The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-17 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DEC. IG.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Baron GURNEY and a
London Special Jury.)
PHILLIPS AND ANOTHER V. HUGH.

The plaintiff in this case bad consigned a large quan-
tity of tobacco, imported in various ships, to Messrs.
Warwick and Claggett, who were large tobacco mer-
chants, as well as brokers. In September those gentle-
men applied to the defendant's house for an advance of
a large sum of money, and proposed to give the dock
warrants of the tobacco as secur►ty. After some nego-
ciation the defendants agreed to discount two accept-
ances of Warwick and Co. for 10,1061. and 10,198/,
The warrants for the tobacco were delivered on the
24th September, but as defendants did not think the se-
curity sufficient they only gave a cheque for 1,20 C/.
Warrants for more tobacco were delivered on the 30th
September, and another cheque for 8,0001. given. There
had been a pravious advance of 14,4001. upon the secu-
rity of Louisiana and Virginia Bonds. In September
Warwick and Co. deposited more dock warrants for
more tobacco, and got hack the bonds which were used
for the exigencies of the house. The greater part of the
tobacco had been consigned to Warwick and Co. (who
failed in February, 1837) by the plaintiffs ; the re-
mainder was their own. It was proved that the plain-
tiff had only given power to Warwick and Co., to sell
for them, and ordered them to take out the warrants
in their name. Warwick and Co., however, did not
obey these orders, but took them out in their own
name, and dealt with them as their own.
The Learned JUDGE left it to the Jury to say whether
the plaintiff had given Warwick and Co. a power over
the tobacco, such as to induce the world to suppose it
belonged to them ; whether the defendant thought it
was the property of the firm they were dealing with,
and whether the exchanging of the bonds for the war-
rant was an advance upon the tobacco.
Tho Jury found in the affirmative on all the questions.
—Verdict for the defendant.
The Attorney. General, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Bailey
were Counsel for the defendant ; Mr. Creswell and
Mr. Waddington were for the plaintiff.

SCHWABACHER V. FLEMING.
The plaintiff in this action was a wine and cigar mer-
chant, at Cambridge, who brought his action to recover
the sum of 201. 135., for goods supplied to the defen-

dant while at College. The plea of the defendant was
infancy.
Mr.; ERLE said the sum sought to be recovered was
so small, that he was astonished that the defendant
had thought it necessary to have the case tried before
a Special Jury. The defendant was the son of Mr.
Fleming, the Member for Hampshire, who was placed
in one of the first Colleges in the University. He was
of the first character both as to rank and wealth, and it
could not, therefore, be said that a bill of 201. l bs.
was extravagant during a period of six months,
for wine, cigars, liqueurs, and Eau de Cologne.
It could not be expected that a young gentleman of
his expectancies was to make friends of the highest
young men of the land—to be treated by them, and
give no entertainment in return. In that sense he
trusted the Jury would think the goods furnished were
necessaries, not actual necessaries, but necessaries ac-
cording to the rank and station of the party supplied.
General evidence of the delivery of the goods having
been given, . _ _

Mr. B. ANDREWS said the father of the young man
did not defend the action upon any other than high
public grounds. Here was a young man sent to the
University for the purposes of study and improve-
ment, but would either of these be effected if
the youths were to be allowed to contract such
debts as _ the one in question. If the Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff, and so sanctioned
such a proceeding, it would prove of incalculable mis-
chief to the youth of the Universities.
His LORDSHIP having summed up, the Jury, after a
few minutes' consultation, returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.
His LORDSHIP said the verdict was one calculated to
do much good. It would, indeed, be frightful were such
conduct allowed. These tradesmen were all well aware
that they were trusting parties not of age, and it was
preposterous for anyone to say that wine, liqueurs, and
cigars were necessaries for a young gentleman of 18 or
19 years of age.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

About the middle of last week two elderly females,
who appeared, from their manners, to have been re-
spectably brought up, but reduced to great distress,
one of them assisting the other to walk, as she seemed
very much afflicted with paralysis, applied to Mr. Hall,
requesting he would assist them, or point out some
means by which they could obtain relief, as they had been
labouring for a considerable time under the greatest
privations. They stated that their father, having held
a commission in the British service, and being strongly
recommended to the Portuguese Government, he was
appointed to the command of a squadron, and, after a
short service, died while he held an admiral's commission.
Their mother was then granted a pension, upon which
they subsisted very comfortably until abouttwo years back
when she also died, but up to the present time they
had been entirely depending on the charitable dona-
tions of a few ladies of respectability, to whom they
could refer, any of whom would confirm their state-
ment, as they were acquainted with the sufferings they
had undergone, and which had at length become no
longer durable.
Mr. HALL said he had no doubt, from the manners
of the applicants, that they had been reared in a very
superior manner, and if they would leave with him the
name and address of any respectable person he would
make inquiries, and adopt some means of relieving their
present distressed condition.

_
The applicants then left the names of several ladies
and their addresses, and, after thanking the Magistrate
for his kindness, withdrew.

Yesterday, one of them being in attendance, her sister
not being able to leave her room in consequence of her
debilitated state, to ask if any inquiries had been made
to the ladies to whom they had referred,
Mr. HALL said he had written to every person to
whom a reference had been made, and from the answers
he had received it appeared that the applicants' account
of their parents and of their own present unfortunate
state, was in every particular correct, in consequence of
which he was induced to place a sum of money for himself
in the hands of a respectable lady, to be given to them
in such portions as she considered they might have occa-
sion for it, at the same time he would direct as much as
could be spared from the poor-box of the Court to be
appropriated to their use, and he would feel most happy
in giving the most satisfactory accounts which he had
received from very many ladies of the highest respecta-
bility, to any persons who might be so humane as to
offer their assistance in a case which he considered de-
serving the attention of such as might be charitably in-
clined.

The name or address of the applicants did not tran-
spire.

MONEY-LENDING ADVERTISE-

MENTS.

On Saturday, at the Kensington Petty Sessions Mr.
Sprey, butler to her Royal Highness the Princess So-
phia, applied to Sir John Scott Lillie and Messrs. Bar-
low and Sutton, the Sitting Magistrates, for the second
time, under the following circumstances :
It appeared that on Wednesday, Mr. Sprey waited
on Sir John Scott Lillie, the Sitting Magistrate, and
stated that, being in immediate want of a loan of mo-
ney to complete a purchase he was negociating, his at-
tention was attracted by an advertisement in one of the
papers, notifying that money to any amount might be
obtained, on good security, on application to Mr. Chas.
Alexander, No. 62, Great Portland-street, Portland-
place. Mr. Sprey, on Tuesday last, accordingly went
to that direction, where he saw a person who
represented himself to be Mr. Alexander, to
whom he applied for the loan of one hundred pounds
for three months. The soi-disant Alexander, having
heard him with a perfect business air, said the amount
was too small, and the time too short, to be worth his
while—his terms were not less than 2001. for three
years at 7i per cent., on acceptances renewable every
three months. Mr. Sprey at length acceded to those
terms, and having accepted a bill at three months for
2001, drawn out by Alexander, received from him
what he called a check for the amount on Coutts's
bank, at one day's sight. Mr. Sprey immediately pro-
ceeded to Coutts's to have his check dated, when, on
presenting it, he was told that. being unstamped, it was
not a legal document, and it was detained at the bank-
ing-house.
Sir John S. Lillie inquired if Mr. Sprey had asked
at the banker's if any person of the name of Charles
Alexander kept an account there, to which Mr. Sprey
replying in the negative, Sir John said he could not ace
how he could at present interfere, and advised him to
ascertain that fact.

On Saturday Mr. Sprey stated that he went, in ac-
cordance with the suggestion of Sir John S. Lillie, to
Coutts's bank, and inquired if any person of the name
of Charles Alexander banked there, when they replied
in the negative, saying, that although numerous appli-
calions of a similar nature had been made, they knew
nothing of him. He then returned to the residence of
her Royal Highness, in Church-lane, Kensington, where
he had not been more than half an hour before a person
called on him, and inquired if he had not got an accept-
ance out in the market for two hundred pounds ? He
(Mr. Sprey) replied that he had not ; he had certainly
signed his name to a bill which had been obtained from
him by means of frand, amounting even to forgery,
and that he should resist its payment to the utmost
extent o f the law. The party, nothing daunted
by the intelligence, said the bill which he had
acknowledged had not been indorsed, had been offered
to him for discount, and that his object in calling was
to ascertain if it were genuine. On Thursday he
(Mr. Sprey) went to Bow-street office and stated the
circumstances to the sitting Magistrate there, when
one of the officers who was present said, from the de-
scription he gave of Alexander, he bad no doubt he
was the celebrated Prescott, of bill-swindling notoriety,
and that some further overtures would, no doubt, be
made to him (Mr. Sprey). On that day, as suspected,
the same party again called on him, saying, that
although he had not the bill himself he knew who had,
and that he did not doubt it would be given up on the
receipt of a " valuable consideration." An appoint-
ment was then made for Friday afternoon, at the sign
of the Catherine Wheel, in Church-street, Kensington,
when he (Mr. Sprey) placed in the parlour his So-
licitor and Gough, a policeman of the T division,
an officer of that Court, in private clothes. At
the appointed time the party called on him at
the Princess's house, but be telling him that he
was on duty, and could not be spoken to there, took
him over to the Catherine Wheel, when, seeing the
other persons present, he only said the bill might be re-
covered on the payment of 201., and that the person in
whose hands it was would meet Mr. Sprey at a coffee-
shop in Fetter-lane, on Saturday afternoon, to receive
the money. He accordingly made the appointment with
him to the extent that his solicitor should attend for him,
he (Mr. Sprey) being in attendance on her Royal High-
ness, and he, therefore, again applied to the Bench for
their assistance under the circumstances.
The BENCH, having referred to the various Acts of
Parliament, finding the illegally obtaining the possession
or detaining " a valuable security" a felonious offence,
recommended that Gough and another officer in private
clothes should be in attendance at the appointment with
Mr. Sprey, and take into custody any of the parties who
might be there with the bill.
The officers had not returned when the Bench broke up.