The Sun.
London, England, 1809-12-16 00:00:00

POLICE.

Bo•ov,s:raawr.—On Thursday night, about eleven
o'clock, .atter the performances 'had closed at Co-
vent-garden Theatre,, a great noise was kept up in
the a>,enues leading into .the Theatre, byway of re,
joicing at the victory obtained by the 0. P.'s. Mr.
Graham, the MagiStiate, sent one of the patrole
to
ascertain the cause of the disturbance ; he returned,
and tepot led that there were about to; ty fifty per-
sons dancing the 0. P. dance in the avenue leading
to the Tit, and two fifers playing to them. Mr.
Graham desired the patrolc to take assistance, and
• bring the filers before hicn. The man took his own
party of the patrole with hint, rushed, in among
them, and seized one of the fifers by his collar. He
and the fifer were immediately surrounded, and ac-
tually carried oti their-legs to the iron gate. A wo-
man kept close to the side of the patrole, and was
continually biting his thumb and hand, that had hold
of the titer's collar. When they got infra the road,
they all three fell down in the mud together; a vio-
lent scuffle 'ensued between the patrole and the fifer,
and those who assisted' hint, in which the coats of
the officer eitcl the fifes Were torn to rags, as wall as
the woman's gown, and they were literally covered
with.ntud. They got up, the patrole keeping his
hold, and endeavouring to get the fifer into the
Brown Bear publie-hou,e, but in which he was dis-
appointed, by another party of the- 0. P.'s corning,
by which he was cirrid to the upper part of the
street, and he was then glad to extricate
and make his escape.
Sophia Maria Bodkin was brought up for exami-
ostion, on suspicion -ot.putting° a new-born infant
Into a jar, anti leaving it on stair-case; in the Tem-

•
Titus Owen, a surgeon, 'of • Chancery-lane, said,
that at the request of Mr.: Norris, the. Deputy Trea-
s.aree of the Inner Temple,. he examined the body of
I;,a cLihi :curd in a jar;. in .the Ter4le, on Sept.
touird the child pressed down in the jar,
ith its head at the buttorn, and the legs folded
,
on tut- body ; the child.appeared tali grown ; it was
a 'imle tinl face and some parts of.the body
ore putrid. Eic supposed it h:A.t been dead about
or nine days, but :was not able to say whether
born alive or not. The child appeared to be
sate iii .A Inch it xi,as when it wits born. •
fbcre being no other evidence against the pri-
.4.;;;et- than merely wly.t the
.waterman belonging to
tht, ci coaches at Temple-bar stated sh% con-;
tchsed, she was dichargcd.

A few days since, the maid.;sefvantof Mr. Boys,'
t:' Eli•ntnoi ton, went' to a windmill in the nelijhbour-
t,,io(,, on some business, when she was unfortunately
driven •by the wind so near the shafts, that they
ht-r. head,' and fratttired her skull oin a most
Oh-A:king manner; taut small hopes are entertained
10-oraccAexy.;fit, ft>Juy •
and Rivett, Bow-street Officers, have
nz..+it: huc.t.ooO dollars from the Batik of England
1,1. 5,,1, near Birmingham, for the' purpose of
.staniped, in a similar way to those now in
wb:ch are current at five shillings each.
a StitiTiy Of silver will be. particularly useful in
il,r...s•ei;t 'scarcity of change:

LONDON : Printed by RICHARD HARRIS, of No. 4, Martlett-court, Bow_ street; and
At the Sobi-OvFicz, No. .112, Strand; where Advertisements, Orders

LAT REPO FiT.

11.
COURT OF KING's BENCH, DEC. 13.

GINDON V. ROBSON'.

This was an action on two bill's of exchange for
771. wind 731. drawn by Gindon and Hughes upon
„and, ac,i,epted by the defendant, .Mrs. Ann Rob-
son, Albernarle-street, payable to the order of the
drawers. ,

TheATTORNtY-GENERAL, for thedefendant,con-
tended t hat i was impossible tor t he,plain tiff to recover
in this action, the bills being drawn, in the company
firni, and the dctiou being in the name of Mr.
Gindan alone. The defendant was entitled to know
that-she paid with safety, and to assure her that she
did so, the action should be in the name of the
actual drawers and holders of the bills.
Mr. PARK, for the plaintiff', stated that, though
the name of Hughes was used as
.a partner, for the
sake of' giving him respectability,._ he was got Mr.
Gindon's partner, but only his clerk, receiving a per
centage as wages. This he proved by, the produc-
tion of-the agreement'. Mr. Hughes was•examined
as a witness for the plaintiff, bEtt Stated himself to
have been his partner.
Lord ELLENtOROUGiI said, .that this was nothing
but a grinding partnership, by tt hich Hughes was
subjected to'all the risks, but admitted to as few of
the benefits of- the partnership'as the i)ahltitrpos-
sibly
could. • . •
The plaintiff was accordingly non-suited. .
• HARRIS 'V. ASPLIN.

The plaintiff is_ a wholesale ~deliler, in old clothes,
in London, and the defendant carries on the same
business tin Cambridge.
The son of the plaintiff, 'who travels for JAM,
.proved au order given to him •al.Cambridge; by
the defendant, in September, 1808,. which, was ex-.
ecuted agreeaole to the order. on the; 6th of Oct-O=
ber, but the goods returned .on ,:the: loth of the
same mouth, as. pot having, been ordered. On the
10thaot.November foilowmg, the truss, which had
been ,returtied to the plaintiff, was once more sent
to the defendant; .and the present action brought
for the amount. .

Lord ELLENBOROUGH held, however, that ate
improper delay: had been practised- by the Plain-
tiff, in expressing-his determination to hold the de-
fendant to ttis bargrin.
The jury accordingly found for-the defendant.

THURSDAY, DEC. 14.

SITTINGS BfiFORI LOROLLLENISOROUGII, AT GUILDHALL

PASSTLNGER V. CLEGG

Mr:PARKE, for the pliintiti, stated, this to be an
action on the part of the As?ignees ot, the Bankrupt
Estne of a persOn of the oarne,of ,`,Tylack; to re,co-
ver troth the defendants, who ,were country Bankers
with whom the Bankriipt was .accustomed to deal,
the Sum' of 3241. tbs. being monies paid into the
defendant's hands the brother of ;the Bankrupt,
posterior to the 14th of August ,last, at which time
he had committed an ac; t of bankruptcy by quitting
his trOuse to avoid his Creditors, • •
The proceedings tinder the Commission, so far @s
related to' the act I?ankykuptcy,, the Petitioning
Ci editor's debt, and the assignment to the plaintiffs
were given in evidence, pod the Banker's book
showed the sum paid in, .on account, of the Bank-
rupt, on the 24th of August and subsequent days,
up to tile time of taking out the
.Commission, to, b$
3241. lOs. .
GAtutow, for the defendants, contended that
under the iket,of the igtb of George. IL the money
so paid to the defendants, on the Bankrupt's account,
could not be -affqded by any previous act of bank-
ruptcy, the. detendartea- having no, notice of any
such circumstance, and tfle sums se paid to thern,not
beingeqUal to :the loans or accommodations given to
the Bankrupt by die defendants, and which these
payments were meant to cover.
Mr. PARKE replied, that, the accommodations a 1.,.
luded to were by b!lls running at the time of taking
out the ComMissinn.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH held that the payments
made to the defendants after the act of bankruptcy,
could not be said to have been made out of the funds
of the Bankrupt, for be bad ceased to have any ef-
feats, but out of the funds.of his Creditors. He
should reserve the point, however, that the Learn-
ed Couitcd might have
-the opinion of' the Court
upon it.
Verdid for the plaintiff, subjeal to this reservation.
Pihnages 3241. 105.

FOSTER V. ROBINS.

Mr. PARKE stated this to be an adion on a Bill of
Exchange for 2721. He was at a loss to conceive,
what the defence was. His Client was a respedable
man, and 'a Bill Broker.
The hand writing of the defendant, whci was the
drawer Of the bill, was proved, and also due notice
of its dishonour.
Mr. GARROW, for the defendant, argued, that
'payment of 13s. Bd. 'in the name of commissio►i,
charged by the plaintiff, at the time of discounting
the bill, in addition to the legal. interest, Con-
taminated the bill with usury in its original con-

coetion. .
It appearing however, that the plaintiff was;
Biil Bioker, advancing the money of •his employers,
and that the commission was only I per Cent.- which
is the usual charge in such transaclions, •
Lord ELLENBOROUGH held 'that every thing was
correct.
Verdi6.l for the plaintiff--Damages 2721.
JONES AND CO, V. PeIOASE AND CO.

Mr. PARKE, for the plaintiff, stated this also to
be an action on a' Bill of Exchange, of which the
defendants were the drawers and the plaintiffs the
indorsers.
He proVed the_ band writing of the acceptor,
drawers; and indorsers, and also that notice of the
dishonour had been made to the defendants by the
plaintiffs, on the next day after the bill, was re-
turned to the plaintiff.
Mr. LitwEs contended, that the hill having'been
returned to the plaintiffs in. the forenoon,- notice'
might have been given to the defenantS who lived
within an half awhour's wet:, on the same day.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, this point-had alreadY
been sufficiently decided. As person was not bound
to gallop off the moment a bill was returned to him,

Pcblished by WILLIAM -A It GER SC lev s, South MotiOn.street, G/ osveno 4Eqlloe.
ror.the Pape.; Letters for the-Ed/4r, &c; (post-paia), mot be addrss7,d