The Sun.
London, England, 1862-09-17 00:00:00

EVINENG, SEPTEMBER 17, -1862.

LAW-THIS DAY.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque.)

IN RE LOGAN.

This was the seventh application for release from cus-
tody. The facts of the case have appeared on former occa-
sions. On the last Mr. Commissioner Goulburn said he
would not allow the bankrupt to be released unless he pro-
duced two bail in £lOO each for his future attendance; full
notice to be given of the parties proposed.
Mr. Sargood, for the detaining creditor, complained of
the delay and loss occasioned by the bankrupt—it was his
seventh application, and the notices were now unsatisfac-
tory. They were signed by Messrs. Aldridge and Bromley
—who appeared to hold in this case a very anomalous po-
sition—they were supposed to be protecting the creditors,
yet here they appeared to represent the bankrupt.
A gentleman said Mr. Aldridge was the Crown Solicitor.
His Honour—Crown fiddlesticks! There is no such
thing. He might as well call himself Solicitor-General.
Mr. Sargood said he would wish to examine the bail, but
they were not forthcoming, and he asked ter costs.
His Honour—l shall not interfere until the costs are
paid.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before ➢lr. Potter and a Common Jury.)
THE ADVENTURES OF AN OUT OF TERM ACTION.

BALDWIN V. PARRISH.
This was an action brought in the Court of Queen's
Bench, and sent down for trial at this court last December
The writ has been withdrawn three times, and bears four
seals, looking altogether a most portentous document.
Mr. Binns, for the plaintiff, informed the reporter that
the reason the writ had been withdrawn so many times was
in consequence of the defendant having refused to make
terms, and it is rather unusual in the out of term season to
have a record at this court.
When the case was called on this morning it did not oc-
cupy five minutes, plaintiff proving a positive promise to
pay. No one appeared for defendant, although that person
had pleaded never indebted.
After hearing the evidence, the learned Secondary said
the duties of the jury were very much narrowed, and upon
the jury finding at once for the plaintiff, that verdict was
entered.
Certificate refused.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS—(7his Day).

(Before Sergeant Gazelee.)

A young man, named William Townsend, was indicted
for assaulting two ladies named Mould.

From the evidence it appeared that Mrs. Mould and her
daughter arrived near the Adelaide-road on the evening in
question, when a man came up, and, after assaulting and
throwing them down, an attempt was made to rob them,
but this attempt turned out a failure, as the ladies did not
carry their purses in their pocket. As the occurrence took
place within fifty yards of their own dweding an alarm was
raised, and the man ran away. Information of the trans-
action was:given to the police, and from the description of
the man given by Mrs. Mould, the prisoner was appre-
hended and charged with the offence.

Mrs. Mould swore positively to the prisoner as being the
person who attempted to rob her, but Miss Mould said she
was CO frightened at what took place, and it being dark, she
could not swear positively to the man.
The prisoner, in his defence, denied altogether being the
person who attempted to rob the ladies. While he was
attending to his duties at the Adelaide Tavern, where he
was occasionally engaged during the cricketing season, on
the day after the occurrence, a railway porter, named
Rawley, came to the Adelaide to have his dinner, and
during the time that he (the porter) was so engaged, ha
said in the previous evening he had had a spree with two
ladies, but as he was so engaged he heard the police
coming, so he had to run away.

Rawley, the railway porter at the Chalk Farm station,
was here called. He admitted having been to the Adelaide
Tavern the day after the assault to have his dinner, but he
positively denied that he had ever spoken about having a
spree with two ladies.

Two men named Webster and Jukes, who happened to
be at the tavern at the time, swore positively that Rawley,
during the period he was engaged taking his dinner, did
say he had had a spree the over night with some women.

The jury at once stopped the case and acquitted the
prisoner,

POLICE---THIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH-SfREET.

SYSTEMATIC FRAUDS ON TRADESMEN.—ALLEGED
NUMEROUS CHARGES.—Edward Francis Carew, alias
Captain Stuart, Mortimer Stuart, &c., a gentlemanly-
looking man, who gave the address, Clifton Lodge,
Worthing, was charged, before Mr. Tyrwhitt, with en-
deavouring to obtain several bonnets and hats, of the value
of £lO, by fraudulent means, from Mr. Robert Hill, mil-
liner, of 106, Tottenham court-road.
The court was densely crowded with tradesmen, and it
was stated that a large number have been victimised.
On being placed in the dock the prisoner said his name
was Charles Buchan Crighton Harper.
Mr. Robert Hill, milliner, of 106, Tottenham-court-road,
said—Prisoner came into the shop the day before yesterday
and ordered goods to the value of £lO 2s. 6d., and ordered
them to be sent to the Pimlico station.
Emily Foster, assistant to Mr. Hill, said—Prisoner
called on Monday, and asked the price of a bonnet, and I
told him one guinea. ft was about 2 o'clock. He then
asked the price of a lace bonnet, and Mrs. Hill told him from
16s. to £3 3s. He then selected four bonnets from the win-
dow. He then left, saying he would call again. He
then called in about two hours and ordered four bonnets
to be sent to the Pimlico station. He told Mrs. Hill to
make out a bill, and he wrote the name of " Mr. Edward
Carew, Ivy Lodge, Worthing," and requested them to be
sent to the Pimlico station at seven o'clock, when he would
pay for them. Yesterday evening I went to the Pimlico
station at seven o'clock, and saw the prisoner there. He
called me to him from one side of the waiting-room to the
other, and gave me a cheque on my saying I had got his
goods. I told him the amount of the goods was £lO 2s.
6d. He had the cheque already made out. (The cheque
was on Messrs. Hoare, bankers, Fleet-street, and pur-
ported to be drawn by a person named Carew.)
1 took the cheque and gave the prisoner a receipt, and
left the goods with the prisoner. I spoke to a person, and
the person was going to see whether the cheque was good,
when the prisoner came up and asked the person, who was
employed at the railway station, what business it was of
his. The prisoner then said he would come on with me to
Mrs. Hill's, and wanted to go in a cab, but the man told me
not to go in a cab. I then proposed a 'bus, and went on as
far as Westminster Abbey and then got out, because pri-
soner said he did not like riding in a 'bus. He afterwards
stopped and said ho could not spare time to go to Mr.
Hill's. but would go to his solicitor about the cheque. He
then stopped at the corner of Tottenham-court-road, saying
that he would call at Mr. Hill's in the evening with his
solicitor. I kept the box in my possession.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—That was very right.
Witness—l then went on ; afterwards heard some one
call me—it was the prisoner and a constable.
Mr. Walter B olman, of Oxford-street (firm Preist and
Co.), said—The prisoner called on me on the 30th Sept.,
and ordered two dozen knives and forks and two pairs of
carvers, and requested them to be sent at six o'clock to the
Victoria station. He gave the name of "Henry Mortimer
Stuart." The goods, which were of the value of £5 55.,
were delivered, and prisoner gave a cheque.
Walter John Bennett, porter to Messrs. Preist and Co.,
proved delivering the parcel to the prisoner on the platform
at the Victoria station, and said the prisoner gave him a
piece of paper, which he said was a draft for the money.
He told the prisoner that he did not like the piece of paper,
and prisoner replied, " Oh, that is the way I generally pay
my creditors"—(laughter)—and that he had no other paper
with him, but would buy a stamp, and they went to a sta-
tioner's shop and bought one, and then prisoner filled it up
in his presence. [I he cheque purported to be drawn on
Messrs. Percival, Wills, and Co., in Lombard•street, and
was signed Henry Mortimer Stuart, and was marked " No
effects."] The witness said he then left the goods with the
prisoner.
Prisoner, who made no answer to the charge, was then
remanded. _ .

Mr. J. Warlmont, of 289, Regent-street, moderator
lamp manufacturer, said—He, prisoner, called and asked for
a lamp and ordered it to be taken to the first class waiting
room at the King's Cross Railway Station. He ordered it
to be addressed to Mr. Edward Frances Carew, and said
he lived at Clifton Lodge, Cambridge, where a second one
was to be sent. Prisoner said he would pay my man the
money when he saw him in the waiting room.
Enoch Ilebbs, porter to the last witness, said—l took a
lamp and case to the Great Northern Railway Station. It
was addressed with Mr. Carew's name on it. Prisoner
was in the first-class waiting room, and produced a cheque
(On Messrs. Coutts for £l6). I took the cheque, feeling
satisfied, and saw prisoner write his name, and left with it,
leaving the goods with the prisoner.

Prisoner made no answer to the charge and was re-
manded.

All the cheques uttered by the prisoner were returned to
the persons presenting them marked 4i No effects."

WESTMINSTER.

DISGRACEFUL ASSAULT BY A FOREIGNER, - Edward
Sapoluc, a foreigner, was charged with the following as-
sault:—
Thomas Salter, conductor of a Wandsworth omnibus,
said that last night the defendant entered his omnibus at
Regent-circus and alighted at Sloane-street, where he ten-
dered witness a two shilling piece, and received is. Bd.
change. He said the fare was only 3d., and demanded
another penny; upon which complainant showed him the
table of fares, and explained that the only 3d. fare was
Charing-cross to the Bank. To this defendant made obser-
vation that it was " all -- lies," Re then got into the
omnibus again, declaring he would 1 ide till oomplainant
gave him the la., but being told he Would then have to
pay more, got out again. Refusing to leave, a police-
man was called, who also explained that he was wrong

but he would not listen to anything,?- still declaring
the table of fares was all - lies. At length complainant
moved on with his omnibus, when defendant pursued him,
and struck him three blows on his head with his umbrella,
which he broke in the act. Defendant was sober.

Towers,:4B4 X, corroborated:complainant's account of the
matter.

Defendant said he was a Frenchman, and had lived many
years in Sloane-street, and only paid 3d. He simply wanted
an explanation, which the conductor refused to give him. He
only struck the conductor once, which was to stop him and
have an explanation. Then the crowd shouted and hooted
him because he was a foreigner, and were always doing so--
so much so that he was compelled to leave off his French
dress.

The policeman, in answer to Mr. Arnold, repeated that
every explanation was given the defendant, who certainly
struck the complainant three hard blows, and the conductor
said the fare had been 4d. ever since Whit-Monday.

Mr. Arnold was convinced that there was not the
slightest ground for this unwarrantable attack upon the
conductor, who, as well as the policeman, had fully ex-
plained to him that he was wrong and the conductor right.
He had been also told that if he thought himself aggrieved
he should apply to a magistrate, but he had nothing to
complain of, and if this was to be taken as a type of his
general conduct in this country and as the general conduct
of foreigners, he did not wonder at his being hooted, and
at there being a national prejudice against them. He was,
however, glad to say, that foreigners did not ordinarily
conduct themselves in this unseemly manner, and he did
not believe that there was such a national [prejudice as
defendant endeavoured to make out. As far as his ex-
perience went he had ever seen foreigners treated with the
greatest respect by all classes of the English community.
Defendant's conduct was most scandalous, and he should
order him to pay 405., or be imprisoned for 14 days.
The fine was paid.