The Sun.
London, England, 1852-08-25 00:00:00

EVENING,

ner, certificate of the first class—R. James, Lenton, Not-
tiughatm hire, lace-maker, certificate of the first class.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. Paterson and T. W. S. Elliott, Fencnurch-street,
hair-cu tern and wig-makers—T, Thom Is, E. Th:ma,,
and R. I‘l. Thomas, Chester, printens—J. Scott and J.
Lush. Warminster, Wiltshire, seechnien and corn-dealers
Bea7=in and T. Rauishaw, Louth, linen and wool-
len drapers—R. Guinness and J. Guinness, Brighton,
watch-makers and jewellers—W. Hardman uud J.
Hiton, Great Bolton, Lancashire, ironfounders—J.
Knowles and T. Crook, Eagley-within-Turton, and
Little Bolton, Lancashire, paper manufacturers—J.
Potter, J. Gaitliff, and W. Potter, Leeds, share. brokers
(so far as regards J. Gatliff)—A. Blest and J. Blest,
Woolwich, boot and shoemakers—J. Crossinghana and
J. Belcher, Romford, Essex, coach and cart wheel-
wrights—J. Ingham and J. Wailes, Dewsbury, York-
shire, ra dealers—W. Hersee and A. Hersee, North-
street, Peckham, builders—R. Bashall and J. Barrett,
Faringdon, Lancashire, tanners and curriers—M. A.
Payne, R. Payne, and J. E. H. Payne, Great Queen-
street, Lincoln's-inn fields, coach lace-manufacturers--
J. Martine and Sarah Ann Juby, Exmouth-street, Clerk-
enwell, haberdashers and linendrapers—J. Clarance and
W. Willc.s, Lime-street, City, coffee-merchants and agri-
cultural agents—W. W. Newsani and H. Thackray, Tor-
quay and Newton Abbot, Devonshire, provision mer-
chants—D. Smith and J. Smith, Manchester, spirit
dealers—W. Wainwright and E. Massey, Pennistono,
Yorkshire,
aim Manchester, quarrymen—H. Curtis and
C. G. Wilkinson, Mangotsfield. Gloucestershire, florists.
INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
Thomas Pinnock Badcock, Birmingham, butcher.
Thomas Smith, Redditch, Worcestershire, brewer.
Thomas Elliott, Beckley, Sussex, carpenter.
John Firminger, Cowden, Kent, beer retailer. j
John Johnson, un,, Longford, Warwickshire, ribbon
weaver.
John Moore, Stmonburn, Northumberland, butcher.
Robert Stringer, Scarborough, boot and shoe maker.
Robert Farmage, Parkstone, Dorsetshire, drilling
master.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
J. P. Brown, (lasgow, merchant and importer, to
meet Aug. 28 and Sept. 27, at one, within the London
Temperance Hotel, Glasgow.
G. Mearns, Cumnock, grocer and spirit dealer, to
meet Aug. 30 sad Sept. 27, at three, within the Black
Bull Inn, Cumnoek.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Aug. 24.
(Bet Ore Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY.)

THE MEDICAL PROFESSION AND ASSURANCE OFFICES
—DUPLEX AND ANOTHER V. THE ECONOMIC LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY.
The question involved in this action is one which
has long been in dispute between the medical profes-
sion and a large portion of the life assurance offices,
the important point baing the right of a medical man
to a fee from the assurance office for giving his
opinion on the life of a patient proposed for assurance.
Mr. Humphreys appeared for the plaintiffs, who are
surgeons, and carry on their practice in Fenchurch-
street and Great Coram-street.
Mr. George Duplex, one of the plaintiffs, stated
in evidence that he received a communication from
the defendants, enclosing a long string of questions
to be answered by him respecting a lady whom he
attended professionally, and who had proposed her life
for assurance in the office of defendants. The com-
munication stated that they were referred by the
lady to the plaintiff, and that the answers would be
considered as strictly confidential. The questions
were returned with snswers, and a note stating that
the plaintiff's fee was a guinea, which he requested
should be forwarded to.him. A second application
was made for the fee, of which no notice was taken.
Mr. PARRY, who appeared for the defendants, sub-
mitted that no case had been made out against his
clients, though he would admit that a policy had been
granted on the life of the lady.
His HONOUR thought that no case had been made
out against the defendants.
Mr. HUMPHREYS submitted that there was no one
else on whom the plaintiffs could come for the fee, and
the answers were rEturned with a demand for it.

His HONOUR said the plaintiffs need not have an-
swered the questions without the fee, and the letter
enclosing the questions stated that they were referred
by the lady proposing her life for assurance. He felt
bound to refuse theclaim of the plaintiffs.
Verdict for defenlants.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Aug. 24..
(Before Mr. WITIMI and a Bench of Magistrates at
the •Sessions•house, Clerkenwell-green.)
James Charlick, aged 27, and Charles M'Pherson,
aged 30, were indicted for stealing 901 b. of cigars,
value 401., the proierty of Thomas Lawrence.
Mr. Metcalfe 2onducted the prosecution, Mr.
O'Brien appeared for Charlick, and Mr. Woollett for
M'Pherson.

It appeared that Lawrence himself was convicted
at the Central Criminal Court the session before last,
together with a Jew named Jacobson, for stealing,
and the other for receiving, a large amount of jewel-
lery and other property, and sentenced to seven years
transportation. Ile kept a beer-shop in Chenies-
street, Tottenham-court-road, and after he was ap-
prehended his wife removed his effects, among which
were a quantity ot. cigars, to a room she had taken in
Edward-street. M'Pherson was the potboy in
in Chenies-street, and he helped to carry the goods
over to this room. Charlick, it appeared, was a fre-
quenter of the house. Mrs. Lawrence during the re-
moval, remained A Chenies-street, and on the evening
of the 14th had seen all the goods safe at Edward-
street, including the boxes containing the cigars,
locked the door, and took the key with her.
Between four and five o'clock on the after-
noon of the next day Charlick was seen
coming out of the house in Edward-street, and one
of the witnesses, a boy named Mallett, saw him put
in a barrow outside the door some boxes resembling
those containing the cigars. M'Pherson was standing
by the barrow, and when the witness returned it was
gone,with both the prisoners. Charlotte Lloyd, the
landlady of the house, also saw Charlick going out
of the house with a box under his arm, and shortly
afterwards went up stairs and found the door of the
cigars and other things were
room in which the
placed forced open. About half an hour previously
to seeing Charlick she observed that the door was all
right. She did not examine the room,_ but had the
door fastened
IV again, and Mrs. Lawrence, who
came about five o'clock, then went in and found that
the cigars laid in the indictment, with a few other
had been taken
articles,away. That same evening
she saw both the prisoners in a publichouse in
Mercer-street, and accused them of robbing her.
They, according to her statement, seemed much con-
fused,denied all knowledge of the transaction but ;
and Charlick, who denied having been at the house at
all, said that if they had done it they must have done for they
it in company, were together the whole
afternoon. She did not then give information of the
robbery to the police, but although she had seen
Charlick three times since the occurrence, he was not
taken into custody till the 4th of the month.
M'Pherson, who had never returned after the trans-
action, was apprehended on the next day.
Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Woollett having addressed
the jury, a verdict of Guilty was returned.
James Coffee, 31 E, stated that he bad known Char-
lick for nine or ten months, and was in the habit of
seeing him three or four times a week at Lawrence's
beer-shop,
which was frequented by thieves, drinking
and smoking' with them.
Charlick—You might have seen me sitting in the
room with them, but not in their company. Why,
you might as well say that I am in company with his
Lordship at the present time.--(A laugh.)
Langley, 42 A, stated that he had known M`Pher-
son for" years r% an associate of thieves. He had been
in custody at Epaom races once, but they had not been
able to discover the policeman who could prove the
previous conviction. d
They were sentenced each to twelve months' impri-
sonment with hard labour.
indicted for stealing
Jahn Barley was a bag of
sugar, value 2/. 103,, the property of Joseph Charles
Clayton.
Mr. Payne defended.
eh
in this case was a grocer in
The prosecutor Chapel-
street, the prisoner was a.
street, Westminster, porter in
his employment. On the day named in the indict-
Trent a servant in the employment of a neighbour of
the prosecutor was looking out of an upper window,
and saw the prisoner and another man, where
she
believed to be his brother, in the prosecutor's yard.
inside the
They took a bag of sugar out o. the warehouse and
carried it across the yard, and laid it down
~
gate.
The prosecutor, in his evidence, stated that the pri-
soner had no authority to carry the sugar, and had no
business in the warehouse whatever ; he bad no doubt
whenever
premises
an opportunity occurred.
In cross-examination, the prosecutor stated that
the prisoner was not taken into custody until after
his discharge from Coldbath-fie l
rds prison, where
he
was confined for a month fo an assault upon a
police-constable.
Mr. PAYNE having addressed the jury for the de.
fence, they deliberated for some time, and eventually
the foreman gave in a verdict of Not Guilty.
The verdict was recorded, and the prisoner dis-
charged, but, after a few minutes had elapsed, the
Learned Chairman, obeerving that there was some
contention among the jury, inquired the cause, and
one of that body replied that they were not unani-
mously agreed on the verdict which had been given
in by their foreman, there being five dissentient
voices.
Mr. TURNER, at once sent some of the officers of the
court in pursuit of the prisoner, to bring him back,
and informed the jury that it was necessary that the
verdict should be a unanimous one, for a majority of
voices alone was not sufficient.
During the interval the prisoner, who bad got
across the green, was caught and brought back into
court, but
w
Mr. PAYNE urged that he was very hardly treated
in being dragged violently through the public streets
end back into a crowded court, after he had been ac.