The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-28 00:00:00

LINDSEY V. LEATHEY.

This cause, which was orignally tried at Guildhall, was
brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum effected as an
insurance on a ship called the Harbinger. The vessel in
question became disabled and so much damaged during a
voyage that she was compelled to put into Algoa Bay. The
plaintiff claimed for a total loss, and the company, repre-
sented by the defendant, contended it was only a partial
loss. At the trial the decision was in favour of the plain-
tiff. Mr. Bovill was about to move for a rule calling upon
the plaintiff to show cause why a new trial should not be
granted, on the ground that the verdict was against evi-
dence, when

The Lord Chief Ju,tico said he was compelled to absent
himself when the case was set down for last week. On that
occasion he had informed his learned 'Bothers, that there
ought be a new rule, and that being so, he thought it would
save time now if the rule was granted without the facts of
the case, which were very lengthy, being entered into.
Rule granted accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

THE CORPORATION OP GREAT YARMOUTH V. GROOM.

Their lordships were occupied the whole of the early part
of the day in hearing the arguments in this case, which
were without the slightest public interest. The principal
point appeared to be the tolls to be levied from the inhabi-
tants of the town of Ipswich for a stall in the market place.
The Court gave its decision in favour of the plaintiffs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
TIOWES V. FAWCETT.
This was an action brought to recover compensation for
injuries received. Ihe defendant contended that the plain-
tiff himself conduced towards the accident,
The defendant was a builder, and a quantity of scaffolding
fell from a building which was going on under his direction,
and the injury complained of was received by the plaintiff.
The defendant said that the plaintiff loosened the mate-
rials by jumping from one part of the scaffolding to the
other.

The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

THE "LONDINIAD" AND ITS POET.-CURIOUS ACTION.-

LIDSTONE V. "WALLIS.
This was an action to recover for 100 copies of a work
called the " Londiniad."

Plaintiff put in the order signed by defendant, in which
defendant agreed to take 100 copies of the work with a cer-
tain poem, and business card inserted.
Defendant said he had a little history to relate to the
court, which would much surprise all present. A gentle-
man called upon defendant, who is the proprietor of a ledger
index lately exhibited ty the Society of Arts, and with some
flow of language praised the valuable :nvention to the skies.
" I have," said the mysterious visitor, " written a poem
upon it—would you like to hear it ?" Defendant, of course,
much pleased, listened to the strain, and finally the visit
ended by an order for 100 copies of the "Londiniad," with
poem recited by the visitor, and defendant's busi-
ness card inserted. In course of time the
" Londiniad" arrived, but in only seventy-six
copies was the poem, it being excluded in the remaining 24,
When defendant read through the book he found to his
amazement that he was not the only inventor of !edger
indices worthy of a poem, for the " Londiniad's" poet had
called upon his muse to assist him on behalf of other gentle-
men whose works were much lauded.

Defendant, with some gusto and considerable dramatic
accent, read some of the poetry, which provoked great
laughter in court, and his Honour not being satisfied that
the whole 100 copies delivered, contained the poem found
for the defendant, with costs.

PROFESSIONAL MEN AND REFERENCES-DANS V. RIDDLER.

His Honour said he had asked a dentist to take a reference
in this ease, which was about artificial teeth, and the dentist
had refused.

Mr. Buchanan had no objection to omit.
His Honour— I think counsel could take the case as well
as a dentist.

Mr. Buchanan—Oh, quite.
His Honour—Mr. Gibbons will take it.
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Langham then conferred, and
agreed that the case should be referred to Mr. Gibbons.

POLICE-THIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH 'STREET.

DARING HIGHWAY ROBBERY.—FREQUENT NIGHT
ROBBERIES.—Wm. Angel, a tall, rough-looking fellow,
was charged with the following highway robbery.
Henry James NVessen, a porter at Mr. Burton's, iron-
monger, of Oxford-street, said, that at five minutes past 12
on Saturday night, the prisoner came up to him at the
corner of Goodge-street and asked him an address. He im-
mediately felt the prisoner's hand at his watch, and the pri-
soner started off, having taken the watch and leaving the
guard dangling. He immediately pursued the prisoner with
the cry of " Stop thief," and while he did so he was twice
bonnetted by men who he had no doubt wt rp t 1P rrieraier's
friends, in Pitt street. He afterwards gave the prisoner in
charge in John-street. The watch produced was his pro-
perty. _ _

. _
John Strode, a painter, of 4, Pitt-street, proved hearing
a cry of " Stop thief," and pursuing the prisoner and stop-
ping him.

James Craske, 160 E, said he was informed by a little boy
that a man bad been stopped in John-street. On going up
the prosecutor gave the prisoner in charge. He afterwards
received the watch from the landlord of No. 87, John-street,
the prisoner in his flight having thrown it down the area.
The prisoner was remanded by Mr. Knox for a week.

FISHING IN THE SERPENTINE.—ASSAULT ON A PARK-
KEEPER.—Henry Ovens was charged with assaulting John
Browning, Hyde-park constable No. 21.

Browning said he stopped the prisoner yesterday morning
at eleven, and told him, he having children with him, that
he must not fish in the Serpentine. Prisoner said, " What,
do you call this fishing ?" He (witness) took the can away
from one of the children, and then the prisoner made an
attack on him and bit his thumb, and behaved in an ex-
cited manner, and called out to the bystanders to assist
him.

Defendant—l was wheeling a child along at the time in
a perambulator, when the park-keeper came up and said I
had been fishing. The park-keeper seized a can from the
child to throw it in the water, and I tried to prevent him.
If I had known I was not allowed to fish, I would have
given up the fish at once.

Mr. Knox said when a park-keeper came up to do his
duty he must not be assaulted. It was absurd to talk of
its being an offence for little children to catch the fish;
but he (defendant) had lost his temper, and acted wrongly.
His only fear, when he (the magistrate) went to see for
himself, ws that the little children might fall in. They
did not seem to be in anybody's way. lie had on a former
occasion told the park-keeper to take the sticks and bottles
away, but not to bring the children to the court in custody.
The defendant was fined ss.