The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-06 00:00:00

subject of such an indictment. Larceny could not be
supported for a chose in action by the common law.
It was an agreement although it was not stamped,
and might have been rendered a valuable instru-
ment by being stamped. It had, in fact, become
an agreement, as soon as it was signed, although it had
not been stamped. He could not but express an opinion
that such nice points were much to be regretted.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Maule, Mr. Jus-
tice Wightman, Mr. Justice Cresswell, Mr. Baron
Alderson Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Baron Platt, Mr.
Baron Martin, and Mr. Justice Crompton concurred.
Mr. Baron Parke, however, differed from other learned
judges.
The conviction was accordingly quashed.
THE QUEEN V. BEAUMONT.
_ _ _

This case had also been previously argued before the
five judges forming this court, but as a difference of
opinion prevailed amongst them, it was ordered to be
re-argued to-day.
The prisoner, Edward Beaumont, had been indicted
at the Central Criminal Court, that he, being the ser-
vant of one Wiggins, had embezzled 51. 108., which he
had received for and on account of his master. It ap-
peared that Wiggins had entered into a contract with
the Great Northern Railway to supply them with car-
men and horses for their coal waggons. By the terms
of the contract Wiggins was bound to supply honest car-
men, and he or they were to account for the moneys re-
ceived by them from the various customers to whom the
coals were delivered. The practice was this. The car-
men went in the morning to the railway office, and there
received the invoices of the coals, to which the receipts
were attached. The carmen on receiving the money
did not hand it over to Wiggins, but went direct to the
railway office, and there paid it in. The prisoner, who
was one of the carmen, received 5/. 10s., for which he
did not account. Me was convicted of the offence
with which he was charged, but his counsel at
the trial took an objection that he should have
been indicted for embezzling the moneys of the Great
Northern Railway Company, and not of Wiggins. The
point was reserved, and the question now for the con-
sideration of the court was, whether the prisoner had
received the money for or on account of his master or of
the railway company.
Mr. Dearsley, on behalf of the prisoner, submitted
that the conviction could not be sustained, for the pri-
soner had received the money not on account of his
master, but on account of the railway company. Ac-
cording to the terms of the contract they were bound to
account to the company, and the authority to receive
the money sprung from the company.
Mr. Gifford, on behalf of the prosecution, submitted
that the 'conviction must be sustained. The prisoner
was the servant of Wiggins and not of the company,
and the money was received on his, and not on their
account.
Their lordships were of opinion that the
.money had
been received on account of the company, and not on
account of Wiggins, and therefore the conviction could
not be sustained.
The conviction was accordingly quashed.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
THE TRIDENT.-DAMAGE.)
This was a suit brought by the owners of the sailing
barge Southampton against the General Steam Naviga-
tion Company for a collision in the Thames on the 7th
of May. The barge was going down the Bugsby Reach
closehauled, and complained that the Trident, one of
the company's vessels, had neither given way nor slack-
ened her speed. The defendants' excuse was that their
steamer could not have given way, or she would have
run into a collier which was also near the spot.
The Trinity Masters were of opinion that the steamer
had been to blame, and
The court pronounced for the damage.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.