The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-30 00:00:00

NEW COURT.

Charles Davis, 18, French polisher, was indicted for
having broken into the dwelling-house of William Allat-
son, and stealing therefrom a gold watch valued at 161.
Mr. Payne prosecuted, and Mr. W. Cooper defended.
The prosecutor, who is a watchmaker in the Old
Bailey, stated that about half-past 6in the evening on
the 23d of this month he was sitting at work in his shop,
when his window was broken by a large stone which was
thrown through the window and passed just over his
head, and at the same moment a hand came through the
broken window, and the watch was snatched from off a
rail with great violence. Witness immediately ran to
the door, which he found quite fast, and upon getting
out he found that the door had been tied with a rope to
the scraper.
_ _

A little girl, who was sitting upon the steps of Wil-
liams's boiled beef house, facing, stated that she saw two
men come from a court adjoining the prosecutor's, and
peeped about for some time, and one of them tied the
door, whilst the other broke the window and took out
a watch. She crossed over whilst they were doing so,
and saw the face of the prisoner, he had a red handker-
chief round his neck. They walked a short distance,
and then ran away. She gave information to the police,
and a description of the prisoner. About three-quarters
of an hour afterwards prisoner was given in charge in
Fleet-street for some other offence, and he then had a
red handkerchief tied round his mouth. When at the
Guildhall Police-court the girl saw him with two other
men, but did not recognise him until the police made
the prisoner put on the red handkerchief which he had
on when he was given in custody.
The jury acquitted him.
He was again indicted for stealing a gold watch from
the person of a gentleman named Henry Maddison upon
the same night. It appeared that he with violence
snatched the watch from the person of the prosecutor as
he was crossing Blackfriars-bridge, and handed it to a
woman who was with him.

He was convicted, and sentenced to four years' pens:
servitude.

SHERIFFS' COURT-(THIS DAY.)

(Before R. Gurney, Esq., Q.C.)
DALTON V. JOHNSON.-SINGULAR RESULT.
The plaintiff described as a sempstress, and defendant
is a respectable tradesman in the City. Mr. J. B.
Davies appeared for the defendant, and contended that
a contract had been broken, inasmuch as the plaintiff
had pawned the property, and Mr. Johnson only reco-
vered a portion under the order of the magistrate, who
directed the pawnbrokers to deliver it up forthwith.
Defendant had been at great trouble and expense to
bring the plaintiff to justice, and she had been convicted
and sentenced tb three months' imprisonment.
The plaintiff said that she had suffered the penalty of
the law, and there was an end.
Mr. Davies submitted that the contract had been
broken, and therefore the plaintiff could not recover.—
The return by the pawnbrokers under the direction of
the magistrates could not avoid the contract.

Mr. Johnson was examined, and proved ihe delivery
of a large quantity of goods to make up, and that a por-
tion had been abstracted.
Mr. Davies submitted that this amounted to an act of
felony.

His Honour said that the plaintiff had undergone the
penalty of the law, as she called it.
Mr. Davies—Then, your Honour, the case ends. You
have no power to adjudicate.
His Honour—That does not deprive her from her
claim for work done.

Mr. Davies—l again submit most respectfully that a
felony had been committed. It was not a mere case of
illegally pawning, for the plaintiff had been entrusted
with full sets of silver plated buttons with the crest and
initials of the Eastern Counties Railway, and she had
substituted others in their place.
His Honour said that there was no doubt that plain-
tiff could recover for the work done.

Mr. Johnson said that he resisted the claim solely on
principle.

Hie Honour said that it appeared to him so, but the
law was against him (defendant). The plaintiff came
before the Court under any but favourable circumstances,
and, making deductions, a judgment might be taken for
11s., allowing for deduction, and immediate judgment
would not issue, so that the plaintiff might have the
opportunity of considering whether he would bring an
action as a set off, which ought to have been pleaded at
first.