The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,-(This Day.)

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the Recorder and a Common Jury.)

BRANDON V. RICKHARD..-THE NEW THEATRE COMPANY

(LIMITED).-SINGULAR ACTION.
This was an action to recover for work and labour done,
plaintiffs being a firm of attorneys, and defendant a stock.
broker.

Mr. Henry James (instructed by Mr. Tee, of Old Jury)
appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Sergeant Atkinson
(specially retained) ; and Mr. Kemp representing de-
fendant.

Mr. James, in opening the case to the jury, said that the
present action arose out of the recent formation of a com-
pany known as the New Theatre Company. There was no
doubt that this company created a great deal of excitement
in certain circles, and some speculation ensued. The de-
fendant was broker to the company, and acting upon his
instructions the plaintiff had performed certain work. The
defendant had attacked the directors of the company in the
Court of Chancery, and he asked the plaintiffs to make out
the bill of costs to another person, so that it might not be
known he was not the person actively moving in the matter.
The bill, however, had been duly forwarded to the defen-
dant, who returned no answer to demands for the money,
and who made no objection to the bill of costa. Eventually
the defendant promised to send a cheque, but he had not
done so, and he (Mr. Jones) confidently waited the result
of this inquiry.

Mr Brandon said—l am the plaintiff, and am an attorney
of the Strand. In the first instance I was consulted by
Mr. Noah, who is in partnership with my brother. That
was in June last. I was consulted about 200 shares which
Mr. Noah had. There was no certificates issued, no settling
day was named, and the broker could not obtain his
commission. Defendant was broker to the New Theatre
Company, and on June 9th I met him in Abchurch-
lane. Defendant was of opinion that criminal proceedings
should be taken against the directors, but I was opposed to
such steps, as the directors would immediately take steps to
wind up the company. I took proceedings in Chancery,
and defendant said "As to the expenses I wish there to be
no misunderstanding ; Noah will pay you his half and I will
pay you mine." I agreed to this. Defendant particularly
directed me to keep his name in the background, because as
he wee broker to the company it would not do for him to
figure against the uirectors. t preparea by order of the
defendant, a letter for the signatures of the shareholders.
Only one signed it. On the 27th June defendant intro•
duced a gentleman as a purchaser of shares, and wished me
to explain what I was doing. I filed a bill in equity, and
succeeded in getting the certificates from the directors. The
certificates were handed to me, and I sent them away to the
alleged purchaser, who was not at his office. Some con-
versation ensued, and then Mr. Noah had agreed to forego
the premium upon the shares upon condition that defen-
dent should pay the plaintiff's bill of costs. Defendant
offered me £52 10s., but I declined, and he then asked me
to send in a bill to Noah and not mention his name, as he
wished to keep in the background. The bill was duly
made out, and application made for the amount. After
many such demands I met the defendant in Change-alley.
in August last, who then apologised for not sending the
cheque, but promised to do before I could get back to my
office. I never received the money. Messrs. Noah and
Brandon stopped payment recently, and I now owe de-
fendant for his moiety of the bill, £69 10s. I have never
had one sixpence, even for costs, out of pocket.
Cross•examined—Noah's partner was my brother, and I
had done law business for the firm. A bill of costs which I
had direct against defendant was paid up after the threat
to take proceedings. Defendant was to receive £3OO from
the promoters of the company. We never take a written
retainer, at least, not once in fifty times. Mr. Rickards
had acted as our broker for thirteen or fourteen years. He
had a great interest in this matter, and was to get his corn •
mission on the shares. When defendant wished the bill to
be made out to Noah, I advised the gentleman to have a
written undertaking, because I did not like the shifting.
Defendant's present attorney called upon me about the
business and I gave him information. Mr, Boucicault's
bankruptcy considerably complicated matters. Defendant
told me that he would pay his moiety of any charges in
Change-alley.
Plaintiff was re-examined upon the items in the bill of
costs. When defendant presented the cheque he had never
been applied to in reference to his own account for direct
business. The charges were made out from a diary.
Messrs. Valiance (defendant's attorneys) did nothing, but I
communicated with them at defendant's request. When-
ever defendant met plaintiff they conferred together as to
the steps to b 3 taken.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence Mr. Jonathan
Brandon was called to prove the retainer.
The case is expected to last a considerable time.

• THAMES.
HIGHWAY ROBBERY.—Catherine Holmes, a woman
of the town, and John Morgan, a young man, were charged
with highway robbery.
Henry Wyatt said—l live at No. 6, Upper Baker-street,
Stepney, and am a carpenter. Last night I was walking
through Whitechapel, a little after 11 o'clock. The female
prisoner, and two other women, came up to me, and said
" What are you going to treat us with." I said nothing ;
I am going home. I went into the Black Lion public.
house to light my pipe, and had a pint of beer. The female
prisoner came in just after me, and I asked her to drink
the remainder of it after I had drunk a portion. I walked
out of the public •house and she followed me out and
took my arm at the end of Turner-street, near
the back of the London Hospital. She spoke to two
other woman, and directly afterwards turned round to me
and made a snatch at my watch. She succeeded in taking
it from my waistcoat pocket. I saw her and felt her da it.
I laid hold of her and stuck to her. The prosecutor was
asked to explain what he meant by sticking to her. He
said—l mean that I kept my eye upon her. She made a
great effort to get away, and threw her shawl and bonnet
on the pavement. While I was struggling with her the
male prisoner came from the other side of the road, and said
" What are you going to do with that woman ?" and tried
to kick me, but he did not succeed. I then called " Police I"
and the police came directly, and I gave the female prisoner
in charge, and held Morgan until another constable arrived,
and he was secured.

John M'Kay, a police constable, 414 Kt said he heard the
prosecutor calling for the police, and saw him struggling
with the woman who accused him of taking liberties with
her. The male prisoner was standing on one side, and was
about to move away. He took him into custody. He did
not know Morgazi, but he knew the woman Holmes, who
was a prostitute living in Shadwell. There were half a
dozen women of the same class about her when he came
up. The back of the London Hospital was a secluded place,
where many robberies had been committed.
The prosecutor was recalled, and said, " My watch was
fastened to a silver chain round my neck. It has been
broken from the swivel."
The prisoners were remanded for a Week.