The Sun.
London, England, 1825-08-09 00:00:00

•
-
I
'1,16
-it,

Turner, -I stood indebted to the plaintiff in about 4,0091. or
5,0001. which had increased at time of my bankruptcy to
5,000/. or 6,0001. I did not tell Mr. Turner, When' I asked
an advance of money on the bond, that it had beeh signed first,
and filled up afterwards.
Th-., letter s'ent by the witness to his brother-in-law, Mr. Fer-
ris, was next put in and read. It accompanied the blank form
. of a bond, which it requested the defendant to sign in the pre-
sence of a witness, and return, if possible, by the next post.—
In explanation of this request it stated, that he (liennalick) was
desirous of raising a sum of 400/. or. 5001., to enable him to
purchase' a- public-house, in which he intended to place a con-
nexion of his own.
Mr. eierieant WILDE replied. The defence intended to be
set up by his Learned Friend's client had been kept a profound
secret, or else the plaintiff could have met it with satisfactory
and sufficient evidence. The-plaintiff said to the defendant,
" You owe me 600/. on a bond;" but the,defendant turned
round and skid, "Oh, I never signed such a bond." However,
it so happened that the signature of the defendant was clearly
proved to have been attached to the . bond, and that was the
point for the Jury to consider and decide upon.
- Air. Justice GASELEE charged the Jury, and observed, this
was a very important and singular case in all its branches. It
was clear that Mr. Bennalick, having obtained his certificate as
a bankrupt, and the debt being pro-ed under the coarnrision,
be_was no longer liable to be called on for the amount of the
bond. - There was consequently an end.of the proceeding as, it
rel rted to him, and the plaintiff had enlarged a, vole prosequi on
that part of the case. Ferris, the other defendant, pleaded that
the bond had not been executed duly as his act and deed.. In
order to render a deed valid and good in law, it should also be
regularly delivered. Now, if the present bond were delivered
to the plaintiff, coupled with a condition not afterwards per-
formed, the deed could not be maintained to be the act of the in-
_

dividual whose act it purported to be. To render it complete ;;,i
.good in law, the conditions and stipulations connected with it
should have been fulfilled. The first question that presented it-
self was, whether the deed had been filled up at the, time of tHe
signature; and according as the Jury should decide upon that
point, it would be for the Court to say whether or not, if an indi-
vidual signed a bond in blank, the deed could be considered a
legal instrument. It had been repeatedly decided that when a per-
son signed a blank bill of exchange, or wrote his name across a
stamp, as was sometimes 'done' which bill was subsequently
filled up, that the bill was a good and binding instrument upon
the party concerned. It was, however, as far as he knew, a,
fresh question, which had never before arisen, whether Or not
the same principle was applicable to deeds executed in blank.
There was-also another question, whether, if a deed were to
be considered valid, when'filled up with a sum previously
agreed on, it was also equally when that sum was departed
from and another adopted in its stead. With respect to the
case for the defence, it rested solely on the evidence of Mr.
Bennalick, and according to his testimony he had never
mentioned the sum of 6001. to Ferris, having spoken in his
letter of 4001. or 5001. as sufficient for his purposes. In no-
ticing the circumstance of Bennallick's having filled up the
blanks in the bond after it had been signed by Ferris, he could
not avoid reprobating such a practice in the strongest and
most marked manner. The witness had informed the Jury
that no money was advanced on the faith of the bond by
the plaintiff; who nevertheless retained possession of it, and in
doing this he imputed a direct falsehood to the plaintiff.; but
inasmuch as he had never asktd for the bond, nor requested its
return, he must himself (supposing the imputation to be true)
be considered as consenting to the fraud. The first question for
the Jury was, whether the bond had been executed by. Ferris in
blank, as stated by Berthallick, or whether it was filled up at
that time. He would take their opinion upon that point pre-
vious to proposing a second question, which would mainly de-
pend upon the manner in which they decided upon that.
The
Jurydefendants."fbu found
"that the bond was filled up before it was
sent to

Mr. Justice GrASELEE—The next question he should submit
to the Jury was, whether the bond was placed in the hands of
the plaintiffs by Bennallick for general purposes, or for the spe.
cific one mentioned in his evidence, and which latter had not
been effected.

•
The Jury found" the bond was given as a security for money
previously borrOled for general purposes"--which amounted
to a verdict for the plaintiff:

CROWN SIDE.
(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)
The Grand Jury having been sworn, retired, and shortly
afterwards returned with several true bills.

John 'Williams was put to the bar, indicted for killing, on
the 4th May, three sheep, the property of Henry Blake, with
intent to steal the carcases.

It appeared in evidence that the three sheep laid in the in--
dictrnent were left in a field along with five other sheep on the
evening of the 3d of May, by the brother of the prosecutor,
and that on the following morning they were found slaughter-
ed, the entrails taken out, and placed in an adjoining field, and
the fat of two of them carried away.
It was also proved that the prisoner was seen by several
persons; on the 4th of May, carrying a bag, and that he offered
the contents (a quantity of mutton fat) for sale, at a very re.
(laced price, to several individuals, who refused to purchase it.
The case had proceeded thus far, when
Mr. Justice ,Li T T LEDALE said, that on examining the in-
dictmem he observed a variance between the intent of the pri.
soner as therein•laid, and the intent inferrable from the evi-
dence adduced in support of it. It was in proof that the
prisoner was found in possession of parts of the carcase of a
sheep, supposed to have been stolen, but the indictment charged
him with killing the sheep with a felonious intention to take
away their carcases. Now it was only to be inferred from the
evidence that he had entertained a felonious' intention to take
away a part of the carcases. Under such circumstances, it
was matter ,of consideration whether the present indictment
could be sustained.

Mr. ERSKINE, with whom was Mr. MOODY, for the prose-
cution, admitted the existence of the variance indicated by the
Learned Judge, and proposed to discontinue the prosecution on
the present indictment, and indict the prisoner afresh.
Mr. Justice bITTLEDALB—Then the prisoner can escape
from the second indictment by pleading his acquittal on the first.
The Learned Judge then proceeded to charge the Jury, and
put it to them to say whether they thought the prisoner" killed
the sheep with intent to steal the carcases, or only with intent to
purloin a part of them.
The Jury found the prisoner " Guilty of killing with intent
to steal a pan of the carcases of the sheep."
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALX took the yerdict as a general one
of Guilty, and deferred passing sentence on the prisoner until
he should have had the opportunity of taking the opinion of the.
twelve Judges on the subjec•. •

AUGUST t►.
Ll ABI LITY OF SHIP -OWNERS.
,LEVINE v. XELYNACOT.

IVIY..CARTER opened the pleadings. .
Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the case to the Jury. The de-
fendant, who was a silk-merchant anti draper, living at Pen-
zance, had-sent a packet of 'goods for sale to the:Scilly lelands,
in the month of April last.- They had been. ;entrusted to the
care of two persons named Johnson and Davidson, whom he
would presently call for the pnreose of ascertaining their value,
and only a small portion having been disposni of. at Si.-10411,•
the remainder of .the gonda was- re-ehipped from -that'place
direct to the plaintiff, at Penzance, and put op board the de-
fendant's vessel, in order to theie•,beinr, conveyed thither. lie
should be fziabled to_ prove. the package c=taiuing the goods'
bad been delivered to the defendant's agent, on board his ship ;
and also that they had arrived atifly at Penzance, but had
never been delivered to the ,pkintiff: On -the contrary, the-
goods appeared to have been left incautiously upop the wharf,
where they were lost. 'The value of the goods was about, lON.
o; WI:, for recovery of which the present action was brought.
Davidson and Johnson were then mcatninek and proved the
facts stated by Mr. Sergeant Wilde,
Mr. J. Beard, the attorney for the.plaintiff, and towu clerk of
Penzance, deposed as follows :-7-In,April last, Air. I.Pvint came'
to me and complained of the lose of a parcel in the defendant's
vessel. At the request of my client,' wrote•to r3lr. TreiCrt-ben,
the captain of the packet, on the subject of the plaintiff's. lost-
This ix the letter. •

The letter was here put in and rfad, and it appec,redfrprn it
that Mr. Beard addressed the,CaptaiO as.the resp9nsible_party,
and called on him to use every exertion it ende,avouring to re-
cover the lost package.
14,xamination resumed— Some time after.l had dispatchcfl:thi4
letter, Capt. Tregarthen came to me, and we had a conversation
on the subject of my client's loss.
. Mr. Serjeant PELL objected to the tldrnivnbjlity,gf con,-
versation in evidence, if it was meant thereby to fix the r:!spou-
sibility on the owner of the vessel,
Air. Justice GasEx.xx thought the conversation adir*sible.
Air. Sergeant YELL—it was sucientty clear
,the present

. •
PRICE SEVEII/411,p4Ncr..

defendant bad nothing to do with the.actual loss of this%pro-
petty. He was the owner of the vessel, but ztOngorOFl4ol"
any thing to do'tiith her at the time. It was rallies a atragge
sort of attempt that the Captain, who was first apPl;ed to 1)4 iii
subject of this loss as the responsible person, should rpw Lry
called as a witness against the owner.
Mr. Justice GASELEE—The defendant was the Mtnct,-and
the ,Captain his agent in this affair ; on that account !Iris Con-
Vcrsatiofis as far as elates to this transactio,, must bp,
dered evidence. As to the liability, the plaintiff had brought
this action against the owner, who, in turn, might have fiis
against-the Captain for an insufficient discharge of his dut;.
Mr..ERSK,rNE argued that the conVersation of the. Captain.
! subsequent to the contract for carrying the goods, could not Ise
given in evidence.
Mr.. Justice GAsELEE—It was clear that the Captain Kea
the agent of the owner for the receipt and deli Very of goods,
and on that ground his conversations relative to goods intrusted
to hini may be received in evidence. However, although 'he
entertained no doubt of the admissibility of the evidences it his
Brother Pell desired, he would take a note of the objection. !
Mr. Beard—Examination continued—Two or three 'days
after I wrote to Tregarthen, he came to me and said, "5t 14
very hard on the owner's to be considered accountable for, par-
eels." He farther told me, "he had delivered the.parcel to a.
man, commonly called Grip,' but whose right name was Oxley-
church," and that " Grig left the package for two or. three
minutes on the quay, for the purpose of delivering a bos: ,he
also had in his care, and on his return the package was fiprie."
Grig was also present with the Captain at the conversation,•and
corroborated the Captain's Statement. • In June last, Laaw
Kelynacot on. horseback in the street, at Penzance she appeared
in a great passion, and asked me, " What is all this to do
about the Jew's (I—d parcel ? We are not to be :frightened,
but will see it loot if h costs 10,000!." I saw him in about bah.
an hour after this, when he appeared in a better htinsour.
HoW dd you know he was in a sweeter frame of mind Why, he apologised for his hasty expressions, which he at-
tributed to passion, and said he meant me no offence;, :,n4 I
said I was perfectly satisfied.
Hut 'what did he say now, that he was in a better humour
about the parcel ?
Be d-a-d the packet again, I think,—(A laugh.)—Wistied
she was burned, for she*was a constant plague to hani, and al-
ways getting him_into trouble.

Yes, but 'What did he say about the plaintiffand his parcel ?
0, he said, " it would be %pity for the poor man to lose his
parcel, and was sincerely sorry for its loss."
Is the man you call Grit; also named Honeychurch ?
Yes; but we call him Grig for shortuess.--(A laugh.)
He is porter at Penzance ?
•
He is one of the porters. To be sure, rdid not take Inns for
all the porters, notwithstanding, his two names.—(A laugh.)
• You may go down.
Mr. Sergeant PELL said, as the case now stood, he was free
to admit the plaintiff appeared entitled to the verdict of the
Jury. Proof had been given of the delivery of the parcel to
George Walls, the defendant's agent, and that it had been sub-
sequently lost. He would admit those facts to be as his friends
opposite had stated, and should not attempt to vary them.--
However, he was inclined to believe that the case must, after
all, be decided by the authority of the Court, and that he should
be-able to make out such a defence as would induce his ',Ord-
ship to direct the Jury to find for the defendant. '
Captain Thomas Jones,. master of a vessel trading between
Plymouth and Penzance, was then called- and examined—l
sometimes land goods alongside the pier at Penzance, and
sometimes on the beach. I deliver the goods to the first porter
that comes alongside, and then consider myself relieied fiord all
responsibility. I have been master bra vessel 40 years, and
know Penzance for the last 50 years, and that this hasbeen the
custom of all trading vessels.
By the COURT—The persons I have called porters ply in
every part of the town, and carry parcels for any person that cm-
,
ploys them.

Sir. Justice GASELEE—This won't do, brother Pell.
Mr. Sergeant PELL—WeII, if your Lordship thinks so, I aus
satisfied.
Mr. Justice GASELEE charged the Jury, who found forthe
plaintiff—Damages 103!.

CROWN SIDE. •
(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)
CHARGE OF PASsING BASE COIN.
Thomas Berryman Palmer and Elizabeth Barrow were in-
dicted for•passing a counterfeit sixpence, well knowing the same
to be counterfeit.

Mr. WATSON stated the case to the Jury.—The man and
woman then at the bar were living together as man and wife ;
and the sixpence laid in she indictment had been passed by the
female prisoner, tor which she received some articles of grocery.,
and the male prisoner and she partook of the breakfast pre-
pared from those articles. In order to show that the male pri.
Boner knew the coin to be counterfeit, and indeed. to implicate
them both more fully in the transaction, he should prove-that a
number of sixpences and other larger coins, also counterfeit,
were found in his possession at the time of his apprehusion ;
and that the manner in which they were done up, namely, in
oil, whiting, and silver paper, was such as plainly proved that
the prisoner had them in his possession with a felonious intent,
and was aware of the uttering of the sixpence; and consequently
equally guilty as if he had himself put it forth.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE was of opinion the prisoner must
be acquitted, because the man having the silver in his posses-
sion afforded no proof that the woman knew the sixpence to be
base coin. If she could not be convicted of uttering, he eoulci
not be convicted of aiding her in the uttering.
The prisoner was then acquitted.
Palmer, the male prisoner was again put to the bar, on a se-
cond indictment, charging him with having base coin in
possession, with intent to utter it.
The only witnesses were the same constables who had appre-
hended the prisoner on the former charge, and now 'deposed to
having found the money in his possession.
For the defence it was maintained, that as no evidence was
brought of the prisoner's procuring the base coin with a felo-
nious intent to pass it for good com, it was not fair to presume
that intent from the circumstance of his having it in his posses-
sion. A man might have bad money in his possession,
.and yet
• .
not be liable for an indictment for that.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE summed up,, and put it to the
Jury.to decide whether the prisoner procured,the base. coin With
intent to Circulate it'; if so, they would find the Prisoner
Verdict= Not Guilty. •
BOROUGH OF FOWT•.T.
THE SUNG V. JOHN HAMMOND AND °THEM •
This was: an indictment against the defendauls„for. a cm,-
spiracy, to obstruct the overseers of 'the borough of Fc.,-wey, in
the execution of their duty. The borough had long and fre-
quently been the scene of violent ' contests, etild the'
opposing parties were each anxious to procure, t?,,th.,zniseives
pot:session of the parish office's, as a means of attatn.t,t
—The overseers .were proaecutors:in this, case, and meta df one.
party, while the defendants, who were the churchw,,hrtleas were
of another.
.0n the day laid in the indictment, the dsfewlants
went to the house of the overseers, 'foi.thepurpose of inspecting
the pariah rate,books.. The overseer, who was a ieftoeinitAer,
was .at that time engaged in his. cceupation
~however,. he
brought the defendants into his hense,, and exhibited tp. them
the rate book, which` they immediately d'and'atteinpted
to carry away.. Ile resisted the attempt, anti defendants con-
ducted themselves in a very violent manner, and op Itie,plain-
tiff sending fora' constable, they assaulted and knocked down
that legal officer. For this assault `'the defendants were now
indicted. '
Henry Johnsr-71 reside at Fotvey,pd 1 tiny frequentky
been parish officer in that place. I knoW Mr. Austin and
George Lucy.
At this stage of the• proceedings the Letine:l Judge said he
doubted the possibility of sustaining theindictrhent4.,The cause
of complaint appeared, from the itatemen.t of Counsel,: to have
arisen at the moment,, and coneequently the defendarits could
'not be considered guilty of the conspiracy laid In the iactirnent.,
He recommended the ihdictnaent m be withdrawn, and the mat-
ter arranged between the parties. - -! • - •
Counsel for the plaintiff proposed to discontinue 'further pro»
ceedings, provided the. defenclinti would acknowledge ;heir
error. • :

Mr. E- I..twEs, fob the defence,,after consultitig both his
clients, said, they were readyq to adm4 that any !one' hY
torce wait wrong: They th'erefdre admitted- they:had amyl,
wrong in endeavouring to possess themselves of the tate-bock
by force. • • ' •
The apology was accepted, and the cause terminated
'Phis cause terminated the hniiinegi of the Assize. •

•
•
The
,roahtity of Wood taken. into . the, ,11,,,,;„-t,.
and expelled therefrom into the arteries in the course of tiefik-7.,-
tour 'hours, has been latily cstimaied by M Kubb,st Nl'
bhdi. iu.auerditiary Wan, and 8,1;01) in a large whaled ' '''