The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THU'RSDAY EVENING, AUGUST 7, 1862.'

at the Admiralty :—Robert J. C. Grant, master, to
the Argus ; T. B. Purchas, surgeon, to the Argus ;
J. Brown, chief engineer to the Asia, for the Prince
of Wales; J. Barnett, supernumerary in the Fisgard,
promoted to acting first-class assist. -engineer ; S.
M'Bean, acting assist.•surg. to the Argus ; T. H.
Flood, master's assistant, to the Himalaya; and R.
Harboard, assistant-clerk, to the Meander.

The force of Royal Artillery at Warley barracks
near Brentwood, continues to be gradually reduced.
During the past week two draughts—one consisting
of 105 gunners, under the command of Capt Bayley,
and the other of 10 non-commissioned officers and
135 gunners—have left en route for India.

THE GREAT UMBRELLA QUESTION.

The dispute in reference to the fee on deposit of
umbrellas and walking-sticks was settled yesterday
by a decision in the Brompton County Court. Capt.
Garnham, a season ticket holder, after a controversy
with the Commissioners on the subject, gave them
notice of his intention to refuse payment of the
penny, and accordingly he did so on the 14th ult.
His umbrella was, therefore, detained, and Captain
Garnham thereupon entered a plaint to recover the
sum namely, 10s. the value of the um-
brella, of 315
lla, with £2 2s. damages, and 3s. costs.
Mr. Roberts appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Sergeant Ballantine for the commissioners.

Evidence having been given of the facts,
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine contended that the com-
missioners had a right to make regulations exclud-
ing walking-sticks and umbrellas from the picture
gallery ; and if, for the convenience of the public,
they appointed persons to receive those articles from
visitors, they had a right to charge for their ser-
vices, notice having been given by them that such
charge would be made.

Mr. Adolphus, the judge, wished to know whether
the learned gentleman contended that in this case
the commissioners had merely a lien on the umbrella,
or whether they said they had a right of forfeiture?
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine only maintained that
there was a lien.
His Honour—ln that case where was the evi-
dence of the contract out of which this lien arose ?

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said that as the gallant
captain had elected this mode of trying his right,
he had in fact entered into a contract to pay the
money. He might, for instance, have attempted to
enter with his umbrella, and on being prevented he
might have brought an action for a nominal assault.
Mr. Roberts, on the other hand, contended that
as his client had given the commissioners formal
notice that he would not pay the penny, he had
clearly not entered into any contract to do so.
Mr. Adolphus said there could be no question
that the commissioners had a right to make regula-
tions for the admission of the public into the pic-
ture gallery; and if they had not excluded sticks
and umbrellas, they would be inexcusable in omit-
ting an obvious precaution for the protection from
possible injury of property which had been placed
at their disposal by the kindness of its owners, and
which no money could restore. That being so, it
was clearly a great accommodation to the public to
provide for the safe custody of sticks and umbrellas ;
and it was a service which the commissioners could
not, and which he should say the public
did not as a body expect them to perform'
gratis. It did not appear to him that there was
any compulsion on the visitors ; for it was perfectly
optional to them whether they availed themselves
of the arrangement or not. It might be perfectly
true that other accommodation might not be easy
to find; but still he should say that a gentleman who
went about bristling with the ideas he entertained of
his rights and privileges, might be able to dispense
with the commissioners' servant if he chose. When
it was the custom to give the box-keepers at
Covent-garden or Drury-lane theatre sixpence for
taking charge of a stick or umbrella, there was once
a penurious or eccentric old gentleman who used to
take his umbrella to the nearest pawnbroker's. He
used to pawn it for 55., and he then managed to
have it kept for him five hours at a very much less
rate than 6d. He (the learned judge) was of opinion
that when a person left his umbrella with the com-
missioners' servant, he entered into an implied con-
tract to pay the penny ; but in the present case
where the plaintiff had expressly given notice that
he would not pay, it could not be held that he made
such a contract as could give the commissioners a
lien on the umbrella. He must therefore order them
either to return it, or to pay the plaintiff 10s. As
to the damages, he supposed it would not be respect-
ful to give them at a farthing, and so he would say
a shilling.

Captain Garnham observed that his object had
been to obtain a decision on the point.

The effect of this judgment is substantially in
favour of the commissioners. If a person does not
give notice that he will not pay, he is liable to have
his stick or umbrella detained till the penny is
forthcoming. If he does, the commissioners are
entitled to refuse to receive the stick or umbrella,
and to exclude the bearer of it from the picture
gallery while it retains in his possession.

Western Railway Company's police, said that the
prisoner was on duty at the station on the evening
in question, and he ought not to have left without
the permission of witness until 12 o'clock. When
witness saw him in custody on the present charge,
ho told him of the disgrace he had brought on them,
when he declared that he never had a ring.
Charles White, a porter at the Waterloo station,
said that on the evening of the 18th of June he saw
Rfchards with a diamond ring on his finger, set with
two cameos. He showed it to witness, and said it
was worth £3O. Witness saw Richards take a bag
to the cloak-room.

- Elizabeth Sarah Bird, attendant at the waiting-
room of the Waterloo Station, said that on the same
evening Richards showed her a ring. It was a gold
ring, set with two cameos and diamonds. He told
her it was worth £3O, that aman had given it to him,
and if he did not come for it he should stick to it.
He then left the station, saying that he had paid
another man is. 6d. for doing his duty.
The jury then found. them guilty.
The court sentenced each to 12 months' hard
labour.
_

M r. Best, specially retained, with Mr, Eyre Lloyd,
prosecuted ; Mr. Lilley defended Richards, and Mr.
Thomson lir hicher.

(Before Thomas Tilson, Esq., Deputy-Chairman.)
Joseph Gondono, 13, whose connexions are highly
respectable, surrendered to take his trial for unlaw-
fully causing to be administered to Ruth Glynn a
certain drug called cantharides, so as thereby to
cause her grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Robinson prosecuted; and Mr. Thomson, in-
structed by Mr. Herring, defended the accused
youth.
The prosecutrix, who appeared to be very un-
well, said she was thirteen years of age. On the
10th ultimo she went to Richmond with a school to
have a feast. The defendant was there with other
boys, and they mixed together in the course of the
day. A lad named Chapman came up to her and
gave her a tart, saying that it was sent by Gondono.
She ate it, and a little while afterm ards defendant
came up to her and asked her how she felt. She
told him that she was not well, when he made use
of improper conversation towards her, threw her on
the ground and took liberties with her. Afterwards,
in the presence of her sister, he said he knew what
was the matter with her ; and on her sister asking
him, he pulled out a paper, and showed ner some
flies which he said he had put in the tart while
they were at tea.

Edward Chapman, 16, said that he was with
Gondono on the day in question, and he gave him
two tarts to give to the prosecutrix and her sister.
He did not know that there was anything of a
hurtful nature in them. On the way home in the
train Ruth Glynn was so bad that she had to be
held down to prevent her jumping out of the win-
dow.

George Russell, 13, said that Gondono gave him
2d. when at Richmond, and told him to go to a
chemist's and buy some Spanish flies. Witness did
so, and gave them to him. Witness also bought
four tarts and gave two to the prisoner.
Edward Moore, another lad, said he heard the
defendant say on Sunday that he should put Spanish
flies in some cakes for the girls.
Mr. Morton, chemist, Richmond, said he recol-
lected selling some Spanish flies to Russell. He
only gave him three, and had no idea that he was
going to put them in anything.
Mr. Thomson made a very powerful appeal to the
jury, but they returned a verdict of guilty.
The Deputy-Chairman postponed passing sen-
tence, to ascertain the result of the girl's illness.
The prisoner was bailed out by his friends.
Jane Mayor, 41, a singular and malicious-looking
woman, was indicted for unlawfully and maliciously
committing damage to a plate-glass window, worth
.£2O, the property of Mr. Tring, hosier, High-
street, Southwark.
It appeared from the evidence of Edward Savage,
assistant to the prosecutor, that on Saturday even-
ing week he was at tending the shop, when he heard a
smashing of the plate-glass front. He immediately
rushed out and seized hold of the prisoner's hand,
just as she was in the act of breaking another large
square. She resisted very much, but an officer came
up, and took from her a pound weight, which she
had fastened in one corner of her shawl, with which
she had committed the damage.

The prisoner made a most rambling statement,
full of falsehoods, and the jury found her guilty.
It was then proved that 10 months ago she was
tried and sentenced to eight eight months' impri-
sonment at these sessions for smashing Mr. Tring's
plate glass, of the value of £5O.
The Deputy-Chairman sentenced her to sixteen
months' hard labour.