The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
INSOLVENT DE.131 ORS' COURT, Jan. 13.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS)
IN RR GEORGE WEBB.
The insolvent was opposed by Mr. Cooke on behalf
of Messrs. Keep and Hendy, lace merchants, of
Wood-street, and was supported by Mr. Nichols.
The case occupied, as on a former occasion, nearly
a whole day, but the facts may be stated in a few
lines. In October, 18469 the insolvent applied to the
opposing creditors to supply him with goods, which
they consented to do, upon some friend of insolvent's
becoming security. The latter thereupon mentioned
a Captain Hodson, whom be described to be a man
possessed of landed and house property; a statement
which satisfied Messrs. Keep and Hendy, and the
credit was opened upon Hodson's becoming guarantee.
The dealings continued until insolvent had contracted
a debt of 1001., about which time Hodson was taken
before a magistrate upon a charge of swindling, was
committed, tried, but acquitted, and, immediately
after, arrested upon another charge, upon which he
was allowed to go at large for a day or two, under-
taking to appear at the appointed time ; but when that
time came riodson did not appear, and had not been

seen since.
The insolvent said, he became acquainted with
llodson through the latter purchasing various small
parcels of goods from him, and that when he repre-
sentedi Hodson to the opposing creditors as a man of
substance he did so upon the faith of statements made
by that person to himself.
Mr. Commissioner l'Enuars said that, even if the
insolvent had not been in collusion with Hodson, he
ought to have ascertained the truth of the statements
made by the latter before tendering him to the credi-
tors as a man of substance and integrity. In his
(the Learned Commissioner's) opinion the debt of
Messrs. Keep and Hendy had been most fraudulently
contracted ; and, therefore, the insolvent would not
be discharged until the expiration of a period of
twelve calendar months from the date of the vesting
order.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Joseph Ady attended before the Lord Mayor upon
a summons, calling upon him to appear to answer
the charge of having refused and neglected to pay
the sum of 101. 12s. 4d., due to her Majesty for the
duty of postage, and to show cause why, upon due
proof being made of the sum of money due, a war-
rant of distress should not be granted for the re-
covery of that amount, pursuant to the directions of
the Post-office statute, commonly called " Joseph
Ady's Act."
Mr. PEACOCK, the solicitor to the Post-office, ap•
peered for the prosecution ; Mr. Huddlestone for the
defendant.
After several technical objections raised by Mr.
Huddlesone had been overruled,
The defendant pleaded "Not Guilty."
Mr. Peacock then stated that the Act gave the
Lord Mayor jurisdiction in any case brought before
him on the refusal to pay postage under the amount
of 201., and that the defendant was summoned for
having refused and neglected to pay the sum of
101. 12s. 4d. postage upon letters which had been sent
out by him without being stamped or post-paid. The
Act directed that if the persons to whom letters
were addressed did not pay, the parties who sub-
scribed them were compellable. Of the 1,274 letters
which had been transmitted by the defendant by
post, 676 had been refused, and 598 had been re-
turned because the addresses of the parties to whom
they were addressed could not be found.
Mr. Huddlestone said, he had another objection.
He would contend that the summons ought to show,
upon the face of it, under what class the letters were
comprehended, and a distinction ought to be drawn
between the two classes.
The LORD MAYOR—I see the summons is endorsed
with these words—" The letters in respect of which
the postage of 101. 12s. 4d., mentioned in the written
summons, is payable, may be seen by Mr. Ady at
the solicitor's office, General Post-office, any day
between the hours of twelve and two o'clock." I
consider that to be sufficient notice to the defendant
to apply for the examination of the letters.
Evidence was then called in support of the prose-
cution.
Mr. James Hyde, 'clerk to the Dead Letter-office,
produced the 1,274 letters, and said he had read them
all.—(Laughter.)
Joseph Ady then looked at the bundles, and said
he must see whether the letters were right, and he
should want to look at them all. Subsequently, how-
ever, he gave up this intention, at the suggestion of
his solicitor.
Mr. Hyde then proceeded with his evidence, and
proved the number of letters returned, and the amount
due upon them, as above.
W. Beaumont, a letter-carrier, proved the non-
payment of the money demanded by the Post-office.
Mr. Huddlestone then addressed his Lordship for
the defendant, and said, he could not see how his
client could he convicted upon such evidence, and
contended that the summons was at variance with the
Act, and that Mr. Ady's refusal to pay ought to have
been distinctly shown by the testimony of witnesses.
The LORD MAYOR said that, looking at the Act of
Parliament as a public Act, he could not but consider
that when a person did not pay the postage of a letter
that person refused to pay it. His Lordship wished
to know whether Mr. Huddlestone wished to call any
witnesses ? Mr. Huddlestone—None, unless your
Lordship allows m:.• to call my client himself.
The LORD MAYOR—Then I decide that a warrant
of distress be granted against the defendant.
Mr. Huddlestone requested that his client might be
allowed time for the payment of the money, and
The defendant said, he would pay the amount at
the rate of 2/. per week.
Mr. Peacock said, the Post-office authorities could
not place the slightest reliance on Mr. Ady's word,
and were not disposed to extend to him any further
indulgence. The defendant had asserted that one of
the judges had, through his correspondence, obtained
the sum of 10,0001., but he (Mr. Peacock), upon in-
quiring, found there was not a shadow of truth in
the statement.
Joseph Ady then retired, without appearing to be
in the slightest degree discomposed. He must pay
the amount within five days, or his goods will be
seized for the amount.
WORSHIP-STREET.
A tall powerful fellow named William Orton, de-
scribed as a sawyer, was placed at the bar before Mr.
Arnold, charged with feloniously cutting and wound-
ing a married woman named Maria Luff, residing in
ISottingham-place, Kingsland.
The prosecutrix, who had been confined to her bed
from the effects of the injuries she had sustained, and
was still in such a state of suffering and debility that
she was allowed to be seated during her examination,
was at one time in such danger that on the report of
her medical attendant the magistrate and chief clerk
were oblignd to go to her house and take her deposi-
tion. She now stated, that on the afternoon of the
29th ult. an angry altercation took place between her
and the wife of the prisoner, arising from some unfair
advantage the latter had taken of her, and that soon
after it had terminated, as she thought, the prisoner
himself made his appearance, and assailing her with
the most foul-mouthed epithets struck her such a
terrible blow over the eye that she was sent staggering
backwards, and her face was covered with blood. Not
satisfied with this, he immediately closed upon her, and
exclaiming he would give her a Lancashire fling, flung
her heavily upon the ground and commenced kicking
her in the most brutal manner about the head and
body, until she was rescued from further violence
by the interposition of several neighbours, who
assisted her into a chair and hastened off for a
surgeon ; but they had scarcely left her when the
prisoner burst into the room, and, advancing towards
her with a clasp-knife in his hand, told her, with a
horrible imprecation, that he had come on purpose to
murder her, and extended the knife out to her throat,
with the apparent intention of drawing the weapon
across it ; but before he could accomplish his pur-
posedsai he was
al
gned
natl
laer mm hastilyaend
ran bsyo
otunhpe
tsaoof ;he nir
sdwooa
own
afterwards
so:
pt
Ras
rtrret
ipmy see
arrived
int s
a. t
nhAde
me
dressed her wounds, and had been in constant attend-
ance upon her ever since.
Mr. Finer, the surgeon alluded to, deposed that
upon examining the prosecutrix he found that, in-
addition to other injuries of a serious character, one
of her ribs had been fractured, and an incised wound
inflictel over her left eye of such a dangerous nature
that he was for some time apprehensive it must inevi-
tably result in a fatal termination.
An attempt was made to show that the last injury
referred to had been caused by the prosecutrix
coming into contact with some clothes pegs it was
alleged the prisoner had in his hand, and one of which
was produced, but the testimony of the prosecutrix
referring to the knife was corroborated by that of the
constable who apprehended the prisoner, and who
produced a knife of that description, which he had
found in the prisoner's possession.
Mr. Heritage, who appeared for the defence, said
that he had several witnesses in attendance who would
be able to give an entirely different complexion to the
transaction if examined, and establish the fact that his
client h been induced to act as described wider the
!ittrongest feelings of provocation ; but as he presumed
Magistrate'swastheofa j
intention to send the case for
the consideration
to reserve his defury, he thought it most expe-
dientnce.
Mr. ARNOLD conbeen taken by Mr.Nrc
u
inr
r
ee
,d
t,
ha en de
htiheef
clerk,
ttihoen sprhiasovninegr
was fully committed to Newgate for trial.
C ERKENWELL
William Taylor,L a fellow having the appearance of
a labourer, was placed at the bar before Mr.Ty hitt,
charged with begging under the following- rawggra-
vated circumstances :
The prisoner, on Saturday, the 6th instant, entered
the Court, and made a most pitiable statement to Mr.
Nesbitt, one of the ushers of the Court, saying that