The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-26 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

This being the first day after Michaelmas Term, his
Honour the MASTER of the Hou.s sat at the Rolls' Court
in Chancery-lane, and atter swearing in upwards of 100
solicitors, proceeded with the hearing of cause petitions,
between 20 and 30 of which his Honour had disposed of
when our reporter left, but none of them involved any
points of public importance.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(TMS DAY.)

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR sat at Lincoln's-
Inn, and took bankrupt petitions to.day ; but nothing
worth reporting came before the Court up to two o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

WARBLING V. GILBERTSON.

Mr. EARL opened the case for the plaintiff, by stating
that the defendant had violently assaulted and imprisoned
the plaintiff, and had taken him to Hatton-garden police-
office. The defendant pleaded a justification, viz , that
the plaintiff, being in his employ, had feloniously appro-
priated certain monies belonging to the defendant to his
own use, and in consequence thereof he imprisoned the
plaintiff.
Sir J. SCARLETT was about to detail the plaintiff's case
at length, when he was interrupted by
Lord TENTERDEN, who stated that the defendant having
pleaded a justification of the whole charge, be was bound
to prove first that he acted properly.
Mr. POLLOCK then addressed the Jury in support of
the defendant's case, and detailed the circumstances which
induced his client to give the plaintiff in custody, as he
would prove by evidence ; and having done so, said, that
if the Jury believed the defendant bad acted under the
motives of pique or malice, then the defendant would
be entitled to their verdict. _ _

John East stated that he was clerk to the defendant.
Wakeling came into the defendant's service in June, last
year, and was employed to cart out the bread, and re-
ceive money from the customers. He always took out
three books with him, viz.—a bill-book, in which to
enter monies received ; a second, to enter chance custom-
ers' bread in ; and the third, to enter regular customers
in. Witness was in the habit of taking an account
of the quantity of bread taken out in the morning, and was
to have received an account of its disposal on his return.
On his return on the 6th July, he was intoxicated. Wit-
ness made up the accounts and found 101. 17s. 6d. due from
plaintiff to defendant. The plaintiff was very abusive to
defendant and his wife, and refused to pay over the money,
and in consequence defendant sent for Dyer, a
policeman. Dyer took the plaintiff into custody,
and on the way to the station-house plaintiff aimed
a blow at defendant. At the watch-house he was
about to be locked up, when he handed over to
the defendant the money due to him. Plaintiff was taken
before a Magistrate next day. Plaintiff did not return
into defendant's service after that. Witness afterwards
went round to the customers, and found several of
them had paid plaintiff money, which had not been
accounted for to the defendant. Mr. Pearce was
one customer, whose bill of 3s. 21d. had been paid
to plaintiff, which he had not entered i❑ his books.
There was a payment also by a Mr. Whitehead of 31. Bd.
to the plaintiff, not accounted for; also, a Mrs. Drink,
who paid plaintiff 4s. 1 id., that was unaccounted for.
Plaintiff bad entered these accounts as having been carried
forward, of course, unpaid. The witness went through
other small accounts which he stated to be similarly unac-
counted for; when plaintiff went away witness had no
knowledge of any of these accounts.
Cross-examined by Sir J. SCARLFTT-Defendant car-
ried on business at 32, Speldhurst-street, Brunswick-
square. During the short time plaintiff had been in de-
fendant's service, it happened that he paid in more money
than from the books appeared to be due ; but it was after-
wards corrected. Mistakes and omissions had before been
found in plaintiff's books, but he afterwards set them right.
Witness had at times felt some dit4•tculty in settling the
exact sums. Plaintiff's wages were 19s. a week, and he
was paid every Monday night after he settled his accounts.
On the evening of the 6th July plaintiff was sent to the
watch-house because be refused to give up the money : he
refused to give it up until defendant stated what sum he
ought to pay. At the watch-house, after some time, he
was told what was due, and he paid over the money.
Witness did not hear defendant promise then to
forgive plaintiff. Witness heard that plaintiff set
up business as a cheesemonger afterwards in the
Hackney-road. Plaintiff demanded a week's wages,
after being dismissed, and defendant refused to pay
more than two days' wages. Plaintiff was taken up a
fortnight afterwards for the embezzlement : on the latter
occasion defendant demanded 1/. 3s. 6d. for money due to
him, and plaintiff wished the 19s. week's wages to be set
off against that demand. The plaintiff was then given
into custody. The matter was investigated before the
Magistrate, and the plaintiff was discharged. Plaintiff
had a wife and some children.
The cause had proceeded thus far, when Lord Ters.-
, TERDEN intimated, that according to the present evi-
dence the justification was not fully proved, and he re-
commended an amicable adjustment.
The Counsel on each side having consulted, Sir JA:wxs
SCARLETT said, that upon the understanding that the de•
Pendant'■ conduct arose wholly from misapprehension, and
that he did not now impute any fraudulent motives to the
plaintiff, he would consent to accept a verdict for 351.
Mr. PoLLocx admitted, on the part of the defendant,
that he did not now entertain an opinion that the plaintiff
had been guilty of fraud, and he consented to a verdict in
his favour for the sum named.
Lord TENTERDEN said, the parties had acted very
honourably.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 351.
THE SING V. TODDY.

was Mr. William Graham,
Mr. ADOLPHUS stated the case for the prosecution.
a musical instrument maker,
This was an indictment for perjury. The prosecutor
and the defendant was a surgeon and apothecary, be-
sides being a musical instrument maker. In 1826,
the prosecutor arrested the defendant, who rendered
to priscin, and took the benefit of the Insolvent
Debtors Act. The alleged perjury was committed in the
proceedings of the Insolvent Court ; and it was charged
that the defendant omitted several debts due to him from
his schedule, when he swore to it as containing a full,
particular, and correct account of his estate and effects.—
Several witnesses were called, who proved that some of the

• N,

ep _AP '

debts due to him in his books were omitted in his sworn
schedule. _ _ _ _

Mr. BUSBY on behalf of the defendant, submitted that
the mere omission of certain debts in the insolvent's
schedule did not constitute the ofSnce of perjury.
Lord TENIERDET7 was ofd different opinioli. The in-
solvent swore that he had returned a full and com-
plete list of his estate and effects, and he had not
done so. -Under these circumstances he, Lord Tenterden,
could not take upon himself to direct an acquittal. Should
the Jury find a verdict of guilty the defendant's Counsel
could argue the point of law upon a motion for a new trial.
Mr. Buser then called his Lordship's attention to the
Insolvent Debtors' Act (7th Geo. IV. c. 5'70 under Which
this prosecution was instituted. The 71 s t section of that Act
stated, that if any insolvent swore falsely to his schedule,
and was convicted, he should be subject to such a punish-
ment as was usually awarded to persons convicted of wil-
ful and corrupt perjury. The present prosecution was in-
stituted under that section: But it was the preceding
(the 70th) section, which especially proVided for
cases of the present description, which were mere
omissions in the schedule ; the 70th section provided that
if any person wilfully omitted certain matters from his
schedule, he should be subject to be imprisoned and kept
to hard labour for a period not exceeding three years.
The 71st section doubtless referred to matters which were
falsely inserted in the schedule, and which the insolvent
swore to be true. Now in this case what was inserted
in the schedule was sworn by the insolvent to be true, and
no doubt it was true, but if he omitted any thing from
the schedule, the regular course of proceeding would be to
enforce the 70th section, which especially provided for
such cases.

Mr. Anotruus submitted that the offence was perjury,
for that offence must be committed to give effect to the
omission. The 70th section was framed to punish per-
sons who were sent back by the Insolvent Court to render
a true account of their affairs, and who refused to do so, and
that might be when no oath was taken. Having sworn to
a false schedule, there could be no doubt that the offence
was perjury.
Mr. BUSBY said the 70th section expressly stated, " so
sworn to," and therefore, it clearly provided for this offence.
Lord TENTERDEN was of opinion, that the offence would
be perjury, if it were not otherwise provided for by the
Act of Parliament. It was, however, by this Act other-
wise provided for, and, therefore, he conceived that the in-
dictment for perjury, under the 71st section, could not be
sustained.—The defendant was consequently acquitted.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

BROWNE V. BRYANT.

Mr. Serjeant TAnDY stated this to be an action brought
by the plaintiff, Mr. J. M. Browne, a solicitor, against
the defendant, Mr. Bryant, the well-known post-master
in Regent-street, to recover compensation in damages
for a breach of warrantry of a horse, taken in ex-
change by the plaintiff from the defendant. It
appeared that the plaintiff in the month of September,
1830, took in exchange from the defendant a black horse,
for which he gave 271. in money and another horse in
exchange, for which 201. 16s. was allowed, making the
whole amount of purchase, 471. 10s. On the day after the
purchase, the plaintiff's.brother drove the horse in a gig to
Kensington, when it was discovered that it went lame, he
notwithstanding never returned the animal, but went on
a journey into the country, which lasted five weeks,
during which period the lameness increased and one of the
fore-feet became contracted. On his return, at the end of
five weeks, he waited upon the defendant and is-
presented the state of the animal, upon which Mr.
Bryant immediately agreed to take him hack upon
consideration that he (theplaintiff) should pay for the hire.
This was refused, the horse was sent to the straw-yard
for the winter by the advice of Mr. Bryant, and there
it grew worse, and was subsequently brought to the
hammer, and sold for 31. 10s. Repeated applications we,e
made to the defendant to come to an arrangement re-
specting the breach of warrantry, he at the time of sale
having represented the horse to be sound, and it was
agreed that the question should be put to arbitration.
However, the reference did not take place, and the plain-
tiff was compelled to bring the present action,
Mr. Serjeant ANDREWS for the defendant addressed
the Jury, and called several witnesses, who swore that the
horse was sound at the time of the sale of it to Mr.
Browne ; and that the defendant had caused the lameness
by driving the animal too great a distance.
The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the case, and the Jury
found for the plantiff, damages 491. 16s.
errITTIZT OF EXVIIEQUER.—(THIS; DAY-)

THE ATTORNEY-t, 'LEAL V. LYAN, SON, AND (OLES.

This was an information filed by his Majestyi Attorney-
General against the defendants, who are warehousemen, in
Watling-street, for an alleged smuggling transaction. Our
readers will remember this transaction, as it caused a
considerable sensation in the city at the time of the seizure,
which was of silks, to a very large amount. This morn-
ing was appointed for the trial of the cause, and a special
jury summoned for the purpose.
At the sitting of the Court Mr. Serjeant WILDE, for
the defendants, applied for a postponement of the trial,
He had an affidavit from the defendants, stating that they
had regular invoices of all the goods which had been
seized ; that different portions of the goods were in dif-
ferent invoices ; and that they had had three clerks
employed ever since the seizure in tracing these goods ;
and in a very short time they would have got through,
and he wls able to trace the whole of the goods. They
also applied to his Lordship to be allowed to in-
spect the goods. He (Mr. Serjeant Wilde) was
perfectly aware that this was not usual, and the reason
was, that parties might, after such inspection, fabricate in-
voices to agree with the marks on the goods, but in this
case the parties were willing to deposit the invoices with
the Attorney for the Crown before they inspected the goods.
_ .

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had seen the affidavits, and
had no wish to push forward the trial on the part of the
Crown.

The LORD CHIEF BARON granted the application.
There was another Crotvn case, for a breach of the Ex-
cise Laws, in the paper, but it was settled this morning.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

am very unwilling to obtrude myself upon the
public, but as there is nut one word of truth, so far as I
am concerned, in the letter signed " A. B." which I have
read in your Paper of this day, I feel it due to my charac-
ter to call upon you to give it my most decided contradic-
tion by inserting this to-morrow morning.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Charing-cross, Nov. 26. JOHN DRUMMOND.
P.S. I was solicited to attend the meeting, whether
assented or dissented, and to take any one of my partners
with me, which will account for Mr. Henry Drummond's
presence.

CUSTOM-HOUSE IN THAMES-STREET.-
The repairs of the new London Custom-house, which
some time ago fell in, owing to some defect in the founda-
tion of that structure of the late Mr. Pzro's, amounted to
upwards of 200,0001., whilst the bonds given by Mr.
PETO'S sureties for the due performance of the contract did
not exceed 32,0001. A proposition has been made to the
executors of Mr. PETO, the architect or builder, to pay
16,0001. damages, and the law .costs incurred (about
7,0001. more), in full discharge of all demands ; to which
the latter acceded, requiring, however, three years' time
to wind up Mr. PETO'S affairs, before the payment of this
sum should be insisted upon. Thus the public will lose
190,0001. by the job _ _

It has been stated in the Tory prints, that the
Archbishop of CANTERBURY, at the head of the bench of
Bishops, has, along with some of the leading Tories, pro-
mised their adhesion to Government, if 151. were substi-
tuted instead of 101., as the qualification for a borough
voter ; but Earl GREY has rejected the insidious proposal ;
he has pledged his character, not to render the Bill a fal-
lacy, but either make it an efficient measure of Reform, or
to resign his situation ; he will perform his pledge, and the
nation will bless both him and the KING ! Once more,
the House of Lords is to he tried, not as before, with a
majority of Peers, created by PITT and LIVERPOOL, but
with a new infusion of patriotic feeling, called from the tried
sterling patriots of the nation. The KING, his Ministers,
and the people, all pull together, and a threefold cord,
though it may be hard strained, cannot be broken.--Not-
tingham Review.
have A t Irvine,
forsome time
ehubes v
e nfee and
prevalent,
r
andtheerehapvlaebineetns
a number of deaths. Kilmarnock, we understand, is
comparatively free of disease ; but Ayr is in a very serious
plight. The presentations to the Dispensary are almost
doubled ; the surgeons in attendance have daily several
hours of painful attention and dangerous labour; and the
time of the apothecary is almost wholly engrossed in dis-
pensing medicines. What all this proceeds from we know
not; but this we know, that these diseases exist chiefly,
if not wholly amongst those who are poverty-stricken, and
covered with rage and surrounded by filth. That
their abodes are miserable we are sensible, and that
in some instances the very dung gathered on the streets
are hoarded underneath their beds we are assured. That,
in such circumstances, disease and death should arise is
not rcinarkable,w4yr .eldvertiaer.