The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-12 00:00:00

BRUA_RY 12, 1882

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 11.
Mr. Justice Yatteson and Mr. Justice Wightmam Eat
this day to hear appeals from the County Court..
RAWCROFT v. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY

living, procured for him a credit which warranted the
defendant In lending money to him. The plaintiff knew,
as e very body must know, that thert. was risk in lending
money on personal security, and that was the reason that
so high a sum as 51. per cent. was paid. The plaintiff
ought not to complain because the risk for whioh that
interest was contracted to be paid had actually occurred.
The defendant and other witnesses was then called.
Sir Gregory Lewin's clerk proved that his profes-
sional income iu 1842 amounted to 1,9001. What it was
afterwards did not appear.
Mr. Simpson, of the Shefli•eld and Redford Batik, said
that Sir Gregory, after he became Queen's Counsel, had
a credit with them for 500/.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE, in reply, ;ridiculed the idea of a
person being entitled to a larger credit, or being trusted
without inquiry, because the degree of Queen's Counsel
had been conferred upon him. That " honour" had
become as common as knighthood, and appeared to be
given away as children gave blackberries. In most cases
it occasioned a falling off in the income of the recipient,
soreetieles for a time, too often for ever. Ile himself
held the ancient degree of sergeant, which entitled him
to lie called by his Lordship " brother,' and the Lord
Chancellor had recently, without solicitation on his part,
recommended him to the office of Queen's sergeant; but
he was informed he had failed to receive the appoint-
ment in consequetce of the recommendation having bees
dropped oat of a red box somewhere about the Palace,
and so missed for some days, when it was found by a
servant behind a cushion. He should now know better
how to estimate his loss, since the writing " Q.C." at the
end of his name enabled a man to borrow 5001. on the
strength of it.—(Laughter.) The defendant had been
guilty of the greatest negligence in lending plaintiff's
money on security which turned out to be utterly worth-
less, and which defendant might have discovered en the
slightest inquiry, and to a person who was in debt to
himself, and from whom he had been unable to get any
sufficient security.
His LORDSHIP having summed up, left it to the jury
to say what the terms of the defendant's employment
were—whether he did the work on the terms of being
paid nothing, or whether, being entitled to charge, he
kindly remitted his claim on the plaintiff; and, secondly,
to say whether the defendant had been guilty of
negligence.
The jury, after retiring for a short time, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for 3501. and interest; and that the
defendant was entitled to charge for his services; but
had given up his claim,

COMPANY.
This was an appeal from a decision given by the judge
of the County Court of Yorkshire., in favour of the plain-
tiff. The plaintiff had taken a ticket to come to the
Great Exhibition in August last. He was to come and
return by the third-class train, and to bo allowed four-
teen days in London. On the 14th of August, and
within the fourteen days, he presented himself at
King's-cross at six o'clock in the morning. At 6h.
45m. there was a train going to Barnsley, but it was
full, so that he could not go by that train. lie tried an
excursion train at mid- day, but could not go, but went
by a train which left at 9h. 15m. in the evening. That
train arrived at Doncaster at six o'clock in the morning,
but the Great Northern line stopped at that place, an
arrangement being made with the South York Railway
Company to carry passengers on to Barnsley. It hap-
pened, however, that the latter company did not run
trains on the Sunday, so that the plaintiff was stopped.
He, however, took a carriage to Barnsley, and brought
an action to recover the expense to which he had been
put. The judge 9f the County Court held that ho was
entitled to maintain the action, but against his decision
the company appealed.
Mr. PHIPSON now appeared and argued the case for
the appellants, the company; and Mr. HALL for the
respondent.
The COURT expressed a clear opinion that the plain
tiff was entitled to maintain the action. The ticket said,
" Great Exhibition; Barnsley to King's-cross and back,
3d. class." and on the back of the ticket were the words,
—`•Excursion-ticket, to return by trains advertised for
the purpose on any day not beyond 14 days from the
date hereof." It appeared that the train by which the
plaintiff left London was so advertised, and, as he could
not go by the 6.45 train, he was entitled to go by ano-
ther, and to be conveyed on to his destination. The
judgment of the Court must, therefore, be for the re-
spondent.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Lord CAMPBELL and a
Special Jury.)

DOSTOCK V. THE NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY

COMPANY.

Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Watson, and another gentleman
were counsel for the plaintiff, and the Attorney-Gene-
ral, Mr. Edwin Jamee, and Mr. Grove for the defend-
ante.

The plaintiff was a lady who possessed property ad-
joining Brudyard-lake, in Staffordshire, and she had an
interest in about 80 acres of the soil of the lake. The
different proprietors of property adjoining this lake had
the privilege of using the lake for pleasure-boats
and for other purposes, except using the same
for boats or vessels for conveying passengers.
The defendants became the purchasers from
the Trent and Mersey Navigation of their interests in the
the lake. Advertisements appeared in the different pa-
pers stating that on Easter Monday there would be a
fete and other sports on the lake, and that the railway
company would run cheap trains to the like during that
day, and the consequence was that between 10,000 and
20,000 persons assembled there; great noise was made,
cannon were fired, and all sorts of amusements took place
upon the lake and upon the adjoining property. On Whit-
Monday there was another fete, attended with similar
noises and annoyances, and great damage was done to
the plaintiff's plantations; the people broke the trees
and went all over the neighbourhood. The plaintiff
went out and told them there was no public way; she
was told to mind her own business. They used very
coarse expressions, and conducted themselves in a very
riotous and objectionable manner. The people in the
boats shouted and made all kinds of noises, and alto-
gether interfered very much with the comforts of her
house. In consequence of the advertisements a letter
was written to Mr. Ricardo on the subject; it was not
answered. One or two other letters were written, and
then Mr. Ricaedo answered that he had only done that
which he had a right to do.
For the eompany it was contended that they had the
right to have their boats on this lake, and to give these
Mrs; and it was urged that it was rather a hard mea-
sure for this lady to attack this company because they
bad once or twice a year devised a mode of giving hap-
piness and enjoyment to a class of persons who seldom
had any intermission to their toil. Supposing they had
a target erected on their own land, and had rifle-shoot-
ing, of which they had heard so much lately, was the
proprietor of some land adjoining another part of the
lake to prevent all this? There could not be a question
that the company had a right to have boat-races and a
steam-vessel on the lake. It had been said that the
fishery was injured, that the fish did not bite so readily
for a day or two, and did not enter the nets, and the
jury were asked to believe that immediately the Vice-
Chancellor had issued an injunction the fish rushed to
the bait and filled the nets. Was anything so prepos-
terous? No doubt the rights of property were to be
protected, but were persons to be so selfish and so chur-
lish as to bring actions because a few persons were
thus enjoying themselves?
Lord CAMPBELL, in summing up, said God forbid
that the innocent amusements of the people should be
restricted. He wished more and more that the Legis-
lature should encourage those amusements; but whe-
ther a railway company were to depart from their ori-
ginal object of conveying persons from one point to
another, and, for the purpose of increasing their divi-
dends, resorting to such modes as those described, was
another question. It could not bo endured in this
country that railway companies were to create amuse-
ments which were to be a nuisance to the neighbourhood.
It was for the jury to say whether or not this was a
nuisance.

SURREY SESSIONS, Feb. 11.
CAUTION TO PRIZE-FIGHTERS.— William Hayes John
Jones, George Crockett, Charles Mallett, James Welsh,
and Samuel East were indicted for riotous conduct at a
prize fight at Reigate.
Mr. Corner prosecuted, and Mr. Locke and Mr. Ro-
binson defended the prisoners.
Superintendent Codd, of the Reigato police, stated that
on the 2d of December he received information of a
prize•fight at Rtigate-common. It was two o'clock
before he arrived at the spot. When ho arrived at
Benstow-common be found two men fighting. A circu-
lar ring was formed by a rope. Hayes and Jones were
nearest to him. Crockett was second to Jones, and
Mallett was umpire, I suppose, or referee.
Mr. Rosman—Tell us what he was.
Witness—He appearad to be referee. Mr. Mills, of
Bell's Life, acted in that position. Welsh and East were
seconds to Jones.

Mr. CORNER—What did you tell them? Witness—l
told them I was superintendent of the Surrey police, and
I requested them to desist. I was asked by Mallett to
read the Riot Act. They all persisted in their riotous
conduct. Mallett said he would desist if a magistrate
was present. ‘lVitness told him he had power over all
of them. The bystanders rushed into the ring and
called out " turn them out."

Mr. CORNER—Did the dsfendarits use those expres-
sions. Witness—They did not. They were determined
to continue the fight, and I returned to witness the trans-
action. I was threatened by some of them. I saw a
knife in the hands of one of the mob.

Mr. CORNER—Was this kuiie used while you were re-
tiring from the ring? Witness—lt was held in a slant-
ing direction. Jones was then apparently blind, and a
sponge was thrown up when the fight was off.
Cross-examined by Mr. ROBINSON—The man with the
knife went out of the ring. I stood still and watched
them quietly. I have never seen a prize-fight before.
Mr. ROBINSON—Was it a stand-up fair fight? Wit-
ness—Well, it might have been; but there seemed to be
something wrong about it.
Mr. Rosfersorr—Now, was it not fair fighting? Wit.
ness—l cannot say. It is not military fighting.
Mr. ROBINSON—How far were you from the parties
fighting? Witness—l was there at two o'clock, but I
stopped until it was dark. I saw the sponge thrown up.
Mr. Locke—What do you mean by throwing up the
sponge? Witness—l cannot say exactly. It might
have been a glove. I did not read the Riot Act. I
went for Mr. Fraser, the magistrate, and he was out.
Inspector Benham—l accompanied Superintendent
Codd and witnessed the fight. It took place in Surrey.
Jones and Hayes were fighting at the time. I have
seen a prize-fight before. Crockett was second to Jones.
Welsh and East were seconds to Hayes. The other
prisoners were referees. After the fight was over ,
Jones was taken out quite blind. The men were all
exhausted, and tome of them were suoking the blood
from his eyes.

By Mr. LOCKE—There were a number of respectable
men present, but tha mob surrounded them and used
threatening language towards them.

Mr. Co;DrEn.—Wlat sort of charaoters •sero they?
Witness—Loose characters. In fact they were roughs.
I was afraid of them, as they all showed a resistance.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
The CHAIRMAN having summed up at great length,
The jury tound them all Guilty.
The COURT fined each 5/., or three montheimprison-
ment. The fines were paid and the prisoners were
liberated.

The jury at once returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
The case was before tried at,Chester, and the jury would
not give a verdict.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 11.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before Lord Chief
Justice JEnvis.)
The Nisi Prius sittings in London commenced to-day.
The cause list contains an entrance of 69 causes, 21 of
which are remanets, and 24 are marked for special juries.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARYLEBON.E,
Eliza Granel, lady's maid and housekeeper to Mrs.
Anne Rose Wood, residing at 13, Uppt=r Wimpole-
street, Cavendish-square, was charged with having stolen
a pair of diamond eardrops and other property, belong-
ing to her mistress.
Mr. Charles Walter, pawnbroker, 28, Great Maryle-
bone-street, deposed, that on Monday evening last pri-
soner came to his shop, and pledged a silver milkpot for
18s., in the name of Eliza Granel. The foreman recog-
nized her as the person to whom he bad advanced three
guineas a short time previously upon a pair of of dia-
mond drops, and in consequence witness directed him
to watch her, which he did, into Mrs. Wood's residence.
On the next morning she came and pawned a piece
of satin for 10s., and after being again snatched into
her mistress's house, information was given by witness
to
the police.
Roberts, 107 D, said that from information which he
had received he called upon Mrs. Wood, who accom-
panied him to Mr. Walter's, when she identified the
articles alluded to. Witness subsequently took the pri-
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 11. soner into custody, and in a tea-caddy in her room he
Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the LORD CHIEF BARON found, in the whole, nine duplicates, three of them for
and a Special Jury.) the eardrops, the milkpot, and the satin, and the rest
PELLICHET V. LoADEN
of them for plate and other property, some portions of
.
jeer. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Petersdorff appeared for which Mrs. Wood was of opinion would,
the plaintiff; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Ogle represented inquiry, turn out to be hers. She (prisoner)upon further
made an
the defendant. attempt to get the duplicate for the drops from the officer,
The action was brought to recover the sum of 350/', and begged hard of
Mrs. Wood said, her.ently as possible.
wish was that the prisoner should
her mistress not to prosecute her,
which was entrusted to the defendant, an attorney, for
investment, and which it was alleged he had invested on
be
dealt with as leniently
insufficient security. The plaintiff is the widow of a
gentleman who was formerly an officer in the army, and plied, " being asked what she had to say, prisoner re-
I own I have done excae diegly wrong."
afterwards a professor of French at Sandhurst College. She was remanded until Wednesday next.
The defendant is a solicitor in Bedford-place, and was WORSHIP-STREET.
in the habit of acting, as his father had done before him Abraham Pall, a well-known bad character, was
as the professional adviser of Mr. Pellichet; but both charged with breaking into the counting-house of Mr.
the plaintiff and his father being personal friends of Mr. John Davis, a wholesale fruit-salesman in Spitalfields.
Pellichet, had never charged him anything for their The prosecutor stated that on Saturday evening, the
services. In 1831 the defendant was applied to by Me, 31st of last month, between five and six, he went over his
Pellichet to invest a sum of 3501. in some way that warehouse with some of his workmen to see that it was
s
should produce more than the ordinary rate of interest; all properly secured, and then left it fastened up his
and accordingly the defendant, with the censent of his P
police,
private residence in Prince's-etreet, but at an early hour
client, employed the money in the purchase of a re- the next Monday morning he was aroused by
deemable annuity, upon personal security, yielding as whoa pprised him that the premises had beetnheforcibly
much as 8 per cent. This annuity continued to entered during the night, and a the
be paid very irregularly until the death of Mr. Pellichet part of which had been recovered, carrvri 'ci 0
warehouse with
in 1845. Shortly after that, the grantor of the annuity thieves. He accordingly repaired to the.
quantity, , of
ffprhoyperty,
gave notice of his intention to pay off the sum lent.
counting-
The plaintiff was anxious to put out the money at as hhoisobsorott.,hmeor,datnhdatupon making hishawda
the tiles of
ghthe
roofs
of
profitable a rate as it had previously been lent at, and some adjoining premisest,ilanthoy
had made a hole suffi-
the burgladrs
requested the defendant to procure such an investment, his counting-house
's body, had burst through
The defendant explained that there was risk in lend- largecientlxl.o
g nd dropped on to the flooring. On looking
ing money on personal security, and that it would be after
the
delhieu founde the place in great confusion; one of the
better to invest it in the funds, although the interest
eerofthheisflvoooru,chaend
yielded would be much less. The plaintiff, however, was desks had been forced with soinhewluniseohslvirument, the iron
Ts
unwilling to give up so largo a portion of her income,
and private documents, was wide open, all its drawers
and expressed her willingness to incur a similar risk to
safe, in which he kept th
run. that which her husband and herself hadt alreadydrawn out, and their contee.nmtsossttrle.
five per cent. every portable article within reach taken away, including
The defendant upon this lent the money
even a pair of boots and smock frock belonging to one
to Sir Gregory Lewin, a Queen's Counsel, then believed
to be in effluent circumstances. The defendant had had of his carters. The key of the iron safe had been taken
from the desk which had been prized open, where 'was
him . it
previous dealings with Sir Gregory, and.d had himself lent
t The usually deposited, and he could po 1 1 •
property now produced by the police as a portion of that
st eve y identify the
him money, for which be head no
dvalfior sheciaarhi
reason which Sir Gregory a ege
funds stolen by the thieves.
oyr.rowing
this money of the plaintiff was, that his own .
the 11 d' • •on duty
made was
were invested in a very profitable manner, which Foreman, a constable of
Ge ' orge s-in
mado it inconvevilent to remove them. The' set.ao-
einrenDinogckf-ositlroeweitn,
,St.
twenty shares in to
the burglary, when ho caught sight of
-the-East, on Sunday
rity which he offered was
valued at ill. each, the prisoner skulltinaloe, g
- heavy Sheffield and Redford Bank,.
the Manchester and package, which g with a very large and •yn
and twelve quarter shares in the a
iece. Upon this findin fr h
he suspected had been stolen, and, o
ng-
Sheffield Railway, valued at 1
hand the defendant h finding from t e nature of its contents that some count'
security and Sir Gregory's note of.
ho
I, . malting no inquiry beyond should take him • assured him
lent the plaintiff's money,
in charge. The prisoner
the bank shares. ascertaining the market value of. . ln he had been merely employed to carry the package.
1845, Sir Gregory Lewindied, not having paid to Mr.
October,
Davis's warehouse, and challenged him to
interest on the 350/. His estate was found to be go there the constable took
any and satisfy himself, but .
insolvent. The bank shares proved to be already charged him at once to the station, and the prisoner, again
inso •
with a debt due by Sir Gregory to the bank, and the boldly repeated his statement, and told 'Sergeant
railway ehares turned out to belong to a Captain Her. Jackson, on duty there, that he had better go to Mr.
iii ringha, who disputed Sir Gregory's right to dispose Davis's and make the inquiry at once before it got too
of them. The defendant, after the death of Sir Gregory, late for him to get home' This ruse, however, did not
procured payment of some portion of the debt due advantage .
to , the prisoner, as the sergeant had lately bad
himself cut of the estate of the deceased. Under these ; complaints lodged there of robberies of a similar de-
circumstances the plaintiff, acting on the advice of a bat- ' scription being committed in that locality, and therefore
rister, a mutual friend of' herself nod the defendent, re- j went to the prosecutor's private r, silence to apprise him
quested the defendant to melte good to her the loss of his suspiciene, the result of which being the discovery
wustained. A lengthened correspondence that a burglary had been actually perpetrated on the
passed between, them, in which the plaintiff, whilst cx- very premises the prisoner
had eared him to go to, in
pressing her gratitude for past kindnesses of the de- the exPvenation that ho would be thrown off his guard,
tendane declared her inability to bear so great a less, he returned to the s.:alion, and,
having charged the 'w-
and insisted on the restitution she thought herself lee all cured with ceramitting. that robbery, and mentioned his
entitled to. The defendant, h ..owever, refused to do suspicions that he had likewise beet' concerned in others,
more than to allow her an annuity of 8/. or 101, while he the prisoner' with. the utmost coolness, replied, " Yes,
quite right; I have done this job, and other
felt himself able to pay it, and without any binding en- you are
. b. 4 too, in the same eel hbo rhood ,1
gagement on his part to continue it. This offer not .lO • g u •
being acceptable to the plaintiff, the
action was . The prisoner considered it would be useless to offer
present
brought. any defence, and Toweshend, 54 EL having been called
that his to depoee to f
a -.Jrtner conviction,and proved 1,
Mr. KNoWLES. for the defendant contended
to..
ahee. t . that ha was
services having been gratuitous, he was not bound to in a_, ;tad
r.
ra . the Central Criminal Court in the May
eaereiee more esre than he had in the investment of the of I" year, ,'hen he saw the accused arraigned for
felony, convicted, and sentenced to a lengthened term of
plaintiff's money. The position of Sir Gregory Lewin,
imprisvnmenr,
al
aounant, r. Ilexkluz, at once ordered the depo•
as one of her Majesty's counsel, his rank and wanner of j

THOMAS V. CHANDRE.
In this case Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Francis ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Slade, Q C., and Mr.
Hodges for the defendant.
The plaintiff, it appeared, is an advertising agent, and
the defendant is a gentleman residing at Fern-hill, near
Windsor. The action was brought to recover 451., ex-
pended in advertising the prospectus of a club called
" The Park Club," of which the defendant was a mem-
ber. It was proved that the defendant was present at
a meeting at which Captain Clarke, an active member of
the club,
was; that various newspapers marked were
lying about; that Captain Clarke asked the secretary
how they were going on, and gave the secretary orders
to have the advertisements respecting the club inserted.
His LORDSHIP having summed up,
The jury found a verdict for the amount claimed.
Another cause was tried in the course of the day,
which possessed no public interest.