The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-13 00:00:00

LA W:IN TELLIGEN GE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dzc. 12.
EDWARDS V. PERRY AND WIFE.
Mr. KELLY stated that this was an action brought to
recover the sum of 25/. 175., claimed to be due to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff was the proprietor of the Golden
Cross, Charing-cross, and the defendant an officer in the
army. Sometime in 1834 the lady, who was now Captain
Perry's wife, resided in Jermyn-street, and took a farcy to
a mare that belonged to the plaintiff. She had the mare
taken to the stables of a Mr. Allen, who kept a riding-
school, and where she was accustomed to go to take
ridinr, lessons ; and she rode out on the mare, accom-
panied by Mr. Allen, who went with her for the pur-
pose of safety. On her return from the ride she ex-
pressed herself very much pleased with the mare, and
determined on purchasing it. She did so, and the price
she agreed to give was 401. The mare was shown to her
at Mr. Allen's'stahles, which were near her residence. Some
time afterwards she removed to Stamford-street, Black-
friars, and wished the mare to be taken to stables in
that street, but Mr. Allen refused to give it up until
his claims for stabling and lessons were satisfied. These
amounted to 5/. 175., and Miss Rivers induced the plain-
tiff to advance the money for her. A Mr. Ball, who was
the plaintiff's brother-in-law, had a demand against her.
which he was at last obliged to enforce by action. He had
previously acted in several little matters of business on her
behalf, and among other thing she had paid to the plaintiff
the sum of 20/., in part payment of the price of the mare.
He did not at the time take a receipt, but some time after-
wards be gave her one, in which he appeared to have ex-
pressed himself erroneously. It was not unworthy of no-
tice that when they afterwards differed on the subject of
their accounts, the lady thought fit to institute proceedings
against him at the Stamp-office for having given an un-
stamped receipt. Mr. Ball sent into the Stamp-office a
plain statement of the whole facts of the case, and the
authorities at the Stamp-office seeing that there had been
nothing like an attempt to defraud the revenue, had very
properly stopped the proceedings. The claim of the plain-
tiff for his balance of account still remained unsatisfied ; the
lady married, and the plaintiff had been obliged to bring
the present action against her, and to join the husband for
the sake of conformity. .
Mr. PRICE addressed the Jury for the defendant, but
The Jury, not thinking the defence established, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEC. 12.
James Jenncry, a stock-jobber, was opposed by Mr.
WOODROFFE, on the part of Mr. May, a warehouseman,
in Cateaton-street, and Mr. Aaron, pawnbroker, residing in
Whitechapel.
In this case the insolvency was ascribed to speculation in
Spanish Bonds. The losses of the insolvent had been very
large, his debts, in the aggregate, were 3,6001., of which
sum he had, he alleged, received no consideration for
2,3351., arising on " time bargains." The bona fide debts
were 1,3241. On the other side appeared the sum of 9801.,
and a quantity of furniture had been given up to the Court.
The complaint on the part of the opposing creditors was,
that their debts had been incurred without reasonable or
probable means of payment. The insolvent had been a
clerk in the establishment of Messrs. Ladbroke, the bankers.
He left his situation in 1834, when possessed of nearly
4,0001., part of which sum he had made by speculations in
the funds ; he then speculated largely, and had lost all his
money, and bad got into debt to a considerable sum. He
said in May, 1835, the Spanish Bonds experienced a tre-
mendous fall, and he never recovered himself.
The COURT held that the debts had been incurred at a
time when the insolvent had no reasonable means of paying
them. .He was adjudged to an imprisonment of seven
calendar months.

The insolv( nt, who was out on bail, was given into cus•
,ody.—The Court rose until Friday.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

Patrick Nolan, 29, was indioted for stealing two loaves
of bread, the property of David Allan.
Prisoner—l'm not guilty—l only took the loaves—
(Laughter.) Indeed, that's thrue.
Clerk of Arraigns—How say you, Patrick Nolan, guilty
or not guilty.
Prisoner—Ah ! how say you ? Oh, then I am guilty
plase your honour's worship.
CHAIRMAN—What have you to say in mitigation of
punishment ?

Prisoner—Oh, my Lord, I'm one of the unfortunate in-
dividuals.who went out to Spain to fight for Gineral Ivvins!
Punishment I arrah, I had enough of it there, and so I have
since. I'd been 24 hours without food, and was staggering
with hunger when I saw the baker's basket on the street
pavement, and I took the loaf.

CHAIRMAN—But you took two 7
Prisoner—Yes, my Lord, but they were sticking toge-
ther ! I only intended to take one, but the other corned
up with it. I took them in the eyes of everybody, but I
could not help it ; the hunger did it.
CHAIRMAN—IIow do you get your living ?
Prisoner—By selling children's books (producing a bun-
dle), but I can't sell enough to support me.
The CHAIRMAN sentenced the convict to four months'
imprisonment and hard labour (four weeks solitary), and
observed that the idle spectators who attended that Court
should understand that the sentence just passed was the
lowest, and not the highest, that was adjudged for such
offences.