The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-28 00:00:00

TOE SUN,

had pr-ived the allegation or charge in this declaration,
that they w, re the propri-tors of the work in
question? The Eecond qee:.-tion would be whethr
the defendant caustd the work to;:: be printed and
published. The def..:4;dant contended he In:d only
clone that which the pLintiirs therasilves had done,
that was, that he had copied the French work
with variations. Thirdly, he would 0..1 them whedicr
the clef* odunt had lcrnwkdge that t fin work in question,
supposing it to be a pirated copy of the plaintiV work,
but with certain col -wattle or evasive alterations, not
substantially varying its charJeter, was unlawfully
prin•ed before aching cr exposing it for sale ? lie
thought there wos no ground whatever for the charge
made by the plaiotiVconsel, that the €l.o4;&nt (Mr.
Strsrge) had act, d tratr'.ul;ntly ti.i3 tranEac-
tion, seeing that he sold the copies of the work
in question without concc.,,l,Lent. If the work in
question errs substantially that of M. de Flotew, though
there might be some trifling alterations, the plaintiffs
would have no case, for they could have no copyright in
the work.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and had
not returned into court when our report left.

EXCHE QUER.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON and a Ccmmon Jury.)
The Court was occupied during the morning in trying
an action (n a bill of exchange, involving no point of
public intercst,

SECOND,ARIES -(TIIIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Fecoudary PoTTER.)
ROGERS U. WHITLOCK.
This was an action to recover the sum of 31. 18s., the
balance of a prcmisscry note. Defendant suffered judg-
tnent to go by default.
Mr. BUCHANAN, plaintiff's solicitor, said he would
call witnesses to prove the signature to be that of the
defendant, and that the writ had been duly served on him.
Witnesses were called and proved these facts.
Mr. BucuaNAN said there were two Mr. Whitlocks,
defendant 13,ing the junior, aed no doubt thought he
could take an advantq,e of the non-insertion of the word
" junior."
'lle Learned SEC:TNDARY held that the identity bed
been fully made out, and the jury fctiud for the plaintiff
MUMFORD V. MARRIOTT.
The plt;intiff is a horse deidei, deleacient is a clerk in
a Government office, and the action was brought to re-
cover damages fur breach of contract. Defendant suf-
fered judgment to go by default, thereby admitting that
his judgment had been at fault in entering into the
contract. It appeared dna in August last defendant bar-
gained for a horse, for which he was to pay 311., and
left a deposit of IL, and was to pay the difference and
take away the animal in a few days, but subsequently
called and said he had not bet n at.le to raise the money,
but requested p'aiutiff to keep it at livery, which he did
for about twelve weeks, but defendant did not come to
the post.
A witness was called, who swore the horse had de-
preciated in value for sale 10/,
A juror said he could hardly understard that.
The witness—Oh, it is so, and no miitake.
The Learned SECONDARY said the question of damages
was one entirely for the jury, the contract clearly having
been broken.
The jury found a verdict for 101. loss on sale, and Si.
10s. for keep.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURI:

Before Mr. Baron A LIDEIVON, and Mr. Justice
CRLSSIVELL.) _ .

The second edition of the c:dendar contains the names
of 207 prisoners, - being no increase I ince the last edi-

Lion of 23.
THE A'ITEMPT TO MURDER AT CHISWICK.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE paid, with reterence to the young
man who was charged with feloniously shooting at and
wounding his ;atilt r, John Farmer Monklicuse, with in-
tent to murder him, he had to apply to their Lord-.
ships on the part of the prisoner for a postponement of
his trial until the next sessions. Thu MEd ,vit upo❑
which he made the application wss that of an attorney,
who stated that he had only just Leen retained, and
had not had tune to pr(p,tre the prisoner's defence.
Mr. BODKIN, on the part of the Crown, said he would
offer no ohj. ctiou to the application.
The COURT granted the application, and accordingly
the trial will stand over until the next sessions.

Geo! ge Boulelni I alder, a respc'ab's-louking man,
aged 20, and titscribed as a clerk, pleaded guilty to an
indictment charging him with having stolen a bank-note
value 101., the property of John Sadlitr, and others, his
masters.

An application was now made for a mitigation of
punishment. It appeared that the employers of the pri-
soner were bankers, and that he als:ructed the 101. note
from a letter which was received in the ordinary course
of business by the fitm. Several certificates were put
in giving him an excellent character for sobriety and
honesty, and in palliation of his conduct, it said, he
committed the offence from a vain end foolish love for
dress. He procured some articles of dress on the under-
standing that he should pay the tailor by instalments
out of his salary—an arrangement which he faithfully
inVnded to carry out, but, unfortunately, the tailor
became bankrupt, and his assignees threatened to sue
him for the payment of the debt, and this, he said, in-
duced him to take the le/. note. Inquiries had been
made to ascertain the truth of this statement, and the
accuracy of it had been confirmed.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON, in passing sentence said, the
prisoner had lost no advantage by pleading guilty, for
having looked over the depositions, he found the case
was very clear aga;nst him. The nature of the CAR©
showed his entire inexperience in crime, for the way in
which he committed the offence was sure to lead to
detection. Through an cxtraragant love of dress, and
a desire to incur expenses beyond his means, he had lost
not only his situation but his character and his caste in
society, had disgraced his family, and instead of pursuing
a course of honest industry to a position of respecta-
bility or wealth, he was now a convicted felon. At his
age repentance and reformation were not hopeless,
though difficult; and he beseeched him, if he regarded
his own welfare, never again to wander from the straight
path of honesty. The sentence of the Court was, taking
into consideration the circumstances of the case, that he
be imprisoned in Newgate for the period of six calendar
months.