The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-10 00:00:00

her nephew gave him 3s. to advance her interest. He
went to Barr-street to see the property, and considered
751. a fair valuation for it, together with the good-will
and fixtures. He then described several appointments
he had with his client, and his attempts to sell the fur-
niture, which resulted in an agreement with Brookbank
for the sale of a portion for 251. and his receipt of 101.,
which he gave to Mrs. Strannuch, who returned it to
him. He would swear he was the agent of the prosecu-
trix, and he had black and white to show for it, which,
at the request of Mr. Yardley, he produced ; but it
tended to prove Mrs. Strannuch would not part with the
property for less than 751.
A long conversation then took place between the
magistrate, Mr. Parry, and Waller, who said he held the
money as stakeholder, demanded his expenses, and asked
how his character would fare. (Laughter.)
Mr. Yardley—The payment of the 10/. to Brookbank
would help his character, and put a stop to the pro-
ceedings.
It was also stated that Waller was an entire stranger
to Brookbank, who, if he had received the money back,
would not have attempted to forcibly remove the pro-
perty, under the belief that Waller was Mrs. Strannuch's
agent, and that she had received the money through him.
Mr. Waller stated that Mrs. Strannuch had no alter-
native, when she found Brookbank, an utter stranger to
her, removing her property, but to give him into cus-
tody.
Mr. Yardley said he had thought from the first there
was no case of felony against Mr. Brookbank, and he
would leave that court without the slightest imputation
on his character, as far as this transaction was con-
cerned.

After Brookbank and his legal adviser had talked
about proceedings against Mrs. Strannuch for false im-
prisonment, and she had several times complained of the
violent assaults and threatening language of Brookbank,
the magistrate discharged the accused, and said his ex-
planation was quite satisfactory.

HAMMERSMITH.—Lieutenant-Colonel Gloster, of
No. 9, Charles-street, Trevor-square, Knightsbridge,
was summoned by a cabman, named Walter Pigeon, for
refusing to pay him Bd. for a back fare
It appeared that the defendant hired the cab at the
Junior United Service Club, and rode to his own resi-
dence, when he 'paid is. 4d., but the complainant de-
manded Bd. more for back carriage.
The chief usher stated that Charles-street was just out-
side the limits of the metropolis ; but there was a cab.
stand in the street.

The defendant said he had lived in' Charles-street for

the last 20 years, and had been in the habit of riding
constantly the same distance. He had always paid the
same fare, and had never before been summoned. His
house was 780 yards short of two miles from the United
Service Club, consequently he might ride to his house
and then back to the limits of the metropolis for the fare
of ls. 4d. Under these circumstances, it was very hard
he should have to pay Bd. more for not riding so far.
Mr. Paynter said he was bound by law to allow the
complainant the amount of his demand, since he was en-
titled to charge for back carriage if the place at which
he discharged was one yard beyond the limits of the
metropolis. He considered the present case, however,
very sharp practice, as their was a cab-stand in the
same street, and the back fare was by the act Made pay-
able to the limits of the metropolis, or to the nearest
cab-stand. He 'should certainly endeavour to discoun-
tenance such a practice as the present, and would allow
nothing to the complainant for his loss of time.