The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

QUEEN'S BENCI7I.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, Lieff.ro Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN

and Cipmm, n Juries.)
1-131: Till! V. ROSE.

This was an action to eOllTl;ensation in damages
for the injury which the plaintiff had sustained by reason
of having been given into custody by the defendant on
a ch irge of felony. Both plaintiff and defendant are
tradesmen in Tooley-street, the first being an uphol-
sterer and the second a clothit r and jewellt.r. In 1848
the plaintiff, whilst at a public-house in the neighbour-
hood, met a sailor, who asked him if he
could rtcommend him to any person who
Would cash him an advance note for 21. ss.
knowing that the defendant was in the habit of trans-
acting such business, though he had no acquaintarce
with him, he re commended the sailor, whose name was
.Raven, to gtpr ly to him. The plaintiff accc.wpanied
him to the shop of the defendant, who cashtd the
nate, the sailor receiving as part of it a cap aid umbrella.
Shortly after the defendant found that the note had
been forged, whereupon he gave the plaintiff into
custody on the charge of fo-ging the instru-
ment. After being four hours in custody he was
taken before a magistrate end discharged on entering
into recognizances to appear to answer tie charge
Whenever he would be called on to do so. A short time
after the sail, r was taken into custody, and was con-
victed of having forged the note in question, and others,
and was sentenced to twelve months' Imprisonment. The
plaintiff now sought compensation for the injury which
he had sustained in his character and busine 56 by being
taken into custody on such a charge.
Hunafrey and Mr. Charn,ck were for the
plairtiff.

- Mr. PRENTICE, on the pert of the defendant, con•
tended that reasonable suspicion attached to the plain-
tiff, aLd tht:t the defendant did no mure than any ene (,1
the jay would have dune under similar circumstances.
The jury, taking a different view, found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 50/.

EXCIIEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at We6tiniuster, befon., the LORD
CHIEF BARON rnd a Spacial Jury.)
SKINNER V. THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON AND SOUTH

COAST RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action brought by the phintiff, resitting
at Walworth, and the inspector of HAN kern' Licences at
Somerset House, to recover compensation for the loss of
three of his teeth which he sustained whilst travelling
from Brighton to London on the defendants' railway, on
the 12:h of July, 1847.
Mr. W. 11. Watson and Mr. E. James were counsel
for the plaintiff ; and the defendants were represented
by Mr. Russell Gurney and Mr. Bramwell.
It appeared that en the 12th of July, 1847, an excur-
sion trt:in to Brighton and back was ergaged the carry
the members of the Printers' P; nsion Society, and the
plaintiff was travelling to town by the train in the evtn-
leg. Between half-past nice and ten on that evening a
Croydon train proceeding to town had stopped on the
line between the A nnerley and New Cross stations,in con
S'quence of observing a train a little ahead, stationary.
The excursion train from Brighton, in which the plain
WI was travelling, came up in this state of things, and
ran into the Croydon train, and in the concussion the
the plaintiff had three of his teeth knocked
cut. These facts were given in evidence on
the part of the plaintiff; and also that the
defendants had compensated rutin; travelling in the
Croydon train, which was run into by the excursion
train.

On the part of the defendants, it was contended that
they had only made a contract for the day with the
Printcrs' Pension Society, and that the Pension Society
Was liable tor any injuries the plaintiff had received
bud not the defendants.

At tho ccnclut,ion of the plaintiff's case,
Mr. R. GURNEY, for the defendants, submitted that
the plaintiff's declaration was defective, in that it set out
that the plaintiff was travelling- in the train which was
run into, whereas the evidence given for the plaintiff
showed that ho was travelling in the train which ran into
the stationary one.
Mr. WATSON contended the that was not a material
variance, and even if it were, his Lordship would permit
the plaintiff to amend it.
The LORD CHIEF BARON retired to consult his
brother Judges on the point, and on his return he said
they concurred with him in thinking that the plaintiff
might be at liberty to amend by withdrawing the record,
the opposite party to plead de novo, and, if they thought
fit, to pay :noney into Court.
Mr. WATSON would assent to the suggestion of his
Lordship and withdraw the record, but he could not help
saying that the defence which had been made was most
disgraceful on the part of a public company.
The LORD CHIEF BARON would not 81101 Y Mr. Wat-
son to indulge in such expressions. If he had a com-
plaint of that sort to make, he should make it at another
time, when it could be urged with some success before
another jury. The present jury had nothing to do
with it.

Mr. BRAMWELL apprehended the plaintiff would pay
the costs.

The LORD CHIEF BARON would say nothing about
costs; he would reserve that coestion. Ile did not ullow
the amendment without costs. If the plaintiff withdrew
the record he must pay the costs.
- The plaintiff then withdrew the record on the above
conditions, and the case concluded.

CRIMINAL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and Mr. Justice
CRESS WELL.)
Joseph Hadley Riddell, 34, and William Moore
Eclipse Riddell, 29, described as chemists, who were tried
yesterday fur stealing and appropriating to their own
use certain prop( rty belonging to their Graployers,
Messrs. Pontifex, the well known copper and iron
manufacturers, when Joseph was found guilty and
William acquitted, were again placed in the dock this
morning charged upon another indictment for a similar
offence.

The prisoners :are brothers, and it appeared that
Joseph, the eldest, held the situation of manager, at a
blacklead and chamical manufactory belonging to
Mes,rs. Pontifex,:at Millwall, Poplar, and received for
his services a salary of 500/. a-year. William had also
at the instance of his brother, been employed as clerk in
the work at a salary of 1501.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINs said, after the opinion which
Mr. Justice Cresswell had given yesterday with respect
to the law bearing upon the case, and also after the view
which had been taken by the jury of the facts, he
fend the
thought it would neither be respectful or proper to de-
prisoner Joseph upon the present charge, and
Ike ILA been r vest©d to state that he now withdrew
his 'lea of Not Guilty and pleaded Guilty.
The prisoner Joseph then pleaded Guilty.
Thu charge against them was tor having erected a
green-house at their own house 72;urleigh-street, Green-
WWI), with the materiels c-f Messrs. Puntifcx, and by cid
of men in their employ. It appeared that several men
Were engaged for a considerable time in preparing iron
11114 wooden battens fur the green-house, and that
,its
erection in Burleigh-street, upon which several were
employed, occupied fourteen days, and this prcceeding on
the part of the prisoners were entirely unknown to. and
without the sanction of, Messrs. Pontifex, who had given
thrtetions that nothing should be removed from Mill-
wall without some authority being sent from their other
works in Shoe-lane. Both the prisoners, it appeared,
carried on a factory of their own in partnership at Lea-
°ridge, but this was unknown to their employers.
Mr. BALLANTINE contended, on the part of the pri-
soner William, that he had acted entirely under the di-
rection and control of his brother Joseph, who had the
management of the works.
Several witnesses were called as to character.
Mr. Justice CaasswEaL having summed up,
The jury found a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. CaAnKsoN said he had been requested by Messrs.
Pontifex to recommend William to the merciful consi-
deration of the Court. With respect to Joseph, he might
say, that had that which was disposed of by the jury
yesterday been the only, or anything like the only
offence, Messrs. Pontifex would not have appeared in
the court as prosecutors.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—To what extent have the pro-
secutors been robbed?

Mr, CLARKSON—As far as Joseph it concerned, I
may say the loss has been considerably above a thousand
Pounds.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, in passing sentence, said
Joseph was placed in a position of great trust and con-
fidence,i. and was paid on a most liberal scale, and, there-
! or
0, nothing could be more base and wicked than to
11K0 advantage of the opportunities afforded him
to rob his masters. There could be no doubt
fora
a system of plunder had been going on
considerable time, and though their masters'
lospicions had been excited by rumours which bad got
an road, and they had been cautioned, they still persisted
In their dishonest course. His irother, William, however,
was in a different situation, and was entitled more to the
e9roPassionate consideration of the Court ; ho got his
situation through the-influence of his brother, and being
under his control and dominion, he perhaps was less in-
eb irld to resist any temptation held out to him by his
.rotber to join in any dishonest practices. He would,
Illerefore, make a marked distinction in the punishment
ot the
two prisoners. The sentence upon Joseph upon
the first charge was, that he be imprisoned for one month
piel,"gate, and on the second charg., to which be
Tii—eu guilty, ta he e transorte t r seven years.
sentence upon Willibam was,p thatd he be imprisoned,
2th hard labour, in the House of Curreclon for the
tiTod of twelve calendar months.
The prisoners were then removed.

NEW COURT.
(Before Alderman CHALLIS and the COMMON E'ER-
Two 1
GE ANT )
-ads, named Martin aria Patrick Kelly, brothers,
were indicted for stealing a piece of cheee.
One of them had crept into a cheesemonger s shop, and hying his hand on the first piece that came in his
Way, he transferred it to his brother, who was loitering
about the door, but a policeman had his eye upon them,
and ;fore they could decamp they were in his custody.
Thh e jury found th( na Guilty.
, Patrick father of the lads, stepped into the
DO give his sons a character.
The COMMON SERGEANT—WeII, holly, I am afraid
Patrick i
s a bad boy,
The father—Arrali, flow, I n ivir saw anything bad
about him.
Oh'
COI43IJNISERGEANT —YOU never saw anything.
E no. Perhaps You will not see.
The father—I have got a sartiffikit of my character.
The CODIMON SERGEANT —But no one disputes our
honesty. y
The father--Sure, now, but its a character for myself
and fanaily.
The 0
lephat wOZ4MON SERGEANT—Oh, indeed. That is worth