The Sun.
London, England, 1855-12-20 00:00:00

HARWAR V. DRUM.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, formerly
a pianoforte manufacturer, carrying on business in
Bloomsbury-street, to recover compensation of the de-
fendant, a pianoforte manufacturer, of Liverpool, for in-
venting certain improvements in that instrument which
the defendant bad patented. Thera were other claims,
but which were not material.

The plaintiff, it appeared, had been lately in the de•
fendant's service, and whilst so employed had suggested,
as he stated, the improvements in question, but which
the defendant alleged were of his invention, and worked
out under his direction by the plaintiff.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the learned
counsel withdrew from the cause, and a verdict was
accordingly returned for the defendant, thereby esta-
blishing his right to the originality of the improvements.

CRIMINAL COURT-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.)

This morning, at the sitting of the Court, the two pri-
soners, Davidson and Gordon, were again placed upon
their trial on an indictment, charging them with having
fraudulently, within three months of their bankruptcy,
obtained goods with intent to defraud their creditors.
The prisoners pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Poland were for the prosecu-
tion, and Mr. Montague Chambers, Mr. Parry, and Mr.
Sergeant Byles was for the defence.
It appeared, in the present instance, that, about the
middle of May, 1854, the two prisoners had given orders,
through Messrs. Beddoe, of Huggins-lane, commission
agents, for some barege and other drapery goods, which
they said were for the Indian market. These goods, to
amount in value of 426/. 65., were manufactured by
Messrs. Macmillan, of Glasgow, to whom Messrs.
Beddoo were agents. Gordon said, upon Messrs. Bed-
doe's clerk first calling to solicit orders, that he would
give an order as soon as a gentleman came from India,
and sent a note to Messrs. Beddoo to call upon them,
which having been done, the order in question was
given. These goods were given through the prisoners,
packers to the St. Katherine's Docks. A few days after the
goods had been sent to prisoners, Gordon saw a gentle.
man of the name of Esvart at the offices of Joseph
W'indle Cole, and asked him if the house to which he
belonged, the house of Ogleby, Gallander, and Co.,
Liverpool, conveyed goods to Calcutta. The pri-
soners then, upon the goods so obtained from
Messrs. Macmillan and some others, obtained
an advance of 1,5001. This was but a few days
before their absconding. The case was proceeding
when we went to press, and, as it is the intention of the
prosecution to give evidence of several other instances
of obtaining goods and raising money upon them just
before the prisoners became bankrupts, is likely to last
until a late hour at night.

SURREY SESSIONS.—(This Day.)

(Before T. Puckle, KN., and a Bench of Magistrates.)

ROBRRRY AT A RAILWAY STATION.

Thomas K emmenoe, 34, a man in the employ cf Messrs.
W. H. Smith and Sons, newsvendors and advertisement
contractors, was indicted fur stealing, at Lambeth, eight
brass brackets, the property of the London and Sfulli-
Western Railway Company.
Mr. Robinson prosecuted, and the prisoner was de-
fended by Mr. Charnock.
Thomas Bent, an inspector, employed by the railway
company, stated that for a long time past a great nurn•
ber of brass brackets which are used in the company's
first class carriages, to support the net-work fitted up for
umbrellas, ste., had besn missed, and a great deal
of mystery existed as to the loss of them. It had been
the duty of the prisoner on account of Messrs. Smith
and Son, his employers, to paste advertisements in the
second-class carriages, and at last suspicion fell upon
him, as ho had been'secn to enter the first-class carriages,
which he had no business to do. Witness accordingly
set a man to watch him, and the first-class carriages were
carefully examined on the morning of the 9th, before the
prisoner went to his work. Soon after that the prisoner
came as usual and went to his work, and after be had
done eight brass brackets were missed from the first-
class carriages, and while witness was examining
them the prisoner contrived to get out of the rail-
way station, so that ho bad an opportunity of dis-
posing of them. He (the inspector) went in search of
him, and found him in a barber's shop in the New-cut,
where he found upon him a screw-driver, which he had
borrowed from the barber, and no doubt existed that he
need that to unfasSen the brackets from the carriages.
Oa the edge of the screw-driver was some brass adher-
ing to it, as if it had just been used to unscrew some
brass work. 'When witness told him he was charged
with stealing the brass brackets, he denied all know-
ledge of them. No other person had been near the car-
riages that morning after witness had examined them
to the time he missed the brackets.
Mr. Charnock made an ingenious appeal to the jury
on behalf of the prisoner, but a verdict of guilty was
returned.

The Chairman sentenced him to three months' hard
,abour in Wandsworth House of Correction.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

MANSION-HOUSE.
CAUTION TO WATERMEN'S APPRENTICES.— William
Franklin, aged 21, a waterman's apprentice, of Horsley-
down, Southwark, was brought before the Lord Mayor
by an officer of the Watermen's Company, who charged
the prisoner under the following circumstances.
It appeared:from the evidence tha.t.the prisoner had for
some time past been plying for hire on the river Thames
a skiff which was without the owner's name or number
legibly painted on the inside, which was an offence
against one of the bye-laws of the company. The pri-
soner had received notice several times from the officer
of the Watermen's Company to attend the hall in St.
Mary-at-Hill, Lower Thames-street, where the court
sat, but he had never attended, and had also told one of
the, constables that he would never come unless he was
made. The prisoner had likewise been summoned be-
fore the Lord Mayor, but he was still obstinate. He
was accordingly apprehended last night at a public-
house in Horsleydown and placed in custody.
The prisoner said be was very sorry for what he had
done, and hoped some leniency would be shown him.
The Lord Mayor said the prisoner deserved no pity.
He hal defied the Watermen's Company, and refused to
attend their Court, which was a very serious offence.
He (the Lord Mayor) should order the prisoner to pay
a fine of 20s. and costs or twenty days' imprisonment in
default. The Lord Mayor added that he was still
liable to prosecution by the Watermen's Company.
The prisoner was ultimately liberated on the payment
of the money.