The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-02 00:00:00

'

LA W---THIS DAY.

Etailwave

Atlantic St Lawrencf
Bom.,Baroda&Cent
Gu. 5 per cent...
Do. New . .
Buffalo and Laxe Huron
Do. Preference •• • • • •
Buffalo, Brant,&G odricli
,6 p. et. bda. Aug. 1, 1,'3712
Do, do, July 1, 1673
Do. do. Jun. 1, 1,74
Clcutta.&S.Eastn. (Li!
Cape Town t Dock Scrip
East'', Bengal gu. 5 p. c
Last Indian, gu. 5 p. c.
Do. do. G Ext.....
Do. do. H do. ..
Grand Trunk of Canadv
Do. 6 per cent. Pref'..
Do. 2d Pref. 6 per ct..
Do. 6 per ct. Debentr.
Do. 7 per cent. 1862 ..
Do. do. 1867..
Do. do. 1872..
G t.lndiaPenin.gua.sp.c
Do. New gua. 5 p. c...
Do, January, 1862 ..
Gt. Sout.h.of India (Lim
guaranteed 5 per cent.
Gt. W. of Canada Share,-
Do. New .......
Do. 6 p.o. '73 witiet opt.
Do. 5i p. c. do. '77-8....

Paid,
all

Closini
Price.
65 67
101 105

Business doi

1041 I I

COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
MARTIN P. PUTTICK.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Martin,
of the Choral Union, against the defendant, one of the com-
mittee of the Sacred Harmonic Society.
Mr. Huddleston appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., for the defendant.
The plaintiff it appeared was in the Crystal Palace on the
occasion of the Handel Festival, and during the day he
went into one of the apartments of the Palace over which
the words " Third-class Refreshment Room" was placed,
and when there the defendant came in, and in a very indig-
nant manner demanded to know by what right Mr. Martin
was there, as he must have known that the room kad been
specially appropriated on that occasion to the use of the
gentlemen forming the orchestra. Defendant re-
quested plaintiff to show him his ticket of admission;
but Mr. Martin,
Puttick, refused to produce the card, saying he had it in
feeling annoyed at the manner of Mr.
his possession, and that he had all sady shown it at the door
when he entered. A quarrel ensued between the parties,
when Mr. Puttick called for the aid of the police, and on
one of the constables arriving he (defendant) said to him—
pointing to Mr. Martin—" Remove that man." This led
to further confusion, when the constable told Mr. Martin
that he must leave the place or he should to compelled to
use force. Mr. Martin complained that Mr. Puttick had
no right to place such an indignity upon him, and there-
fore he sought by this action to recover compensation for
the affront.

51 51
8 8i
76 80
74 78
71 74
104 106
106 1074
105} 1064
108 169
1 llp
i
21 22
69 71
60 62
33 35
15 48
33 35
33 35
106 107
E
I 1p

104 105
121 IS
7; 71
97 99
90 92

Indian Branch Limited
Madras guar., 5 p. 0. ..
Do. 41p. c. Extensim.
Dc. 14 d 0...
)srelb.Corn. 8 p. o. Bndf.
iMelb. & Hobson's Bay.
Do. 7 p. a Mortg. Bds.
Newßrunswiok a Cand..

i i dis
1034 1014
98 100
94 96

51 63

' Class A Capital Share
Do. do. B Capital d0...'
N.Rl.C'da 6 pa lst If bds
Sainde
Do. Delhi
..;
Do. do
1130. Punjaub .... r :73. e.
Do. Do. .. • • e,
Do. Indus. St. Flo.)

3 5
3 5
83 85
105} 106 i
103 ii 1044
i In
101 105
100 102

The cross-examination of Mr. Martin by Mr. Hawkins
having concluded,
The learned Judge said that an arrangement might be
possible between the parties, as the constable had by no
means gone beyond the bounds of his duty in carrying out
the directions of Mr. Puttick, who had at that time an one-
rous duty to perform. He did not for a moment suppose that
Mr. Puttick intended to personally insult Mr. Martin.
A consultation took place between the parties, when
Mr. Hawkins said, on the part of Mr. Puttick, he cer-
tainly did not mean to put any indignity on Mr. Martin.
The jury then returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with
nominal damages.

IV A

7! 76
If 2
11 11

7 6 1
1 p

aq Eli

11 141

COURT OF EXCHEQUEB.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Common Jury.)
MORRIS V. PARRITT.
This was an action brought by the parents of the plaintiff
for damages for a violent assault committed on him by the
defendant.

The plaintiff and three other boys, it appeared, were re-
turning home on the day in question, when one of the lads
threw a pear up, which lodged on the wall of the garden of
Mr. Parritt. The boy Morris, in attempting to recover the
pear, climbed up the wall, when the defendant rushed out
and beat the boy about the head and back, in a very severe
manner. From the injuries the boy received he was con-
fined to his bed for some time, and medical aid was rendered
necessary.

The other lads who were with the boy described the
manner in which the defendant struck the lad Morris, and
a working man, who happened to be passing at the time,
also said ho saw the boy struck by the defendant in a very
violent way.

The defence was that no more correction was administered
than was deserved.

The jury, after a short consultation, gave a verdict for
.he plaintiff, damages ,Rl5.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
THE ELECTRIC AND INTERNATIONAL TELEGRAPH CONS

PANY V. POPE.
This was an action to recover 6s. extra " porterage,'
under circumstances of considerable importance to tele.
graph companies and the public.
_ _

Mr. Winckworth, of Gresham House, for the company,
said that although the amount in this case appeared small,
the company felt itself bound to obtain his Honour's opinion
upon the issue between the parties.

Mr. Puwnall, in the company's service, said—Some time
since I received a message from defendant, who was an
attorney;and it was directed to Miss Cunningham, Wrad-
more House, Nottingham. Defendant said that it was
about one or two miles distant from the company's station
at Nottingham, and I charged 2s. 6d. for the message, and
Is. porterage. When the message reached Nottingham it
was discovered that Wradmore House was seven miles dis-
tant, and we had to employ a mounted express at a cost of
7s. or Is. per mile.

Mr. Wilson, assistant secretary to the company, produced
the published tariff, which, in reference to the question of
porterage, when the distance exceeded three miles, called
strict attention to rules 64 and 65; and those rules autho-
rised the company to charge Is. per mile for the special
express.

His Honour found by the receipt given to defendant that
the message was delivered "in accordance with the terms
of the company's published tariff."
_ _

Defendant said he rested his case upon one recently
decided, Behrens v. the Great Northern Railway Company.
There defendants pleaded non-liability, because plaintiff
had not paid an extra rate, but the court held that as plain-
tiff's attention had not been called to the extra rate he could
not be held bound by it. Here defendant's attention was
not called to the extra porterage, or he would not have sent
the message.
His Honour ruled that defendant's attention was called
to the published tariff by the very wording of the receipt,
and it was defendant's duty to have made himself acquain-
ted with the nature of rules GI and 65. The case quoted
did not apply, and it would be very unreasonable to expect
a Telegraph Company to carry
a message seven miles for
Is. A reasonable construction must be put upon the words
in the receipt, and plaintiffs would have • verdict.
Mr. Winckworth—Not one farthing of this money goes
into the company's hands.
His Honour—Just
settled.
Verdict for plaintiffs) who recovered extra costs.
so. It is purely a question to be

TIIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 2, 1862.

lieved to be stolen, were brought before Mr. Mansfield for
the purpose of committal.
Mr. Warrand, solictor to the Association:for the Prose-
cution of Shoplifters, &c., prosecuted, and Mr. Pater, bar-
rister, defended Adams.
The prisoners visited the house of Messrs. Grant and
Gask, silk mercers, of Oxford-street, and was followed by
an assistant, and given into custody, when two pieces of
silk handkerchiefs—four in each—and some drawers, with
shop-marks on them, showing that they had not been sold,
were found upon them by Moorcroft, 165 E, and Hiscock,
51 E.

Mr. Pater having cross-examined one of the constables,
Henry Gardner, assistant to Messrs. Clack, 102, Oxford-
street, hosiers and outfitters, identified some of the articles
found on the prisoners as the property of the firm, and said
the value of them was 30s.
In cross-examination the witness said he recognised the
goods by the shopmarks on them, they having been marked
by one of the firm.

The witness was closely pressed by Mr. Pater as to his
knowledge of the fact whether the goods had been sold or
not, and said they had not been sold for four days before
they were found on the prisoners, and that he could not re
cognise the prisoners as having been in the shop.
The constable said there was no owner for the handker-
chiefs.

Mr. Warrand said the prisoners were found with some
things in their possession, and they had both given false
addresses.

Boden, one of the officers of the court, said that one o
the prisoners had been tried.

Mr. Pater addressed the magistrate at some length on
he part of Adams.

Mr. Mansfield said he should send the case before a jury,
and the prisoners were committed for trial.