The Sun.
London, England, 1864-09-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--This Day,

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr Sergeant Tindal-Atkinson.)

GILMORE V. BROOKS-HOW MANY YARDS ROUND ARE

LADIES' DRESSES

This was an action to recover 11 for making tour em-
broidered skirts, and a witness (who attended on behalf of
the plaintiff) said she was an experienced dressmaker. The
work was well done, and the price charged only reasonable.
Defendant said that the skirts were quite valueless to him.
They were to have fitted a full-grown woman, but when
sent home would hardly do for a girl of twelve, The skirts
were in court ; would his Honour like to see them ?
His Honour would be very glad to see them it they could
assist the Court in arriving at a correct decision.
_

Defendant then produced two rather elaborately embroi-
dered skirts, and said--My orders to the plaintiff wore to
make the skirts five yards round, but when they were sent
home I found them only 31. Of course no lady could wear
zueh a skirt.

His Honour—Do you mean to say that a yards is not
sufficient.

Defendant--I do. Now see, your Honour, and judge for
yourself. .

Defendant hero proceeded to measure the pattern skirt
against one of those sent home by the plaintiff.

His Honour (pointing to the smaller)—l consider that
a very reasonable width indeed. (Laughter.) So far as
lam concerned I much prefer it to the other. (Renewed
laughter.)
Defendant urged that there must be some allowance made
for the expansion of crinoline.
Mr Buchanan reminded the Court that some allowance
must also be made for the usual coroners' inquests.
Plaintiff said she had made the skirts quite full enough
for the fashion, and she had offered to take them back at
the wholesale price and keep them, but this was refused.
Defendant said plaintiff had certainly sent back some of
the stuff.
Verdict for plaintiff with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

BOW-STREET.

STRANGE DELUSION.—Thomas Renfree, a respectably
dressed man, about 50 years of ago, was placed at the bar
charged with annoying Miss Louisa Van Noorden, the
eminent vocalist and pianist.
The complainant said—l reside at 115, Great Russell-
street, Bloomsbury, The prisoner had been in the
habit of annoying us, by calling upon us and saying he had
very important business with us. This morning about six
o'clock he came over from his lodgings, which are exactly
opposite our house, and, after violently knocking at the
door, said—" I have come to sue the lady of the house ; she
has called me over and has informed me from the window
that she cannot die without seeing me." The servant very
properly refused to admit him, and he went away. About
seven o'clock he came back again, and he said—" I have
called to see the lady of the house ; she says
she cannot die without seeing me. She tells me she had
her throat cut by her husband last night, and that she
must see me." He was refused admittance, and I then
consulted the police as to the course I was to take supposing
the prisoner called again. About 11 o'clock this morning
he called again, and said there were three men on the roof
of the house attempting to make a foreikle entry,
Prisoner—l said four.

Mr Flower—Very well, but let the witness proceed.
Prisoner—l went to the house because the lady was being
murdered. She called out to me to come and see her.

Complainant—When the prisoner came on the last occa-
sion I acted on the suggestion of the police, and gave him
into custody.

Mr Flower—Now, prisoner, you can say what you please
in answer to the charge.

Prisoner—Well, I called at the house by desire of the
lady who was being murdered. She said she could not die
until I had had an interview with her, and I think I ought
to be allowed to see her.

Mr Burnaby, chief clerk—Are there any of the defendant's
friends present ?
Complainant—Yes, I think there are several.
Mr Flower—Do I understand you to assert that you saw
the lady who is dying, and that she spoke to you ?
Defendant—Yes.

Mr Flower—When did you speak to her?
Defendant—This morning. I spoke to her from the
window. She said, "Oh Renfree speak to me, do speak to
me. God bless you ; do come over to me."
Mr Burnaby—You did not know her name then, although
she knew yours ?
Defendant—Pardon me. I did not say I did.
Mr Flower—That is of no importance. Go on with your
statement.
Defendant—Not important I I think it is. My only
only object in walking up and down outside the house was
to see the poor helpless creature. I have witnesses in court
who can speak to my respectability. I felt it my duty to
interfere where murder was being committed.

Mr Watts, a gentleman residing in the same neighbour-
hood, said he had known the defendant for 10 or 12 years
as a most respectable tradesman and dealer in minerals in
Groat Russell-street. He had been lately given to habits
of intemperance, and no doubt his mind had been affected.
Mr Flower—He seems to be of unsound mind at the
present time.
Defendant—That may be your opinion. It is not so. I
again say I interfered from a strong sense of duty.
Mr Flower (the police inspector)—You had better take
the defendant to the workhouse, where he will be seen by
the surgeon. (To the defendant)—You will go with the
inspector

Defendant—. Go with the inspector 1 I must obey the
Lei w,

MARYLEBONE,

WESTON'S RETREAT.—To-day was fixed for the hearing
of a summons against Mr. Kent, of 21, Highgate-road,
better known as Weston's Retreat. The gravamen of the
charge which he had to answer was "That he did procnre
and produce, or make use of a certificate, the matters or
things therein certified, or some of them being false and
particularly that he, the said William James Kent was the
real resident holder and occupier of the dwelling house and
premises in Highgats-road (some other person
being in fact the holder and occupier thereof, and that
he did make use ;of the certificate for the
purpose of obtaining a license for the sale of ale, beer, and
porter on the said premises, knowing the said matters, or
some of them, to be false." _

Mr Gordon, solicitor, who appeared for Mr Copestake,
said Mr Kent had agreed to leave the " Retreat," and
therefore Mr Copestake, who had taken out the summons,
wished to stay all further proceedings.
This was acceded to Mr Mansfield, and the summons was
withdrawn,