The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-24 00:00:00

fourtblibEtion

SUN OFFICE, Seven o Clock.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Bt nco.)
QUEEN V. NEWTON.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared to show cause
against a rule which had been obtained by Mr. Huddle-
stone to show cause why a writ of habeas cor-
pus should not issue to bring up and dis-
cbarge a woman of the name of Newton,
who was in custody on a charge of murder. She was
\•Tied at Shrewsbury before Mr. Justice Coltman.
The trial lasted two days, the jury were locked
up for the whole night, and on coming into court
the next morning stated it was impossible they
could agree as they were eqsally divided; and as
Mr. Jo.stice Coltman was obliged to proceed on his cir-
cuit, the other judge having gone on, he discharged the
jury and remanded the woman. The Attorney-General
cited several authorities to show that in particular cases
the Court bad the power to exercise its discretion, and
with the consent of both parties discharge the jury,
contrary to the general tradition that after a jury was
once charged, it was obliged to give its verdict. He,
therefore, submitted that :the Learned Judge acted pro-
perly, and that the rule must be discharged.
Mr. HIIDDLESTONE followed in support of the rule,
and contended, on the strergth of several authorities,
that when the judge discharged the jury he
should have also discharged the accused. A
jury in a criminal case could not be discharged
without coming to a result. He denied that a judge had
suy discretion as to what was a reasonable time for a
jury to be locked up, except absolute necessity. Neither
was the termination of the session a sufficient reason for
his di=scharging the jury and so closing the assize.
Lord DENMAN apprehended that the discharge of the
jury under the circumstances detailed did not amount to a
right of the prisoner to be discharged. He acted on the
impression that the commitment is still in full force, and
ought to continue in full force.
The other Judges were of the same opinion.
Rule discharged.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco )
WHITTAKER V. HEAD.

This action was tried before the Lord Chief Baron, at
the last sittings after term at Westminster, when a ver-
dict was found for the defendant. It was brought
against a house-agent for• not using due and correct dili-
gence in inquiring into the respectability of a person
uamed Gillies, to whom he had let a house belonging to
the plaintiff in the New•road. Gillies did not pay a
farthing or rent, and ultimately took the benefit of the
Insolvent Act. There was no question about the de-
fendant having undertaken the duty to let the house.
Mr. KNOWLES now moved to set aside the verdict on
the ground of surprise at the trial as to the evidence of
the defendant, and also upon affidavits showing that
his statement that he had made proper inquiries into
the character of the defendant was altogether an in-
vention.

The COURT, however, thought there was not suffi-
cient reason alleged to justify their assent to the motion.
BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)

Mr. H. HILL applied for a rule nisi, calling upon an
attorney of this court, whose name was not mentioned,
to show cause why he should not refund 1421. which he
had received under the following circumstances. Some
time ago a large sum of money was placed in the hands
of a Mr. Morgan, a stock-broker, to be advanced as loans
upon the security of railway debentures. Mr. Morgan
retained the attorney in question to procure or borrow,
upon the understanding that the expenses were to be paid
by the borrower, and he was to get as much commis-
sion as he could which was to be paid to Mr. Morgan,
less 251., the charge agreed upon for preparing the neces-
sary securities. The money having been duly advanced
to the borrower, and the securities executed, the attorney
waited upon Mr. Morgan and informed him that he had
only obtained 21 per cent. as commission which in the
whole amounted to 1421., and that sum he paid over,
previously deducting the 251. It had since, however,
bee❑ ascertained that 5 per cent. was paid as commission,
and the present application was to make the attorney re-
fund the 1421. which he had appropriated to his own. use
in violation of his previous agreement.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN thought the case was not of
that character which would justify the summary inter-
ference of the Court. The matter was rather one which
ought to be dealt with by an action at law.
Application accordingly refused.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.

(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL
THE DUTCH. DwAnF.--TuomrsoN v. HANNEMA.—
This was an inquiry to assess damages under the follow.
ing curious circumstances:—

Mr. CoRRIE said that the plaintiff was a literary gen-
tleman, and connected with the public press. The jury
had of course heard a great deal of the celebrated dwarf
General Tom Thumb, and of the large sum of money
gained by his exhibition. This led no doubt to the de-
fendant, who was a Dutchman, to bring his son over and
exhibit him, as he had an advantage of the other little
gentleman, being a year older, and half an inch shorter.
Defendant could not. speak English, and made an agree-
ment with the plaintiff, who was to find the dresses, &c.,
and to have half the clear profits for three years. As a
proof of the success of the defendant, his son was intro-
duced to her Majesty, Prince Albert, and the Royal
Family and nobility, and he also wont out to parties at
51. each. He had dressed in character as Admiral Van
Tromp, and also as an English barrister, but how he
went through rho last character he (the learned
Counsel) did not know.—(Laughter.) He (the dwarf )
was alAo put into a pie.—(Renewed laughter.) The
plaintiff had also prepared a memoir, which was sold to
visitors at 6d. each; but defendant suddenly refused to
ratify the agreement, and went into partnership with
another person. Plaintiff had offered to take 3001.
Evidence was adduced to show that great numbers of
persons had visited the dwarf, who received 51. for going
out to an evening party.
A young gentleman named Mahon was called, and said
that he had gone three times. He had seen the young
gentleman the Admiral.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said that the witness had not
seen the Admiral, but he might say what sort of an
English Barrister the young gentleman made.
The witness said that be did not make a very good
speech.—(Laughter.)
The jury, after a short consultation, gave a verdict for
2001.

MIL THOMAS DIINCOMBE.—We are happy to an-
nounce that Mr. Duncombe took his seat in the House
this evening, shortly after Mr. Berkeley had commenced
his speech on the ballet. The Hon. Representative fur
Finsbury, who has not been in the House since the
swearing in of the new Parliament, appeared in excel-
nt spirits, though.he bore about him the traces of ill-
health, and coughed a little. Ile was shaken most cor-
dingy by the hand by several members of her Majt-sty's
Government, and by all the well-known Reformers and
Radic ils in the House.