The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-26 00:00:00

ROLLS' COUItT.7-(THIS DAY.)

The Master of the Rolls heard motions to-day, but
no case of alny interest came before his Lordship
during the morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COM•
PANY V. SMITH.
A motion in this case for an injunction to restrain
the defendant Smith from bringing an action to re-
cover compensation from the company, for damage
done to his property by the construction of their
railway across Bartholomew-street, Birmingham,
occupied the Court the whole day.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
Ills HONOUR heard motions to-day, but no case
calling for a special report came before the Court
during the morning.
(Before the Vice. Chancellor WIGRAM.)
MUTTON V. THB EOUTH•WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
This case stood on the paper for judgment to-day,
hut his honour, on taking his seat, stated that he
was not quite prepared, and would therefore postpone
giving it till to-morrow.
The Court then heard motions.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
MESSRS. BROADWoOD v. ASHTON.
This action was tried before the Chief Baron at the
last sittings after term, at Westminster, when a verdict
was found for the plaintiffs for 281.
Mr. WILLES, in pursuance of leave reserved, now
moved to enter a nonsuit. The plaintiffs are brewers,
and the defendant was a clerk in their employ, whose
duty it was, with others, to keep the books of the firm.
The action was upon the case, and the counts set forth
that the plaintiffs gave the defendant the custody of
certain goods and chattels, viz., certain pieces of money,
amounting to 281., to be returned upon request, and that,
through his improper conduct and neglect., the said goods
and chattels were lost to the phintiffs. It agpcared that
a number of collectors were employed by the firm to
receive payment of accounts from the customers,
upon which they were allowed a commission, and that
it was their duty to account for the monies they re-
ceived during the week, and to pay them to the cashier
every Saturday. It appeared also that the collectors
were in the habit, sometimes, of leaving sums of money
in the hands of the clerks, and coming next morning
and paying them to the cashier, whose duty alone it was
to receive money. O❑ the 10th of December, 1847, a
cent ctor, named Kinneraly, came to the office, in the
evening, with 281., the amount in question, and wished
one of the clerks to take care of it. The defendant
volunteered his services, and the sum was handed to
him, but on the following morning it was missing.
There was no imputation whatever upon the character
of the defendant, but the dishonesty of another clerk
was suspected.
Mr. WILLES Submitted that from the circumstance of
the defendant not having anything to do with the re-
ceipt of money, and merely taking custody of it for the
convenience of the collector who was to receive it hack
again and pay it to the cashier, that the plaintiffs were
not entitled to recover against him.
The Court granted a rule. •

POST-OFFICE.—NOTICE.—Mount Bellew, county
Galway, Ireland, having been constituted a post town,
money orders will in future be issued and paid at that
office.

IVHDDLESLX
(TUB DAY.)
(Before the ASSISTANT- JUDGE)
THE CASINOS.— Charles Wcif, Thomas May,
Richard Pridmoro, George Hainsley, and Albert
Leonard, were indicted for carrying on musical and
other entertainments in the building known as
SaviPe House, Leicester square.
It appeared that there was in this indictment, which
was dated the 31 Jan., 1849, some informality, in
consequenceofwhich it was withdrawn.

Cha7rles Wolf, Thomas Ottey, and George Anners-
ley or Ilainsley, were called upon another indict-
ment, dated the 2d of February, 1849, in which the
name of Albert Leonard did not appear, as in the
previous one.

Messrs. Wolf, Ottey and Annersley preFented
themselves at the bar, but Mr. rridinore did not
appear._

Mr. PARRY' on the part of the four defendants,
addressed the Court, and said he hoped the parties
would not be called upon to plead to this indictment,
as it was very well known to his Learned Friends.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Bodkin, who appeared for the
prosecution, that the portion of the house in Leicester-
square which had been called by the name of " Wal-
halla.' was shut up after Easter Monday, and had not
since been opened for any purposes such as alleged in
the indictment, that was to say, music and dancing.
The place had been since in the possesaion of an
American gentleman, who applied it to the purpose
of exhibiting views upon the river nississippi,
which he did not suppose be was offending against
the laws of England. Under the circumstances, the
Learned Gentleman submitted that there was no oc-
casion to call upon any of the defendants to plead to
this indictment, as they were quite ready to enter
into satisfactory recogniaances, as they had expected
would he the result of those negotiations which had
been going on from time to time since February last.
With respect to Mr. Pridmore, who was (as we
understood the Learned Gentleman) the proprietor of
the place formerly celebrated for the exhibition of.
Miss Linwood's pictures in needlework, he was net
aware that he was violating any law when he
opened the same apartments under the name
of the 'Walhalla. That defendant was a gentleman
of great respectability, and he did not wish to plead
guilty to any indictment which implied such a charge
as that of keeping a disorderly house ; and he hoped
that his entering into any required recognisances,
would satisfy all the legitimate purposes of the pro•
secution. The other three defendants were ready to
plead. They were respectable persons, and had not.
been conscious of committing any offence ; nor indeed
did he (Mr. Parry) think they had offended against
any law whatever. They were ready to enter into
recognizances.

I% r. CLARKSON said that the prosecution was
promoted by Stowell against those who per-
formed music and dancing without license,
and it was promoted at the instance of those who
were licensed for those kinds of entertainment.
The prosecutor was ready to go on to trial, unless
the defendants would consent to fulfil the terms
which had been proposed to them in the several ne-
gotiations that had taken place. Neither he nor his
friend, Mr. Bodkin, who appeared with him, was in-
structed to call fur anything like punishment, but he
did not think that under the circumstances, and after
all that had passed, the prosecutor should be expected
to take off his hat, and make a bow to the defendants,
thanking them for at last renewing their recogniz-
ances, and putting off the case sine die, without any
more definite conclusion.

Mr. PARRY said that there was one action for
penalties against the defendants already, besides the
proceedings here. Mr. Lewis said that the action
was in his hands. If that were so, the defendants
would be satisfied, but they thought they were in the
hands of dishonouraMe persons.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE said that he himself would
be bail for Mr. Lewis. With respect to the Act
under which these proceedings were instituted, he
must say that he did not think its nature was rightly
understood. If the case went on to trial, he should
have to enter into the bearings of the Act more le
detail. But at present he should say that
there was one important effect of the Act
which rendered its repeal absolutely necessary,
and that was that, if it were enforced, every person
who gave or performed in a morning concert wee
liable to an indictment, and to an action for penalties.,
Such a law was wholly incompatible with the present
circumstances of society, but whilst it remained in
tlirce even the admirable and amiable Jenny Lied
might be indited, and those who engaged her in the
morning concerts might be charged in that court,
under the Act in question, as keepers of disorderly
houses. It was expressly declared inditable by the
Act for any person to give a public concert before
five o'clock in the afternoon. This law could not re-
main.

It was ultimately agreed that the case should stand
over upon fresh recognizAnces to Thursday, the 24th
of May, with the understanding that an arrangement
will be come to in the meantime to the satisfaction of
the prosecutor.
AURENT'S CASINO, ROYAL ADELAIDE GALLERT.
Emile Laurent and James Ellis, were called on an ,
indictment similar to the preceding, but after
a short
coaversation, this case also was put off on a like un-
derstanding.
Tit E ETHIOPIAN SERENADERS.—Thomas Harwood,
David Martin, and Charles Bender, were indicte't.
under the same Act, for giving musical entertain-
ments, viz., those of the negro singers or serenaders,
at the Literary and Scientific Institution, in White-
chapel. In this case also, Mr. Parry appeared for
the defendants. He stated that the matter had been'
arranged.,
The defendants were discharged upon their own
recognizance:.