The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-10 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (THiS DAY),

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Cresswell.)

Thomas Evans, and George Turner, the two militia-
men who were convictedyesterday of a felonious assault
upon a young girl named Henrietta Gatland, were
brought up for judgment and sentenced to six years'
penal servitude.
'William Flower Guppy and 'Valiant Melrose, two
Post-office letter carriers, who had pleaded guilty to se-
parate charges of stealing letters containing money,
were also brought up for judgment and sentenced to be
transported for 14 years.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)

John Williams and Joseph Price were indicted for
burglariously entering the dwelling house of Joseph
Brown, draper, of Finsbury Pavement, and stealing
therefrom goods to the value of 250/. In the second
count Price was charged with receiving that property,
knowing it to have been stolen.

Mr. Ryland prosecuted, and Messrs. Sleigh and Salter
defended. It appeared from the evidence, which was
anything but satisfactory, that a man of the name of
Hooker was going with his cart along Golden-lane,
when he was stopped by a man not in custody, who bar-
-gained with him for the loan of it. He was requested
to go to a coffee-house close by, and was informed that
the cart should, before long, be there returned to loin.
He stood looking through the window, and saw the man
drive the cart to Mr. Brown's house and wait for it,
while another man, whom be believed to be Williams,
brought two large bundles out of the house and depo-
sited them in the cart. They then both got in and drove
away. Witness ran after them, and saw them stop at a
house in Vernlarn-street, Gray's-inn-lane, where another
man whom he believed to be Price, came out in his
shirt and took the bundles in. The man then gave him
21.' for the hire of the cart, at which he (witness) was
surprised. Other evidence was adduced, but
The Recorder said that Hooker could only be consi-
dered as an accomplice, and therefore he should at once,
direct the jury to find Price not guilty, and further, that
the evidence was not sufficiently confirmatory against
Williams.

The jury found both the prisoners not guilty.

THIRD COURT.
(Before Russell Gurney, Esq., Q.C.)

Alf reclKing , 21, labourer, John Grimes, 18, book-
binder, Henry Esqulent , 26, wood cutter, and William
Caddick, 20, hat maker, were indicted for stealing a
cbest and 20,000 envelopes, the property of Charles
Morgan.
It appeared that the prisoners, some of whom were
last night convicted of a similar offence, belong to a
class of fellows who hang about the carriers and inn,
yards in the garb of porters, and carry off what they
can. In this instance the envelopes had been sent from
the prosecutor's, who is a stationer in tie City, to a cus
tomer at Portsea, and had been stolen from a cart it,
the Old Bailey, in its transit to the railway.
The prisoner Caddick was stopped carrying
the chest, and was just about entering a notorious
resort of thieves in Gray's-inn-lane, where all the pri-
soners lived.

The jury acquitted King, and the other prisoners were
each sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment and
hard labour ; Grimes and Lqulent having been each
sentenced to four years' penal servitude for the offence
of which they were previously convicted.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII-(TBIS DAY.)

Lord Campbell sat at Nisi Prius to-day.
WIDEN V. VISCOUNT CLIFDEN.
FORD V. VISCOUNT CLIFDEN.
CLARK V. VISCOUNT CLIFDEN.

All these cases stood on the paper to-day, in conse-
quence of the application yesterday of Mr. Edwin
James. They are actions brought in each case by the
plaintiff to recover the sum of 3,0001. upon bills of ex-
change drawn by the Hon. Francis Villiers.
Mr. E. James, upon the cases being called over, stated
that the parties had determined to try all the matters
before a special jury, and he had therefore to ask the
Court that they might stand on the paper for the first
sitting in next term.
Lord Campbell had considered the subject since it
was mentioned yesterday, and thought that the course
proposed by Mr. James was a proper one.
All the cases, therefore, were postponed to the first
sitting in the next term, upon the understanding that
they were to be tried by a special jury.
The court then proceeded to hear common jury cases.
MOTT V. THE LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the London and Blackwall Railway, for the purpose of
recovering damages from them for injuries they had in-
flicted upon houses belonging to the plaintiff. From
the statement of counsel and the evidence adduced, it
appeared that the plaintiff erected several houses in the
neighbourhood of Bow. Sometime afterwards the de-
fendants made a station to their railway near the houses
of the plaintiff, and erected a tank for holding water,
which it was asserted by the plaintiff was so defective
that the water percolated through it, and so far injured
the houses of the plaintiff as to cause the tenants to
leave, and rendered it necessary for him to incur great
expenses.
Mr. E. James and Mr. Powell were for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. H. Hill appeared for the defendants.
Various witnesses clearly proved the damage done to
the plaintiff's property by the overflowing of the defen-
dants' tank.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case,
Mr. Hill said that on the part of the railway company
he would consent to a verdict for 501. damages, on the
understanding that no further action should be brought.
This proposition was agreed to by the plaintiff, and
a verdict was taken for 501. damages.
Lord Campbell could not but remark that the whole
expense of bringing this action might have been saved
if the surveyor of the railway company had efficiently
performed his duty.

ARMY BEFORE SREASTOFOL COM-

MITTEE-(THIS DAY.)

The committee re•assembled at the usual hour.

Mr. Wood, Secretary to the Board of Ordnance, was
examined by Lord Seymour.—He stated he had filled
the situation of secretary about 18 months, and had
been in the service 51 years. He was not aware whe-
ther any communication had been made to Lord Raglan
as Master-General of the Ordnance since be bad
been in the Crimea. The Lieutenant-General had
performed his duties. He did not think it possible
for one member of the board to perform all the duties
of the board, but it was the custom for one to discharge
the duties when one only was present. Formerly
copious minutes of the transactions of the board were
kept, but DOW only the principal ones—these were duly
forwarded to the Master-General, who had power to re-
verse the decision of the board. The Lieutenant-
General had not that power. He could not say whe-
ther all instructions or orders given by the board
were entered on the minute-book. In a great measure
he himself and those under him were the judges of what
was of sufficient importance or not to be entered on the
book. The erection of a shell foundry at Woolwich
would have been of sufficient importance to be entered
on the book. He could not say when the erection of
the shell foundry at Woolwich was brought before
the board, nor when he first heard of it
neither could he remember if a plan of it
was submitted to the board. Every paper received
into the office was registered, dated, and numbered, and
afterwards seat to the 11taster•General, the business was
decided by the majority.
The Chairman—But if there is only one member pre-
sent there could be no minority ?—The decision of that
one member is considered as the decision of the board.
There were circumstances which required. The signature
of two members. _

The witness was then examined at length on the de,
tails of the office.

Admiral Sir D. Dundas, admiral of the Black Sea
fleet, was next examined by the Chairman—He stated
that when be was in Besika Bay, in 1854, he understood
it was likely his fleet would be used against the enemy.
When it was likely war would be declared, he was under
Lord Stratford's orders. The Admiralty gave him a
rough statement of the power of the enemy's fleet in
the Black Sea likely to be brought against him. After
ho moved into the Black Sea, he was unable to gain
more correct information as to the strength of the
enemy's fleet from Lord Stratford, and he was equally
unsuccessful in his applications to other persons.
The gallant admiral proceeded to read copies of letters
he had written with respect to the attacking Odessa and
Sebastopol, when he was interrupted by the committee,
wh ) thought it desirable they should not be read.
By Mr. Drummond—He wrote to Lord Stratford re-
specting it, but received no answer, on which he sent
Captain Drummond to him ; but there was some ditp
‘ilty about the passport, and he received no answer by
him.

CLErT arnwa.]