The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENG

(This Day.)

COURT OF EX_C IIEQUER.
(Sittings in B anco.)

(Before Chief Justice Jervis, Chief Baron Pollock,
Barons Parke, Platt, and Alderson, Justices Wil-
liams, Crowder, and \Vines.)
GREGORY V. COTTERELL AND OTHERS.

Mr. Bramwell, Q.C., said tb is was an error from the
I Court of Queen's Bench. The declaration stated that
the defendants broke and entered the dwelling•house of
' the plaintiff, and seized certain goods and chattels. The
defendants pleaded the usual pleas as officers of the
Sheriffs of London and Middlesex. It appeared that on
the 30th Jan., 1854, Mr. Thomas Baker, Parliamentary
agent, issued a writ fi fa for 2701. against the plaintiff,
formerly M.P. for Dublin, residing at 14, Park-street,
Grosvenor-square, and on Saturday, the 14th February,
a man named Lewis, assistant to Jones, a sheriff's
officer, seized the plaintiff's go ads, in virtue of that war-
rant. On the Monday following, the plaintiff paid to
Lewis, at the office of Jones, in Red Lion-passage, the
debt and costs, and the man was withdrawn from pos-
session. The money not being paid over to the sheriff
he was unable to return the rule of the writ, and issued a
warrant to Sloman, who seized on the 23d February, re-
, maining in possession till the 2d March. The plaintiff
claimed that he bad already paid the amount under the
first proceedings, and took out a summons and appeared
before Mr. Justice Crampton, at Chambers, to set aside
the second levy, when an arrangement was entered into
between the plaintiff and the Sheriff, whereby the latter
agreed to pay the money on the plaintiff entering into a
bond to repay the amount should an action he undertook
to bring against the defendants be unsuccessful. The
action was tried before Lord Chief Justice Campbell,
when it was contended on the one hand that Lewis was
authorised by Jones to make the levy and receive the
amount, which was paid to him and the man in posses.
sion withdrawn ; and, on the other, that Lewis had no
authority, had made no return of the receipts of the
money, and that Jones, who was then in, extrtntis and
had since died, could not be examined to state whether
he had or had not received the money. The jury, on the
ruling of Lord Campbell, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages 4001., the defendant's counsel at the
time tendering a bill of exceptions to the learned judge's
ruling. The learned Counsel contended that the Sheriff
was not liable, because Jones had thought proper to
delegate his power and authority to another person,
and that Lewis, by that delegation of authority, had no
more authority to execute the warrant than if he had
found or stolen it. To make the sheriff liable under the
first warrant something should have been shown to have
been actually done by Jones, to whom the sheriff dele-
gated his authority. It might be very convenient for
these officers to have an office, and for persons to pay
money to any person they might find there ; but they
did it at their own risk.

The learned counsel had not concluded his arguments
when our despatch left.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco.—Before Lord Chief Justice Campbell,

Justices Coleridge, Wightman, and Erle.)

The Court was occupied the greater portion of the
day in hearing arguments in a demurrer, relative to the
seaworthiness of a vessel on which an insurance had
been effected.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

SOI7THWARIC.

PICKING POCKETS ON GUY FAWKES' DAY. —John
Clark, a smart-looking lad, about 14 years of age, was
brought up in custody charged with being concerned
with two others in stealing a pu►se containing 10s. from
the person of Mary Deane, under the following circum-
stances :

The prosecutrix, an elderly female, said that on the
morning of the sth inst. she was standing at the end of
St. Andrew's-road, Horsemonger-lane, looking at a for-
midable sort of a living Guy Fawkes which had stopped
in the road. She had then her purse, containing 10s.,
in her pocket under her dress, and a minute or two
afterwards a lad came up to her and told her she had
been robbed, and she saw three lads running away. She
then found that her purse was gone, and saw two of the
lads secured ; but the third, whom she believed to be the
prisoner, escaped. The latter was seized hold of by a
gePtleman, but he managed to slip his coat off and so
got away, at the same time leaving his coat behind.
James Macready, a very intelligent lad, said he saw
the lady standing at the corner of the St. Andrew's-road
looking at a Guy Fawkes, when the prisoner and tAo
others surrounded her. Re distinctly saw the prisoner
lift up her dress, put his hand up, and take a purse from
her pocket, which he ran away with, followed by the
other two. They were all seized, but the prisoner slipped
his coat off and left it behind. He was sure the prisoner
was the oue who picked the lady's pocket, and the coat
produced was the one he had on at the time.
James Thomson, another lad, said he saw the prisoner
running away from the lady with a dark looking purse
in his hand. He was joined by two others, and he saw
something pass between them. The prisoner made his
escape.

The magistrate asked whether the gentleman was
present who caught hold of the prisoner and retained
his coat t

The constable replied in the negative. The prisoner's
companions were convicted on Thursday last for the part
they took in the robbery ; and he apprehended the pri-
soner from a description he received of him yesterday
afternoon on Newington Causeway. He then denied
being in Horsemonger-lane or Saint Andrew's-road on
Guy Fawkes' day. The prisoner was connected with a
gang of expert pickpockets who were under the tuition
of a well-known thief in the Mint.

The magistrate said that ho should commit the pri-
soner, but prior to that he must have the evidence of the
gentleman who seized hold of him. Under those cir-
cumstances he should remand him until Thursday next.