The Sun.
London, England, 1863-01-20 00:00:00

HAINES (BY HER GUARDIAN) V. GREY-JUDGMENT.

His Lordship gave his judgment in this case. The ques-
tion at issue was as to which of the litigants should be ap.
pointed to administer the estate of the late Mr. John
Haines, of Tipton, Staffordshire, a coal merchant and
farmer. The plaintiff, Mrs. Olivia Haines, was the widow
of the deceased, and being only 20 years of age, she applied
through her father for administration of the estate in ques-
tion, which was stated to be worth between £6,000 and
£7,000. The parties were married about two years at the
time of deceased's death. The defendant, who was the
daughter of the deceased by a former marriage, applied on
behalf of her brothers and sisters that letters of administra-
tion might be granted to her instead of the plaintiff, on the
ground that the estate would be more perfectly managed by
by her and her husband than by the plaintiff and her
father, the latter of whom was only a builder, without
any knowledge of the different departments of the deceased's
trade. The defendants also alleged that the estate was
deeply involved, and unless mortgaged would prove insol-
vent, and that in addition to his want of special knowledge
in reference to the same the plaintiff's father was in ill
health, and unable to attend to his own business. For the
defendant it was further argued that, as the children of the
deceased had two-thirds interest in the estate, and the
plaintiff only one-third, protection to the former should have
the preference in the selection of an administrator, or that
at all events, there should be justifying security given for
such protection.
His Lordship decreed that the plaintiff, who had been
most unjustifiably aspersed, should be appointed adminis-
tratris, she to find security to the amount the other parties
were interested.

Dr. pinks said if Mrs. Haines was called upon to give
security to the full amount, it would in fact prevent her
from administrating altogether. He did not object to secu-
rity to the extent of £2OO or £3OO.
His Lordship directed the case to be referred to the Re -
gistrar, who would see what xas a reasonable sum. The
plaintiff also must have her costs, not out of the estate, but
from the next of kin.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

FORTUNATE DETECTION.—Joseph MOOTS, a low-look-
ing fellow, who refused his address, was charged as
follows :

From the evidence of Edward Bovey, 85, it appeared
that while passing No. 11, Bruton-street, this morning
about 4 o'clock, he heard some ono down the area, and saw
the prisoner run into a store cellar. He called to the pri
soner to come out of his hiding place, but as he refused, he
(Bovey) got over the railings, and went down the area,
when he found the prisoner c incealed in the dust hole, and
near him a putty knife. Entering the premises he found
the kitchen window up, and the shutters closed, but the
inner bar of the shutters had been forced, evidently with
the putty knife, nearly out of the catch. He also found
that the prisoner had unlaced his boots, so as to creep in
gently, and in his possession he discovered a knife, some
keys, and matches. Prisoner said that he had only gone
down the area to sleep. He (Bovey) observed the window
down some time before.

Charles Edmonstone, a lad, said he fastened the shutters
before he went to bed, and believed the window was down
at the time.

Prisoner said he had no intention of committing a felony,
and with the view of ascertaining something as to his an-
tecedents, Mr. Tyrwhitt remanded him for a week.

WESTMINSTER.

SURPRISING RESULT.-4;;;L Coomber, a man about
forty years of age, was charged with felony, under the fol-
lowing circumstances :

Mrs. Anne Maryland said—Last night I gave this man a
sovereign instead of a shilling. I engaged him from near
St. Tatnes's•street to drive me and my husband home to our
house in Oakley-street, Chelsea, and when we got to our
journey's end I gave him the sovereign. His fare was
eighteenpence, and I gave him the sovereign and a shil-
ling, thinking they were two shillings, and he gave me
sixpence out.

Mr. Poynter—When did you find out you had made the
mistake ?

Prosecutrix—He had not left us before I discovered it. I
asked him to give it back, and he would not.
Mr. Paynter—How do yeu know you gave him the
sovereign ?
Prosecutriz—Because I had only one shilling in my
pocket as I afterwards remembered. I had taken the money
from a club-house for some work I had done.

Police-sergeant—l think your worship will find the evi-
dence very conclusive. The money was found upon him
after he denied he had it in his possession.
Police-constable Thomas Bell, 90 was in Koppel-
street, Chelsea, last night, when I was called by the last
witness, who stated that she had given him a sovereign in-
stead of a shilling. I asked him if he had got it, and he
said "No." He then pulled out 3s. and said, with anoath,
that that was all the mcney he had got. Prosecutris said
she would give him in charge, and I took him into custody.
I watched him all the way with my light to the station, so
that ho should have no opportunity of getting rid of her
sovereign. At the station I searched him, and found the
sovereign, but not in the same pocket as he had produced
the 3s. 6d. from.

Mr. Paynter—This is no larceny; the prisoner must be
discharged. (To prosecutrix)—You can sue him in the
County Court for the sovereign.
Policeman—What am I to do with the sovereign found
upon him and the rest of the money ?
Crisoner—l have no objection to the sovereign being
given up to the prosecutrix.
TLis was done.

Mr. Paynter—lt is no larceny. Prosecutrix put the
sovereign into his hand, but his conduct is very dishonest.
Prisoner was theu discharged.