The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-26 00:00:00

RAILWAY.

This case came before the Court upon motion to dis-
solve an injunction restraining the defendants from pro-
ceeding with an excavation for the purposes of their
works near Worley Court, in the Minories. The in-
junction was granted last Monday by his Honour, upon
an ex pante application, on its being represented to the
Court that the works of the defendants were likely to
be extremely prejudicial to the property of the plaintiff
if they did not destroy it altogether.
The arguments, which had not concluded when the
Court rose, will be resumed to-morrow (this day), at
Lincoln's Inn, where his Honour will sit till Hilary
Term.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov 25.

THE QUEEN V. ALARIC ALEXANDER WATTS.-CRIMINAL

INFORMATION.

Sir F. PoLLoch: in this case showed cause against
a rule for a criminal information ag M
ainst r. Alaric
Alexander Watts,for the publication of certain
libels in the United Service Gazette, upon Admiral Sir
John Ackworth Ommanney, charging him with having
been guilty of disrespectful conduct towards the Queen
Dowager. The defendant deposed that the state-
ment complained of first appeared in the Hamp-
shire Advertiser, and. that he copied it, and
made the remarks which appeared in the United
Service Gazette under the full belief that they were
true. Mr Watts had not been actuated by any malice
against Sir J. Ommanney in this transaction, and he,
therefore, trusted that the rule would be discharged.
After a few remarks from the ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Lord DENMAN said the rule must be made a bsolute.
THE QUEEN V. WATTS.—CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
In this case also a rule had been granted, calling upon
the defendant to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against him for having published
a libel in the United Service Gazette, on the character
of Commander Reeve.
Sir F. PoLLocx now showed cause against the rule,
and read a great number of affidavits in justification of
the publication.
Mr. SHEE read affidavits in support of the rule, and
addressed the Court at considerable length, after
which,
Lord DENMAN said the rule must be discharged.
THE QUEEN, V. HAMMOND.—CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Early in the present term a rule was obtained calling
upon the defendant, a Magistrate of the county of
Berks, to show cause 'shy a criminal information
should not be filed against him for writing a letter to
Mr. Smith, an attorney, calculated to provoke a
breach of the peace. The particulars of the case we
gave at the time when the motion was made.
After Sir F. POLLOCK had been heard against the
rule, and Sir W. FOLLETT in support of it,
The COURT discharged the rule.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Yor. 23.
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN WEBB.
This case, (in which Messrs. Wright the Bankers;
and Mr. Simpson opposed) had been before the Court
on several occasions. The complaint against the insol-
vent, who had been a butcher, carrying on an extensive
business in Newport Market and the neighbourhood,
was a concealment and mutilation of account books for
which he was liable to a judgment of three years.
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Charles
Young, the attorney for the opposing creditors, that
in the account books a great many erasures had been
made, and a quantity of leaves extracted, from January
to March. Several instances were exhibited—a debt of
Mr. Got don, a butcher, had been altered from
821. 14s. Id. to Si. 14s. Id. ; and in another place the
other figure had been erased. In other places the
figures denoting pounds had been erased or blotted out.
The books were not in the state when sent for by the
insolvent after he was in prison.
Mr. COOKE, on the part of the opposing creditors,
called upon the Court to remand the insolvent for the
full period of three years, for as extensive a case of
mutilating and concealing books as had ever come be-
fore the Court. He had carried out his fraud by gross
perjury ; he had no doubt concealed a large sum and
done everything in his power to render nugatory the
books now filed.
Mr. WoonßoFrE, who appeared for the insolvent, said
a clear case had been established, and after the evi-
dence, he could do nothing for the man. He would,
however, apply for an adjournment, and he hoped all the
creditors would be paid.
Mr. Commissioner BowEN said the advice given by
the Learned Counsel (Mr. Woodroffe) was very judi-
cious, and there was no doubt good grounds for suppos-
ing that a large sum of money had been concealed. A.
worse case of altering books had never appeared, in-
deed, a greater fraud could not have been committed.
The creditors would now, perhaps, be paid in full. But
if the insolvent should come up again he would be re-
manded for a long period. The judgment, added the
Learned Commissioner, " will be very serious indeed."
The case was adjourned for a fortnight, to pay the
creditors or amend the schedule.
Mr. Samuel Brown, civil engineer, applied on his pe-
tition to be discharged.
The debts in this case were upwards of 18,000/ ,
and the credits exceeded 70,0001., arising on debts from
patents, &c.
Mr. WooDaorrE mentioned that Mr. Brown was
about to proceed, by direction of the King of Holland,
to drain the Lake of Haarlem, and expected to realise a
large sum of money.
'The CouRT appointed Sir John Rennie and Mr.
Rennie assignees, and discharged Mr. Brown.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

In the case of Jacob Waterhouse, indicted for steal-
ing two ewes (which was not concluded when we went
o press yesterday),
Mr. CLARKSON, for the defence, commented severely
on the evidence of the last witness, and on the contra-
diction between his testimony and that of the witness
Sweetlove. The Learned Counsel was then proceed-
ing to comment upon the evidence of the witness Ben-
nett, when
The RECORDER said he should call that witness up
again, which having been done, the witness stated that
on the Monday night, he saw two sheep in the prisoner's
shop bleeding at the nose, as if fresh killed.
The RECORDER then said he considered it his duty
tc have the deposition of the witness before the Ma-
gistrates read, as he there declared that he saw one
sheep only in the prosecutor's shop on the evening in
geestion, between seven and eight. He now states be
saw two with their heads on. The policeman stated
that he saw two sheep without their heads at about
the same time, and the witness Sweetlova stated that
there were no sheep at all in the shop, so that there
was a manifest contradiction between the prosecutor's
witnesses.

Mr. CLARKSON having concluded his address,

Mr. PAYNE claimed the right of reply on the ground

that the deposition was new evidence, but if the Re-
corder disagreed with him in opinion, he would waive
his right.
The RECORDER stated that the waiving the right
would leave the question open for the opinion of the
Judges ; but he was of opinion that Mr. Payne had no
right to reply, but he would determine nothing.
Several witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent
character.

The RECORDER, in summing up, commented upon

the discrepancies of the evidence for the prosecution,
and at the same time animadverted on the unneigh-
bourly conduct of the prisoner, according to his ovvn
account.

The Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Griffiths pleaded Guilty to an indictment
charging him with feloniously receiving seventeen pounds'
weight of silk and eight hundred bobbins of silk, which
had been stolen by one Robert Payne.
The prisoner was sentenced to be transported for
seven years.
Edward Sievers was indicted for obtaining by false
pretences, from James Duflin, the sum of 3 sovereigns.
Mr. BALLANTINE conducted the prosecution.
' James Duffin deposed that he kept a chandler's shop
in Ship-yard, Temple Bar. The prisoner dealt at his
shop, and in the month of August last he owed him
3/. 11s. On the 7th of last month the prisoner pro-
duced a piece of paper purporting to be a check for
91. 3s. upon Messrs. Barclay and Co., signed by himself,
and he told witness that it was after banking hours, and
he wished him to lend him three sovereigns upon it and
set off what he owed him, and he would send for the
balance. The paper was presented at the banking-
house, but there were no effects.
Cross-examined by the prisoner—There have been
large transactions between me and the prisoner. This
was the only transaction upon which any difficulty arose.
Upon the first investigation before the Magistrates the
prisoner was discharged, and witness offered to shake
hands with him, but the prisoner refused to do so.
A clerk from Messrs. Barclay's proved that they had
no funds o
placedfdefraiundting their hands
prosecutor, and that when
to meet the check in
question.
The prisoner in his defence declared that he had no
intention
he gave him the check he expected that money would
have been paid by the bank of Messrs. Gurney at
Norwich, to whom Messrs. Barclay were agents, to meet
the check when it was presented.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty.