The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-10 00:00:00

TIE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 10, 1865.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day

SHERIFFS, COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
RICHARDSON T. MURRELL-IMPORTANT TO BUYERS AT
AUCTION SALES-SINGULAR DISPUTE.

This was an action to recover a sum of money alleged to
have been overpaid to the defendant or his servants on a
certain lot of goods sold at a public auction, and over which
the defendant, the well-known auctioneer, presided.
Plaintiff stated that he bid for and bought a certain lot
of goods, which came to £5 3s. He was applied to by one
of the defendant's men for £5 95., and paid that sum. Sub-
sequently plaintiff obtained an account from defendant, and
found that only £5 3s. had been due.
His Honour called for the account, and found that de-
fendant only charged £5 35., and only gave credit for that
sum paid.

Defendant's clerk stated that Mr. Murrell had no know-
ledge of any payment of. .£5 Os. Ho (witness) produced
the account of the sale, and his honour would find that
£5 3s. only had been charged.

His Honour (to plaintiff)—l see that defendant's book is
all right.

Plaintiff—l have nothing to do with that. I only know
that defendant's man came up to me and demanded the
money (X 5 95.) for my lot.

His Honour—But how do you make defendant liable ?
Plaintiff—lt is the custom at all auctions to pay the man
who makes up the lots and applies for the deposit. Now,
I do know that the man to whom I paid the money was in
the employment of Mr. Murrell, and when I parted with
the amount it was under that impression.
His Honour—But if the man received the money with-
out the knowledge or sanction of the auctioneer, how
would you make him liable ?

Plaintiff—l paid him as the servant of defendant.
Defendant's clerk—Both the men who were in the room
on the day of the sale are present now.
Two men came forward, and both swore that they had
never received the money now sued for.
Plaintiff challenged one of the men, but he swore in most
positive terms, "I did not take the 65."
Plaintiff—l swear I paid him.

Defendant's clerk—l attended the sale as clerk to the
auctioneer, and I alone am responsible for the amounts, and
to me should they be paid.

His Honour ruled that the auctioneer was not liable, and
if plaintiff could make out a case he should sue the man.
Plaintiff, as he left the box, turned to one of the men and
said, " You are a - liar, and I'll have it out of
your body if I don't have it out of your pocket."
The verdict was then entered for defendant, with costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Winslow.)
IN RE COLLINS.-A JOURNALIST BEFORE TILE COURT.

This _bankrupt was described as of Tavistock Hotel,
Covent-garden, now a prisoner for debt, journalist, and. to-
day he applied to be released from custody. It appeal ed
that the bankrupt had written a letter to the judgment
creditor upon the subject of some writs, and in one pas-
sage he suggested that the various copies left with him
would make excellent pipe lights. • There was some oppo-
sition to the order, but the Court granted it, and bank-
rupt was released.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.
0
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ALLEGED MISTAKEN IDENTITY.—A well-dressed young
woman, describing herself as a servant, and giving the
name and address as Sophia Bruce, of Prince's-street,
Edinburgh, was charged beforo Mr. Tyrwhitt, with steal-
ing a dressing-case and other articles, the property of Mr.
Robert Rivett, lodging at No. 10, Down-street, Piccadilly,
and some tablecloths and other articles, the property of
Mr. Samuel Florence, the landlord.

Mr. Rivett said he took the prisoner home with him, and
went to bed at an early hour on Tuesday morning. On
getting up he missed his dressing-case and other articles.
He spoke to his landlord, and he also missed several ar-
ticles, and he then gave information to the police. An
eye-glass found in the prisoner, but which had since been
broken, was his property.
The prisoner crying, said that the glass was her own
property, that she brought it from Edinburgh with her,
that she had never seen the prosecutor before, having only
arrived in London yesterday morning. She said that she
met a woman, went with her, had something to drink, and
lost the carpet bag. The charge was quite false.

Police-constable 143 C said that at two that morning
(Saturday) he saw the prisoner near the Marble Arch, and
as she answered the description given by the prosecutor
he took her into custody. The prosecutor at first hesitated,
but afterwards was positive as to the prisoner's identity.
As she was going along Down-street, she took from her
neck an eye-glass, and tried to make away with it, but ho
took it from her, and the prosecutor identifidd it as his
property. He should be able, if the prisoner were re-
manded, to bring forward a witness who saw her on Friday
with a bundle.

. The prisoner again denied all knowledge of the prose-
cutor or the robbery.

Mr. Tyrwhitt remanded her.

WESTMINSTER.

BURGLARY )3Y A PRIVATE OF THE FUSILIER GUARDS.—
George M'Nair, a private of the second battalion of the
Scotch Fusilier Guards, was charged with breaking into
the dwelling house of John B. Jackson, of 35, Upper Ebury-
street, and stealing an umbrella, two coats, and other
articles.
Benjamin Hawes, a lodger, said that about two o'clock
that morning he was alarmed by hearing some one in his
room. He struck a light, when he observed the prisoner,
who had on the dress of a private of the Fusilier Guards.
He asked the prisoner what he was up to. He replied,
" All right." Witness called up a man and told him to go
for a constable, as the prisoner had two coats on his arm,
one of which was his (witness's) property.. (The articles
were produced, as was a bar that had been broken from the
area window).
Mr. Arnold—Do you know the prisoner ?

Witness—l never saw him before.

Mr. J. R. Jackson, landlord of the house, said that he
went out for a police-constable, but could not find one till
he got to the station-house. A constable searched the
prisoner at the station-house, and found a few articles on
him which ho (witness) identified. Witness also examined
the premises, and found that the prisoner had got admis-
sion by breaking the wooden bar that secured the area
window. He had also broken four panes of glass, one of
which was close by the latch which closed the window,
and he got in by raising the window.
Police-sergeant, B 26, supported the last witness's evi-
dence, and said that the prisoner was sober.
Sergeant-Major Murray stated that the prisoner bore a
very indifferent character in the regiment.
Prisoner was remanded to Friday next.