The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-06 00:00:00

EVENING, FEBRUARY 6, 1852

LAW INTELLIGENCE,
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 5.
(Sittings at Nisi nibs, before L')rd Chief Baron PoL-

Loci( and Special Jurie.)
THE QUEEN V. HEREIN.
This was an information against the defendant for
smuggling upwards of 11,0001bs. of tobacco, valued at
2,260/.

The Attorney-General and Mr. Wilde appeared for
the Crown; Mr. Collier was Counsel for the defendant.
The tobacco, the subject of this information, proved
to have been imported in the schooner Swift, of Neath.
William Hooper, the mate of the Swift, stated that
that vessel left Neath in June last with a cargo of coals
for Plymouth. The defendant took a passage on board
of her. After passing the Lizard, the captain called the
witness down into the cabin. Defendant, who was also
present, asked if he was willing to go over to Jersey
after some tobacco, and offered him 101. for the job.
Witness consented. They then went to Jersey. De-
fendant went on shore, and on his return requested wit-
ness to assist in getting the tobacco on board. Witness
and the rest of the crew then removed about three tons
of coals to make room for the tobacco. They then
brought on board about 200 bales of stein tobacco. The
defendant came on board tr./ice while the tobacco was
being loaded. The Swift then sailed for Plymouth, but
p issed it, that it might appear to be coming from
Vales. They went up the Tamar, and then landed the
tobacco at a place called Worleigh Wood. Defendant
was thero assisting, but ho had not come over in the
schooner.

Ocher evident:,, confirmatory of these facts, having
been given,

Thi; jury, after hearing his Lordship's summing up,
found a verdic for tho Crown.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Feb. 5.
(13wtore Mr. W. BURCHELL.)
EXTRAORDINARY ASSAULT.—BULL V. ROLT.

This was an action to recover damages for trespass
and assault. The defendant suffered judgment to go by
default.

The plaintiff is a widow lady, keeping a house in
Albion-street, Hyde-park-square, and the defendant is
the son of a gentleman residing in Hyde-park-gardens.
In May last the defendant went to plaintiff, and stated
(hat he had been secretly married, and wished to take
apartments in her house, and he and a lady took up
their abode; the lady conducted herself with the greatest
propriety, and if it had not been for the statement of the
defendant, plaintiff would not have known but it was
Mrs. Rolt. On the 13th of November a dispute arose
between the defendant and Mrs. Rolt, and the latter
went down into the kitchen in a state of great excite-
ment, and claimed plaintiff's protection, or she would be
murdered. Defendant afterwards went down stairs and
(-ndeavoured to force Mrs. Rolt up. Plaintiff insisted on
his leaving the place, instead of which he became very
violent, and on a female, having a child in her arms,
begging Mrs. Rolt to go up stairs, defendant asked her
why she interfered, and attempted to strike her, when
plaintiff interfered, and detendant struck her and
injured her arm, which was bad for three weeks.
Plaintiff's daughter then interfered, and defendant threw
her down. The disturbance was so great that, on the
servant-girl opening the door, the mob rushed into the
house.

Mrs. Bull, who is the wife of Major Bull, deposed to
the above facts, and Mr. Challis, a neighbour, proved
the general disturbance in the street.
Mr. O'BRIEN addressed the jury for the defendant,
and commented on the fact that plaintiff's daughter and
other witnesses were present. He urged that the de-
fendant, from a feeling of delicacy towards the young
female who was under his protection, offered to make
thy reasonable compensation, which, however, was
refused.
Emma Sims was called for the defendant, and denied
,hat on the day in question she went down to claim the
protection of Mrs. Bull, but went down to speak to her.
Defendant sent to her to go up stairs, when Mrs. and
Hiss Bull said, "Do not go—do not be a fool." Wit-
ness did not go up immediately, and Mr. bolt went
down and offered her his arm. Witness got up off her
chair, but Miss Bull pulled her down on her knees, and
held her. Mr. Rolt said," Let her go," and plaintiff
went over to hold witness, and plaintiff laid hold of
,Ir. Molt. She denied that defendant had used any
threat to her on that evening, nor did she see any blow
struck in the kitchen. -

Mr. SHAW, plaintiff's attorney, cross-examined the
witness, but did not shake her testimony.
The defendant was called, and stated that previously
to the last witness going he had gone down to see the
plaintiff, who had charged the defendant's valet with
getting fish, &c., from the fishmonger without his know-
ledge. This, however, was not true. Whe❑ Mrs. Rolt
went down, he (defendant) sent for her, and as she did
not come up he went down. He denied that he struck
any blow. Mrs. Rolt was willing to come up, but plain-
tiff and her daughter held her down, and a scuffit, took
place, but he did not strike a blow. Plaintiff ran out in
,he area, and called " Murder."
Elizabeth Morgan, the plaintiff's servant, corrobo-
rated the evidence. She also proved plantitf had sent
ner to the defendant to say that if he would give her
201. she would not proceed, but he was not at home.
Plaintiff said she hoped witness would be on her side.
Witness said if sha had to go up to court she must tell
the truth, and plaintiff replied, " Oh, you are conniving
with them." Plaintiff asked witness to say plaintiff was
knocked down. Witness fetched a policeman because
Hrs. Bull was knocking Mr. Rolt about.

Coss-examined--While Mr. and Mrs. Bull were
holding Mrs. Rolt down, defendant said, " Emma, come
out of this den of infamy." Defendant had never offered
her 201. to give evidence in his favour.
Robert Hales, defendant's valet, was called, but he
was ❑ot present at the time of the alleged assault.
Mr. SHAW, for the plaintiff, challenged the defendant
to show that there had been one bona tide offer of com-
pensation.
Mr. Martin, clerk to the defendant's attorney, proved
that an offer had been made of 501. by Mr. Ballantine,
delendaut's attorney; that was, however, entirely to pre-
vi-nt the case getting to the knowledge of defendant's
friends.

The UNDER-SHERIFF summed up, and said that
either the plaintiff had availed herself of a recent Act
of Parliament to give evidence in her own behalf, and
by falsehood to extort money, or the defendant's wit•
nesses were perjured, and the jury would by their ver-
dict decide on which side the truth had been told. He
then read over the evidence.
The jury consulted for twenty minutes, and ultimately
gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with 201. damages.
BULL v. ROLT.
This was another action arising out of the same trans-
action, and was brought by the daughter of the plaintiff
in the last case.

Mr. SuAw requested an adjournment for a short time,
as he said the case would last for a very long time, as he
would call all the witnesses, not only those ho had
thought unnecessary in the last case, but also those
which the defendant might have called and had not
done so.

During the recess, defendant's counsel then asked the
jury whether they had taken into account anything as
to special damage for loss of letting lodging•, &c.
The jury said the damage was given for the assault only,

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Feb. 5.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.)
THE NEW LAW OF EVIDENCE ACT—IN RE JOHN GRANT.
This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Sargood for
several creditors, and supported by Mr. Cooke.
It was admitted that the arrest in this case was a
friendly proceeding by the insolvent's brother-in-law
(Thompson), to enable him to take the benefit of the
Act. The creditors resided near Banbury, Oxford,
where the insolvent lived.
Iu the course of the case a point arose under the new
Law of Evidence Act. The Commissioner wished to
examine the insolvent's wife as to property, and counsel
objected, and the statement of Lord Chief Justice Jer-
vis, as reported in the papers of to-day, was referred to,
by which it appeared than fourteen out of the fifteen
judges were of opinion that a wife was an inadmissible
witness.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS said he had read the re-
port, but he did not see that any opinion of the judges
had been given after solemn argument. Lie had decided
in this court that a wife could be heard.
Mr. COOKE begged to be heard on the point. It was
one of importance, and he contended that a positive en-
actment, which for one thousand years prevailed against
the evidence of a wife, could not be got rid of by a mere
negative proposition in the new Act, which stated that a
wife, in criminal matters, could not be a witness. The
Lord Chancellor had told them how the section was al-
tered just as the Bill was about to pass, and that it was
an oversight that the other clause was allowed to remain
as it now appeared.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS said the Lord Chancellor
had not told him how it had occurred.
Mr. COOKE alluded to what had appeared in the news-
papers; they could not shut their eyes to what had been
stated by the Lord Chancellor on the subject. The
Learned Counsel urged upon the Court the danger of
admitting wives as witnesses.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS was of opinion that a
wife was an admissible witness. lie had read h
ea report,
but until he saw a solemn decision
againstthem to be examined.
admis-
sibility of wives he should allow
He knew that it had been Raid :w thateiatrwd
of the
oulddispeaturebeof
the
peace of families, but they never
(amities being disturbed because children were examined
for and against their parents.dt,•taontdheafcteormtmheiscsiaosheehrawdhoectchuer-
The wife was examinpe
pied some time,
he would sustainit twhaeso-pruestition of a man who had come
on a friendly arrest. There
away from his creditof
was an assumption property, but it did not appear to
be tangible.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS sustained the petition.
He wished friendly arrests wore illegal, but the law
allowed them.
Ultimately the case was adjourned for better accounts,
and the insolvent remanded to prison.

TIIE /Rim AMELIORATION SOCIETY.—The half-
yearly meeting of this corporation was held on Tuesday, at the
flice, in Waterloo•place. In the absence of Lord de Manley
the chair was taken by Mr. Pinney, M.P., who laid a state-
ment of the present state and future prospects of the society
before the proprietary. The rep .irt of the proceedings of the
last special meeting was confirmed, and one of the proprie-
tors, the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Percival, entered into some de-
tails relative to new and extended purposes to which the
charcoal produced from peat have been applied. Votes of
thanks to the chairman and directors having been passed the
meeting separated.
THE UNITERSITIES Or SWEDEN.—A letter from
Upsal, in Sweden, 20th ult., states that during the last six:
years the number of students in the two universities of
Sweden has considerably increased. In 1846 there were only
t 800 at Upsal, and 326 at Lund ; now there are 1,559 at
8.7. 11
former place, and 526 at the latter, forming a total of 2,0_ _
of whom 481 study theology, 503 law, 248 medicine, and
3523
6603 f
the various other sciences. Of these 2,085 students,
(or more than one-third) are the sons of peasant®,
to the
ecoleaiaatica, 191 belobs to the nobility, au" ?29
kiSnOgiliCt