The Sun.
London, England, 1865-04-11 00:00:00

kt7ST.

21
22
26
27

The jury found Captain Colborne guilty, and strongly
recommended him to mercy. They added that they con-
sidered that the case ought not to have been brought into
a criminal court.
Mr. Giffard said Mr. Davis did not take the case into a
civil court because it might have been thought that his wish
was to obtain damages. (The statement was received with
a shout of laughter.)
The Recorder, in passing sentence, said he collected from
the addresses of counsel that the defendant was not actuated
by any malignant feeling towards Mr. Davis in writing
the pamphlet, but that in attacking a system which he con-
sidered bad he had incautiously mixed his name up with it.
The defendant had pleaded a justification, which he had
failed to establish. He would therefore have to bear all
the expenses of the prosecution, which in itself would be
no slight penalty. Taking the whole of the circumstances
into consideration, and bearing in mind the strong recom-
mendation of the jury, he thought the justice of the case
would be met if he ordered the defendant to pay to the
Queen a fine of £2O, and be discharged.
The decision of ;the Recorder was received with cheers
in court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

THE CHARGE OF DEFRAUDING BY A "COUNT" AND 1118
SERVA.NT.—CharIes Young was charged before Mr.
Tyrwhitt, on remand, with conspiring with a person not in
custody, and styling himself a Russian Count—the Count
de Victoff—to defraud Varlon Rosenoff, a courier, of the
sum of £45.
The prosecutor was introduced to the pretended Rus-
sian count and the prisoner, who succeeded in getting £45
from him under the pretence that he was to be engaged by
the count to go to Russia to obtain 12,000 roubles for the
count. It turned out, however, that the prisoner and the
pretended count were the constant associates of skittle

sharpers.
Mr. E. Dillon Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, for
the prosecution, said he waa now prepared with further

evidence against the prisoner, and in addition was in-
structed to prefer a second charge against him for ob-
taining articles of food to the amount of £lO by means of

false pretences—that his master was a nobleman, and kept
a banking account at Messrs. Spielmann's. Mr. Lewis then
cited the case of " The Queen v. Gardener," where a person
was indicted and convicted for obtaining divers articles of
food by means of false pretences. This conviction was
subsequently quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal,
and Lord Chief-Justice Jervis in giving judgment said,
" We are of opinion that the conviction was not right, be-
cause we think that the obtaining of the articles supplied
under the contract, made by reason of the false pretences,
was too remote from the pretence in this particular case to
become the subject of an indictment for obtaining those
specified goods under false pretences." Here, however, he
(Mr. Lewis) would show that the articles of food alone
were obtained by fraud, and submitted that as the food was
supplied, not from the fact of his being a lodger, but on the
faith of the prisoner's subsequent representations, the pre-
sent case was not all fours with the case he had quoted.
Mrs. Hutchinson, of Brompton-square, was then called
by Mr. Lewis, and stated that the prisoner and a man,
calling himself the Count de Vidoff, engaged apartments
at her house, they being recommended to her. They lived
not as master and servant, but on equality. The prisoner
informed her that his master banked at Messrs. Spielman's,
and asked her to supply his master with food. Believing
the prisoner's statement, she supplied him with food to the
amount of £8 or £9. She was informed the prisoner's
statement was false.

Mr. Tyrwhitt, on the application of Mr. Lewis, remanded
the prisoner on both charges for a week.
THREATENING TO MURDER.— Charles Williasnß, a gun-
barrel maker, was brought before Mr. Tyrwhitt, on a
warrant by O'Shaughnessy, one of the warrant officers,
charged with using violent threats towards Mr. Thomas
Neville, bootmaker, Dean-street, Soho.
Mr. Neville said that on Saturday night last the prisoner,
who lodged in his house, made a great disturbance by
beating his wife, the wife calling out murder. The prisoner
then said he would do for him (Mr. Neville) before he left
his house ; and as this was not the first time the prisoner
had threatened him, and he had been informed by persons
that the prisoner meant to injure him, he kept in his room
all Sunday, fearing to leave it owing to the prisoner's
dangerous character. On Sunday afternoon the prisoner
annoyed all the other lodgers, and threatened one of them
The prisoner's wife has several times had black eyes, and
a fork stuck through her cheek a fortnight after her con-
finement. He (Mr. Neville) merely mentioned the latter
circumstance to show the prisoner's conduct.

Emma Russell, lodging in the same place, proved hearing
the prisoner threaten "to do for Mr. Neville," and said the
prisoner was a most violent man, the more especially to his
wife.

Mr. Tyrwhitt said the prisoner was a dangerous fellow,
and had been taken just in time to prevent him doing
something serious. He would have to find two sureties in
£lO each to keep the peace towards the prosecutor for six
months.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—This:day,

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
THE HON. CAPTAIN COLBORNE'S CASE.--LIBEL.
The Hon. Captain Colborne was indicted for a libel on
Mr. Phineas Davis, attorney, of Clifford-street, Bond-street.
Mr. Giffard, Q.C., with Mr. Poland, prosecuted ; Mr. Cole-
ridge, Q.C., with Mr. Sleigh, defended. The defendant
pleaded not guilty, and a justification.
Mr. Giffard said the libel complained of was contained in
a pamphlet purporting to give a description of certain
persons in London who obtained their living by victimising
young men of rank and fortune. It was not true that Mr.
Davis had anything to do with such transactions, but was
a solicitor of 30 years' standing.
Mr. W. Bush, an architect and surveyor, said that on the
4th of January last he purchased the pamphlet at 147
Fleet-street. It was the pamphlet produced. ,
By Mr. Coleridge—Ho went with the prosecutor's bro-
ther to buy the pamphlet.
Mr. Henry Johnson, of 9, West-street, Soho, said he
knew the defendant, and printed for him the pamphlet pro-
duced.
The pamphlet was put in.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., in addressing the jury for the de-
fence, passed a high eulogium upon the military and per-
sonal career of Lord Seaton, the father of the defendant, and
then proceeded to argue that no reflection could be cast on •
the family of the defendant by the transaction with which
he was charged ; for although Captain Colborne had broken
the law, he had done nothing inconsistent with the character
of a gentleman. He (the learned counsel) did not intend to
read the passage in the libel complained of, for such a course
would only give pain to Mr. Davis, and he at once said that -
they were passages for which Captain Colborne could not set
up a justification. The pamphlet was full of general abuse -
of a system of base and unjust extortion which was practised
by money-lenders, and it might be that he had improperly
associated the name of Mr. Davis with such transactions. I
No personal animosity to Mr. Davis had prompted Captain
Colborne in writing the pamphlet, and he now withdrew I
what he had written, and regretted that he had done it. I
He had broken the but not in a bad cause.
The Recorder briefly pointed out to the jury that the
pamphlet was a libel, and that it clearly pointed to Mr.
Davis.