The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 11,
,1863.

LAW INTELLIGENCE--This Day.

QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
HEA.TOCOTE V. BELASCO.
This was an action for the recovery of the value of a
quantity of jewellery which had Leen lodged as security for
an advance of money.
and in
The plaintiff, it appeared, was a married man,
August last year arrived in London from Brighton on a
visit, and shortly after went to a notorious house, known
as Kate Hamilton's, in Leicester-suare. He there com-
menced a career of dissipation, and eventually his money
ran short, when he lodged his wife's watch, chain, and
miniature, which he wore, and other articles, as
security for an advance of money from the de-
fendant, who occupied the upper part of the house,
The visits of the plaintiff to Hamilton's amounted to some
eight or nine times. On each occasion he supped and took
champagne with some of the women visiting the place. On
tendering the money, £9 10s., as the amount he had re-
ceived from Belasco, the property was refused to be given
up, as more cash th,n the £9 10s. was said to be owing.
The defendant Belasco, in his cross-examination, said
he was not the proprietor of the house in question. It was
kept by a person named Fryer. The advances made
to the plaintiff were to discharge the bills he had
incurred at Kate Hamilton's. Ho (defendant)was a general
dealer. He dealt in anything by which he could earn a
pound. He had been 12 years ago indicted for murder, but
he was not guilty of such a crime. The jury found a ver-
dict of manslaughter, and he was sentenced to 12 months'
imprisonment. Ile was never convicted of theft. He once
was on board a steamer, and in a drunken Etate he, for a
joke more than anything else, took a great number of pass
tickets, and as he refused to give them up he was given
into custody. He did not call that thieving.
In his re-examination the defendant said that the death
of the person for whom he was convicted was occasioned
by a blow in a quarrel, and the affair on board the steam-
boat occurred 17 years ago.

A number of witnesses having been examined,
The judge commented in very serious terms on both the
conduct of the plaintiff as well as the defendant, and said it
was for the jury to say which they believed, as they both
swore directly the reverse of each other ; at the same time
observing that one witness for the defendant did not
help his case much, as she admitted sho was a per-
son of ill repute, and, from the tone of her voice, he
thought she was a drunkard. The question for the jury to
decide would be whether the defendant had made out his
allegation that he had advanced more than £9 10s. If not,
the verdict would be for the plaintiff, and an ordor would
issue that the goods would be ordered to be given up.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff.
The Judge inquired whether they wore agreed that no
more than £9 lOs. was advanced.

The Foreman said they were.
The learned Judge said that the property must be re-
stored on the payment of that sum.

Sergeant Ballantine, who appeared for the plaintiff, sug-
gested that some sort of security ought to be taken for the
return of the property.
The learned Judge ultimately entered the verdict for the
plaintiff for the full amount claimed, £49, to be reduced to
ls. when the property was returned.