The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 6.
No causes of the slightest public interest were
eard un to the rising of the Court, shortly after four.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 6.
TULLY V. HOFFMAN.

Mr. M. CHAMBEECS said, in this case, which was
tried in Surrey at the last assizes, and a verdict found
for the defendant, he, on the part of the plaintiff, had
to move for a rule to show cause why the verdict
should riot be set aside, and a new trial had, on the
ground of misdirection with respect to the number of
days' demurrage which the Lord Chief Baron directed
the jury the plaintiff was entitled to receive. This
was an action for demurrage in respect of a certain
qu intity of manganese which had been con-
veyel from Amsterdam to London by a
vessel cail-.d The Friends. This vessel was what
is called a general ship, and she was laden
at Amsterdam with a quantity of manganese in the
centre of the vessel, with potatoes at each end, and
with some ru.hes on the top of the manganese and
potatoes. The bill of lading, with respect to the
mang mese, stated that " the goods and merchandize
were to b 4 taken out of the said ship in ten running
days after her arrival at the port of London, or 80s.
per diy demurrage to be paid." The potatoes were con
signed to another party, and they were consigned to
Ii iyes' wharf. The vessel arrived at Blackwell on the
December, 1848, when her arrival in the port of
London was reported, and on the 22d, at eight in the
morning, she came up to London, and was moored at the
Union pier of the London Docks. As between the con-
signee of the potatoes and the Captain there was
a dispute as to what wharf the vessel should go to,
she had been consigned to Hayes' wharf, but at the
end of five days, by the direction of the assignee of
the potatoes, she went to Beale's wharf. The man-
ganese was not begun to be unladen for three or four
days after that, and was ended on the Bth of January,
eight days after her arrival at the Union pier. The
action was therefore brought for eight days' demur-
rage at 4/. a day. The question was whether the
arrival of the vessel at Hayes' wharf was her arrival
in the port of London within the meaning of the
charter party.
The COURT unanimously refused the application.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 6.
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice `TILDE
and Justices MAULE, WILLIAMS, and TALFOURD.)

PARKER V. PINNER AND BURTON.

This was an action of trespass for false imprison-
ment, tried before Lord Chief Justice Wilde, at the
Guildhall, in the last sittings after term, in which a
verdict was found for the plaintiff—damages, 50/.
Mr. SKINNER now moved for a new trial, or to re-
duce the damages, on the ground that the damages
given were excessive. It appeared that the defendant
Pinner was the keeper of Whitecross-street prison,
and the other defendant 'a sheriff's officer, who had
arrested the plaintiff by mistake for another person of
the same name, against whom he bad a writ of ca. sa.
The plaintiff was asked, "If his name was not
Parker ?" he answered that " It was," upon which
he was arrested by Burton ; and, notwithstanding his
assurance that he was not the man wanted, he was
conveyed to Whitecross•street prison, and confined
there four or five days. The Learned Counsel con-
tended that the inconvenience thus suffered by the
plaintiff, considerlng his station and position in life,
slid not warrant such an amount of damages for the
injury done him. The plaintiff was a tailor living
in St. Mary, axe, which was in some part of London.
—(A laugh.)
Lord Chief Justice WILDE—Why, the late Mr.
Denison lived there all his life, and he was a highly
respectable man.

Mr. SKINNER—I understand, my Lord, that the
plaintiff lived in a court in St. Mary axe. I did not
know where it was, but do not wi.h to disparage a
locality better known to others. (Continued
laughter) The plaintiff was a tailor in a court in
St. M iry- axe. . .

•Mr. Justice MAULE—The charge of being unable
to. py your debts is a very serious one in St. Mary
axe.—(A laugh.)
Lord Chief Justice WELDE—The plaintiff was put
in the remand ward, and not allowed to see his friends
or to have his f )od provided for him, but he was corn-
pelledfo take the prison allowance f gruel, on which
he was kept for five days. That was severe treatment.
Mr. SKINNER did not mean to say that it was not
an inconvenience—(Laughter)--but it was to be
estimated by the rank of life the plaintiff held. Half-
a-guinea a day, he submitted, wouid have been ample
compensation to him.
Mr. Justice IthuLE—Was that topic addressed to
a jury of the city of London ?
Mr. SKINNER—My Lord, I was not there; but 101.
a day is too much.
Mr. Justice MAuLu—lf reckoned as wages, it was
very good wages I dare say.
Mr. SKINNER-501. is a large sum between man and
man for falling into this light error.
The CITIEF JUSTICE—A friend of the plaintiff met
him in custody, and told the officer he had got the
wroa In m, and to go to the attorney, to which the
officer replied, " Why should I go to the attorney
and to )1i the plaintiff to Whirecross- street prison.
Mr. Justice MAtiLE—lt may be that the wrong
amount of (Ilmages has been awarded.—(l laugh.)
Ituie refine 1.

111UNDEN V. T/IE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK.

In this case Mr. BaAmweLt, moved in the course of
the day for leave to the Sheriff to amend or quash
his return to the writ. It will be remembered that
the Duke of Brunswick brought an action of trespass
against Sloman and others for illegally breaking and
enetring his house to execute a fi. fa. in the above
Cause. and that the Duke of Brunswick then paid
to the Sheriff's officers 2201. under protest. In con-
sequence of the verdict of the jury in the action
against Sloman and others, deciding that the levy
was illegal, and that the 220/. must be returned, the
present application became necessary, as the Sheriff
had returned to the fi. fa. in the case of " Munden v.
the Duke of Brunswick," that he had levied the
money. He moved, therefore, to be allowed either to
quash the return to the writ, or to be allowed to
amend it by returning nulla bona.
Rule nisi granted.

A list of the new trial motions was made; but it
was announced by the Lord Chief Justice that
they would stand over till Thursday, and that the
Special Paper will be taken to-morrow, his Lord-
ship having to attend the Criminal Court of Ap-
pel!, and Mr. Justice Talfourd having to sit at Nisi

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. G.
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN THE MATTER OF HENRY ALFORD.
This insolvent, a young man, clerk in the General
Registry office, Somerset house, applied under the
Protection Act, and was opposed by a creditor named
Foot, me,smger at the Treasury.
The object of the opposition was to obtain a por-
tion of the insolvent's salary, which now amounted to
1101. a year. lie had a wife and two children to
suppn.t.

The creditor said. he likewise held a Government
situ•+tion, and had brought up a family on a salary of
1001. a year. Ile had a few perquisites and had let
lodgings. He thought the insolvent could set aside
301 a year out of Us salary.
The insolvent offered 101 for the first year, 161.
for the second, and 201. for the third year, to pay his
debts.

The Learned COMMISSIONER thought the offer was
a reasonable one on the part of the insolvent. Al-
though it was true that on the Protection Act
parties were voluntary applicants, yet. in benefiting
the creditors the Court was to consider the position of
the insolvent so as to prevent any subsequent
application.
A day was named for the final order.
(Before Mr. Commissioner LAW.)
IN RE WILLIAM CRIPPS.

This insolvent, a superannuated Custom-house
officer, was opposed by Mr. Nichols for four credi-
tors. The case was heard under the Protection Act,
and an application was made to set aside 201. a year
fur the creditors, the insolvent's income being 1051.
as a superannuated officer.
The insolvent proposed 101. a year for his creditors.
The COURT thought that a proposal should be made
to pay the creditors 151. a year.
A second hearing was appointed.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.)
IN RE JOSEPH JAMES.
This insolvent, man, an old was opposed by Mr.
Nichols and Mr. Lucas; Alr.
in
Cresswell supported.
The insolvent had ford-hill, kept the
Weavers Arms, Sta-
liackney-a, for
twenty four years. His
fromro d
insolvency arosea debt of upwards of 300/.
owing by his wife hishefore marriage, and of which
some
he was ignorant for
years. He believed he
Weavers could obtain 4001 for the Arms for his credi-
tors if he were obliged to give up possession of the
premises.
His HoNouß enlarged the insolvent's bail for a
fortnight, in the hope that he would obtain a customerfor his house, and thereby benefit the creditors.
insolvent seemed to have been ruined by the debte
owing by his wife before marriage, and of which he
had no knowledge.
The case was adjourned, and the bail enlarged.

DNRTMOUTII.--Some years ago Mr. George Nott
was a draper iu this town, and during that time married
Elizabeth, daughter of Mr. Henry Tucker, of Corn-
woT thy. Subsequently Mrs. Nott died, and left Mr.
Nott with a young fans ly. After a time, Mr. Nott with
his family removed to Liverpool. He has now a daugh-
ter grown up to womanhood, who went to reside with
the late lamented Mrs. Henrichson, and continued to do
to up to the day of the tragical death of the latter. At
that time Mr. Nott was taken seriously ill, and his
daughter went to see him, and cnnutpaently she was
absent from Sirs. Henrichson's when Wilson perpetrated
the foal murders. Thus she providentially escaped the
ossa.Jin.—Dcvonshire Chroniele,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WORSHIP-STREET.

Henry King, a young fellow dressed like a carpen- '
ter, but recognised by the police as the associate of
thieves, was charged with being concerned, with other
men now in custody, in entering the premises of Mr,
John Killick, silversmith and jeweller, on Knights-
bridge-terrace, Hyde-park, and stealing three valu-
able gold watches.
A labouring man named Biden stated, that while
passing the end of ‘Vilton street, on the afternoon of
the 19th ult., he noticed the prisoner, in the company
of a second man named Rolls, now in custody upon
another charge of a similar description, lurking about
in such a suspicious manner that he was induced to
watch their movements. They looked hard at him,
and he walked on, but kept them in sight, and directly
after saw them standing with their backs to the pro-
secutor's shop window. Rolls then called Mr.
Killick to the door, to inquire the price of some
glass and china vases he had exposed for sale in
his side window ; and, whilst so engaging the
prosecutor's attention, and haggling about the
vases in the street, the prisoner availed himself of
the opportunity to glide into the shop, from which he
almost immediately after emerged and hurried away
in the direction of Hyde-park-corner. Rolls then,
to afford further time for the escape of his accomplice,
unconcernedly accompanied Mr. Killick back to his
shop; but they had not been there more than a
minute, when the prosecutor rushed out in an
" affrighted" state into the street, exclaiming that he
had been robbed of property to a large amount, and
ran into a butcher's adjoining, under the impression
the thief must have secreted himself there, as there did
not appear to be time for him to have got any
further. Rolls, upon that, attempted to get away,
but was stopped by the prosecutor's wife, and, witness
coming up at the moment, collared him, and handed
him over to a constable. Information of the robbery
was communicated to the police, but the prisoner
succeeded in evading them until the preceding
evening, when he was accidentally met by a constable,
and taken into custody, upon which the witness was
sent for, and immediately identified him as the man
who had entered the prosecutor's shop in the manner
described, and in whom he could not be mistaken,
having had a full and distinct view of his face.
Mr. Killick confirmed the evidence of the preced-
ing witness, and added that the property stolen con-
sisted of three valuable gold watches, which were
suspended in a glass case in the window, and in which
position he had seen them the instant before the pri-
soner's companion had engrossed his attention with
the vases.

It was intimated by the police that a robbery of a
similar character was perpetrated a short time since
in the premises of a jeweller at Whitechapel, from
which property of a still more valuable description
had been abstracted by the thieves, and there was
reason to believe, from the details since furnished,
that the prisoner was " wanted" for that also.
He was accordingly cammitted for final examina-
tion, in conjunction with the other men already in
custody.