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

EITRAORDINARY TERMINATION OF A STAG , Mr. Solomon—My client has no invoice. I expect
HUNT. to be able to prove that he bought ten out of the eleven 1
On Saturday the members of the Ward Hunt met in watches at public sales, at Debenham's, Thompson's,
unusual force at Clonee, county Meath, where thebou
ght
sporting other auctioneers. The clocks were also
Alderman
sporting master of the hounds, punctual to the hoar of
as "job lot."
wfr..sote--Of course you will prove of
" meet,' brought up his splendid pack at one o'clock
precisely. After the customary greetings of those who
whom you bought them.
arrived from the different points of the compass had
been hastily performed, a well-appointed field, number-
ing some forty " starlets," and nearly as many " blacks," Messrs. Berens and Blumberg, and have the manage-
started from the little village, and bent their course to- ment of the clock department. I have examined the
wards The Maine. Between half-past one and two the fourteen clocks produced and can swear I never sold
cart was unlocked, on the rising ground at the back of them. We have recently, upon taking stock, found
the farmhouse, near the Cross, and outetepped as mag- that we have been deficient sixty clocks of this kind.
nificent a buck as was ever uncarted. On first treading Mr. Lloyd said he could not on that occasion pro-
the s)il the noble animal snorted and trotted round the
h
duce any
anaenrymmorvv WILSON—There
elvLiadoenceTere is quite enough to jus-
.
cart, in which he had been previously confined, viewing
its several parts with the preciion of an engineer en-
tify a remand.
Mr. Christie, watchmaker, Cannon street, said—l
gaged in reconnoitering a fort. The horsemen who
were commissioned to superintend the process were
have examined one of the watches produced by the
next scrutinised, and apparently having concluded
officers. It has my private mark upon it. I cleaned
that in neither wee there cause for hope or fear, he
started off, and having gained the centre of the field, and repaired it for a Mr. Gosnell some time in last
stood to take a survey of the country round. During June. The private mark corresponds with the mark
all this time every one present was motionless, that in my book.
i° mme on his course should be influenced only by his own Mr. H. Gosnell—l believe this watch to be my
2d btyh e
m night
r.
Christie. of the
will. In a very few seconds his resolution was taken,
and off he bounded over a beautiful grass country in propof e rtthyi.a
mlot
nvc,t.
h' a.I
s
had
t repaired
the direction of the Ashbourne-road, in a style that The number and maker's name correspond with the
gave ample promise of a hard day. After he had gained
information I gave. A female took it out of my
considerably over a mile, the dogs were laid on, and the
Face. scent lying strongly, they went off at a " pumping" The kt in Heaton,
c e between eight and nine o'clock.
chain bad been
The first fence brought its contingent to the ground,broken or cut by her, and is in
never saw I
and as each succeeding fence was passed in quick sue- my p . ossession. her before, and I should
cession, the field began to thin with a rapidity strongly not know her again.
indicative of the " pace." After having kept to the Cross-examined by Mr. Solomon—l had been
country for some three or four miles the Ashbourne-road drinking a little. I never said that I bad lost the
was crossed and re-crossed, when, taking to the road for watch three months before. I had mentioned that I
about a mile and a half, the stag again took to the fields had lost it amongst a set of " Bloomers," because I
a little beyond the village of Finglas, still far ahead of did not like to say where and how I lost it.
the hounds, between whom and even the foremost horse- Alderman WIL 1
sos— suppose it does not signify
men there was an interval commensurate with the split-
whether the lady who stole it was a "Bloomer" or
ting pace which had been uninterruptedly maintained
from the start. As the hounds crossed the high landsquite evident not ;it is
watch.
to the west of Finglas, a winnowing-sheet would have
covered the entire pack. Here the stag passed through The prisoner was then remanded upon the two
some demesnes, crossed the Tolka river, made direct latter charges.
for Dublin, passed along the Circular-road, distanced
her pursuers, and finally took shelter in the famed loca-
lity of " Stoneybatter," thus strangely terminating one
of the most severe, though not of the longest, runs of
the season, and, as we submit, entitling the Ward Hunt
to arbitrate between the belligerent inhabitants as to
what name Stoneybatter shall henceforth enjoy.

GUILDHALL.
John Barker alias Murphy, was brought up on
remand, charged with defrauding Henry Joseph
Brock, glass manufacturer, of Bartlett's-buildings.
It appeared that in uly last a person, named
Samuel Turner, applied to Mr. Brock for some goods,
and referred him to a Mr. Stanley and to the pri-
soner, who gave the address William-street, New-
ington-causeway. On being applied to, the prisoner
stated that he bad known Turner for ten years, that
he was most respectable, and that he would be secu-
rity for him to the amount of 2501. The prosecutor
then drew two bills for 1001, and 1501., which were
accepted by the prisoner.
Mr. Lewis now appeared for the prosecution, and
said that he charged the prisoner with a conspiracy,
with Stanley and Turner, to defraud the prosecutor.
There was in point of fact no such person as Stanley,
that being a name assumed by the person in question.
At the last session at the Old Bailey five persons were
convicted for a conspiracy to defraud tradesmen, and
this very so-called Stanley was the referee of several
of them. With regard to Turner he had obtained
3001. worth of goods from Mr. Brock, the greater
part of which were immediately pawned. The police
would have both Stanley and Turner in custody in a
few days if there was a remand. He could also prove
that the prisoner's name was not Barker but Murphy.
George Quinnear, the police sergeant, said he had
no doubt he should soon be able to apprehend Turner
in consequence of information he had received in the
last twenty-four hours. He had ascertained that part
of the goods obtained from Mr. Brock had been
pledged by the prisoner's daughter. He had known
him for ten years, and knew he kept a beer-shop in
Charles-atreet, Brandon-street, Walworth, in the name
of Murphy.

SCOTTISH CENTRAL RAlLWAY.—Traffic for the Week
ending Dec. 28, 1851:—
Passengers (6,183), parcels, horses,
and carriages ... ... ... £704 5 2
Goods, cattle, !sc. ... ... ... 950 9 ft

Total .. ... .. 1,654 14 11
Corresponding week in last year... 1,542 1 9
Perth, Dec. 31, 1851.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Dec. 31.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
WYATT V. YESSEY.—ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF AN
ATTORNEY.
This was a writ of inquiry to assess damages in an
action brought to recover compensation from the de-
fendant, Mr. Thomas Vessey, attorney, of Cold Har-
bour-square, for negligence in the conduct of an
action. Judgment was suffered by default.
Mr. WILKINS, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiff,
and from his statement to the jury, the evidence of
the plaintiff, and a number of documents put in, it
appeared that in the course of 1850 a person named
Smith brought an action against one Frederick
Orchard, for goods sold and delivered, and the decla-
ration in that action contained two counts, one on a
bill of exchange for the amount given by Orchard
when the goods were sold, and the other in the usual
form for goods sold and delivered. Orchard, being a
minor, appeared by his next friend, the present plain-
tiff, to defend the action ; and he instructed Mr.
Vessey as his attorney. The defence was a plea of
infancy, but a person who drew the pleadings for Mr.
Vessey, pleaded infancy to the first count of the de-
claration only, and the general issue as to the
count for goods sold and delivered. The result
was that Orchard succeeded as far as the issue
on the first count went, but 'failed on the second,
and a verdict was given against him for 1341.
17s. 6cl. Execution was issued, his goods were
seized, and he was arrested and is at the present time
ia Whitecress-street Prison. It was alleged in the
declaration that this was through the negligence of
the defendant in not pleading "infancy" to both
counts, and on the part of the plaintiff the jury were
asked to give a verdict for the amount recovered against
Orchard, and for a sum of IYI. which the plaintiff
had paid out of his own pocket as the action was
going on. The notion against Orchard was tried at
the summer assizes at Guildford in 1650.
The plaintiff, in cross-examination, said Orchard
was his nephew, and was now of age. He was in his
twenty-first year when the action was brought against
him by Smith. Tha action was brought for furniture
supplied. The greater portion of the goods seized
under the execution were paid for ; the whole of them
certainly were not paid for. Orchard was in busi-
ness at the time as a tarpaulin manufacturer. Witness
knew the person who took the active part for Mr.
Vessey in defending the action. Had never offered
to settle the whole matter if Mr. Vessey would pay
him 71., but had offered to settle it for that sum inde-
pendent of any claim Orchard might have against Mr.
Vessey for redress—that sum being part of what he
(witness) paid to Mr. Vessey's agent, as the proceed-
ings were in progress. Mr. Vessey had admitted his
liability for the whole, and had said an adverse ver-
dict, if he was proceeded against, might compel him
to go through the Insolvent Debtors' Court.
Mr. W. COOPER addressed the jury for the defend-
ant. He made some stringent observations upon
Orchard's defence to the action brought against him
to recover for goods sold and delivered to him as a
tradesman, and said that by a fortunate slip for the
creditor, but an unfortunate one for Mr. Vessey—an
attempt to evade the payment of a just debt had been
defeated. Mr. Vessey had not drawn the pleadings
himself. The goods, or a portion of them, taken
under the execution had never been paid for. Mr. Or-
chard, it was true, was in Whitecross-street, and be
thought the utmost extent to which the plaintiff
ought to recover against Mr. Vessey was the 71. which
had been talked of between them.
The LEARNED SECONDARY having summed up.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages, 1411.
17e. ad.

The Prisoner said the charge was only a trap to get
him taken in execution, the sheriff's officer having
been in wait at the office-ever since he had been in
custody. . .

The case was again remanded.
BO W-STREET.

Edward Charles Ma:tartan, a young man who has
been nearly five years a clerk in the General Post-
office, was charged with stealing two letters contain-
ing money, the property of the Postmaster-General.
The prisoner is a married man, having six children,
the youngest being under ten years of age, and his
father held a conildential situation in the Foreign-
office for many years.
Mr. Peacock, jun., attended to conduct the prose-
cution.

John Forbes, a messenger employekin the inland
department of the General Post-office, in which the
prisoner was a clerk, stated the cause by which on
the morning of the 31st inst. he traced the possession
of the purloined property to the prisoner.
Mr. George Graham said that, being informed by
the last witness, he went to the prisoner as be was
about to leave the office, requesting he would ac-
company him to a private office adjoining, which he
did ; and after the letters were found upon him by
the officer, he said, " I am sorry you see me in such
a position ; I don't know what I shall do. This will
be the death of my wife. I belong to one of the most
respectable families. I don't know what could have
induced me to do so, except that it was infatuation."
The prisoner having received the usual caution, ad-
mitted the truth of the evidence as to the finding the
letters, and was ordered to be remanded after :the
witnesses were bound over to prosecute. It was stated
that his salary was 90/. a year.
WESTMINSTER.

James Chisertos, the proprietor of the Duke of
Marlborough beer-shop, Chelsea, appeared to a sum-
mons charging him with neglecting to afford proper
accommodation to two soldiers quartered upon him.
George Sutherland, a sergeant of the Bth Hussars,
stated that on the 231 alt. he served a billet upon de-
fendant's wife for two privates of the Rifles, and was
told that they would have proper accommodation.
In an hour or two afterwards he was sent for, in con-
sequence men, to inspect
thebedupoofnthwehLohmptlhaelyntwofertehetotwsleoep for the night.
He found it was not fit for any person. It consisted
of two small mattresses placed next to each other,
but whieh did not exactly meet,
with straw, or something of that kind. The covering
consisted of a small thin blanket. apparently stuffed
Mr. ARNOLD inquired whether there were no sheets.
The sergeant replied there were Some thin rags,
tolerably clean, but they were light, as there was little
of them, and a small thin rug, or something in place
of it. The men, in consequence, did not sleep there.
Witness told the landlady about the bed, and she said
if they did not like it they might go without.
Police-constable George Close,
221 B, said that he
also inspected the bed. It was quite clean, but ap-
peared very hard.
Defendant, in reply to the charge, assured the
magistrate that a s
ittin g-room and a bed-room, the
former with a fire in it, were offered the two sol-
diers, who conducted themselves in a very offensive
manner. The bed was one which he was in the
habit of letting nightly to mechanics or others who
might need a lodging ; and so far from the sheets
being thin or wore out, they were nearly new, and
put on clean for the soldiers. They rang the bell
two or three times for coals in the midst of defend-
ant's business, and wanted a shilling and a pint of
porter given them, and were very much put out be-
cause he refused to accede to their request.
Mr. ARNOLD inquired whether the bed had been
slept in about the 25th ult.
Defendant replied only a night or two previously
by two hard-working men, who expressed themselves
perfectly satisfied, as also had
many others. Indeed
he and his wife had slept on the bed formerly, and it
had been let all the season at a shilling per night
up to the night before last. Surely it was not ex-
pected that a man was to give up his own feather
bed to two private soldiers billetted upon him. There
was, as he had said before, a pair of nearly new clean
sheets upon the bed besides two blankets, and the
bed was quite good enough for respectable hard
working men, and he thought for soldiers too.
Mr. ARNOLD expressed some doubt whether beer-
shop-keepers were liable to have soldiers billetted upon
them, and adjourned the case for a few days, when, he
said, if defendant liked to produce any witnesses in
his behalf, he would bear them.
SOUTH WARK.
John Stowell and Thomas Stowell were on Saturday
week last examined at this court on charges of per-
jury, conspiracy, and subornation of perjury, alleged
to have been committed by tham, and a man named
John Howson Garnett, at the Southwark County
Court, in an action brought by John Stowell, a person
connected with the metropolitan stage department,
against Mr. Kennett, the landlord of the Hoop and
Grapes Tavern, Broadway, Westminster, to recover
301. 10s. on two 1 0
U's for money lent. The action
was tried before a jury, and Kennett, having proved
that the money had been paid, a verdict for him was
returned. He accordingly charged the three parties
above named with wilful and corrupt perjury, and
conspiring together, by making false oaths, to extort
money from him under a false action.
The particulars of the case were fully reported at
the time, when Mr. Combs, the magistrate, held the
two Stowells to bail in 501. each, to aa.wer the charge
at the next sessions. Garnett absconded, and a war-
rant was issued for his apprehension, but the officer
had not been able to find him.
Mr. Kennett, accompanied by his solitor, Mr.
Preston, now attended the court, and informed the
magistrate that at the termination of the examination
of the Stowells, on Saturday the 13th, s warrant was
placed in the hands of Guest, one of the officers at-
taehed to the court, for Garnett's apprehension.
.That
officer had been very indefatigable in his exertions,
but Garnett could not be found. Believing that he
was either kept out of the way by some parties, or
secreted in the metropolis, Mr. Kennett had offered a
reward of Si. for his apprehension, as he was deter-
' mined to bring all parties to justice. Mr. Kennet
produced a,handbill, a number of which he had fo.r-
-i warded to the Metropolitan police stations, and dm.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Levi Tobias, who was a few days ago charged with
having had in his possession, well knowing that they
had been stolen, a large quantity of gloves, the pro-
perty of Messrs. Wilson, the hosiers and glovers, in
Mincing- len e,
was brought before Alderman Wilson
for final examination upon that charge.
The prisoner had been followed from his own house
in the London-road to a public-house in Prince's-
street, in that neighbourhood, by Trew and Webb, of
the City Detective Police, and in a bag which he
carried were found gloves which were identified as
part of the plunder taken from the premises of the
prosecutors by thieves.
The additional evidence in the ease was the follow-
ing :—lt will be recollected that Mr. Solomon, the
solicitor to the prosecutor, said in defence that the
gloves had been purchased as a "job lot" at one of
the sales of Mr. Bailey, the auctioneer."
Mr. J. Malson, clerk to Mr. Bailey, of Wood-
street, Ckeapside, was called for the prosecution. He
said—l superintend the delivery of articles sold at
Mr. Bailey's auction-rooms, and have examined the
gloves in question, and my firm belief is that they
were not sold at Mr. Bailey's. We do not sell " job
lots." We only sell by auction. If a job lot had been
sold to the prisoner I would have been aware of the
fact. I have been with Mr. Bailey 23 years, and
know the prisoner as an occasional buyer. He bought
some gloves at our rooms on the 28th of November.
They passed through my hands, but were quite dif-
ferent from those produced.
Cross-examined—l have known him some time.
He deals but little. The articles he deals in are dra-
pery goods, clothes, and gloves.
Mr. Solomon—Has he not always paid for the
goods he bought ? Witness—Yes ; he pays always
before he takes the goods away, as every one else
does.
Alderman WILSON having read the usual caution
to the prisoner and told him that his words would be
taken down and used, if considered necessary, against

him,
Bailey's, as I was informed. The party o
The prisoner said the gloves were purchasedfwhom I
at Mr.
had them told me. r.
Blum-
berg, whose town traveller
.a.
been examined on
Mr. Lloyd, solicitor to Messrs. Berens and
hents to
Tuesday upon
autphoenhcandarhgeeesnofirrlosbtriluct ldlishyemllpilsoyeer..s, then
prosecute the prisoner under very serious circum-
stances ; the officers who had been engaged in the
preceding case having found in Levi Tobias s house 14
clocks, which had been stolen from the house of the
firm in St. Paul's-churchyard.
Trew, the officer, said—l produce 14 clocks which
I found on the table in the front room of the first
door of the prisoner's house on Saturday, the 20th of
December. I said to him " Where did you get
these clocks ?" lie replied, " They are all right; I
bought them and paid ior them." I said "If you
tboughtake them
them,a show
y .away." He
them as a 'job lot.'" I also imiee
stahied,invoice and I shall not
watches and six silver watches, and a
ifohuande th none;there filybeouggohlat
great quantity of
identified by
One of the gold watches has been
by a gentleman who was robbed of it a short
time ago.

Cross-examined by Mr. Solomon—The goods were
standing on the table as they are here. I have been
making inquiries, and have found no claimant for any
of the watches except the one I have spoken of.