The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

common occurrence for years, and he was not at all
\ aware that it was an ille. gal proceeding.
Tile defendant was th en fined in the same penalty as
in the former case.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nor. 18.
GOMPERTZ V. ANSDELL.
The arguments in this case having occupied the time OOB.O
of the Court sor 6 days, were brought to a close to-day. CO Ty co LSI tT OF REQUEST S.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would look into the papers
before he gave judgment.

" ORNITHOLOGICAL C-SEARCHES."—Mr. Commis-
sioner Dußois was for some time occupied in deter-
mining the right of one . John Simpson to half-a-crown,
claimed by him from Tho aias Sherrard.
The blue sleeves, sleek aspect, itod greasy hair of the
complainant, indicated the Smithfield butcher ; while
the bottle-green Newmark-et coat, knobbed switch, and
top boots of the defends nt, proclaimed with no less
accuracy the London " h orse chaunter." Both pos-
sessed that peculiar look a rid bearing which would be
sufficient to deter any person possessing a reasonable
stock of worldly nous, from trusting the first with either
live or dead mutton, or b uying a horse on the recom-
mendation of the latter.
Mr. Commissioner Dtino;s— How was this debt in-
curred ? Plaintiff—l sold him a hen, your Lordship, in
the Blue Lion. His boy fetched the fowl off of my
premises, and when I asked for the money three weeks
arterwards he denies ever having had the hanimal.
Mr. Commissioner Dußois—Well, what have you to
say to this, defendant ?—" The plaintiff ony summoned
me for a lark, your Lordship."
Mr. Commissioner DUBOIS—For a lark—no, its for
a hen, as I understand.
Defendant—l means as it's vot ve calls a lark—out
of gammon. You see this here's the s;ittyvashion of this
here affair. Ve vas in the Blue Lion having a pint and
screw together. I says says I " I've got a Malay
cock ;" and be says says he " I've got a Malay hen."—
"WI you deal ?" says he. " Vots the ticket ?" says 1.
" It's your'n for three bob," says he, " and I'll spend a
tanner." " Half-a-crown's the money," says I.
" Done," says he. " Done," says I, " and let's have in
the heavy." Yell, I sends my boy for the hen and he
goes and puts it to roost with my cock. But my cock
druv the hen slap avay, cause it warn't no real Malay,
but only a reglar dunghill. Ven I diskiver'd the pater
of the bird, I sends my boy back vith it, and he puts it
down jest vere he took it up from.
Mr. Commissioner Dußois (to plaintiff)—Did you
receive back the hen ? Plaintiff—Never sot eyes on it
arter I'd delivered it to his boy.
Defendant—l say you did. Vy, the bird vas seen
seen about your place for veeks arterwards, and that I'll
take my oath on.
Plaintiff-I'll bring a man who's vord is better than
your oath to prove as you had the hen biled vith a fine
of pork for you and your vife's supper
Defendant—And as for your oath, vy its as good as
your vord, an' I'd as soon take von as tither—over
the left.
A sagacious looking Juryman, with a very red nose
peeping through the bridge of a pair of polyscopic
spectacles, intimated a wish to put a question.
" After the hen was returned," said the Juryman,
" did you see it in its haunts ?" Plaintiff—lts aunts,
vy I never know'd it had any, cause I bought it a
chicken.
The Juryman framed his question this way :—" Was
the hen seen in its usual places of resort after the boy
brought it back ?" Defendant—Yes, and its in the
plaintiff's premises now.
' Mr. Commissioner Dußois—Then go and take it.
The hen is your property.
Defendant—" Faint a Malay, it's ony a dunghill, and
so I didn't vont it.
The Jury thought differently, and they found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff.
The defendant made as much expedition as he could
out of Court, and in a few minutes lie returned.
Defendant—Been arter the hen, your lordship, and

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

BENTLEY V. FOSTER-COOPER'S NOVELS V.

" THE

NOVELIST."

The Court was occupied up to the period of its rising
with the arguments in this case, which came before his
honour the Vice Chancellor upon motion to dissolve an
injunction granted by the Master of the Rolls during
the long vacation, restraining the defendan's from print-
ing and publishing in a pamphlet, called the Novelist,
a romance, or any part of it, written by Mr. Cooper, the
celebrated novelist, entitled " The Headsman," the
publication of which was alone in the plaintiff by virtue
of an agreement entered into between him and Air.

Cooper.
The arguments, at half-past 3 o'clock, were postponed
till to-morrow (this day), when we shall enter more fully

Lao the case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 18.
CELEY V. ELLISON.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE moved for a rule to show cause
why the venue should not in this case be moved from
Lincolnshire to Middlesex. The parties lived in Lin-
coln, and were violent political opponents. The de-
fendant had met plaintiff on his (defendant's) grounds,
and had quarrelied with him, assaulted him, and
wounded him in the arm with a sword, which he had
with him ; he afterwards alleging that he did not know
plaintiff, and thought he was a poacher. The action
was to recover compensation for the severe injuries the
plaintiff had sustained. The provincial press had taken
the matter up, had excited great prejudice against
plaintiff, creating an impression that it had served him
right, and bringing the farmers to believe that he was
their enemy, being opposed to the Corn-laws. The
farmers would form the principal portion of the Jury
in the country, and therefore, the plaintiff wished the
cause to be tried in London. The farmers had dis-
persed cards in the corn markets, describing plaintiff,
" Silly, the landowner's enemy."
The Court granted the rule nisi.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice ERSKINE and
a Common Jury.)
LYNDUS v. BULLOCK.
This was an action for a false arrest. The parties
were connected with stock-broking, and the case for the
plaintiff was, that he had been arrested by defendant, who
obtained the warrant from a Judge b y swearing (as under
the new law is requisite) that he believed plaintiff was
about to g 3 to the Continent. This plaintiff alleged to
have been utterly false and malicious, and that there
was no probable cause for the arrest. Oa that, issue was
joined.
Mr. HILL was for the plaintiff, and called a Mr.
Hayman, a doctor, who attended plaintiff, and who
stated that on the 16th August he was in the plaintiff's
house and heard the defendant and a Mr. Bailey, a
friend, ask after Mr. Lynch's. Mrs. Lyndus replied
that he was gone to Gravesend, and would be back that
night or next day.
Mr. Sergeant STORKS, who was for the defendant,
made an amusing speech, and called a Mr. Bailey, who
distinctly swore tat Mrs. Lyndus had said her husband
was gone, or going, to the Continent.
The Learned JUDGE left it to the Jury to decide on
the credibility of the witnesses.
The Jury found for the defendant.

BAIL COURT, Npv. 18.
(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)

M?ORTANT APPLICATION AGAINST THE SHERIFF OF

they von't give it up.
Mr. Commissioner DUBOIS—Why ? Defendant—
Cause they say they've got a Iron on it for three weeks'
wittles.
Mr. Commissioner Dusois—l'm afraid I cannot
assist you.
The defendant scratched his head, evidently quite
satisfied that for once in his life he had been done.

MIDDLESEX.-STOCKDALE V. FIANSARD.

Mr. PLATT applied to his Lordship for a rule to
compel the Sheriff to return the writ of inquiry in this
case to the attorney for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—There never has been
an application to compel a Sheriff to return a writ of
inquiry.
Mr. PLATT said the Sheriff was an officer and minis-
ter of the Court, and their Lordships might at any time
rule him to perform his duty. Such a case, perhaps,
had never risen before. A Sheriff had not been so
tried in the execution of his duty. He wished to have
the authority of the Court for so doing, and he (Mr.
Platt) apprehended that the only mode of compelling
him to do his duty was to apply to the Court for a rule,
commanding him to return the writ, and if he dis-
obey ed, of course an attachment would lie. The plain-
tiff was without any remedy, unless his Lordship granted
the rule. In the Exchequer there was a case in
which a rule had been made, calling upon
the Sheriff to return a writ of trial which
he had kept back on the ground of one of the
witnesses being indicted for perjury, and the Court
said the Sheriff had only to perform his duty, that
when a writ was, directed to him it was his duty to re-
turn it, that he was a mere minister of the Court, and
ought to be obedient to the writs of the Court directed
to him.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

John Henry, described as a clerk, was yesterday
brought before Mr. HALL, charged with robbing Mr.
Jabez Poulson, a jeweller, residing in Whitcomb-street,
of a gold watch, a small sum of money, and three
gold rings. The prisoner was also charged with ex-
torting a sovereign and other monies, under a threat
that he would accuse the prosecutor of a nameless
offence ; and James Taunton, an eating-house keeper,
in Great Peter-street, Westminster, was charged with
aiding and abetting in the robbery.
The prosecutor stated, that on the evening of the
30th of September, as he was returning home from his
employers where he had been at work, he stopped to
examine some books that were exposed for sale in St.
Martin's•court, when the prisoner Henry came up and
made some observation about the cheapness of them,
and as he proceeded home, the prisoner accompanied
him to the door, conversing with him all the way. On
the next night he was again accosted by the prisoner
in a more familiar manner, and not wishing to stop
at his residence, as he did not know him, witness
continued with him until they had passed Westminster
Abbey, when the prisoner said he wanted to call
and see how a friend of his got on who had lately
taken a house in Great Peter-street, requesting that he
would accompany him. Witness agreed, and they had no
sooner entered the house than the prisoner collared him,
saying, " Now I have you in my power, and I shall accuse
you of a nameless offence unless you give me whatever you
have in your pockets," at the same time thrusting his
hand into his pocket and taking out whatever money he
had. He then seized his watch, and pulled the rings
from his fingers, and hearing a noise at the back window
the other prisoner instantly •made his appearance, de-
manding to know what was the matter, but not attempt-
ing to render any assistance. The prisoner Henry said
he had got ab- b-. Witness was then thrust
out of the house, and heard nothing of the prisoners until
last Friday, when the prisoner Henry again came to
him.

YV
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—You have an affidavit of
being refused, have you ?
Mr. PLATT—Oh, yes, my Lord.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—WiII you read the
affidavit ?
Mr. PLATT then read the affidavit, which, after
setting out the issuing of the writ and the finding of the
jury, stated that the Sheriff had been applied to to re-
turn the writ, and have the costs taxed, but that he had
refused so to do, and giving as a reason that Messrs.
Parkes and Preston had served him with a notice to
that effect. There was an averment in the affidavit to
show that Messrs. Parkes and Preston were not the
attorneys in the cause, and had nothing to with it.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE (after having consulted
with the other Judges) said Mr. Platt, you may have
your rule to return the writ.—Rule absolute granted.
JURISDICTION OF THE WESTMINSTER COURT OF
REQUESTS.
MARMION V. LADY FANNY PARKER.
Mr. JERvis appeared on behalf of the Commissioners
of the Court of Requests, Westminster, to show cause
why a writ of prohibition should not issue to prevent
them from further proceedings in the cause between
Anthony Marmion and Lady Fanny Parker.
The case possessed no public interest, and the argu-
ments rested chiefly on the jurisdiction of the Court of
Requests.
Mr. JAMES, who argued in support of the rule, sub-
mitted that the Court of Requests had no authority to
adjudicate in such a case as the present, which was not
a debt, but a compensation for his attendance as a wit-
ness ; and that the parties had a right to take proceed-
ings after sentence.
His LORDSHIP considered this a case of some import-
ance, and took time to consider.

Mr. HALL observed that it was nearly two months
back that the robbery occurred.
Witness said he was so terrified at the crime with
which Henry threatened to accuse him, that he did not
know what steps to take.
Mr. HALL said it was much to be regretted that there
had been such a delay, and inquired how the prisoner
knew his place of abode ?
Witness said they must have watched him home and
conside'red he was a man of property, and he was quite
certain there were others not in custody concerned in
the matter. Witness then said that he had not again
seen the prisoner until Friday evening last, when he
accosted him in a familiar manner, and upon his seeming
not inclined to have any thing to do with him, the pri-
soner desired that he would not be alarmed, saying that
he could get the man from Westminster to swear to any
thing he wished him to say. Witness appearing agitated,
the prisoner again desired he would not be frightened,
as he was obliged to get his living by accusing persons
in the same way, although he knew he could be trans•
ported for it, but he had no trade or friends; and he
could not help it. Witness then gave him a shilling
and some halfpence, and, upon his repeating his threats,
he promised to give him a sovereign if he met him on
the next evening. The prisoner then said he should
have money, as witness's masters were rich, and lie had
nothing from the things which lie took from him in
Westminster, only the watch and the rings, which he
pawned for ss. each, being obliged to hand over the
rest to the other prisoner, for what he was to do for
him.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
LIABILITY OF PUBLICANS.-ADAMS V. HUMPHRISS.
In this case the Jury returned a verdict for the de,
Pendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' OOURT, Nov. 18.
AN OLD PRISONER.—George Murrell, an elderl)
man, was opposed by Mr. Woodroffe, on the part o
Henry Cowper, Esq., banker, at Chichester.

This insolvent, wno had been a maltster, in Hamp-
shire, had been in the Fleet Prison since 1824—nearly
sixteen years. Mr. Comper had advanced 3001. on
mortgage, and was the detaining creditor ; he had, how-
ever offered to discharge the insolvent provided he
would execute a deed to sell the equity of redemption.
He had refused, and the Warden had brought him up,
being anxious for his departure from his old quarters.
Mr. Woodroffe stated the case. He said Mr.
Cowper, who was a highly respectable man, and felt
aggrieved at the allegations set forth in the schedule.
The insolvent amended his schedule and was dis-
charged. He left his old quarters with great re-
luctance.

Mr.H ALL inquired if the property had been recovered?
Witness—Never, and having appointed to meet the pri-
soner on the following evening to give him a sovereign I
communicated the entire circumstance to my employer
and shopmates, by whom I was advised to mark a sove-
reign, and after giving it to the. prisoner, to have a po-
liceman in attendance, to take him into custody, which
I did, at the corner of Bow-street. The other prisoner
was apprehended on Sunday in his house at Westminster.
David Cooper, 125 F, who took the prisoner Henry
into custody, proved that he found the marked sovereign
produced in his pocket.

Mr. HALL asked—Did the prisoner Taunton assist
the other in the robbery ? The prosecutor said he did
not, but on his pretending to go for a policeman, the
other prevented him, and desired him to let witness go
away.
Mr. Vies, one of the prosecutor's employers, said that
he had been many years working for the firm, and he
was always found to be a man of correct moral habits.
He was a married man, and had buried his wife almost
a year back, and he was respected by every person in
the establishment.
The prisoner Henry said that he had sold a watch
to the prosecutor, which he was to pay for by enstal-
ments of five shillings per weekq,uaenstdiohnisasfapilainrgt
ptoaydmoesnot:
base
igi
ea himvhead th
rtehaetesnoevde sovereign
snuminmons him.
The prosecutor declared that he never had any trans-
action of the kind with the prisoner, who was a total
stranger to him.
The prisoner Taunton said that hearing a noise in
the house he went in, and seeing the scuffle he offered
to send for the police, but h. e knew nothing of the rob-
bery, and, as he had only just commenced business, he
hoped he might be admitted to bail.
Mr. HALL refused to accept bail, and as he con-
sidered it was necessary to go further into particu-
lars, the prisoners should be again brought up in aweek.

We regret to learn that Mr. Alfred Montgo-
mery, who is known to the public as the innocent in-
strument recently employed to procure, by anticipa-
tion, post obit notices of Lord Brougham from our
London Contemporaries, has himself since become an
actual party to a truly lamentable accident. Whilst
shooting at Levermere, in Suffolk, the seat of Charles
Martyn, Esq., the gun of Mr. Montgomery went off,
and shot away the hand of his loader. Little hopes. are
entertained of the recovery of the unfortunate suffLrer.
—Observer.