The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-25 00:00:00

having committed a daring highway robbery, att;:nthd with
cons:derable violence.

Mr. GREGORIE remanded the prisoners, to give time for
the necessary inquiries.
A letter was found on the male prisoner from his brother,
in which the latter said he had heard that the prisoner had
been transported, assigning this as a reason for not haying
written to him before,

THAMES OFFICE.
Yesterday Peter Murphy, a boiler maker, was brought
before Mr. BALLANTINE and Mr. THISLETON, a county
Magistrate, on a charge of assaulting Sarah Douglas, a
young woman, and beating her.

The complainant, a dress-maker, on being sworn, deposed
as follows :—He met me at a concert at the Bee Hive
beer-shop. When I went home he followed me and knocked
me down, and robbed me of my clothes.
The prisoner, on being called upon, said he was a boiler-
maker ; he was very tipsy when he struck the young woman.
Mr. BALLANTINE-BUt, whether drunk or sober, men
don't ill-use women and knock them down. It appears that
you most grossly 11-used this girl, who had given you no pro-
vocation, and we find you guilty of this atrocious assault.
The policeman saw you knock her down, and after that you
knocked her down again, and tore all the clothes off her
back. If you had any manhood about you, you would not
have done it. You will pay a fine of 5/. to the Queen, or
be imprisoned for two months.

Mr. BALLANTINE—NOW, take care this beer-shop is
looked after. This is the second case arising out of the
concert at the beer-shop this day.
Mr. Valentine—lt shall he attended to, gentlemen.
Mr. THISLETON—Beer-shop-keepers have no right to
keep open until one o'clock in the morning.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 24.
HOPKINSON AND ANOTHER. V. WILSON.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE and Mr. CHANNEL appeared for
the plaintiffs, Mr. KELLY and Mr. HOGGINS for the de-
fendant.

This was an action brought to recover 691. 75., the value
of a quantity of corn supplied to the order of a person
named Edwards, who was, as the plaintiffs alleged, the mere
agent of the defendant. It appeared that Edwards had
been coachman for several years to the proprietor of the
Streatham coaches ; and that from the month of August,
1836, until April, 1838, that concern had been carried
on in the name of Edwards, as proprietor. To that
concern the corn in question was supplied ; and the ques-
tion in the cause was whether Edwards or the defendant
was the substantial owner and proprietor of those
coaches, and the person for whose interest that con-
cern was carried on. On the part of the plaintiffs evi-
dence was produced to show that the defendant gave the
necessary orders for the prosecution of the business, re-
ceived weekly accounts from Edv‘ards of his receipts and
payments, and finally sold the whole business and the stock
to another person, without consulting Edwards on the sub-
ject. On the other side an agreement, dated August, 1836,
was put in, by which the defendant sold this coaching con-
cern to Edwards for upwards of 4001., to be repaid by in-
stalments of 71. per week. That debt was secured by a
warrant of attorney. It was contended for the defendant
that the money had been handed over to him only in the
character of banker for Edwards.

The Learned Judge left it to the Jury to say whether
the defendant or Edwards was the substantial owner, for
whose benefit this concern was carried on.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages;
69/. 7s.

This was the last day of the present sittings.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COM

PA NY.

A special general meeting of this company having been
convened by the Directors to be held at the City of London
Tavern, Bishopsgate-street, on Thusday, the 20th instant,
for the purpose of receiving and considering the reports of
Mr. Wood and Mr. Hawkshaw, the shareholders accord-
ingly met at the place and hour appointed.
W. U. Stars, Esq., having taken the chair, the Secretary
read a notice which had been subsequently published,
stating that it would be proposed that this meeting should
be adjourned to the 9th of January next, in consequence of
Mr. Wood's report not having been received by the Directors.
Mr. Glens, a Director, then moved, in pursuance of such
notice, that the present meeting be adjourned until Wed-
nesday, the 9th of January, 1831.
Mr. VOUSLEY, a shareholder, begged leave, before the
motion was put, to ask whether Mr. Wood's report had in
fact, been received or not ?

The CHAIRMAN replied that the report in substance cer-
tainly had, within these few days, been received ; but there
was an appendix still in preparation, from which a good
deal of information was expected to be gathered, and which,
of course, had not yet been received.

Mr. VOUSLEY thought there could be no objection, under
the circumstances, to adjourn the meeting to the day pro-
posed, since it appeared that the Directors were not in pos-
session of anything to communicate to the proprietors.
The CHAIRMAN—WiII you second the motion then for
an adjournment ?

M. VOUSLEY had no objection to do so, inasmuch as he
hoped before the day fixed on should arrive, Mr. Wood's
report and appendix would be prepared and laid before the
Directors.

The CHAIRMAN said he had no doubt that a copy of the
report and appendix would be in the hands of every pro-
prietor some nine or ten days previously to their meeting
again. It was solely with this view that so long an adjourn-
ment had been thought advisable, it being the wish of the
Directors to consult the convenience of the shareholders,
by affording them an opportunity to consider the report
before they should be called upon either to adopt or reject
it. It was proper he should state that the proposed meet-
ing would be held at the London Tavern, and not at the
City of London Tavern, as the ter house, he understood,
would at that period be shut up.
The question was then put and agreed to, and the meet-
ing adjourned.