The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-17 00:00:00

TULLY V. HOFFMAN.

This was a special jury case.
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Hawkins were for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Bramwell
for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action was the owner of a vessel
called the Friends, and the defendant was a merchant of
the city of London. It appeared that the Friends left
R3tterdana, with a general cargo, a portion of which
consisted of between 100 and 200 tons of manganese,
which, according to the bills of lading, was to be de•
livered to the shipper or his assigns, 10 running days to

be allowed for unloading after the arrival of the vessel
in the port of London, and after that time 80s. per
day was to be paid for demurrage. The vessel
arrived at Gravesend on the 21st of December, and
was on that thy reported to the Custom-house. She
arrived in the port on the 22d, and was moored off the
Tower, and on the 27th she was taken to Hay's wharf,
for the purpose of unloading some potatoes which had
been consigned to a person named Harris. This was
completed on the 23 of January, and the manganese
was then delivered to the defendant, to whom it was
consigned; but it appeared that the delivery was not
completed until the Bth of January. Under these cir-
cumstances the present action was brought to recover
321 for eight days' demurrage, the plaintiff insisting
that the 10 running days commenced after the arrival of
the vessel at the tier off the Tower. On the other hand
the defendant contended, and called evidence to prove
that, while the vessel was off the Tower, the captain
was not ready or willing to discharge the cargo, and
that soon after the vessel was taken to Hay's wharf, the
unloading of the manganese was, in consequence of the
manner in which the cargo was stowed, temporarily de-
layed until the potatoes had been taken out of the ves-
sel, and that consequently the defendant was absolved
from paying more than the days' damage, the amount
of which was paid into court.
The CHIEF BARON left it to the jury to say whether
they believed the captain was prepared to deliver the
cargo whilst the vessel was at the Union tier off the
Tower, or whether his intention was merely to keep
her there until he could determine at what wharf he
should land the potatoes, and he expressed his opinion
that if they should think the captain was not prepared
to deliver the manganese until the vessel arrived at
Hay's wharf, the plaintiff was not *entitled to recover a
greater amount of damage than had been paid into court.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
EVEREST V. WHITE.

In this case Mr. Chambers and Mr. Bovill were for the
plaintiff; and Mr. E. James, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Prentis,
for the defendant.

The action was one for libel brought by the plaintiff,
an attorney at Epsom, against the defendant, who had
been his partner. The libel was justified by the de-
fendant. _ . .

In the course of the opening by the plaintiff's Counsel
the CHIEF BARON suggested that such a cause as this
should surely be settled by a more private tribunal, and,
after some discussion, it was agreed that the matter
should be referred.

Mr. JAMES objected to any verdict being taken which
might be deemed a triumph by the opposite party, and
it was therefore agreed that the jury should be dis-
charged.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Dowma and a Common Jury.)

HOUNSFIELD (CLERK) V. CURTIS.

This was an action to recover damages for false impri-
sonment, and also for the plaintiff being illegally dis-
possessed of a tenement at Norwood. The declaration
likewise alleged that the defendant had assaulted and
falsely imprisoned the daughters and servant of the
plaintiff.
To the latter count the defendant pleaded " Not
Guilty," and to the material allegation with regard to
the imprisonment of the plaintiff he pleaded that a felony
had been committed, and that he was justified in giving
the plaintiff into custody.
Mr. E. James, Mr. Pearson, and Mr. Newton, were
for the plaintiff; Mr. Petersdorff, Mr. Corner, and Mr.
Denman for the defendant.

This cause was commenced on Tuesday and adjourned
till Wednesday, and, after occupying the whole of that
day, was again adjourned, and was not concluded until
late in the afternoon yesterday. The facts of the case,
however, lay in reality in a small compass, and it will
not therefore be necessary to give the evidence in detail.
From the evidence adduced for the plaintiff it appeared,
that he was a minister of the Established Church, and
on the 20th of March, 1848, he hired a furnished cot-
tage at Norwood, cal!ed Cedar Cottage, belonging to
the defendant, for one year from that date, and, on the
21st of March, 1849, it was alleged that the de-
fendant, who was said to be a man of considerable pro-
perty, had gone to the house with a number of persons,
and that they had forced their way in, and ransacked
the drawers, and committed other violence, and, upon
discovering that two silver spoons were missing, the de-
fendant had given the plaintiff in charge for stealing
them, and he was taken to the Lambeth Police-court
upon that charge. It was also alleged that after the
plaintiff had been taken into custody, his two daughters,
aged respectively 12 and 14 years, were confined in ene
of the rooms of the cottage, and the next morning were
violently expelled from the premises. The plaintiff, it
appeared, underwent one or two examinations before the
magistrate upon the charge of stealing the spoons, and
eventually, the evidence being insufficient to support it,
he was discharged. It transpired in the course of the
case for the plaintiff, that while the charge in question
was undergoing inquiry another accusation was preferred
against him, upon which he was committed, and subse-
quently took his trial at the Old Bailey, and was ac-
quitted. It also appeared that he had been imprisoned
for nearly eight years in York Castle for debt, and also
that he had been confined for four months in Wakefield
House of Correction, but no evidence was given as to the
grounds for that imprisonment.
Mr. PETEASDORFF made a very forcible and eloquent
address to the jury on behalf of the defendant, who, he
said, so far from being a person Possessed of property,
as had been represented, was in reality a poor labouring
man, who had nothing else to depend upon but his la-
bour and the rent he derived from this furnished cot •
tape. In an evil hour he was induced to accept of the
rev. plaintiff as his tenant for a year, but he could never
get one farthing rent, and although he made repeated
applications for it, ho was set completely at. defiance,
sessionte andr r
a a
ftolroe nfwgi
htt
ihbc
yhhe f
force,
es
,hcazondmd plfiee
nit lde
tidnh,
ge atw cottage,thh een ehx 0p rohaartdie ognadi
ono
nf
petohis
so
that some ;of his property was missing, he gave the
evidencet they
eplaintiffyw ou
li
would say
be
slshould
otuh charge,
ladthea andy
bheafwdo
rheeant
them, the jury
all
ehv ee badhtsa d r
eheardna os o dnoa
utbhbl
eet
grounds for taking that step. The L earned Counsel in
the course of his address expressed his surprise that the
plaintiff should have had the hardihood to bring such an
action as this under the circumstances, and he said he
could only ascribe it to a feeling of malevolence utterly
unsuited to his position, or else to a morbid desire for
notoriety.
Several witnesses were then examined, from whose
evidence it appeared that during the whole of the period
of the occupation of the cottage by the plaintiff and his
family not a farthing of rent was paid, and the only
money the defendant received was a deposit of W. and a
small sum that was realised by a distress that was sent
in when half a year's rent became due. It
was also proved that when application was
made for the rent the persons were insulted, and
towards the close of the year that the bell was muffled
or removed, so that no person could gain admittance to
the house. It also appeared that all the tradesmen
round the neighbourhood had claims upon the plaintiff;
and it was alleged that the defendant had no alternative
but to regain possession of his cottage by force; but the
evidence went to show that no more was used than was
actually necessary, and that the daughters of the plain-
tiff and his servant wore all,wed to stay in the horse
ali night, on their promising to leave the next inorning,
when they refused to do so, and upon this they were
gently carried out. With regard to the plea that a j

felony had ben committed, a witness was examined,
who swore that some time before this occurrence he saw
the plaintiff bargaining with a Jew for the sale of silver
spoons, and it was suggested that they were those that
were missed.

Mr. NEWTON (in the absence of Mr. James) having
replied,
Mr. Sergeant DOWLING summed up the whole case
with great care and impartiality.
The jury, after a short consultation, inquired of the
Learned Judge whether, supposing they should be of
opinion that there was reasonable and probable cause for
giving the plaintiff into custody, it would support the
plea of justification ?
Mr. Sergeant DoWLING said it would not. The plea
was that the felony had actually been committed.
The jury then again turned round, and almost imme-
diately gave a verdict for the plaintiff upon the count for
fske imprisonment—Damages, One farthing, and for the
defendant upon the other issues.
His LORDSHIP refused to certify.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Aug. 16.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice
WICHTAIAN).
SPOTSWOOD V. BARROW AND ANOTHER.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the
plaintiff, a commercial traveller, to recover a year's sa-
lary on his dismissal, to which the defendants pleaded
that the plaintiff was dismissed because he would not
obey the lawful demands of the defendants, and sold
goods on longer credit than they authorised ; did not
give references with the orders of his customers, and
made bad debts ; that he improperly detained their
money in his hands without their consent, and that he
threatened to injure the defendants in their business.
There was also a plea of tender of the plaintiff's full
demand for past services.
Mr. Knowles, Q.O , Mr. Grainger, and Mr. Hugh
Hill appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Wilkins
and Mr. Atherton for the defendants.
It appeared that the plaintiff entered the service of the
defendants, who were shirtmakers at Manchester, in
the year 1846, at a salary of 2001. a year, and 11. a
day for his travelling expenses, and the terms of his eu-
gagement were that he was to give exclusive services
to the defendants. He had, however, done business for
another house, made bad debts, and did not sell the
quantity of shirts that he was expected to do, and
accordingly the defendants summarily dismissed him in
August last year; and ho brought the present action for
a year's salary consequent on his dismissal without
notice.
His LORDSHIP directed the jury that if the defendants
dismissed the plaintiff without reasonable cause they
must find a verdict for him for the amount claimed for
his year's salary. If the jury were of opinion that the
defendants had reasonable cause to dismiss the plaintiff
they must find for the defendants, and say for which of
the causes alleged they so found.
The jury having retired, after an absence of three
hours, sent to ask permission to get some water, and
had not returned their verdict when our report was
dispatched.
The case occupied the greater part of the day.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
James Beesley, aged 24, and Richard Urmson, aged 25,
were indicted for having, at Windle, on the 16th of May
last, robbed Thomas Holding of ten sovereigns.
Mr. Cross appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. J.
Pollock for the prisoners.
The prosecutor, it appeared, was a dairyman, living
in Meeguire-court, Liverpool, and on the 16th of last
May he went to Wigan by railway, for the purpose of
purchasing a cow, taking ten sovereigns with him. He
did not, however, succeed in making the purchase, and
left Wigan for the purpose of walking to Liverpool.
Having walked a few miles on his way home he stopped
at a roadside public-house called the George and Dragon
to try and get a bed; not succeeding in this, he left
there about twelve o'clock at night to walk home, and
the prisoners followed him. When he had gone a short
distance the prisoners passed the prosecutor, and stopped
at a place called Moss Bank. brow. On the prose-
cutor coming up to them they seized him and threw him
down, and the prisoner Urmson rifled his pockets, after
which he was permitted to go home. He immediately
gave in:ormation to the police, and from the description
which he gave he was taken to the house of the prisoner
Beesley's father, where the two prisoners were found.
No money was, however, found upon them ' - but in
Beesley's coat pocket was found a piece of cloth which
had been torn from the prosecutor's waistcoat in the
struggle.
The jury found the prisoners both Guilty.
Sentence deferred.

BUOAIPTON COUNIY COURT, Aug. 15.
SADLER. V. HOWARD.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Ann
Sadler, against Miss Louisa Goss Howard, an actress,
lately performing at the Lyceum Theatre, to recover
compensation for an assault. The damages were laid
at 5/.

Mr. WILLIAaIS, in opening the case, said that in the
beginning of June last the husband of the plaintiff was
engaged as coachman by Lord Bury, eldest son of the
Earl of Albemarle, to drive the defendant, who was
under his Lordship's protection, and resided at Mer-
rington-house, Old Brompton. A short time afterwards
Lord Bury also engaged the plaintiff to attend upon Miss
Howard, to take care of her, and accompany her to and
from the theatre. On the 233 ult., some differences
arising between Lord Bury and Miss Howard, the latter
ordered the coachman to drive her to the Strand, where
she had taken lodgings. Miss Howard then gave him
the keys of Merrington-beuse, and a letter directed
to Lord Bury, which he gave to his wife (the
plaintiff) to deliver, when that nobleman handed
her back the keys, telling her to take care of the
premiies. The next morning Lord Bury and his butler
west to remove the goods from Merrington-house to his
Lordship's residence in Onslow-square, and on the same
afternoon the defendant came in a cab, and asked plain-
tiff what bad become of the plate, to which his client
answered that it had been taken to Lord Bury's silver-
smith's. Defendant then made use of the observation,
" Upon my soul, did you do that?" and the reply being
in the affirmative, she went up stairs, and returning
with a postilion's whip, commenced thrashing the plain-
tiff with it across the lawn to the garden-gate, which
was open, and where, laying hold of her arm, she
swung her into the road, at the same time violently
kicking her.
Plaintiff's evidence fully bore out the statement of her
solicitor.

Cross-examined—She understood that Lord Bury
was at present insane, and the inmate of a lunatic asy•
lum. She never knew that Lord Bury had inundated
the house with furniture, which Miss Howard had sent
back to the different tradesmen, who had not been
paid. There was a great quantity of goods and plate
brought to the house, which Lord Bury had pur
chased at Willow Bank sale. Witness's husband
was in the service of Lord Bury, to whom there was no
doubt Merrington-house belonged. On the day of the
assault, when the defendant arrived, Lord Bury was on
the lawn with his butler and otherfmen, rcmoving the
goods, which Miss Howard seeing, she was about
committing personal violence upon his Lordship, which
was prevented by the butler, and his Lordship went
away in a cab, and defendant came in. Shortly after
witness went with Miss Howard to Lady Bury's to seek
an interview with his Lordship, which theywere unable to
obtain.
Mary Humphreys, housemaid at MerTington-house,
gave evidence of the assault committed on the
plaintiff by whipping and kicking, and after-
wards seeing the bruises caused thereby on her arms
and legs.
Mr. Luwia said, he should b© prepared, by the state-
ment of his client and another lady, to prove that
there was no assault committed, and that Merrington-
house and all the furniture therein belonged to Miss
Howard, and not to Lord Bury, who was appointed by
her uncle as guardian, with the sanction of Lady Bury.
Lord Bury had, while labouring under an attack of a
direful malady, removed a quantity of things to his own
house, which had since then been returned to Miss
Howard by Lady Bury.
His HONOUR (Amos) remarked, that he thought Lady
Bury would have been an important witness, to have
stated what the position of Miss Howard and Lord Bury
was, as to her being under his Lordship's guardianship.
Mr. LEWIS said, that he could not have troubled her
Ladyship in her present distressed state of mind, owing
to the afflicting disease bis Lordship was labouring under.
Miss Howard, on her oath, here deposed that Lord
Bury was in no way connected to her but as her solici-
tor described. The assault she denied, although, after
repeatedly but in vain desiring the plaintiff to leave her
house, she went with her to the end of the lawn, and
shut the gate against her.
Miss Connor, an actress, said, she was on a visit at
Miss Howard's on the day is question, and saw her fol-
low the plaintiff to the garden gate. Miss Howard had
a dog whip in her hand, which she used to correct some
favourite dogs with—(Laughter)—but she did not
attempt to strike the plaintiff with it; in fact she never
saw her friend so calm as en that day.—(Laughter.)
The JUDGE observed that on the whole he thought, if
an assault had been committed, it might have been under
excitement; and ho should therefore award the plaintiff
10s. with reduced costs.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS.
BRISTOL, AUGUST 16.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The share market was depressed to-day, and
little business doing. Great Western, Quarters, were done at 8%
dis., and Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth, 15 dis.
LIVERPOOL, AUGUST 16.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The share market continues to improve, aud
there is more business going forward. The sales are—Lancashire
and Yorkshire, Preference, 1214 —Lancaster aud Preston, Quarters,
13% —Leeds and Thirsk, Preference, Quarters, % dis. —Liverpool,
Manchester, and Newcastle Junction, 2% dis.—London and North-
Western, 128% Ditto, New Quarters, 2% c. p. Ditto, Fifths,
965. 3d. p.—Midland, Halves, 14% dis.—South-Eastern and Dover
(No. 4), 6% —York, Newcastle, and Berwick (G. N. E. Purchase),
6 per cent. till 1850, 965. 3d. dis.— Newry and Enniskillen, 5% dis,
MANCHESTER, AUGUST 16.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The transactions to-day were as follow :
East Lancashire, Preference, 7% —Skrewsbury and Birmingham, Pre-
ference, NIA c.—Manchester and Leeds, Fifths, 3% dis.—Ditto, 321.
Shares, 7 dis.—North Staffordshire, 6% dis.—Edinburgh and Glas-
gow, 40%.
BIRMINGHAM, AUGUST 16.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The transactions to-day were as follow:
London and North-western, 129—Ditto, Fifths, 4% p.—
Shrewsbury
and Birmingham (A), 6% dis.—Ditto, Preference, 2% p.
YORK, AUGUST 15.
STocK EICIIANGE.—The transactions to-day have been as fol-
low:—Great Northern, B%—York, Newcastle, and Berwick (G.
B. Purchase), 3%—York and North Midland, Preference, 7%.

MONEY MARKET.—The premium on gold at Paris
is 9 per mille, which, at the English Mint price of 3/. 17s.
100. per ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of
25.37; and the exchange at Paris on London at short
being 25.35, it follows that gold is 0.08 per cent.
dearer in Paris than in London. By advices from
Hamburgh the price of gold is 437 per mark, which,
at the English Mint price of 31. 17s. 1011. per ounce for
H, gives a:t ozebalq;e (4 13.11; f';ti th
ext;iiiilige tit ilutlubUrgli ou Loliduir at short hems
13.111, it follows that gold is 0.11 per cent, 'leaser in
London than in Hamburgh.