The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-08 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. GILLING.

Mr. Palmer applied for a certiorari against a magis-
trate of the Isle of Ely, for remanding under a warrant
Thomas Gilling into the custody of the gaoler of Ely.
The warrant was at present in the custody of the gaoler,
and a question arose whether this warrant was of such
a nature as required to be quashed before an action
could be commenced against the magistrate under

it. The circumstances of the case were these.
Thomas G'llirg was an Irishman, and brought
beasts from Ireland to Norwich. On the 22d
September he took a ticket at the Trowbridge station
for London. At Ely he produced his ticket, which the
railway official declared was a false one, and that he was
travelling without paying his fare. He detained him,
and took him to the police station, where he remained
from that time (Saturday night) till Monday morning,
when he was taken before the magistrate, who remanded
him, on a warrant, till the Thursday following, nn which
day he was discharged, it having been shown that he was
travelling with a true and proper ticket. The first ques-
tion was whether such a warrant wa,i the anhjeot of a. cer-

tiorari, and, if so, whether under the Act for the Pro-
tection of Magistrates it was such a proceeding as would
need to be quoshed. •
_ . _

Lord Campbell—For what object ?
Mr. Palmer said it was to prevent the railway com-
pany or the magistrate from setting up the authority of
this warrant in an action for damages.

.Lord Campbell considered the court should not set
aside the warrant if it was available for any purpose.
Mr. Palmer—The m?gistrate acted without authority.
Application refused.
_ _ _

IN RE AN ATTORNEY.—Mr. Bovill, Q.C., moved for
a rule calling on certain attorneys of this court to an-
swer certain matters contained in affidavits. The appli-
cant, who was also an attorney, had a debt owing to
him of 1,8151., and he instructed his agents in London,
who were also the agents of the attorneys in question,
to send a writ to them for execution against his debtor.
The writ was forwarded on the 16th December last,
arrived in the country on the 17th, and should have
been served according to ordinary practice the same day.
Instead of that, the attorneys, who were also bankers,
sent for the debtor on the 19th, and, producing a mort-
gage deed, insisted on his executing it in their favour
for 2001. they had advanced to him. The mortgage was
executed, but afterwards found"to be for 3001. instead of
2001. They then served him with the writ, and wrote
the agents saying the debtor had entered an appearance
to the writ to obtain time. It turned out that the at-
torneys in question acted as the debtor's attorney, and
entered the appearance. The result of these proceelings
hal been to inflict a loss of 2001. on the attorney com-
plaining. A correspondence without prejudice had taken
place between the parties, which accounted for the delay
of the application.

Lord Campbtll said he'thought it was more a question
for an action than a penal proceeding.
Mr. Bovill said a question arose here the same as in
Cobb v. Beck, relative to the priority which made it
doubtful whether civil proceedings could be adopted.
Rele granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

THAMES.

SAVAGE ASSAULT ON A WIFE BY HER HUSBAND.—
Daniel Sullivan, a labourer, of No. 28, Sidney-street,
Commercial-road East, was brought before Mr. Ingham,
charged with assaulting his wife, Mary Ann Sullivan.

The complainant, a' thin, careworn young woman,
stated that she had been married 4i years, and for the
last three years her husband had been in the practice of
beating her at intervals, and was in a state of intoxica.
tion two or three times a week. On Tuesday night he
came home drunk and turned her out of doors, and after-
wards threw all the things in the room into the street.
She was admitted into her house again, and had to sleep
on the stairs at night. Her husband did not work yester-
day, and came home sober in the evening and went to
bed. She entered her room soon afterwards, and
her husband got out of bed and threw a large bundle of
slop work she had to make up at her head and knocked
her down. He then seized her by the hair of her he..d
and dragged her about the room until she became in-
sensible. Her husband beat her, kicked her, and nearly
strangled her a few weeks ago, and she took out a sum-
mons against him which he never appeared to, and she
forgave him. He was kind to her when sober and all
she required was that he should be bound over to keep
the peace towards her, rand keep away from her. She
could obtain her own living.
Mrs. Elizabeth Dureidge, living in the same house
as the complainant, said she heard screams of mur-
der, and saw the prisoner dragging his poor helpless
wife about the room and knocking her with
great violence against the door. The complainant was
very much hurt, and bad been ill all night.
A police-constable said he was called into the house,
23, Sidney-street, last night, and found Mrs. Sullivan
lying upon the floor insensible, and she continued in
that state for some time.
The prisoner said he was very sorry for what he had
done, and it would not have happened if he bad not
been drunk, and should not happen again. He was
willing to be bound over to keep the peace.
Mr. Ingham said the longer he 15.4 t in a police-court
the more he was convinced that nine-tenths of the
crime in London was caused directly or indirectly
by drunkenness. The prisoner had been in the
practice of beating his wife at intervals for
three years. He looked on the pesoner's
drunkenness as an aggravation of the offence, and
although the wife had begged that her husband should
not be punished, he could not overlook the brutality of
the prisoner, which had been exercised so often on his
young and most unfortunate wife. Ile seetenced the
prisoner to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for
two months, and also to enter into his own
recognisance
in the sum of 201. to keep the peace towards his wife
and all her Majesty's subjects for the next twelve
months.