The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-09 00:00:00

THE SUPPLY OF GABTO THE CITY.

Petitions were presented by Sir F. G. Moon and Deputy
Reed, from the inhabitants of the ward of Portsoken and
Cripplegate, praying the Court to take some steps far the
relief of the inhabitants from thd injurious monopoly they
now suffered in the supply of gap, and to have the supply
increased, the quality improved, and the price lowered. The
Court was also prayed to take the necessary steps to procure
an act of Parliament to enable the Corporation to supply
the consumers within the City, and thus put an end to the
present unsatisfactory, expensive, and insufficient supply.
A number of the inhabitants of the wards in question
attended in support of their petitions, and in answer to ques-
tions put to them by several members of the Court, they
expressed themselves in strong terms with reference to the
bad quality and insufficient supply of gas furnished to them
by the different companies.
A short discussion ensued, during which

Deputy LOTT expressed his opinion that the carburetting
system—or the " tin pots," as he termed them, filled with
naphtha, that were placed in the street lamps—was the
cause of their giving so little light.
Eventually both petitions were referred to the Genera
Purposes Committee.
The Court shortly afterwards adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE,--Dec. 8,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn and a Common Jury,)
IVE V, EDWARDS,

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an omnibus
conductor, against the defendant, an agent carrying on
business at 15, Union-court, Old Broad-street, City, to re-
cover the sum of £lOO, money received by the defendant
for the use of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded, first,
not guilty ; secondly, payment ; and thirdly, set off.
Mr Huddles ton, Q.C., and Mr Henry James, were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr Field, Q.C., Mr Morgan Howard, and
Mr Thomas Geary for the defendant.

It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that in the
month of July, 1863, he met with a serious accident upon
the Eastern Counties Railway, and being a member of a
friendly club he was attended by the club surgeon, Dr
Roberts, of Great Dover-street, Southwark, who said that
the defendant was a practical man, who would undertake
the claim against the company for damages. Accordingly
the plaintiff agreed to let him undertake the matter, which
he did, and in January following the plaintiff received,
through Roberts, the sum of £lOO, with a deduction of
£3O for expenses, leaving the sum of £7O. Upon that the
plaintiff left, but subsequently found out that the defen-
dant had received £2OO on behalf of the plaintiff, and £lO
for his expenses. Upon that application was made to
Roberts by the plaintiff to know what sum had been re-
ceived on his behalf, to which Roberts replied that he could
not tell how much had been received without reference to
his bank-book ; but upon being taxed with the amount he
admitted it.

The Plaintiff was called, and corroborated the above
facts.

The defence was, that the defendant was 'engaged from
beginning to end by Dr Roberts, who agreed to pay him
20 per cent, on any amount that was received from the
company, and if nothing was received then there was to be
no charge. Accordingly £2OO was obtained, besides £lO for
part of defendant's expenses. Defendant deducted £2O for
another portion of them, and Dr Roberts made up the rest
of the commission, by allowing £lO to be deducted from the
amount of the bill, £BO, making altogether £4O, being 20
per cent upon the amount recovered, £2OO. Two cheques
were then paid over to Roberts, one for £lOO for the plain-
tiff, and £7O fur Roberts's medical bill. Defendant took re.
ceipts for them, and thought the matter was properly and
fairly carried out,
Dr Roberts was called and said—l am a medical man
carrying on business in Great Dover-street, Southwark. I
attended the plaintiff during his illness as his medical at-
tendant, and my bill amounted to £BO.
The Lord Chief Justice—Do you mean that?
Witness—Yes, my lord.
What do you, charge, a guinea a visit?—Yea.

Is that what you ordinarily chargo a man in the plain-
tiff's condition in life ?—When I have a case against a rail-
way company. _ _

The Lord Chief Justice—But, sir, in this case you are not
charging the railway company, you are taking it out of this
poor man's money. _ _ _

Examination continued—l engaged defendant to apply
on the part of the plaintiff for compensation. My bill was
sent into the railway company, made up to Dec, 18, when it
amounted to £6l- ls.

The Lord Chief Justice—Do you mean to say that your
bill increased from £64 to £BO between the 18th December
and Ist of January ?

Witness—Yes.
Examination continued—The defendant obtained £2lO
from the company, and paid me two cheques, one for £lOO
and one for £7O, the former for the plaintiff and the latter
for my bill. I paid the plaintiff the £lOO cheque. I did
not deduct £3O. He paid me about £lO or £l5, and I re-
turned him some I 0 U's that he gave me for money hut.

Cross-examination continued by Mr James—l knew the
defendant personally, and attended him professionally
previous to the present affair. £2lO was received from the
company. I had £7O out of it. The defendant had £4O
and the plaintiff, after paying me the money I lent him,
had £3,5 or £OO.

The Lord Chief Justice—What did you do for him as
his medical attendant ?

Witness—l attended him in the ordinary way, and
watched the symptoms. (Laughter.)
That was all ?—I gavo him some cold lotions. (Renewed
laughter.)
Examination continued—When plaintiff applied to me to
know how much had been obtained from the company I did
not tell him that £2lO had been received. I told him £lOO
had been obtained for him, and laid a stress on the word
" him." (Laughter.) I did not think it was necessary.

_
The Lord Chief Justice—What do you say you told the
plaintiff when you paid in the £lOO. Did you tell him that
was all that had been obtained ?
Witness—The interview was very short, and he seemed
perfectly satisfied.
The Lord Chief. Justice —That has nothing to do with it,
sir; your answers may hive satisfied him —very likely they
did ; but that is not the question.
Examination continued—l often told plaintiff that I
should make out the bill to the company a little more than
what I should have made against any one else. Those who
can pay must pay for those who cannot. (Laughter.)

The Lord Chief Justice—That is the reason for the
amount of this bill is it ?

Witness—Yes. (Laughter.)
Re-examination continued—l told the plaintiff that £lOO
only had been obtained for him.

The Lord Chief Justice—But you knew that to be
untrue ?

Witness—No, my lord. I said for him.
Well, you knew it was untrue ?—That is what I told him
however. (Laughter.)
The defendant was called and proved how ho was intro-
duced into the matter through the intervention of Roberts,
to whom the money was paid, with a deduction of £49 for
commission ; and until the issuing of the writ in the pre-
sent case he thought the matter had been determined in a
proper manner.
The Lord Chief Justice in summing up, commented upon
the conduct of the witness Roberts and characterised his
charges of £SO, reckoned at a guinea a visit, as "nothing
more nor loss than an extortion." The question for the
jury was whether the defendant was to refund a sum of
£lOO, and he was of opinion that as far as the defendant
was concerned £lO was all that could be recovered against
him, that being the excess that had been charged for com-
mission. He did not think that the rate of 20 per cent.
charged by the defendant was anything outrageous or
enormous, taking into consideration the risk the &fence
dant ran.

The jury, after being locked up for an hour, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £5O.

Criminal Statistics of the City,

From a Parliamentary return which has just been com-
pleted by Mr Davie, the assistant-clerk to the magistrates at
Guildhall, it appears that the number of persons appre-
hended and otherwise proceeded against in the Guildhall
district for the year ending September 29, 1864, amounts to
6,492, of which 386, consisting of 307 males and 79 females,
were charged with indictable offences. Of that number 185
were commited for trial and 201 discharged. The other
portion of the gross total represents 6,106 persons who were
summarily dealt with for minor offences, of which number
5.431 were males and 675 females. The summary convictions
numbered 4,840, of which 4,223 wero fined, 2 ordered to be
whipped, 606 committed for various terms of imprisonment
not exceeding six months, and the remainder required tofind
sureties to keep the peace. The number discharged was
1,266. Among the different classes of offenders proceeded
against, it appears there were 83 known thieves, 79 prosti-
tutes, 188 suspicious characters, 129 habitual drunkards,
5,026 whose previous character was good, 885 whose cha-
racter was unknown, and 132 vagrants. The offences charged
aro principally larcenies and offences under the police and
other acts affecting the health and traffic of the city of Lon-
don, there being only 6 cases of burglary, 18 of forgery, 3 of
manslaughter, 1 of bigamy. 4 by bankrupts, 13 of conspi-
racy, 16 of exposing and selling bad meat, 30 of embezzle-
ment, and, the most serious item of all, 19 attempts at sui.
tide. The above return does not include summonses, war-
rants and other proceed in7s for poor rates,orders in bastardy,
dangerous premises, rail way compensation, small tenements,
deserted premises, and a variety of matters of a purely civil
character, yet calling forth the exercise of the magisterial
functions of the aldermen presiding at this court during the
year.

Berger, the shepherd statuary, has just termi-
nated for the bishopric of Nismes four statues of the great
orator prelates of the seventeenth oentury—Bossuet, Fens-
lon, Flechier, and Massillon. They are said to be admir-
ably executed,