The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-09 00:00:00

LAW INT.

(This Day).

PRIVY COUNCIL,
(Before Lord Chelmsford and Lords Justices Turner and
Knight Bruce.)
THE UNITED STATES.-JUDGMENT.

This was an action brought by the proprietors of the
Otter steamer, to recover damages for injuries alleged to
have been inflicted through the negligence that occurredon
the occasion of the launch of the United States, below
London Bridge, on the 9th of March, 1864. It appeared
that the Otter was going down the river on the afternoon of
the day in question, when she was struck by the Columbine
which was driven against her by the United States, which
was then launched. The proprietors of the United States
contended that the damage was caused by the negligence
of the persons in charge of the Otter, who omitted to attend
to the announcement that had been made as to the intended
launch. The case was heard before Dr. Lushington,
assisted by the Trinity Masters, who decided in favour of
the defendants. The case came before their lordships on an
appeal from that decision.

Lord Chelmsford delivered an elaborate judgment this
morning, and said that their lordships were of opinion that
as there had been some departure from the prescribed prac-
tice in regard to giving the proper signal at the time of the
launch, the respondents shbuld pay half the amount of the
damage claimed, but no costs were to be allowed on either
side.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE LEONE.-HEAVY FAILURE.

The bankrupt was described as a merchant of Love-
lane, and to-day he came up to pass his examination and
for the order of discharge. The debts are £254,000,
with assets £160,000; leaving a deficiency of £94,000.
His Honour ordered an adjournment for account; which
had been ordered to be produced on a previous occasion.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)

''COACHING" AND "GRINDING" FOR SCHOLARSHIPS AT OXFORD.

at'slIANE V. XASON•

This was an action to recover £4 for two months' tuition
of defendant's son, plaintiff ling a tutor of Barnsbury
House, Liverpool-road, and defendant being a doctor of
medicine, of 16, Redcross-street.

Plaintiff said that defendant's son was anxious to com-
pete for a scholarship at Oxford,- and plaintiff coached him
H ith his mathematics for two months.

His Honour thought that the charge was not at all high.
Defendant deposed that he did not owe the money. His
son was going to Oxford, and before he departed it became
necessary for him to go to some preparatory establishment.
Plaintiff recommended Mr. Rutter's, at Broxbourne, in
Essex, the terms being 30s. per week for board, lodging,
and tuition, and this money had been paid. Defendant
handed up a letter which had been written by the plaintiff
upon the subject.

His Honour read it, and found that plaintiff had pointed
out to defendant that he was paying great attention to
young Mason, and that he hoped defendant would give him
a fee of £2 per month, in the event of James (the son)
getting a scholarship, as no one but plaintiff would
" grind" so attentively as plaintiff had done' for the two
months during which the son had been at Rutter's.

His Honour—This puts you out of court, plaintiff.
Plaintiff—Surely I am entitled to be paid my fee. I
should like to ask defendant a question. I can swear that
the £6 was only for board and lodging, and not for tuition
at all.

His Honour—l read your own letter, and I find from that
that you ask the fee as a matter that had not been previ-
ously agreed upon. You have been paid the £6 per month ?
Plaintiff—l have had nothing yet. The son did not get
a scholarship. . I paid very great att,eution to the son, and
if he had paid attention he would have been safe to have
got the scholarship. My coaching was worth £5OO to him.
His Honour—l do not think that too much coaching
would make the scholarship safe.

Defendant—l never promised the plaintiff that I would
pay him £2. My agreement was that my son should go
to Mr. Butter's, and that £6 per month was to include
everything.

Plaintiff—Then I shall put it to your Honour if it is
likely that a man can be coached and ground for £6 per
month.

His Honour—l have nothing to do with that. All I have
to do is to administer the law, and upon your own letter
you are out of court.
Plaintiff—But he never answered my letter.
life Honour—He was not bound to do it.

Plaintiff—His son promised that I should be paid, and
that son is now in court.

His Honour—Well, you can call the son, and make him
your witness if you like.
James Mason (the son) said—l went to Mr. Rutter's, and
the agreement was that £6 per month should be paid for
everything. I never promised plaintiff that I would ask
my father for the money, nor did I tell plaintiff that my
father had told me he would pay the fee.
His Honour—Here is your own witness.

Plaintiff—l should like his last answer to be taken down,
as I can produce witnesses from Rutter's to prove that it is

untrue.

His Honour—Then you have your remedy. At present
you will be non-suited.
Plaintiff non-suited, with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCES—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

CIIARGE OF CONSPIRING tO SET FIRE TO A HOUSE.-

Herman Meyer, of No. 90, Queen-street, Cheapside, mer-
chant, and Wm. Noble, of No. 17, Forster-street, New
North-road, clerk, were charged before Mr. Knox with
conspiring together to set fire to the house No. 21, Frith-
street, Soho.

Mr. Montague Williams, instructed by Mr. Clarence
[larcourt, appeared for the prisoner, and Mr. Albert in-
terpreted.

Mr. Joseph Picom, of 21A, Frith-street, Soho, said—l
wanted some money, and wanted a bill of sale on my house,
and Meyer lent me £4O on Friday week, taking a bill of
sale on the house and furniture as security. After he lent
me the money he called me to his office and asked me to
sign a bill of sale for £550 on Tuesday week. I did sign
it, under threats. The threats were that if I did not
sign the bill he would seize my goods. When I
heard this I consented to sign the bill of sale
On the Tuesday following he proposed to set fire to the
house, saying, " Mr. Joseph, it will be one of the best
things you did in your life if you set fire to your house,'
and as he threatened to seize my goods I accepted the pro-
posal, fearing the brokers would come into the house. The
same or the next day he advanced me .E 39 more. He did
this on account of my consenting that he should do as he
pleased. It was by consenting to his offer that he
advanced the money, and Meyer made me sign a bill
for £B7. This included the £4O and £3O. On
Saturday last he gave me another £25, as I was
to make a bill of sale for £l2O. On Saturday Noble
and another man named Grey commenced bringing things
to the house. At first I did not know what they were, but
since found them candles, pitched or tarred wood, and two
bottles containing white liquid, but I do not know whether
it was petroleum or not. On Monday they brought four
parcels containing 81bs of grease. On Saturday he saw
Noble bring a carpet-bag, but did not know what was in it.
Noble lodged in the room No. 6 since Saturday, and it was
in that room the articles were put, Noble keeping the key.
Mr. Knox—Up to this stage we have not heard that
Noble said anything to him.
Prosecutor—Noble did not speak to me, and if he had I
should not have been able to understand him. On the
Monday Noble and Gray told me that I should leave the
day following, and that as soon as I reit-they would set fire
to the house. On Tuesday Gray came, and we had a con-
versation. I said, " You shall not set fire to my house at
all." This was said to Gray, but Noble and a clerk of Mr.
Meyer's were present. Gray said, "toll ought to have
informed us of this before. Now we have brought all
the necessary articles here. I said, I allowed them to
bring the articles there only because Mr. Meyer had threat-
ened three times to seize my goods, and I was afraid he
would." Gray then left the house, but Noble and the other
man remained. Yesterday Meyer came, very angry, and
again said he would seize the goods, that he never in-
tended to set fire to the house, that it was all a lie, and ho
then took Noble away with him. A discussion arose, and
in spite of three policemen he took Noble away with him,
Noble taking the key with him. I then went and made
my complaint to the police.
Mr. Knox—Did the police come to the house, and did
they finkanything?
Prosecutot—The police came and.a locksmith was:sent
for, but I did not go into the room.
Mr. Knox—l would like to know whether he saw with
his own eyes Noble bring anything to the house in the way
of combustibles or not.
Prosecutor—l did not.

Mr. Knox—Ask him, Mr. Albert, if the house was in-
sured, because we have heard no motive for setting the

house on fire.

Mr. Albert having asked the question, prosecutor said—
On the Tuesday before the house and contents were
insured for £l,OOO. I know it because Mr. Meyer told me
o , and Mr. Meyer's clerk accompanied me to the office—
the insurance office. It was in a street past Temple-bar,
No. 21. I had an old policy of the house with me, and said
I wanted to renew it.

Inspector Williamson—l believe it was the Norwich
Union Fire Insurance Office, 29, Fleet-street.

Prosecutor—They kept my old policy there.
By Mr. Montague Williams—We were insured before in
the same office, but did not remember the name. I have
been insured ever since. I had the house eight months ago.
The house was insured when I bought it, and I continued
the insurance. The clerk of Mr. Meyer had the old policy.

I left it at the office. I believe the clerk's name is Shaw.
The policy produced is not the policy the clerk took to the
office. There is another policy. There were two policies
in existence when I took the house--one on the house and
the other on the furniture. They were transferred to
Metteau. I have seen the policy produced before. I have
had £97 from Meyer in all. I only gave one bill of sale for
£558. I never had my papers in my house. They were