The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-10 00:00:00

WESTBROOK V. KERRICH.

This was an action of trespass.
Sergeant Shee, Mr. Daly, and Mr. Bridgman were
for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and
Mr. Garth for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action, it appeared, was for-
merly in the service of the defendant, who is the
treasurer for the county of Surrey, and had the
management of an establishment for brickmaking
at Dorking, belonging to him. It seemed that
Mr. Kerrich had entered into some arrangement
to put the plaintiff into possession of this property,
upon the understanding that he should find a
partner who would provide a certain amount of
money, and the plaintiff was thereupon allowed
to enter into possession. The agreement, how-
ever, did not appear to have been carried
out, and a dispute arose, and the defendant desired
to regain possession of the property, and the steps
he took with that view led to the present action.
The learned Judge, in the result, put certain
questions to eat jury, the answer to one of them,
relating to a plea of loave and license that was upon
the record, being such as to amount to a veraict for
the defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-April 9.

FOURTH COURT.
(Before the Records;:.)
In the case of the "Queen v. Katliar,2 e Barbara
Wilson," charged with bigamy, it will be rOlem -
bared that an application was made on Monday to:
the postponement of the trial until the June sessions,
upon the ground that the defendant was not pre-
pared with evidence to rebut the charge against
her, but required time to obtain it from Toronto, in
Canada. The Recorder, on this application, said
that the affidavits filed were not sufficiently specific
for him then to concede the motion, and ordered it
to be mentioned again to-day.
Mr. Stannard, solicitor for the prosecution, said
that the learned counsel he had instructed were both
engaged on circuit, and in their absence he had to
apply to the Court to bail the defendant, on whose
application an arrangement had been made to put
offthe trial until June, upon terms, Those terms were
that the prosecution should be furnished with the
names of the parties at Toronto, from whom informa-
tion was sought in order that the prosecution might
have an opportunity of testing their evidence. If
that were not so, it would lead to the inconvenience
of asking in June for another two months' delay
for that purpose.
The Recorder said the arrangement had not been
made in court, and the terms now sought ought to
have been effected before that arrangement was
closed. He could not now interfere, and the trial
must stand adjourned till the June sessions.
The defendant's bail was glen enlarged until the
June sessions.
Thomas Mason, a man of respectable t;tnliearance,
was indicted for bigamy.
Mr. Metcalfe appeared for the prosecution; ana
Mr. Besley for the defence.
It was proved that the prisoner was married on
the Bth of October, 1843, at the church of St. Ann's
Soho, to a woman of the name of Matilda Garehoen,
a German, who was still living, but an inmate of
the Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum. It was further
proved in evidence that on the 21st January, 1855,
he was married to his cousin, Sarah Hands, to whom
he represented that his first wife was dead. With
the second wife he lived two years and a half, who
had a child by him. Two children were born by
his first wife.
The Recorder told the jury
the case was made
out, and that there really could be no defence.
and
The jury
immediately returned a verdict of
Hilt the prisoner was sentenced to twelve
months' imprisonment with hard labour.
Thomas George Chapman, 73 years of age, was
indicted for obtaining from Thomas Martin, the
sum of 1:3 by false and fraudulent pretences.
Mr. Ribton conducted the prosecution.
The evidence adduced went to show that the pro-
sccutor was the proprietor of the Albion Tavern,
Albion-road, Hammersmith, and that the prisoner,
who formerly had been sad builder, was a customer.
On the 30th of March, 1861, the prisoner came
to the tavern and said he was short of money to par
his men, and asked the prosecutor to lend him £3,
and he would leave his gold watch and chain, which
he wore ostentatiously in his vest pocket, as security.
The prisoner asserted that the watch and appen-
dages were gold, and worth £2O. On the prosecu-
tor agreeing to oblige him with the loan, the
' prisoner hastily wrapped up the watch and chain
in a piece of PaPer, and handed the packet to the

prosecutor, who put them in his pocket without any
examination. A few days after it was discovered
that the prisoner had levanted from his abode in
Hammersmith, and on hearing this prosecutor fur
the first time looked at the valuables placed as
security in his hands, and then found on inquiry
from a working jeweller that the articles were not
gold, and did not contain one particle of gold, and
were not worth the sum of ss. The prisoner kept
out of the way, and was not found until recently,
when he was given into custody.
The prisoner put in a written defence, which was
full of matter having not the least reference to the
present charge.
. The jury unhesitatingly pronounced a verdict of
Mr. Ribton said there were two other indictments
against the prisoner, one for forgery, but looking
at his extreme age, it would be useless to proceed
with them.
The Recorder concurred, and said the only diffi-
culty the Court felt was what to do with the pri-
soner. The sentence ultimately pronounced was
that he be imprisoned nine calendar months, with
directions that he should be sent to the infirmary
of the gaol.