The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Niv.l3:

THE QUEEN V. THE LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY

COMPANY.

In this case a rule had been obtained to show cause why
a mandamus should not be issued to the, defendants, com-
manding them to set out a road according to the provisions
of the Act under which the defendants were authorised to
proceed with their works. The defendants diverted a part
of a road lying between Stanmore and Uxbridge, and it
was stated that the -road they had made was not so conve-
nient as the old road. There were two clauses in the Act
relating to this matter ; one as to diverting a road for a
temporary, the other as to diverting it for a permanent pur-
' pose. In the first of these cases the new road was expressly
directed to be made as convenient as the old road. There
was no such express direction with respect to the perma-

nent road.
The COURT made the rule absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ]\'or. 13.

CLARE V. COOKE.

Mr. KELLY moved for a rule to show cause why the
Court should not tax the defendant his costs. This was
an action of debt to recover 411., the price of goods sold
and delivered, which was tried at Westminster by Justice
Park. The plaintiff was a wholesale, and the defendant a
retail grocer, and the goods in question consisted of articles
in the trade.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 13.
HUCKMAN V. FERNAY.

Mr. CROWDER moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict of the plaintiff in this -case, which was tried before
Lord Chief Justice Tindal, at Bristol, should not be set
aside, and a new trial granted, on the grounds that tile
Counsel for the defendant, having a right to begin at the
trial, had not been allllwed to do so ; and also of mis-
direction on the part of the Learned Judge. It was an
action to recover the sum of 3001., secured by a policy of
insurance in the British Commercial Insurance Company,
of which the defendant was a Director.
The Court granted a rule nisi.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

HATTON-GARDEN.

Yesterday John Taylor, a resolute-looking fellow, a brick-
maker, was brought before Mr. LAING, charged by Mr.
Branberg, overseer of Islington parish, with the following
daring outrage :—The prosecutor, yesterday afternoon, was
sitting in his parlour, with his wife, when the prisoner called
at the house and insisted on having relief, or being admitted
into the workhouse. Being a healthy, able-bodied man,
witness refused him, and told him to look after work, as
he was not a fit object for the workhouse, on which the
prisoner heaped upon him a volley of low abuse, and pro-
ceeding to the front of the house where some bricks were
lying, and seizing one of them, he threw it at the parlour
window with all his force, and the whole of the frame and
glass were completely demolished, and the brick, now pro-
duced, nearly struck Mrs. Branberg, who was near the
window, and had it struck her she must have been killed on
the spot.
Mr. LAING inquired the amount of damage done ? Pro-
, secutor—l suppose about 20s. worth.
Mr. LAING (to the prisoner)—Have you got 20s. ?
Prisoner—No ; nor twenty farthings.
Mr. LAING—Then your are committed to the House of
Correction and hard labour for a month, unless the money
be sooner paid.
Mary Roach was charged by Mr. Taylor, Assistant-
Overseer of Bloomsbury, with having broken his windows
and assaulted him. She was committed for fourteen days,
in default of paying 4s. the amount of damage done.
Two distressed, half-starved-looking men were charged
with sleeping in the open air, in the neighbourhood of
Islington, being quite destitute. Martin, one of the pri-
soners, was in the greatest distress, and had not tasted food
for some days, and being without the means of procuring a
lodging, he was compelled to wander about fields and streets
and sleep where he could.
Mr. LAING—What have you been ? Martin—l was
in the service of the Hon. East India Company at Bengal
for seventeen years.
Mr. LAING—Why did you quit it ? Martin-1 dis-
charged myself for the purpose of coming to London to see
my father and mother and other relatives, after so long an
absence, but they were all dead. I have a trade, but, not
having worked at it for many years, I am unfit for it now.
Mr. LAlNG—Which is your parish ? Martin—l be-
lieve Islington, where I was horn, and my father kept a
house there.

Mr. LAING directed the officer to take him to Islington
workhouse and explain his case, in order that he might be
admitted.

Martin—l have not got anything to get food or lodging.
Mr. LAING—I mean to provide you with it. You will,
no doubt be taken into the workhouse, where you will get
work to do ; but if you leave it, and are•found again un-
der similar circumstances, it will be worse for you.
The other prisoner was a labourer ; he had been turned
out of a workhouse in the country because he had not been
regularly passed upon an order of removal, and he had since
been in London looking after work to no purpose.