The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-06 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—LEWES, August 5.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
GOSLING AND WIFE V. THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND
SOUTH COAST RAILWAY COMPANY.
ThO plaintiff in this action was a grocer at Three
Bridges, and he sought to recover damages for in-
juries sustained by his wife, owing, as was alleged,
to the defendants having improperly left a heap of
chalk in a road leading to the Hey ward-heath Sta-
tion, through which a vehicle in which he was driv
ing was overturned. The defendants pleaded that
the road in question was a private road where the
public had no right to go, and whether it was so or
not was the only question in the case, a number of
witnesses being called on behalf of the plaintiff to
show that the road in question had been constantly
used by them and other persons without any objec-
tion being made by the company, while the case of
the latter was that the road was their private
property.
Baron Martin, in summing up the case, ruled that
although the road in question might in point of
fact be private, still if the company allowed the
public to use it, they were bound to take care that
it was not left in a condition whereby an accident
might be occasioned.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages, £llO.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
MORGAN V. SIMPSON.
This was a common jury cause.
The plaintiff was Miss Clara Morgan, the well-
known danseuse, and she brought an action against
the defendant, who was the late proprietor of Cre-
morne Gardens, to recover damages for his breach of
an engagement he had entered into with her for her
services at Surrey Gardens during the present season.
Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. Paxton were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. Watkin Williams appeared for
the defendant.
This was one of several actions which are to be
tried upon this circuit, arising out of the same alleged
breach on the part of defendant. The case on the
part of the plaintiff was that, through the interven-
tion of Mr. Milano, the celebrated ballet-master,
an engagement was entered iuto with the defendant
and his manager, Mr. Bishop, that the plaintiff
should be engaged as one of the principal ballet
dancers at the Surrey-gardens, during the present
season at a salary of .£4 a week, and that she made
all the necessary arrangements for that purpose,
and was prevented from obtaining another engage-
ment. As the public are aware, the site of the
gardens has been purchased by the, governors of
St. Thomas's Hospital for the erection of their in-
tended new building, and, consequently, the gar-
dens were not opened as a place of amusement, and
the parties with whom it was alleged the defendant
had entered into engagements have all, it appeared,
brought actions to recover damages.
Mr. Milano, who was the principal witness for
the plaintiff, was examined, and he proved that in
the month of April of the present year he had a
conversation with Mr. Bishop, who was the
manager for the defendant, upon the subject of
engaging the plaintiff and her sister, Miss Barbara
Morgan, as danseuses at the Surrey-gardens, and
the result was that the professional services ot; the
plaintiff were engaged for the season, at the salary
of £4 per week, which was the same salary she had
formerly received at Cremorne. He also said that
he was himself engaged for the season, and that he
had brought an action against the defendant.
Miss Clara Morgan, the plaintiff, proved that she
was informed by Mr. Milano, who always acted on
her behalf in these matters, of the engagement that
he had entered into with the defendant, and she
consequently made the necessary arrangements to
provide her dresses, and did not seek to obtain
another engagement. She stated that when the
engagement was broken off by the defendant, she
made a professional tour to Scotland and to New-
castle, but this was not so profitable to her as the
London engagement would have been, as she was
residing there with her friends, and her travelling
expenses were very heavy.
The case on the part of Mr. Simpson was, that
he had never made or authorised to be made any
such engagement as the one that was now set up, and
it was alleged that Mr. Bishop had ceased to be his
manager, and that he merely held a lease under the
defendant of the Surrey-gardens. It was stated that
the governors of St. Thomas's Hospital were in
treaty with Mr. Simpson for the purchase of the
gardens as the site for their prcposed new hospital
at the beginning of the present year, but as nothing
definitive had been arranged, and as it was the
Exhibition year, it was thought that the gardens
might be used profitably for the purposes of public
amusement, and arrangements were therefore made
to obtain the services of several professional ladies
and gentlemen. As it was known, however, that
the governors of the hospital might come to terms
at any moment, care was taken that all the engage-
ments that were made should only be for the period
of one week; and it was alleged that this was the
sort of engagement that had been made with the
present plaintiff, and that she, consequently, was
not entitled to recover in the present action.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
£'2o.
damages,

CROWN SIDE.
(Before Baron Martin.)
Allan Brett, a lad 17 years of age, surrendered
to take his trial for misdemeanour, in having un-
lawfully attempted to destroy his own life.
Mr. Wyatt prosecuted.
It appeared that the defendant was a labouring
lad, and that, on the day named in the indictment,
he was in a barn with a boy younger than himself,
when the latter, who 'had gone :away for a short
time, saw the defendant apparently hanging by the
neck from a beam, to which he had attached a hand-
kerchief. The boy was frightened, and gave an
alarm, and some people living in the neighbourhood
west into the barn, where, as they said, they saw
the boy black in the face. It turned, out, however,
that he had received the slightest injury, and the
boy said that he had merely done it for a lark, and
that, although his body was apparently hanging
from the beam, his legs rested upon a waggon, so
that there was not the least chance of his hurting
himself.
The jury stopped the ease, and acquitted the pri-
soner, and the learned judge cautioned him not to
play such a trick•again, and he was discharged.
Richard Hoare, who was stated to be a man pos-
sessed of considerable property at Newhaven, at
which place he carries on the business of a ship—
owner, surrendered to take his trial upon a charge
of stealing a Japanese cabinet, value £5O, the pro-
perty of William Butner. He was also charged
with feloniously receiving the same, knowing it to
have been stolen.
Sergeant Ballantine was specially retained to pro-
secute in this case, with Air. Merrifield; and Mr.
Hawkins, Q,c , was also specially retained with
Mr. Barrow, to defend the prisoner.
The circumstances of the case were rather pecu-
liar. It appeared that on the 17th of May a
large It
ship, called the Resident Van Son, of
which Mr. Butner was the captain, was wrecked
between Seaford and Newhaven, but through the
exertions of the Coast Guard and others the crew
were saved, as was nearly the whole of the cargo.
Mr. Vandenburg, the agent for the Dutch
Consul, came to Newhaven to make the necessary.
arrangements with regard to the vessel and the
cargo, and, by his directiono, the whole of the latter

was placed into a warehouse belonging to the pri-
soner until the owners and underwriters could be
communicated with, and he at the same time gave
orders that no portion of the cargo should be re-
moved under any pretence whatever. It seemed
that among the property on board the ship there was
a cabinet that had been purchased by Capt. Butner
at Japan, and which he intended as a present for
his wife, but when the cargo came to be overhauled
this cabinet could not be found, although the cap-
tain was certain that it had been removed from the
vessel with the other property. The prisoner was
questioned relating to the article, but he positively
denied all knowledge of it, and the cabinet was
given up for lost. At the letter end of June,
however, Mr. Vandenburg had occasion to go to
the prisoner's private residence, and he there saw a
cabinet standing among his other furniture, and he
asked the prisoner where he got it, and, according
to his evidence, the prisoner said that he had
purchased it of: a man in the street, and that it
was only papier mache. It appeared tilt he sus-
pected this was the same article that had been
missed from the wrecked ship, and he communi-
cated with Mr. Butner who, at his request, made a
sort of rough sketch of the cabinet by which Mr.
Vandenburg immediately formed the opinion that
it was the same he had seen in the prisoner's house,
and he and the captain went there, and the latter
immediately recognised it as his property. From
the evidence of Mr. Vandenburg it appeared that
directly this discovery was made he went to the
prisoner, who was at an hotel in the town, and told
him of the fact, and he represented that when he
did so the prisoner said he was very sorry, and
hoped he would not prosecute him, and upon those
facts the present indictment was instituted.

Mr. Vindenburg, who appeared to be the,.prin-
cipal witness in the care, was cross-examined at
very considerable length by Mr. Hawkins, and it
was pretty evident from some of his answers that a
very friendly feeling did not exist between him
and the prisoner, and he admitted that an action
had been commenced by the latter against him for
defamation of character, and that the present charge
was not preferred until after he had been served
with a writ in that action. It also appeared in the
course of the case that there was not the slightest
attempt to conceal the cabinet, but that it was placed
in the parlour of the prisoner's house, where every
one could see it. There was likewise some dis-
crepancy in the evidence given by Captain Butner
and Mr. Vandenhurg as to the expressions that
were actually made use of by the prisoner.
Mr. Hawkins made a most able speech to the jury
for the defence, in which he urged all the favour-
able points in the case in behalf of his client, and
remarked upon the extreme improbability that a
man in his position should have been guilty of such
an offence when he mast have been almost certain
of detection. He then called witnesses who proved
that the cabinet had been sent to the prisoner's
house to be taken care of, and a number of others
who gave him a high character for honesty and
integrity.
Mr. Baron Martin having summed up, the jury
almost immediately returned a verdict of not guilty.