The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-21 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. THE INHABITANTS OP STORE UMBER.

This was an appeal against an order of gessTunsferthe re-
moval of a woman and her five children.
The question in this case was whether an order of Sessions
for the removal of a wife and children from the pirish where
the husband was confined in gaol in execution for debt could
be a legal order. In support of the order it was contended
that there was no consortium between husband and wife ; but
on the hart of the respondents it was urged that the order was
ili g;tl, inasmuch as it tended to the separation of man and
mile, and did not remove the husband also.

The Court as of opinion that the order W.* bed.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, JAN. 19.

THE QUEEN V. ROGERS

In this case
,the defendant was a prisoner, who had been
con►icted under certain of the Mint Acts up( n the charge of
having in his possession three pieces of counterfeit coin with
a fraudulent intent. By the Acts of Parliament under which
this conviction took place, it was made an offence to issue
counterfeit coin, and another to have possession of three or
more pieces ; and there was an interpretation clause, which
explained that personal possession of the counterfoil coin was
not necessary, but that the Act included the possession of it
in any house; outhouse, &c., but not including the possession
of it by another person. In the present case it appeared that
when the prisoner was apprehended, there were found on his
person only two pieces of counterfeit coin, but he had with
him a companion, on whose person were found fourteen
pieces; and the question, therefore, which was presented for
the consideration of the Court was, whether the possession
by the one was possession by the other within the meaning cf
the Act.—Judgment deferred.

THE QUEEN V. HANNEN.
In this case the prisoner was convicted at the last sittings of
the Central Criminal Court of having in his possession a plate
resembling that for engraving the promissory notes of the
Canadian Bank at Toronto ; and the question here was whe-
ther the section of the Act under, which the conviction took place,
for the punishment of forgery in certain cases. referred to
promissory notes payable anywhere, or only to such as were
payable in England.

- Mr. PRENDF:ROAST, on behalf of the prisoner, contended that
this indictment was bad, and referred to various sections of
the Act to show, that when the Legislature. intended to in-
clude instruments, made out of England, they had expressly
declared such an intention.

Mr. BODKIN, for the Crown, argued that the interpretation
clause in the Act referred entirely to other clauses, and that
the one under which this conviction took place stood alone,
was general in its terms, and meant to include foreign as well
as English instruments.—Judgment deferred.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JAN. 19.
COMPULSORY CLAUSE-:IMPORTANT DECISION-IN RE JEREMIAH

BOARD.

The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER, at the rising of the
Court, gave judgment in this case, which involved an im-
portant question under the compulsory dense of the new Act.
The prisoner had been confined in the Fleet Prison upwards
of twenty years, and some time since a vesting order was ob-
tained under the recent Act of Perliament, on the petition of
a gentleman named Richardson, who was the detaining cre-
ditor. Board was called upon to file a schedule and make a
disclosure of his property, he had not obeyed the order of the
Court, and the provisional assignee, on receiving an indemnity,
authorised an officer to make search for property on Board
and in the prison. The result was that considerable pro-
perty had been secured. An application was subsequently
made to commit the prisoner to Newgate for a disobedience
to the order calling upon him to file his schedule. The ap-
plication was made under the 36th, or compulsory clause, and
also under the 66th section of the same statute. The rule
was opposed, on the ground that the Court were not in a si-
tuation to grant the prayer of commitment from the Fleet Pri-
son to Newgate.

The Leai:Ued COMMISSIONER said, this was the first case
under the compulsory clause in which the question had been
raised. It Lad been contended, in showing cause against
the application, that the words " other persons" in the 66th
sectien were not applicable to the present case, that those
words which spoke of the commitment for contempt had re-
ference to persons connected with assignees, and not to per.
sons in the position of the prisoner. The Court %sere by no
means of opinion that the words had such a restriction. They
did not feel called upon to express their views on the
clause, but merely in regard to the application made in the
matter now before them. The prisoner was in the custody
of the Warden of the Fleet, and the question for their deci-
sion was, whether they could remove the person in contempt
from his custody to that of the keeper of Nevsgate ? With
respect to this ease, the Court thought that the Warden would
be in a situation legally to resist the removal of the man
out of his custody, and on that ground the rule yonld be
discharged.
Mr. COOKE applied for the assigneeship for the creditor
who had obtained the vesting order. The Court having de-
cided against the removal, the next step was to make the clause
as efficacious as possible.
The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER remarked that property
obtained under the compulsory clause was to be divided among
all the creditors, and not for the exclusive benefit of the per-
son who had procured the order.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN mentioned the circumstances of
an application made to him in this case, to send an officer to
the prison. The provisional assignee had acted on his own
authority, as specified by the Act.

Mr. (2ooKEsaid 1,0001. of property hzd been discovered in
the prison, belonging to Board, and seized for the creditors.
About 3001. had been taken from the prisoner's shoes.
It further appeared that Mr. Richardson, the petitioning
party, was a creditor for 8,0001.

Mr. COOKE remarked that, defective as the compulsory
clause was, it had operated in a beneficial manner.
The COURT made the appointment.
The judgment pronounced in this case will decide several
others.

POLICE ;NTELLMENcE.

BOIV-STREET.

On Wednesday 'a decent-looking v emu], named Croker,
stated that she was a widow, living in Ship-yard, Temple. bar,
and that she felt much aggrieved by the parish officers of St.
Martin's-in-the-Fields having sent off her daughter to the
Cape of Good Hope without the consent of the complainant.
According to the facts as they appeared in evidence, the wo-
man's address was unknown to the parochial officers. She
had lived as servant in a brothel, which was shut up when the
letter was sent to her respecting
the emigration of her daugh-
ter, under the auspices of the Children's Friend Society. Her
applicant had been in the
addi‘rier.ss
Lwe. as
Breton
haet the workhouse.
workhouse no less than seven times in the course of her life,
and the parish had expended 591. 16s. on the support of this
girl. After the account which the mother had given of her-
self—of her having lived as a servant in several brothels, he
thought there could be little doubt that the course which had
been adopted was that which was most likely to put the girl
into a good school fur her future guidance in life.
Mr. TWYFORD said that the only question was, whether, on
the part of the parish, due and proper means bed been taken
to give the mother notice of the intended mode of disposing of
the child.

A long and desultory conversation took place, in the course
of which it was suggested that the mother :should go out and
join her daughter, and she was informed that any communica-
tion she might wish to make to her child would be forwarded
without expanse. She, however, resisted all the efforts made
to afford her consolation, and repeatedly demanded the resto-
ration of her daughter. The parties then retired.

W OR SI/2P_STREE T.
FATAL CASE OF STARRING. John Bull, an individual of
very respectable appearance, who stated himself to be a clerk
in the City, was placed at the bar, before Mr. BROUGHTON,
charge) with having wilfully murdered William Rushbrook, a
cab-proprietor, by stabbing him with a knife.
After hearing evidence in support the charge.
Mr. BRot:GwroN said that he did not see one mitigating
feature to reduce the act below the crime of murder : but, as
the melancholy occurrence would be investigated elsewhere,
he should remand the triioncr to abide the result.
The } risoner (who had deported himself throughout the
investigation with remarkable firmness and self-possession) was
then removed from the bar. • The unfortunate deceased has
left a wife and child, the former of whom was present in a
most afflicted state of mind.

LAMBE7II. STREET.
Balthazer Leverberg (a German), and Thomas Morley,
'sere charged with stealing 5.5/. in cash, from the counting-
house of Messrs. Hornfield and Myer, skin-dressers, in Step-
ney, on Wednesday evening last.
After a lengthened investigation, the German was dis-
charged, and Morley, against whom there is strong evidence,
was remanded.

At Q - -
Liven-square on Friday, John Simplzin, driver
of the omnibus 1,506, was fined for racing with another omnibus.
Colonel Freemantle saw the fellow, and obtained a summons.