The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-21 00:00:00

WESDMINSTER.

An adjourned case, in which Charles Somers, pro-
pritor of the " Pensioners" public-house, Queen's-road
East, Chelsea, had been summoned by the London Gas
Light Company, was yesterday determined by Mr.
Arnold.

The prosecution was to recover 1.5/. 15s. 6d., alleged
to be due by the defendant Lo the company for gas con-
sumed. The short facts abstracted from the volumnious
evidence adduced are these:—Defendant pleaded, in
answer to the summons—and by the powers given by a
recent Act of Parliament gave evidence to the same
effect—that in the demand made there was a surcharge
of 71. 6s. for the quarter ending Lady-day last, and
stated in support of this assertio❑ that a woman
left him the paper specifying the amount of gas he had
consumed by meter in the latter end of April last, and
in May a man called again to collect the amount due.
He had delivered him the order paper, and placed
the amount claimed upon the counter, being at the
time busied in serving several customers; and, upon
turning round, discovered that he had gone, and that
no meter-ticket or receipt was left. He heard no more
of the company until July, when a demand was
made upon him for 3/. 14s. for the second quarter in the
year, and no application for the second payment of the
71. Cs. was made until he had complained of something
extremely wrong in his meter, of the neglect of the in-
spector respecting it, and had stated to the collector that
he had lost his receipt for the 71. 6s. He further added
that a witness who had seen him pay the money was
keeping out of the way, because ho owed him a large
sum of money, but ho produced a second, who however
could not prove having seen him pay the money, but
merely that as he entered the defendant's house he met
a person having the appearance of a collector of the
company, with a book of their description in his hand,
and was told by defendant that he had paid the collector.
On behalf of the Gas Company, it was alleged, and
supported by evidence, that no demand had been made
for the Lady-day quarter until after the Midsummer one
was due, and that it had never been received by the col-
lector of the district. It was declared that it was
impossible it could have been, from the reason that the
clerk, in making up the Lady-day accounts had, by
some inadvertency, omitted to enter in his
book the amount to be claimed until after the Mid-
summer quarter, when the omission was discovered and
the demand made upon defendant—not separately, as
had been stated, but for both at the same time, when
defendant said ho had paid the Lady-day account, but
lost the receipt. Defendant hod then called in the wit-
ness who had been put in the box, and who had then de-
clared that he saw the money paid. Defendant had also
declared that the man who left the meter ticket was the
person to whom he paid the money, and the lamplighter,
who was in the habit of leaving the meter tickets or ac-
counts, was called, amongst other witnesses, to prove
that he had never received it.

After a great deal of evidence and cross• examination
by the defendant, mainly in support of the above state-
ments,

Mr. ARNOLD observed that there was not the slightest
doubt that the money had never been paid to any officer
of the company. By a series of negative proofs they
had established that fact beyond contradiction. Whether
it had ever been paid to anybody else was another ques-
tion. There was nothing to rely upon excepting de-
fendant's own statement, partially confirmed by the wit-
ness he had called, who was himself contradicted by one
of the witnesses for the company. He (the worthy
magistrate) confessed that he could not conceal a strong
impression on his mind that the money had not been paid
at all, and he should have ordered the defendant to be
indicted for perjury but for the degree of confirmation,
slight as it was, afforded by his witness's statement. The
company, however, were at liberty to indict him should
they be so advised. After adverting at some length to
the various points of the evidence in support of his judg-
ment, Mr. Arnold ordered defendant to pay the whole
amount claimed within 24 hours.