The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-14 00:00:00

seized the cloak from off the chair where I had placed it.
and said he would keep it till I brought him a sovereign.
I remonstrated with him, upon which he remarked, " I
did not ask you to come up." I said that it might have
been as well if he had brought a third person. He asked
me what I meant, and I muttered something about po-
lice. He then said, " Ha ! a pretty figure you would make
in the papers before all your friends as a damned
He consented, however, to let me have the cloak, provided
Pgave him something more to keep till I brought him the
sovereign ; and upon my assuring him that I had nothing
more about me, and feeling my waistcoat pocket at the
same time, he saw two studs which I wore in my shirt, and
a ring I had on my finger. These he demanded. I said
that nothing would induce me to part with them, and he
then said, " Well, well, I dont wish to be hard with you ;
you'll bring me the sovereign, I'm sure, won't you ? I said
I would, but not to this place. I promised to bring it to
the Piazza, where I had met him, and after some conversa-
tion I appointed Friday evening for that purpose. He then
stirred the fire, talking more familiarly, saying " My good
fellow, I think I can depend on you to bring it me." He again
proposed having something to drink, and then opened the
door, accompanied me down stairs, and at the foot reminded
me of the appointment for Friday evening. We then
parted. I did not take my cloak away, as he would not
permit me. Next morning I called on an attorney as I
went to the Custom-house--he was not then at home, and
having come away a little earlier than usual, I went to a
friend, a barrister in Grey's Inn, by whose advice I went to
the Magistrates on Tuesday afternoon, at Marlborough-
street office. They had separated, and I called at the house
of Mr. Dyer. He desired me to appear at the office next
morning, and having then related the circumstances, I ar-
ranged with Scholefield, the officer, the best manner of ap-
prehending the prisoner. We went on Wednesday evening
to the neighbourhood of the theatres, and I there met with
him. The prisoner had on my cloak, and on being taken
into custody denied having ever seen me before.
Scholefield, the officer, stated that he had taken the pri-
soner into custody. He then said the cloak which he wore
was his own. Mr. Thomas identified it as his property.
The gloves were in the pocket. At first the prisoner re-
fused to give his name or address. He afterwards said his
name was John Davis, and referred to his uncle, a Mr.
Price, Curtain-road, Shoreditch.
In reply to questions from the prisoner, the prosecutor
denied having seen him at Wyche-street, nor did he recollect
having ever met him until he was waiting for the half price
hour at Drury-lane Theatre.
Davis being called upon for his defence, stated that on
the night of the 2d of December he met the prosecutor in
Wyche-street, and that having walked together for some
time Mr. Thomas proposed going to his lodgings and hav-
ing something to drink there. Upon coming to No. 18,
Brownlow-street, they went up stairs, and the prosecutor
gave a shilling to procure gin and water. He expressed an
anxiety to become better acquainted with the prisoner, and
after remaining for some time promised to lend the cloak to
him until the following Friday evening.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE having summed up the evidence,
the Jury found the prisoner Guilty of stealing the cloak
with a felonious intent, but acquitted him on the count in
which he was charged with having put the prosecutor in
bodily fear.

NEW COURT.
William Bennett was; indicted for stealing six handker-
chiefs and a waistcoat, the property of Messrs. Machin
and Debenham. . .

It appeared by the evidence that the prisoner went to
the sale-room of the prosecutors on two several occasions,
on the 6th instant, when he was apprehended after com-
mitting the several thefts, before which he had pledged the
waistcoat. The prisoner was pursued and overtaken in
Long-Acre, and the property found in his hat.
Pocock found a silver spoon and other articles at the
prisoner's lodgings, which, however, he had satifactorily ac-
counted for. The Judge ordered them to be given to the

prisoner.
A witness was called to give the prisoner a character,
and he said he was a waiter out of place, having lived three
years at the Star end Garter at Richmond, and with Mr.
Lovegrove at lilac!: wall. Distress induced him to commit
crime. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, accompanied
with a recommendation to mercy.
Avis, a respectable police-officer, stated that he knew the
prisoner when he lived at Payne's Hotel, when he bore a
high character. Property was stolen from that establish-
ment, and the prisoner assisted himself with him (Avis) to
detect the thief. .

...._,.. ...._
The COURT intimated the punishment would be slight

COURT OF REQUESTS, TUESDAY

CASTLE STREET.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.-FINNS V. NICHOLLS.

Mr. C. K. Nicholls appeared upon a summons obtained
against him at the instance of Mr. Binns, watchmaker, of
the Strand, for the sum of two pounds, for the hire of his

rooms.

Mr. Binns stated, a Joint Stock Bank had been started
a few months since, and that the temporary offices and
meetings were held at his house, and that the defendant was
at times present.
From sonic misunderstanding, the Chairman of the Com-
pany left it, and the remaining Directors in consequence
also resigned. The expenses up to that time for rent, lawyers'
hills, printing, &c., amounted to 1401. 21. was claimearom
the defendant for his share of plaintiff's demand.
Mr. Nicholls observed to the Commissioners that spe-
culative Companies were frequently formed by parties, to
forward which the names of respectable individuals were
canvassed ; and that, in the event of the Company not suc-
ceeding, the disbursements in those cases were saddled upon
the Director. _ _

Mr. Nicholls, however, took a preliminary objection to
the summons, intimating that the Commissioners could not
interfere, as Mr. Binn's account against each Director was
for 21., portion of the sum of 25/. ; and by the 42d clause,
c. 137, in the late County Act, the plaintiff cannot "split or
divide" any debt for the purpose of suing two or more
persons.
The COMMISSIONERS concurring in this view, the sum-
mons was dismissed, with costs.