oth any thing," and he told hint he believed that he
exrcetcd some property. They were both very much in-
toxicated, and did nut know how the money was lost.
Foster came far the money for the 10 U's the next morn-
ing, and the prisoner gave a bill of exchange for his 1 0 U
This bill afterwards got into the possession of Mr. Broome.
who sued the prisoner upon it. Witness was submenard as
a witness for the defeadmit to prove the circumstances
under which the bill was given, but the matter was arranged
and the defendant consented to a verdict passing against
him.
The Recorder inquired who Broome was ?
The prosecutor said he was a publican.
Mr. Parry asked if he was not something else also, be-
ginning with a " P."
The prosecutor said he did not know.
In answer to further questions put to him, he said he had
been twice indicted for keeping a brothel, but was acquitted
on both occasions, and he said that the first time he was
indicted, nu evidence was ufiered against him, and he was
told that he had been very ill-used. lie admitted that he
had paid the rent and tales when a distress was put in to
One of the houses he wascharged with keeping, and that he
told the broker the house belonged to him, but he said he
only did so ;to oblige a lady whom he hart met at Jersey,
and who, in reality, was the keeper of the house. He also
said that he had opposed the prisoner in the bankruptcy
court; and that a person named Alfred Mortimer Job,
who was a money-lender, was also a creditor, and
made a large claim against the prisoner's estate,
which the prisoner resisted on the ground that
it was a fraudulent claim. lie denied that this
person was the real prosecutor of the indictment, or
that he had ever said that, if Bishop was convicted of per-
jury, Job would get the whole of his claim allowed. lie
had no recollection of having said so, but would not swear
positively that be had not.
A letter was then put in, in which the prisoner applied
to the prosecutor for the duplicates, stating that lie wanted
particularly to have them. No answer, it appeared, was
sent to this letter for three weeks, rind the prosecutor then
told the prisoner that he had left out the tickets for him,
and he could have them when he chose to call for them.
James Hitchcock, the shopman to Messrs. Vaughan and
Co., proved that the prisoner obtained the declarations from
him, and that he signed thou in his presence.
In answer to a question put by Mr. Parry, the witness
said he would not undertake to say that the prisoner did
not tell him, iu addition to the usual statement, that the
duplicates had been lost or mislaid, that they were fraudu-
lently denims' from hint.
Mr. Clarkson was about to call further evidence, when
The Recorder interposed, and said it appeared to him
that there was no proof that the defendant had wilfully
stated what was false in declaring that the duplicates were
lost or mislaid. The evidence upon that point rested en-
tirely upon the testimony of the prosecutor, and he thought
the Jury would hardly like to rely upon the evidence of
such a person as he had represented himself to be.
Mr. Clarkson said that he tilt the difficulty suggested by
his lordship. He had sonic other witnesses to call, but he
did not think their evidence would alter the aspect of the
Case.

The Recorder said that if the jury wished to hear mom
of the ease they might do so, but it was clear that unless
they could place reliance upon the testimony of the pr..,
cuter the prisoner ought not to be convicted.
The jury said they were of opinion that they could not
place reliance upon the prosecutor's evidence.
I'arry begged to be allowed to state, on behalf of the
defendant, that he never intended to make any fake state-
ment with regard to the matter. He ascertained that the
duplicates were fraudulently withheld trout him by the
prosecutor, and it was upon this ground that he felt himself
justified in making the declarations in order that he might
regain posseesfut of his property.
A verdict of Aal guilty was then taken, and the prisoner
was ordered to be at once discharged.