The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-30 00:00:00

JANTJARY 30, 1852.

reasonable than that, an author should pay 100/ to-
wards putting an expensive comedy on the stage ?
The Registrar was sure that both gentlemen
meant to speak the truth. It was certainly to be re-
gretted that the agreement had not been reduced to
writing. The words of the letter were very loose,
and in putting his construction upon it he was of
opinion that Mr. Sulivant was to be paid 3001. for the
comedy. That gentleman had sworn that no such
allowance was to be made as 1001., and Mr. Ander-
son had also sworn that there was such an agreement.
It did seem to him somewhat unreasonable to sup-
pose that an author would put himself into a position
after producing a work of study as the comedy was,
to have the "bloom" as it were taken off by the first
ten nights' performances, and then to be told that he
was to allow 1001. for putting the comedy on the
stage. He wished it to be observed, that he imputed
nothing to either party—both, he was confident, had
spoken the truth according to their belief; but under
all the circumstances, he was of opinion that Mr.
Sulivant was entitled to prove for 2301., the amount
claimed.—The claim was accordingly admitted.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Pummrs.)
IN THE MATTER OF HENRY COHEN.
This insolvent, an iron merchant on Saffron-hill,
appeared for judgment. His case was before reported.
Mr. COOKE, for the insolvent, mentioned that the
in
to
court friends were willing to pay 2001.
court to satisfy the opposition.
Mr. DOWSE, for the creditors, refused the offer. A
very large quantity of goods had been obtained from
creditors.

Mr. COOKE stated some •ircumstances respecting
the insolvent's family.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS felt for other persons,
but he had a public duty to perform. Persons should
consider their own families before they acted in the
manner this insolvent had done.

The case stood over, and no further offer was made.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS pronounced a judg-
ment of 16 calendar months, from the vesting order
in November, for a fraudulent making away with
property.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,
BO 6V-STREET:

Thomas Connor and William Waits, two young
men well known to the police, were brought before
Mr. Hall, charged with stealing a pocket-book con-
taining a 101. note, 18 sovereigns, land an I 0 U for
381., belonging to Mr. James Ritchie, of Craven
Cottage, Kew-foot-lane, Richmond, from his person.
It appeared that on Tuesday morning, at three
o'clock, the prosecutor and a friend named Jones
entered the White Hart public-house in the Strand,
where they remained enjoying themselves in front
of the bar for several hours, and having frequently
had occasion to pay for refreshment, he had re-
course to a large pocket-book, in which he kept
his money, to pay the reckoning, in the presence
of the prisoners. After this he went to a coffee-
shop, where he and the prisoners partook of eggs
and ham. A cab being called, the prisoner Connor
pushed him in, and the other having got on the box,
the driver was directed to take him to St. Paul's-
churchyard, where his companion got out, and went
away, followed by the other prisoner, and having felt
for his pocket-book he had not sufficient to pay the
fare, his pocket-book with the contents being stolen;
in consequence of which the driver drove him to the
next police station and gave information.
Mr. HALL said many cases of robbery committed
under such circumstances were brought before him to
adjudicate upon, owing principally to the misconduct
of persons in possession of money who indulged in
the use of intoxicating liquors and mixed with low
characters at unreasonable hours, expecting, when
they came to their senses, that the law would afford
them every assistance in the recovery of their pro-
perty, which they lost through their own impropriety
of conduct.
The constable said he could show at a future day
that the prisoners had been making purchases since
the robbery was committed, and they were ordered to
be committed.