The Sun.
London, England, 1806-07-24 00:00:00

, . StSSWKS, TULYi;,-
BETOR E SLILY E4T. CiNSLCAr.
Tames Bendall was indicted for a felony.
John.Towser is a lath vender, and said, as he was
passing the:Borough, from London Bridge, he felt
some one pull at his pocket : he ikrceived the
soner run away' towards Three Crown-court ; he
followed him, and when he came up and seized
him by the collar, the book was returned him, and
the Prisoner was taken 'to Union Hall, where his
person was recognized ' by, Lockie, Collingboarn,
and other Officers, as having been wmtnitted'as a
reputed thief several times.—Guilty of Felony.,
The Learned CHAT AN and the Bench had per-
fe& recollection of his person, and the former passed
sentence Onransportation for seven years upon him.
• John Lindsay, alias •Wtn. Harris, was 'charged with
being a person of evil fame and a reputed thief. He
was taken by Oollingbourn, in the Westminster-road,
for picking the pocket of a Lieutenant. in the Navy
of his pocket-book ; the property was recovered, and
the Prisoner 'sent to the County Gaol.
The Court adjudged him to be imprisoned for the
term of six.months, from the date of his eonvi,Ctiou,
the loth July.
John Hnrley was charged iy Wm. Collingbourn,
for, assaulting him. Be proved the assault to have been
committed on him in the execution of his duty ; ibtit
he had humanely laid theindiament fora simple as-
. saUlt only—of which he was found.
James Sladden,-flobert Mitch ell, aud,Piomas
Pol-
lard, three lamplighters at Vauxhall Gardens, were
indicted for embezzling the oil entrusted to there to
make use of., We have, to a former Paper, stated
seven of them being taken into custody by Floyd,
the Officer, and their , being'allowed to go on board
the Tender. Of -the seven, these three were .1"4-'
turned as unfit for the. King's service.
The case was clearly made out, and the Jury found •
-them Guilty.
Mr. Perkins, a Manager of Vauxhall, prayed,
.on
the part of the Proprietors, for mercy; which was
granted by the. Court, who gave the Prisoners the
lenient sentence of imprisonment far three,. months
only.
. .Randall Gammon was found guilty of stealing. a
clock-weight from a dial in a public-house at New-
ington, and was sentenced to six mouths imprison-
=pt.
.Thomas Rogosjor assaulting and beating his wife,
anclattempting to put her into a copper half full of
boiling water, was found Guilty.
He prayed to be allowed, to serve as a soldiet.
The Learned Chairman replied, that he could not
think of disgracing the King'i service so much as to
send into it so cowardly a fellow'; and then passed
sentence of two years imprisonment, and to find

sureties.
Samuel AP-4lanus was tried, charged on the oath
of Alice Barrow, of assaulting Catharine. Barrow, an
infant of the age of five years, with intent to commit,
a rape. From the tender age of the child her evi-
dence could not go to the Jury, but the combined
evidence of the .mother, &c. proved the case ; and
the old villain, fifty-nine years of age, received sen-
tence of one year's imprisonment.
Edward Roach for stealing wheat, Joseph Word
for stealing pots, and James Watd forbeating his
wife, were tried and acquitted ; as was William
Ualker, for embezzling the sum of. three shillings
and eleven-pence haltpenny, the property of his
master, John Hughes, a baker, at Bermondsey.:
Sarah Hart, for stealing linen at Lambeth, was
sentenced to. be imprisoned three months, and
whipped: .
• A number of persons were diseharfr,ed procla-
mation, among whom -was Barton, for a similar Of-
fence to that of the abominable M‘Manus.. There
was not any. bill found against him or Dean, accused
-of like indecent offences : the latter had, it•should
appear, made satisfadion in money, tv the parents of
the little infants !
The Sessions then adjourned to Guildford.

/ ;

- -; • ;f‘e: st,
_A causC2•RiThereliYMs4rs: Heath ailcfSdntbrewers,
were Plaintiffs,. and Ess Defendant,
was chiefly remarlale for the defence set itp,"- and
the Defendant being:his own advocate.. !.;After three
years credit, the:Defendant resisted the demand of
payment for beer sold and delivered to. him by the
Plaintiffs, on the allegation that the beer was not
brewed, with malt and hops, but with-pernicious in-
gredients, To substantiate his case, he brought for-
ward the Plaintiffs' brewer, who had been in their
service 30 years, and Other Witnesses, who proved
to the satisfakaion of the Court; that the Plamtiffs
never used any other ingredients than malt and bops
ia their beer. The Jury, of course,' gave a verdid
fOr the Plaintiffs:'
Hart v. Solomon--4-was an -thion between two
Jews, residing at —Portsea,_ wherein the Plaintiff
-sought to recover 131.
.18s. the, value- of seven
watchts sold to. the Defendant, which he pleaded
had been returned. The Jury found for the' Plain=
tiff for his whole demand.
The King . Thomas. Payne, and the King v. James
Payne—were indictments against the Defendants for
-having Naval Stores in their possession belonging to
his Majesty. 'The first went off fOr.-want,of:Jurors
to make up a Special Juiy ; on the second, the re-,
cord was withdrawn.
The King v.. Bull and Another, was called on this
morning, - but went off also-for want of Jurors.
There _being no capital convidion„ thisAs term2d a
Maiden 4ssize, and, the Sheriff, according to cus-
tom, paid five gnineas (.called glove-money) to the
Officers of the Court.

LAW. REPORT. •

.~~: , ..

COURT OF CHANCE:RV, jutsi2j..

A Motion was made for the .appoihtMent of A
Guardian to an Infant, in the loom of its father.. dt
was stateil, that.a very considerable legacy had been
left to the child upon its attaining 21 years, ; but, in
-the ei.-eitt of its.dying, thelegacy was to go to the
father. The latter had hirnself of his parer],
.tal,adtliority to use the childin the most.coel man-
ner, with a view; as was supposed, of hastening its
death. He had proceeded to such Atrof'Violente,
that the Magistrate, • before whoth his condo-et had
been complained of, had thought proper to commit
him..
The LORD CtiocELtott asked if these fafls were
positively sworn to ? and upon 'being answered in
the affirmative, he said he felt it td' be a case in which
he 'ought 't•O accede to. the Motion- M:the first in-
stance. His Lordship , immediately referred it' to
one of the Masters. t 9 -consider of a proper Guardian
for the Infant. .

COURT OF KING'sBENCH; GUILDHALL, JULY 22.
ErTTINGS AT NISI PRIUS lIEEGEE LORD ELLENEOROUGH
AND A SPECIAL JURY•

WILLIAMS V. HEADLEY.
This was an Aaaion brought to recover bade a
sum of 9G5l'. Bd. being. Money paid by the Plaintiff
to coMpound penal a&ions amounting to 10;0001.
It appeared in' this case;that the Plaintiff Was a
tea-broker, and the Defendant a partner in the
honse of Sir John Earner and Co.' Some time pre-
viout to the year 1803 the Plaintiff, was in ethe
course 6f assisting Mr. Eagleton, who lately kept an
extensive -grocery warehouse, in 'Cheapside, with
pecuniary loans. But money becoming 'scarce that
year, and bearing a high price,' and Mr: Eagleton
being still in want of his pecuniary assistance, the
Plaintiff declined advancing any to hin on the for-.
'mer terms. In the end, hoWever, a plan'was adopt-
ed between them, on deliberation, by' which Mr.
'Eagleton purchased tea (suppose) at the rate of 1001: _
Which the• Plaintiff inimediatelyesold -for a profit of
201. by this mean§ remunerating himself fur the
loss he might 'Sustain by not turning his cub into
another-ohannel, ' Mr. Eagleton's affairs becoming
more involved, and being indebted to Mr. Cousins
in a sum of 20001, and to,the hose of Sir J. Earner
arid Co. in
,96.51. ad. he. had a meeting with those.
Oentlerneh, and proposed at first to pay .13s. in thee
pound, and afterwards I as. 6d. 5 but knowing him to
have been in an extensive business,, they refused to
taketless than,their full demand. Another meeting
was soon, after again held, when they weN'attended
'by their -Attornies, and the, same- proposals were
again made and rejected;' and they threatened to
strike the docket against him. Desirous of knowing.
how such a deficieney could take place in Mr.Eagle-
ton's paymentsehe explained tp then the nature of
r.hist.ransaCtions.withthe Plaintiff, to which he im-
puted his. losses ;..and advised them: to bring penal
actions against him fer usurious' transactions.,
which -they' would be able to replace the deficien-
cies. Mrs Headley insisted on his Attorney's un-
dertaking to prosecute those suits,but he refused; and
it being the last day for bringing penal_ actions, they
were commenced by another person. The Plaintiff
soon after, and while the penal . a&ions were pend-
ing, paid "over a sum of 9651. 8d: into the hands of.
the Defendant, Mr. Headley, on account of Mr.
Eagleten.. The actions were ,afterwards proceeded
in,. and the Plaintiff ponsuited; he not goine into
any proof. Mr. Figleton since b'ecarne a bankrupt;
and the Plaintiff brought this A6tion to recover
back the sum he had so paid. .
Sir V. GIBBs, for the Defendant, in an early
stage of the :cause, objected 'to the Plaietiff pro,
ceeding, contending, that by law compounding a
penal aetion was illegal, and therefore the Plaintiff
eould not maintain this :action.
Lord ELLENBOR6UGH, would not nonsuit the
Plaintiff on those grounds, but reserved the point
for the future consideration of the Court.
The learned Counsel then contended, that the
evidence did not sufficiently show upon what ac-
count the money was paid to his client. The Plain.
tiff having renewed his money tratiadions with Mr.
Eagleton, the former might have advanced that
sum as a loan, and not for the purpose of compound -
ing the penal actions ; and this was the more like-
ly, the sum so paid Was the exact sum due to
the Defendant by Eagleton. He further urged,
that Eagletorirbecoming a -bankrupt, an action had
been brooght by his Assignees against the Defend-
- ant to recover this, identical sou, and they
,had ac-
tually obtained judgment. If then the Plaintiff
was to recover in this case,' his client would have
notonly lost the original debt due,to him, but also
be c impelled to pay back this sum of money twice
er.