The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr Commissioner Kerr.)
PUGILISTIC APPRENTICES - EXTRAORDINARY ACTION

FOR ONE SHILLING-COLLIER V. HOWELL.

This was an action to reoover Is, money alleged to be due
to plaintiff from defendant, who was represented by Mr
Hubert Wood (Wood and Ring).
Plaintiff— I have been in the service of the defendant, and
when he paid me one week's wages he stopped Is. I asked
him what it was for, and he replied "For a fine." As I
never agreed to pay fines, I brought the case to this court
Mr Wood—Now, do you not know that apprentices are
fined Is when they are discovered fighting ?
Plaintiff —This was not a fight.
His Honour—ls the plaintiff an apprentice ?
➢lr Wood-IC, s, sir ; and it is a rule in the establishment
that all apprentices found fighting pay a fine of Is.
His Ilonour—Where are the indentures, because they
would show this ?

Mr Wood—The rule will not bo found in the indentures,
His Honour --Let me Fee them. They are not regis-
ered. Why was not this matter taken to the Chamberlain
_ _ _ _

Mr Wood—l believe that the plaintiff was hound by a
charitable institution, but on previous occasions he has
paid a fine of is without any demur.
His Honour--The contract between the parties will be
found in the indentures, and as this rule is not set out in
them I cannot deal with the caee. I must find for the
plaintiff, with 2s 6d costs.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,—This day.

THAMES.

APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER.—A LONG
SEPARATION.—Mrs Scrivener, a respectable woman, about
30 years of age, applied for a protection order. She was
married to her husband, Frederick Scrivener, at the Church
of St Paul, Finsbury, on the 2d day of June, 1853, and,
after a good deal of unhappiness with him, ho deserted her
on the 7th of May, ISSO. She had not seen him or heard
of him since. She had acquired a little property, and
wished to protect it.
➢lr Psi tridge—Do you know where he is?
Applicant—l do not, sir.

Mr Partridge—Have you given your husband any cause
for leaving you ?
Applicant—l have not, sir.

Mr Partridge—You shall have an order,
CONVICTION OF A RIVER TlllEV.—Charles Lovell, a
fellow of youthful appearance, was brought before Mr Par-
tridge charged with committirg two robberies on the river
Thames.

The prisoner was detected by the crew of a Thames police
galley, on the river off Wapping, in a boat, the property of
the Trinity House Corporation. He had 6 lbs of raw coffee
in his possession, and it is believed it was stolen from a
barge containing bags of coffee a short distance from the
place where he was found. He had removed the boatfrom
the roadstead, where it was moored, and it was recognised as
the property of the Trinity House Corporation by Mr Tre-
maine, a ruler in the ballast office under the control of the
Corporation.

John Pitman, of the Thames Police, said the prisoner had
been convicted of a robbery on the river at the Southwark
Police-court.

Mr Partridge said he should convict the prisoner of un-
-1 twful possession of the coffee, and sentenced him to two
months' imprisonment and hard labour in each case, which
would be four months' imprisonment in all, as the sentences
would be consecutive,