The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-06 00:00:00

JEFFREYS V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Keating, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not take place in this case on the
ground of misdirection of the learned judge and on affi-
davits. The action was tried at the last Gloucester
Assizes, before Chief Baron Pollock, when a verdict was
given for the plaintiff for 4701. The action was one of
trover brought by the plaintiff against the defendants for
the conversion of 10 railway waggons that had been the
property of a person named 0 wen, who had become
bankrupt. Both the plaintiff and defendants claimed the
property under a sale from the bankrupt.
Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings in Banco. —A Weldh July.)
JOSEN V. POWELL.

Mr. Evans, Q.C., moved to set aside tho verdict in
the case which was for the defendant, and that a new
trial be granted. The action was tried at the last Car-
marthen assizes, before Lord Campbell, arid was for the
account of the Carmarthen Steeplechase Stakes, and the
dispute arose relative to the pedigree of the plaintiff's
horse. The horse had been named at the Aberyts-
with Steeplechase as the "Colonel," under a mis•
take, and was entered at the Carmarthen races am
"Master Frederick," without allusion to the former
name. The learned counsel, in moving for the
rule, said the verdict was given on the trial against evi-
dence, and by the improper conduct of the jury. He
entered at great length on the evidence adduced on the
trial, and with reference to the conduct of the jury said
he had the evidence of the bailiff who retired with them,
who stated that the jury (which consisted only of
eleven, from the others in court being in some way
interested in the race), before entering into a considera-
tion of the case, agreed to decide the case by vote, five
voted one way, and five another, the foreman giving the
casting vote.
The Chief Baron said that was a sufficient ground on
which to grant a new trial. The Court would grant it
on that point now, and would, no doubt, do so on the
other point, after consulting Lord Campbell, who, tried
the cause.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

SOUTHWARK.

UNFOUNDED CHARGE AGA/NS? A RESPECTABLE MAR-
RIED FEMALE.— William Baker, an ill-looking elderly
man, who stated himself to be a plasterer, was brought
before Mr. Combe, charged with assaulting and annoy.
ing Elisabeth Keene, the wife of a searcher in the Cus-
toms, under the following circumstances :

The complainant, a very respectable-looking young
female, stated that she lived in Iloramonger-lane, and
about 10 o'clock last night, she, was proceeding along
the Borough-road towards home, when the prisoner
came behind her and seizod her roughly by the shoulder,
and asked her to come back with him. She was much
frightened at his uncouth appearance, and told him to
leave her, as she knew nothing of him. He still per-
sisted in laying hold of her, and because she would
not return with him, he accused her at first with steal-
ing a sovereign from him, and afterwards said she had
stolen three sovereigns. She was so frightened, that she
ram into a shop crying, when he came after her, and
attempted to seize hold of her again, but, fortunately,
a constable came to her protection, and took the pri-
soner into custody.
Mr. Combe asked whether he was sober ?

The complainant said that ho appeared much under
the influence of liquor, but his conduct so frightened
her that she had hardly recovered herself.
In answer to the charge, the prisoner said he was ex-
tremely sorry for his bad conduct towards the lady, and
he was willing to make every apology. Tile fact was,
he got too much to drink last night and was robbed by
some female, which caused him to accuse the lady by

mistake.
Mr. Combs asked him what he was ?

He replied that he was a plasterer, and he Wa3 tho-
roughly ashamed of his conduct. He hoped his worship
would excuse him this time.

Mr. Combo told him he certainly should not do any-
thing of the kind, as he had been guilty of gross bru-
tality to a respectable married female, who was bound
to be protected. Under all the circumstances, he should
sentence him to pay a fine of 403., and in default of pay-
ment to be committed to the House of Correction for
one month.