The Sun.
London, England, 1865-09-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE--This Day.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Gibbons.)
THE LAW AS TO NECESSARIES FOR AN " INFANT."

WILSON V. JONES.—This was an action to recover for
goods, supplied to defendant.

Plaintiff deposed to having served defendant with various
articles, which he had received but not paid for.
Defendant's father attended, ancrstated that his son was
not of age at the time the goods were supplied.
His Honour (to tho clerk)—ls there any plea of infancy
in tho case ?

The Clerk answered that no such plea had been filed.
His Honour—You see that, according to the rules of the
Court, a defendant is bound to file .any special plea of this
kind a certain number of days before he can avail himself
of it on the day of hearing.
Defendant's father had only to repeat that his son was
a minor.

His Honour requested plaintiff to hand up a list of the
goods supplied to defendant, and upon receiving it, pro-
ceeded to read the same.

Plaintiff—All those things were supplied to defendant.

His Honour—You s?e, Mr. Jones, that your son has had
positive necessaries. Here is a roll and a bloater. (Laugh-
ter.) Now, 1 cannot say that a roll and bloater are not
necessaries for an infant. (Renewed laughter.) There is
then a double objection to the defence. In the first place,
it has not been regularly pleaded ; and in the second, the
goods are necessaries. An infant must live, and there is
no law of which I am aware that prevents a tradesman
from suing an infant for that which is necessary to accom-
plish such a desirable object.

Plaintiff—He ate them. (Laughter.)
His Honour—The only defence before me is ono that I
cannot entertain, and it should be well understood that
.when necessaries are supplied to an infant he can be sued
for them. Nov food is clearly such a necessary, and I
must in this case find a verdict for plaintiff, .vith costs.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

FOLICE INTELLIGENCE,—This Day.

BOW-SiREET.

THE EXTENSIVE ROBBERY AT PROFESSOR IrloLLowAT's.
—The three men lately employed as clerks, Spooner, Sel-
len, and Utton, were again placed at the bar for further
examination.

'The way in which the prisoners appeared to have com-
mitted the frauds was, that correct sums were entered in
some of the books, and then the figures, after the books
had been checked, were erased from the pound (£) or first
column of the cash-book, by which shillings were made
to appear for pounds actually charged.
Mr. S. Goddard said I am the accountant at Mr. Hollo-
way's establishment. Spooner's:duty was to receive cash,
and to make entries of all money paid away in the cash-
book. It was his duty to purchase the postage stamps,
and they would be entered as a separate item. The pri-
soner had another small book, called the cashier's
postage book. He ought to debit himself with the
amount expended, and get receipts from all clerks
who used or received any of them, and enter their
initials in the book which would be his discharge. Each
clerk kept a bookin which all entries of stamps used ought
to be made. Utton kept the home department ledger in
my department. He also had the care of the private ledger
which contained the expenses of postage for six months.
It was his duty to see the accounts therein properly
corresponded with the other books. Sellen kept the
colonial advertising ledger and the colonial postage
book. On the 4th of January, 1865, I find an entry
in Spooner's writing "Postage £6 10s," but in his
postage cash book I find no such entry. On
referring to the private ledger kept by Utton, I found on
the 4th of January the sum of 10s. only charged, an erasure
appearing in the pound column. On the 6th of January,
1865, I found an entry by Spooner of £4, but in the private
ledger I found only 4s. charged in the handwriting of
Utton.

Witness was examined with respect to similar entries,
all which had been dealt with in the manner above de-
scrib d.

Mr. Arkill said—l have been in the service of Mr. Hol-
loway. I left in March last. lam familiar with Spooner
and Sellen's handwriting. I have examined the cashier's
postage book, and found some differences. The witness
here gave the figures in detail.
Mr. Stamforth, the manager of the colonial department
of Mr. Holloway's business. I have looked at the postage
book kept by Sellen, and I find in May Sellen by the book
appears to have discharged himself of £9 for postage. I
found that he has charged ls. 10s. on postage for foreign
letters upon which the correct amount would only be is.
The Indian postages, as a rule, Sellen has charged ls. 10d.,
whereas the correct sum would be either 6d. or 10d. Of
the £9, I find that £4 16s. 10d. out of that sum has been
expended, and the firm defrauded out of the remainder—
£l 3s. 10d.

Mr. Holloway, the brother of the prosecutor and ma-
nager of the establishment, said the postage books had
been examined from the commencement of the year, and
the deficiency in that period was £5ll, and in Sellen's de-
partment about £5O or £6O. That was quite separate from
other frauds that have been discovered.
Sergeant Hamblen said—When I took the prisoners into
custody at Mr. Holloway's establishment in the Strand, I
told them.that I was a police constable, and that they were
given into custody for robbing their employer. •
Sellen said—l admit my sharo in the transaction.
Utton said—l can clear myself of my part ; and Spooner
made no reply at all.

Mr. Lewis said he now had to ask for the committal of
the prisoners on the charges of robbery and conspiracy.

Mr. Ricketts contended that there was no evidence
against Sellen for conspiracy.
Mr. Flower thought there was quite sufficient to justify
the committal of all the three prisoners, and he should
therefore send them all for trial at the Central Criminal
Court. •