The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-27 00:00:00

COLLISION-THE HELEN.

This was an action entered on behalf of the barque
Princess Victoria, of 372 tons burden, against the Helen,
a ship of 860 tons, for damage by collision on the sth
of January last. The vessel proceeding was bound
from Liverpool to Maranham, with a cargo cf general
merchandise, and the Helen was on her voyage from
Liverpool to Havannab, laden with salt. It appeared
that the collision took place shortly after 7 o'clock p.m.
on the day above:mentioned, off the coast between Holy-
head and Bardsey Island. On the part of the barque it
was alleged that the accident would not have occurred
if the Helen had kept her luff, instead of starboarding.
At the time she was descried she was on the port tack,
and, in consequence of her having put her helm to star-
board, she ran stem on into the other vessel. It was
submitted on behalf of the Helen that the collision took
place solely from the want of a good look-out on board
the barque.

Dr. tayford and Dr. Twiss appeared for the Princess
Victoria ; DrB. Addams and Robinson were heard for
the owners of the Helen,

The Trinity Masters were of opinion that the blame
rested s.lely with the Helen.
The Court pronounced for the damage.

B XII. COURT.
bUNLOP V. FERGUSON—BREACH OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.
Mr. Serp-eant Thomas and Mr. Harcourt appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Pollock
for the defendant.

This was an action for an alleged breach of promise of
marriage. The defendant pleaded that he did not pro-
mise, and that, if he had promised, the plaintiff had ab-
solved him from that promise.
Mr. Serftean, Thomas, in opening the case, said that
the plaintiff was a young lady about 24 years of age, and
had never left the home of her parents, which was at
Greenock, Scotland. In 1849 the plaintiff and de-
fendant became acquainted, the mothers of both of
them having been known to each other for many years.
The plaintiff's father was formerly in the East India
service ; the defendant's father, as well as the plain-
tiff's brothers, and the defendant himself, being in
the same service. On the death of the plaintiff's
father, her mother took a house at Greenock, her native
place, and let apartments. Amongst other persons
the defendant and his brother went there in 1840 ; and
after living there a short time, the defendant and the
pl plaintiff
time
fffe ll 1117!
and the defendant love with eac
ed
h other, 2
4ythe
years
a reof g
plaintiffage,
being
at that both
li
parties being highly respectable. They exchanged
several pledges of affection, such as their miniatures,.
hair, and such things as young people do exchange under
similar circumstances. Soon after this the defendant
went on a veyage to Calcutta, and during his absence he
wrote several letters to the plaintiff. After several
voyages he was made a captain, and the day for their
marriage was fixed for the 24th day of January, 1854 ;
but, on the 14th of that month, the defendant wrote a
lettet to the plaintiff, stating that his mother was un-
well and wished him to make another voyage before his
marriage ; and on the 17th he went to the plaintiff's
house and, said be ;should like, to go another voyage
before he married, upon which her mother said that he
vas acting, as though he wished to deceive her daughter.
The, defendant at once flew into a passion, and said they
had struck a fatal blow to his heart, and rushed away.
He then wrote another letter to the plaintiff's mother,
stating that he was sorry that be had acted as he had
done, and asked the plaintiff to forgive him, saying that
he was still devoted to her. That very day, or the day
following, he was'seen walking with a Miss Fane, whom
be afterwards made his wife. It was for the jury, under
these circumstances, to say what damages the plaintiff
was entitled to. The defendant's income as captain was
about 2001. per annum. and the percentage on the
freight amounted to about another 2001.
Evidence was then adduced on the part of the plain-
tiff in support of this view of the case.
No witnesses were called on behalf of the defence.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas summed up the evidence of the
plaintiff:
Mr. Edwin James then addressed the jury on the
part of the defendant, and said that it was out of his
power to call witnesses, in consequence of the defendant
being prevented by the law from entering the witness-
box in cases of this nature. It was evident that the
defendant had intended to fulfil his engagement with the
plaintiff up to the last moment of the transaction, and
that it would have been completed if it bad not been for
the unwi.e haste of the mother, who would not listen
to the dictates of prudence, and put off the mairiage
for a short time. It was clear that the defendant had
no dishonourable motive, and, therefore, a very small
amount of damages would sufficiently punish him for
hicconduct.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, in summing up, said the jury
must consider the conduct and intentions of •the defend.
ant. If they took the plaintiff's view of the case, they
must find for such damages as they thought would suf-
ficiently punish the defenant ; but if they took the de-
fendant's view, a very small amount of damages would
meet the demands of the case.

----- -
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
250/.

SHERIFF'S CO URT -APRIL 26.
ROUTLEDGE AND ANOTHER V. OURY.

This action was brought by Messrs. Routledge, the
booksellers, of London, against the defendant, who is
an assistant to a bookseller at Norwich, for goods sold
and delivered under the following extraordinary circum-
stances :

It appeared that in 1850 the defendant asked Mr.
Warn, one of the plaintiffs, to give him one of their
catalogues, as he wanted it for a friend that was about
starting in business in the country. He subsequently
called with Mr. John Crook, and introduced him as his
brother-in-law. An order was thereupon given and
ordered to be sent to Oury and Co., of Norwich. For
about five years the plaintiffs did business with the firm
of Oury and Co,, and received cheques for the various
accounts signed by John Crook. The defendant, how-
ever, managed the business, and he-was the \only person
the plaintiffs knew by the name of Oury, and it was to
oim that credit was given according to the plaintiffs'
-tatement.
For the defendant it was contended that Charles Oury
was only an assistant to Crook, and that the latter was
Prepared to pay the money due, but not the costs of this
action.
Mr. Crook was called, and he stated that 15 years ago he
married the defendant's sister, who was a singing and
dancing mistress at Norwich, and she was well known
in the musical ,world by that name. He started the
_.

CLERICENWELL.—Henry
Webster, a well dressed
man, with a Jewish cast 'of features, was charged with
having in his possession three gold watches and 19 boxes
-
of cigars, without being able to give a satisfactory ac-
count of their possession,
The first witness called Was- Mr. Edwin Langford,
He said—l reside at 23, Broad Quay, Bristol. lam a
watchmaker. - On, the 21st of February last my house
was; broken into, and 120 geld watches, 100 silver
watchee, and 100 gold' &mine—in all of the value of
2,7ooL—taken away. From information I came to
town on Saturday last; and, about seven o'clock in the
evening of the same day, I called on the prisoner at his
residence, which is a private house. I asked him if he
bad any watches for sale, as I wished to purchase some.
He took me into the front parlour, and produced a case
of watches, amongst which was the gold one I now pro-
duce. .1 positively swear it was part of the property I
lost in the robbery. I recognised it at 'once by the pe-
culiarity of the dial-plate ; but from the marks inside I
was more positive. I asked him the priee of it. He
replied 101. ; that is much under the price, as I could
not sell a similar watch under twelve guineas. He then
produced another case of watches, and I selected another
(produced). I remarked to him that the name "French,
London," did not look genuine ; when he replied,
" Well, perhaps not, this watch has most likely come
from some `prig' or another, but I never buy watches
from 'prigs, and will always give up tDe party I had
them from." I then offered him 8/. for the first watch
I looked at, but he would not take it. I gave' him
eventually 9/. 10s, for it. I then asked him if he had
any more watches of the same kind ; he said, "No, I
may have some on Monday or Tuesday, say Tuesday,
but I am sorry' you did not call yesterday (meaning
Friday), when I had some." We left the house to-
gether, and when we got to the corner of College-street,
and as we were walking along, he said, "I don't think
that you saw that a name has been... filed out from the
plate of that watch, do not show it in London, as it may
lead to identification. I never show my stock in London,
seldom in the country, 'and there they are all quiet." I
went again on the Tuesday, but he said he could not get
any of the same kind gof watches. I looked .over the
stock, but said I would call again another day. On
Wednesday I went to look at a chronometer I had pre-
viously seen. Whilst I was there Sergeant Jackson, 11
A, accompanied by Sergeant Mason, 25 S, and constable
Bow, 383 S, came in, according to my direction,
The officers then searched the house, and a nest of draw-
ers was found in a small room which was fitted up as
a jeweller's workroom. In one of the drawers was a
gold watch case which I can identify as mine, although
it has been " re-christened " as it is called—that is, the
original number I placed on it was 7,149 ; since it was
stolen from me a figure of one has been placed before
the seven, and the one has been made into a four, mak-
ing the number 17,449. rn another drawer was the
movement of the same watch with the name filed out.
In another compartment I found another gold watch
case, also mine, and the works likewise. That is all I
have to say at present.
The prisoner, who several times wished to correct the
witness, on being asked what he had to say, replied, "I
can account P..r the possession of the watches, and can
tell who I bought them of.",
Mr. Tyrwhitt—You will be doing yourself a service
by stating what you know of the party. Who is he?
Prisoner.- I should like to consult a solicitor before
that. Ido not know where to get one, As I have not
been long in town.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—lt is only right that you should have
legal adviser, therefore remand you to enable
you to have one.
It has been. ascertained that the prisoner has been a
resident in Beda'e, in Ircrk,liire. On his p.r4ori was
found a receipt for 800/. lodged iii his name at Hankey's
bank, in Snitembei, 1854. -
"J. T.," of Furnivars-inn' has forwarded a cheque
fir 1/., in aid of the relief of Mr. Lambelet, the original
pa;nter of the saloons, 4:c., at the Pavilion at Brighton,
but now raduced to great poverty.

WANDSWORTfI.--A well-dressed and lady-like
woman. attired in mourning, who gave the name of
Arabella EiThemia Pre3tan, Radermaelce,, was charged
with unlawfully intermarrying with Mr. James Joseph
-Rademacher, her former husband, Charles d'Olvarez
Robertson, being still alive.
Mr. Charnock, the barrister, appeared for the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. [(Ala attended on behalf of the prisoner.
Mr. Charnock detailed the facts of the case, and added
that he appeared to prosecute on behalf of the father,
and not the son.

Witnesses were then called,.who proved that the pri-
soner (formerly a governess in the family of Mr. Rader-
macher, sen., of Fulham), WAS married to Mr. Robert-
son, an architect, on March 20, 1845, and again married
to Mr. James Radermacher on the nith October, 1854.
The case was then remanded, a witness who had been
summoned to show that Mr. Robertson was alive not
having attended.

SOUTH WARK, EXTRA.ORDINARY AFFAIR. On
Wednesday afternoon, a well-dressed person, represent-
ing himself to be a brewer at Berkhempstead, attended
before Mr.. Combe with a young. girl, stated not to be 14
years old, but who, singularly- enough, was far advanced
in pregnancy, to complain of the conduct of the parish
authorities of Bermondsey, in refusing to receive the girl.
. The applicant Stated that the girl who was with him.
had resided for some tirneivithan 'old lady at Berkhemp-
stead; and, until recently, was much respected by
but a few days ago it=was ascertained that the girl was
far advance" in the family-way, which inducedqhe old
lady to discharge Lier.• Being aA.:orpharr„-,she was taken
to tho, workhouse there, wheri.Abn relieving officer rcl,
fused to receive her, stating,"as .a :reason,: that,:sh.e be-.
longed to the parish of - Bermondsey, and she must be
taken there. Applicant consulted with the old lady
about the circumstance, and having business to transact
in London *he consented to bring the girl to London.
Consequently that morning he went to Bermondsey
workhouse with her, and told the officer that she be-
longed to that parish, and that he wished toleave her,
but the officer refused to have anything to do with her.
Applicant, therefore, wished to know whether the parish
authorities of Bermondsey could not be compelled to re-
ceive her.
Mr. Combe—How old is this child ?
Applicant—l believe she• is not quite 14. She was
taken into the old lady's service at 10 years of age, and
has continued with her until the present time..
Mr. Combe—She seems to be in the family way, How
is that
Applicant—l understand she has formed connections
with some young men at Berkhenipstead, and as soon as
her state was found out by the old lady she discharged
her, and sent her to the Union.
Mr. Combe—But who recommended her to be brought
to .London?,
Applicant—The relieving officer at. Beikhempstead.
The old lady also,reqnested me to bring her to Bermond-
sey, as that was her father's parish.
Mr. Combe—Has she any parents living ?
Applicant—No, sir. That was the reason the old lady
took care of her. - . _

Mr. Combe—l advise you to take her back to Berk-
hempstead. Will you consent to that ?
Applicant— Well, I suppose I must; but I have busi-
ness in London, and shall not be able to return until the
evening. I shall either leave by the four o'clock train
or the six o'clock, and I am willing to take her with rue
and pay all expenses, provided she meets me at the rail-
way station.

Mr. Combe—l'll send her in charge of one of my offi-
cers, and, if you are not there to receive the girl, you
must expect to hear more of the affair.
Murray, one of the warrant officers, consequently
took her to the railway station as directed, where he met
him, who received charge of her, and took her back to
Berkhempstead.

THE AGENTS OF TRANSPORTS--A return, yesterday
issued, shows that the following are the names and ages
of the naval officers employed in the Mediterranean and
Black Seas, as agents of transports, viz. :—Rear Admi-
ral Boxer, aged 70 years ; Captain P. Christie, 58 ; Cap-
tain Leopold G. Heath, 37 ; Commander J.Steane, 61 ;
Commander Rawstorne, 60 ; Commander Franklin, 57 ;
Commander Hoseasen, 55 ; Commander J. Borlase, 42 ;
Commander Brewer, 56 ; Commander Bathurst, 37 ;
Commander Mason, 55 ; Lieutenant E. Wylde, 63 ;
Lieutenant Boyce, 61 ; Leutenant T. James, 57 ; Lieu-
tenant Oke, 60 ; Lieutenant Robinson, 53 ; Lieutenant Yule, 57 ; Lieutenant J. F. Wilkinson, 64 ; Lieutenant
C. W. Scott, 56 ; Lieutenant J. S. Keatley 56 ; Lieu-
tenant J. Kempe, 50 ; Lieutenant W. Hay, , 58 ; L
tenant Aldworth, 48 ; Lieutenant Hutchinson 45
Lieutenant Phillips, 44 ; Lieutenant Hoofs, 47 ; 'Lieu-
tenant Cunningham, 43 ; Lieutenant Ballard, 36 ; Lieu-
tenant Gass, 43 ; Lieutenant Geary, 50 ; and
Liente-
-1 nant R. J. Turner, 50 years of age. The length of the
sea service of these gentlemen varies from seven to 33
years