The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 14, 1863

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

COLLINGWOOD V. BERKELEY AND OTHERS.—THE BRITISH
COLUMBIA OVERLAND ROUTE.
The plaintiff in this case, by his declaration, complained
that he had by the false representations of the defendants,
been induced to pay £42 for a passage to British Columbia,
but they had failed to perform their contract. The plaintiff
formerly held a o mmission in her Majesty's service; but
havng left that service he was, in April, 1862, attracted
by an advertisement in the 2imes, published by the
British Columbia Overland Transit Company (limited), of
which the defendants were said to be directors, and he
called at the office and received a prospectus, which talked
in glowing terms of the enormous yield of gold in British
Columbia, and offered the services of the company to carry
persons there overland, thus avoiding the delay of the long
sea voyage. The passengers were to land at Quebec, to
be conveyed thence to Chicago, and to a place called
St. Paul's, in Minnesota, and so on to their destina-
tion. The plaintiff, on the 11th of April, received a
circular from Mr. Hensen, the secretary to the company,
in which it said that the company was about to despatch a
party of first and second class passengers, that the latter
part of the journey was to be performed in covered waggons
with four horses, and that duo precautions had been taken
for the successful performance of the journey. As to the
nature of the route, it stated that there was sufficient pas-
turage for any number of cattle, that there was plenty of
fish in the rivers, and that buffaloes and game were abundant.
Under these circumstances the plaintiff was induced to take
a passage, and to pay £42 for it. He, with some others,
left London, sailed in the United Kingdom from Glasgow
and they arrived safe and sound at St. Paul's. At that
place there were sufficient carriages and horses to carry
them on, but it appeared that the company had neither
money nor credit, and the consequence was that they
were obliged to encamp under canvas, and the plaintiff
was deputed to come to London, and represent their griev-
ances to the company. He arrived and went to the office in
Copthall-coart, where he found their name no longer up,
and all that remained was a notice that letters might be left
with the laundress. He applied to Mr. Bennett, who had
been employed by the company as ship broker, and to
Messrs. Pritchard and Collette, the solicitors. These last
named gentlemen entered into negotiations for the purpose
of securing the passengers compensation, but that came to
nothing, it being intimated that the -directora repudiated
the authority of Col. Sleigh.
Evidence having been given to support the plaintiff's
case,

Mr. M. Smith, on behalf of the Hon. Mr. Berkeley, said
there was not the slightest pretence for saying that his
client was responsible ior the acts of Colonel Sleigh. He
entirely repudiated the acts of that person, and with
respect to the British Columbia Overland Route Com-
pany, he only became mixed up in it from the fact
that when the plans were matured, he would then think
about taking some other steps in the company. He was
only induced to countenance the scheme that length in
consequence of the names of several highly influen-
tial gentlemen being mentioned as connected with
tho company—such as Mr. Mangles and others of
a similar position in society. The arrangements and en-
moments entered into by Colonel Sleigh he had nothing
to do with, as he certainly was never authorised to use his
name as a director of the company.

Each of the other gentlemen proceeded against as de-
fendants being represented by counsel, and as each in turn
will address the jury, there is no likelihood of the case
closing to-day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

THE MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT.—Mrs. Jane Tay for
of 47, Old Compton-stro,t, Soho, applied to Mr. Knox for
a protection order.

Mrs. Taylor said that she was the wife of Thos. Taylor,
and was married to him in July, 1826, and he left her in
April, about seven years ago, wh,le she was ill in bed, tell-
ing her that he was going away, but not saying where he
was going or what he was going to do, She had lately
heard that her husband was about the neighbourhood and
in difficulties, and she therefore was anxious to have pro .
tection against him. She had also heard that he had mar-
ried a second time.

Mr. Knox put some questions to the applicant. in answer
to which she said her husband left her unprovided for
when he deserted her, and that he had never contributed
anything towards her support since. She had supported
herself by watchmaking since, and she wished to have her
stock in trade, furniture. clothes, and other articles pro-
tected.

Mr. Knox said applicant should have the order.

WESTMINSTER.

SINGULAR, AFFAIR.—John Small and William Fowlia,
two young men, were charged with wilfully killing a live
cock.

Mrs. Mary Anne Mason, the wife of a beethouse-keeper,
at 207, King's-road, Chelsea, said that the prisoners were
in her house yesterday afternoon, and attracted her suspi•
cion by going down stairs two or three times to her kitchen,
where she at first missed a piece of soap, and then dis-
covered by a peculiar noise amongst some fowls she
kept that there was something wrong in that
quarter, and on going to take stock of the
birds she found the cock was missing. She asked the pri-
soners, who were in the yard, about the fowl, but they de-
nied all knowledge of it, although proaecutrix strongly
suspected Fowler had got it, as he seemed to have some•
thing bulky under his jacket.
Mr. Mason stated that he went for the police upon being
informed by his wile of what had occurred, and when he
came back the cock was found dead in the wash-house.

Mr. Paynter—You say that Fowler was the one who had
something under his coat.

Mr. Mason—Yes.

Mr. Paynter—Put the cock in his pocket.
Upon receiving this instruction the police proceeded
to unbutton Fowler's jacket in order to put the fowl into
his breast pocket. There was a great deal of squeezing and
groping, and the fowl could not be got in at first, this was
ascribed to the smallness of the pocket, but at last it was
discovered that the impediment arose from the fact that
the pocket was nearly full of these things. At length a
resting-place Wes found for it, and the jacket being closed
over it, Mrs. Mason said it was such an appearance as de-
scribed.

A witness proved that one prisoner was seen to throw a
piece of soap over the wall, and the other to throw something
into the wash-house. The fowl was warm when found.
Prisoners were committed for trial, denying their guilt.