The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-03 00:00:00

EVENING, AUGUST 3, 1849.

tion, which was, how that was to be ascertained? Mr. I
Gorham founded himself upon the articles of the Church,
and beyond that he would ❑ot go. L pen that, end that
elo he took his stand. Tne Leerned Judge com-
mented at great length up in the questions out to and
and answered by Mr. Gorham. The Bishop asks,
" Does our Church hold, :and do you hold, that every
infant baptised, by a lawful minister with water in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, is made by God in such baptism a member of
Christ, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven?"
" Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that such
children, by the laver of regeneration in baptism are
received into the number of the children of God, and
heirs of everlasting life?" "Does our Church hold,
and do you hold, that all infants so baptised are born
again of water and the Holy Ghost?" To these
questions Mr. Gorham did not give a direct answer,
but refers to the thirty-nine Articles; and it was used
in argument, that this was suffi.iient with the
services performed. Mr. Gorham says:—" In reply to
these propositions, being stated in the precise words of
the Ritual Services, or of Catechism, undoubtedly must
be held by every honest member of the Church to con-
tain in these nothing contrary to the Word of God, or to
sound doctrine, or which a godly man may not with a
good conscience use and submit unto, or which is n ,t
fairly defensible—if it shall be allowed such just and
favourable construction as in common equity oueht to
be allowed to all human writings, especially such as are
set forth by authority ; " and said that the first itnpor-
taut point which was raised was, that Mr. Gorhena was
of opinion that in placing a construction upon the
articles and formularies of the Church it was necessary
to consider their meaning with reference to the opinions
of the Reformers by whom they were framed. Now all
the writers who had been quoted went to say that the
doctrines of the Church were to be found its the Thirty-
nine Articles alone; but if they wore silent upon any point
then they were to inquire to what authority they were to
refer, and he found that Bishop Burnett laid it down that
they wore to refer to the formularies of the Church and
the officers of the Church. Several other writers laid
down the same doctrine. He thought that doctrine was
the doctrine of common sense, and it was the doctrine
laid down in a decision of Lord Broueham's in the
Judicial, Committee of the Privy Council ; they were
not therefore to lay any s'resa or weight upon the
opinion of any private individual, however eminent. He
thought that by the 25th article no one could receive
baptism efficaciously who had it not by worthy reception;
and then they had to consider what worthy reception
was, and the article said in was by faith and repentance;
but young children could have neither faith nor repea-
tance at the time, although they might have them after-
wards. Mr. Gorham admits that children who die before
they commit actual sin may be saved, but they must be
regenerated by a prevenient '.act of grace ; he (knit),
that the regeneration is conferred by the act of baptism.
After going through the whole of the service of bap-
tism, the Learnei Judge said that what the child was to
receive by it was spiritual regeneration according to the
plain construction of the language used. He was of
opinion, therefore, that Mr. G rham was wrong in dis
putieg that regeneration was effected iii and by b apt ism.
Has then the Bishop shown sufficient cause for not in-
stituting him in the living of the Church. lie (the
Learned Judge) considered the Bishop had, and in
consequence was entitled to be dismissed with costs.
Notice of appeal was then eiven.

SHERIFFS' CuU [LI; August 2.
(Before M,. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)

DUCKWORM AND OTHERS V. ENGLISH.-SMITHFIELD

BANKERS.

The plaintiffs in this action ar© salesmen in Smithfield-
market, and defendant is a butcher, and the claim was
for 6/. ss. 3d., the value of five lambs supplied. This
was a case arising out of the custom of Smithfield-
market.

Mr. SIDNEY SMITH appeared for the plaintiffs, and
said that the defendant had pleaded payment. It would
therefore be unnecessary for him to adduce evidence.
That there had been some mistake there could be no
doubt; but he was far from imputing any ill intention
on the part of the defendant, who was a highly respect-
able tradesman.

Mr. CROUCH, for defendant, stated the custom of the
market, which was, that after cattle had been bought the
purchaser went to the salesman's bankers and paid in
the amount, but no receipt was given, the amount being
merely entered to the account of the salesman, who be-
fore the animals were delivered sent the drover to the
bankers to ascertain whether the amount had been paid
in, anti if the reply was in the affirmative the animals
were delivered up, and that course had been pursued
in the present instance. The question, therefore, was
whether the money had or had not been paid to the
bankers, which, from the peculiar mode of doing busi-
ness, might have been done, but entered to a wrong
account. Another curious fact was the manner in w hich
the communication was made to the salesman that the
money was paid, which was by the drover telegraphing
by holding up his hand and calling " All right. '
Walter Pemberton was cane] to prove the custom, and
in answer to questions by the jury, he said that some-
times there were fifty or sixty butchers in the bank at
the same time, and there were as many books on the
counter; no receipt was given, and the person paying did
not always see the money entered. He was drover on
the present occasion, and swore positively that he did not
remove the lambs until the drover returned awl said the
money was paid.
The UNDER-SHERIFF asked the witness why it was
necessary to call " All right," and wave the h tnd also?

The witness said it was a custom, he did not know
why, but the drover sometimes could not get near the
told.

The UNDER•SHERIFF—Then sometimes you cannot
hear. I suppose there is a noise occasionally in
'-;mithfield. Witness—Yes, what with the bellowing of
the cattle, the barking of the dugs, and the shouting,
there is a good deal of noise.
Mr. Gibbs, a butcher, was in company with defendant
ish,.l he bought the lambs, and atterwArds saw him go
Challis's bank to pay in according to the custom of the
bankers. . .

The UNDER.SIIERIFF said they could not go into the
matter as a custom of bankers, for bankers in Lombard
street, or elsewhere, did not give receipts by sending out
their customers to wave their hands. He asked whether
Challis's were regular bankers or for this purpose ?
Mr. Smith said they were regular bankers.
Witness in cross examination said, that such dealings
were for ready money, and he did not know that the
salesmen were in the habit of giving credit to butchers.
The CINDER-SHERIFF said it was a very loose way of
doing business.
Mr. SMITH denied the truth of this statement, and
submitted that it was beyond all probability that any
man would pay money in without seein4 it entered, but
he should prove that the animals were delivered in this
case before the drover returned to say that the lambs had
not been paid for. This occurred in const quence of the
market being about to close, and defendant being known
to be a respectable man. There was another fact, that
defendant, on being applied to, said he had paid the
money into the bank, and saw it entered in the book.
The book was in court, and defendant might call fur it,
but plaintiff could not make it evidence for himself.

Stokes, the plaintiff's drover, proved the delivery of
the animals, as last stated. Sometimes they were deli-
vered by mistake, but as soon as it was discovered they
were sent after; but in this case that was not done, as
Mr. English was well known.
Popjoy, the drover, who went to the banker's, swore
positively that he did not make a signal—he had been
seventeen years in the market, and always made a re-
port by word of mouth.
Mr. Gooding, clerk at the bank, proved that there
was no entry of payment in any of the bank books;
entries were always made in the presence of the parties
paying the money. Credit was given to the amount of
20,0001. on Monday. The money turned was 100,0001.
a d4y. The salesmen's accounts were made up with
them every evening, and an entry made in error would
be detected.
Jobson, another clerk, proved the same facts.
Mr Cuoucif replied, and said that if the jury iound
a verdict for the plaintiff, it would be imputing con-
spiracy and perjury on the part of the plaintiff and his
witness. He complained that the case had not beon
brought in the County Court, where defendant himself
might have been examined.
The banker's book was put in, and on the day in
question there was an entry of 61. 53. for five lambs to a
Mr. Hannah, of Cambridge-heath, and it was somewhat
singular that it was the only instance where the address
was inserted in that account.
Mr. Jobson, on being recalled, said ho remembered
making the entry.
The UNDER•SHERIFF asked if Mr. Hannah was pre-
sent, and was answered in the negative.
The UNDER-SHERIFF summed up.
Thejury, after consulting a considerable time, said
they were not likely to agree, and were locked up, and
on their return gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 61, ss.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Inspector Mitchell, of the City Police, was summoned
before Alderman Gibbs to show cause why he detained
in his possession a gold watch, the property of Mr.
John Inman. The circumstances were remarkable.

Mr. De Jersey, who attended as solicitor to the com-
plainant, briefly stated the case, which was borne out
by the following evidence:—
Mr. John Inman, of No. 40, Cloth-fair, said—Oa the
19th of July I purchased for 101. a gold watch, which
was made by Messrs. Widenham and Adams, at the
auction rooms of Messrs. Debenham and Storr, in York •
street, Covent-garden, to whom it appeared to have
been sent as an unredeemd pledge, and I took it on
the same day to the makers, in Lombard-street, to
be repaired. I told Mr. ‘Videnham that I should
call again on Tuesday, and I accordingly did call, and
paid him 12s. for the repairs. When he handed me
the watch, I asked him the value of it, and he said
it had cost 35 pounds or guineas there. I ob-
served that at that rate I should not he a loser by it. He
smiled, and I was on the point of departing, when a
policeman (Storey) stood by my sale and asked me
where I got the watch. I told him where I had pur-
chased it, and what amount I had paid for it, and he then
informed me that it was stolen property and that I must
accompany him to the station•house. I went with him,
Considering myself to be in custody, and the charge was
regularly entered into. The watch was taken fremrne
by Storey, and it was given by him to Inspector Mitchell,
is whose possession it still remains, for it was never re•
turned to me. I had to go with him to Covent-garden,
to Messrs. D-henham and Stores, whence he took me to
the shop of Mr. Attenborpugh, the pawnbroker, in P.m
lico. We then went to the house of Mr. Cubitt, in Bed-
ford-square, and then returned to the station-house in
Bow-lane, where I was discharg. d and told that I should
hear from the police the following day.
Inspector Mitchell here handed to Alderman Gibbs
the watch which Storey had taken from Mr. Inman, and
placed in his possession in the c,Arse of his duty.
Mr. William B. Storr, of the house of Debeuham and
Storr, auctioneers, of York-street, Covent garden, said,

—On the 19q1 of July we sold a watch (lot 131) by
public sale. It was a gold lever witch, made by Widcat-
ham and Adam,. aad we rrce►v, d tor It the s9lll or 101.

It wa. he fourth day's eale of v4luahle C.rfeted itod
oth,,r property, as expressed in the ca.alogue. Thu
w.rch cana-t into ,pur p.ss,ssion from Mr. Atten!).rough,
of Pimlico, as an unredeemed pledge, and we put the
10/. down to the credit of his account.

In answer to questions from Mr. De Jersey, Mr.
Storr said, '° The money has not bi,eti paid to Mr. Atten-
borough. We do not inquire whether property is an un-
redeemed pledge or not. No ticket was produced. We
have a list of the goods furnished by the pawnbroker
for sale—the original manuscript of the catalogue. Ido
not know the watch. It is marked as sold for money,
not by name. and Mr. Dabeinharn sold it."
George Lawes add—l am ,n the employment of Mr.
Jam,s Attenborough, pawnbroker, of Pimlico. I bought
a watch of a lady on the 25,h of Nl,,irch. I believe it to
be the watch produced. It was very much like this
watch. Ido nut like to swear ghat it is the same, but
I believe it is. It was given over to the auctioneers in
my presence. Mr. Attenborougb has it entered as pur-
chased for 71. He entered it, I having bought it for
that sum. Sometimes I enter things in the book. Mr.
Attenborough vv,is out at the Limo I made the purchase.
Alderman GIBBS —Do you ir« quently numb it,e things
in this way? Witness—No, not frequently. We some
times do. 'rue watch was given to Mr. Debenham by
Mr. Attenborough to be sold. I should not think it wss
given as an unredeemed pledge. It was given along with
others which were unredeemed pledges to be sold. They
all go together in a catalogue headed " Forfeited goods,
and other effects." lam nut aware that there was a re-
served price. . _

Alderman GIBBS—From whom do you say you pur-
chased the watch? Witness—From a lady.
Alderman GIBBS —N,,tv take care what you say.
Have you seen• any one since about this watch? Wit-
ness—l have seen Mr. Cubit:.'s female servant since the
inquiry was instituted. The inspector took me to Mr.
Cubitt's house in Bedford-square, and I there saw that
gentleman and the servant girl.
Alderman Ginns—llad you seen that woman before?
Wituess—l firmly b•lieve that I never saw her before.
Never to my kilOwledge.

Alderman Gitens --Was she the lady who sold you the
watch ? Wetness—No ; she certainly was not. She
was a perfect stranger no me.
Alderman GIBBS—What were the name and ad Iress
of the lady who sold you the watch? Witness—She
told me ..that .her nem,. was Courtney, and that she
wanted to sell the watch fora friend of hs:rg, her late
governess, Mademo.selle Charton, who was in distress,
and she said her friend teside,d in " Lee Itiver-I,ne,"io
Paris.
Alderman GIBBS—What wai the ad tress of tl e lads
herselt ? Witness—She did not Ike hi give her address,
but she said she -ins a perfect la- y.
Alderm ,n GIBBS —Was there scything attached no
the watch, ? W,tu =,:s—Yes ;I believe there was a gold
guard •chain attached to it.
Alderman GIBBS—What became of that gold chain ?
Witness—lt was sold with a miscellaneous lot of jewel-
lery
to a jew.
Alderman Ginns-And the gold chain was included
with the watch in the price of 71. ? Witness—Yes ; but
I am not sure it was gold.
Alderman GIBBS—Did you give the lady any ticket ?
Witness—No.

Mr. Lewis Cubitt, of B-dford-square, brother to Mi.
Cubbitr, M.P. for Andover, said, this watch belonged to
my daughter Agnes. On the 26th of March she missed
it, and we supposed it was lost, and I went on the fol-
lowing day to the watchmaker in Lombard-street, got,
an accurate description of it. and offered a reward of 5/.
for its restoration. (Mr. Cubitt here read the descrip
tion, which agreed in every respect with the watch )
About fire years ago it was purchased by my brother.
and presented by him to my daughter. I more particu-
larly identify it by the dial, which, being silver, became
black, to alter which I got it gilt. We have had reast,n
to suppose, since the witch was missed, that it was not
dropped in the street, as was at first conjectured, for two
or three things have been missed since. There was, at
the time it was lost, a gold chain, about two yards in
length, to which was appended a small chain, with a
seal, for which I had paid 8/. 17s. in Cornhill.
Alderman GIBBS—My impression is, that the conduct
of Mr. Attenborough's assistant was anything but what
it ought to have been, and that therefore Mr. Attenbo-
rough ought to sustain the loss; that the watch should
be returned to Mr. Cubitt, and that Mr. Debetiham is
bound to give up the ten pounds he received from
Mr. Inman. I advise the parties to abide by that opi-
nion. It is my view of the question; but if those who
are interested do not submit to such an arrangement,
another course must be adopted.
The solicitor who attended to watch the case for Mr.
Attenborough declined, upon the part of his client, to
accede to such terms.

Alderman Gauss—Then I trust the cage will be car.

tied as far as possiiple; and I shall grant any summ,,nsts
which Mr. Cubits m►y require fur turther investigation.
Mr. De Jersey and a professional gentleman who at-
tended for Mr. Cuhitt said that nothing could be more
equitable than the view which the Alderman had taken
of the whole transaction.

Mr. Cubitt said, that when theoffieer (who had made

extraordinary exertions in the investigation) brought
Mr. Attenborough's assistant to his house in Bedford-
square, there was something very remarkable in the con-
duct of the latter. When brought into the room in
which the suspected woman WAS he hell his hand before
his face, and would nut look towards her; and, upon
being spoken to on the subject of her identity, he said
that he had instructions not to say a word unless Mr.
Attenb.gough was indemnified tro-n any loss. The idea

of indemnification in such a case was, as a matter of
course, altogether rejected; and the young man sidled
out of the roam without once looking at. the woman.

Inspector Mitchell—Mr. Atti.nborougb's assistant re
fused to give us any n.am© or any information we con.
sidered nfcessary.

Alderman (iII3I3S—I again rt peat th•;t my advice to
Mr. Attenborougn ought to be taken by him.
No answer having been giv-n ro the Alderman, sum

manses wrre ordered to be issued, at the desire of
Cubitt, qeiring the attendance of Mr. Atteuborough
and other persona to give evict. nci., and private direc-
tions were given to the inspector, in whose hands the
watch is to be kept until the inquiry shall have assumed
a still more serious complexion.
MARYLEBONE.

Cornelius Hearne was brought before Mr. Broughton,
charged with having stolen from the pocket of Mr.
Mackworth Prised a silk handkerchief.
The constable Giluert, 177 1), who took the prisoner
into custody, produced the property, which was identified
by the prosecutor.
It may here be remarked that the prisoner and a c )m-
-panion of his are the persons who, about six mouths ,go,
Nere committed fro:n this Court for aqempiiiig to pck
the pocket of Mr. Mark Lemon, a ho at the period alluded
to was walking with his friend Mr. Charles Dick.-ns, in
the vicinity of Cumberland market ; upon that occasion
he (prisoner) had the audacity to state that b all the
gentlemen who appeared against him were no better than
they ought to bet, for that he knew one of them to b- a
fence," and the other to have been sent to " qu,,d" for
robbery for six months.
It was shown that the prisoner, when taken into ens
tody, told the constable that he couldn't get work, and
that that was enough to make a man do what he other-
wise would not.
Mr. BROUGUTON (to prisoner)—You will go for trial
for this offence.
Prisoner—l should like to go to the Old Bailey, Sir, if
you please.
Mr. tinoucuTnN—Why? Prisoner—Because if Igo
there I shall stand a chance of getting a fair trial.
The Magistrate did not think fit to comply with the
prisoner's request, and therefore sent him to i lerken•
well, where in all probability he will be recognised as an
" old offender," and dealt we h ace irdingly.
LAMBETH.

Henry William Dewharst alias the Rev. Dr. Dewhurst,
who was stated to be a clergyman of the Church of Eng-
land, was brought before the H.m. G. C. Norton for
final examination, charged with stealing two blank4s,
two tumblers, and other articles, the property of Thomas
Beavan, residing in the Lower Marsh, Lambeib, at
whose house he lately lodged, He was also charged
with obtaining money from a vast number of individuals
all over the country by means of begging letters.
Captain flood, R N., Secretary, and Mr. Parsons,
Assistant Secretary to the Alewiieity &ice ty, were in
attendance to watch the case, and Mr. Solomuns de-
fended the prisoner.
:":Mr. NORTON inquired of Romaine whether he had
any further evidence to offer besides that already taken
down?
Romaine replied in the negative. Since the last exa-
mination he had be.-n to a number of places where the
prisoner had 'edged, and ascertained that he had robbed
them all, but the persons declined to come forward. One
woman who had promised to come forward had been
robbed of a looking glass, which the prisoner pledged for
28a. - Ithad since been redeemed, and returned to her,
and the Rev. Mr. Geary, of Salem Chapel, had engaged
to pay that sum for the prisoner. The woman, conse-
quently. refus d to appar.
Mr NORTON remarked that since the last examination
he hail receiv-d an Immense number of letters from all
parts of th- kingdona, which showed that he hal carried
on a great game. and had robbed everybody.
The prisoner, (wiilt some vehemence)—It is all false,
Mr. NORTON (holdit!g up a large bundle of letters),

you mean toosay these are ail ials-? I have a let er
from a banker at Wakefield, from whom yoti ex-
' reed money, and attempted to get more. Your letters
to 'him were that you had published a religious work,
and would forward it on receipt of the money. You have
never kept your promise.
The prisoner—l sent it, and if he did not get it, it is
not my fault.:
Mr. N.inT ,N—They are principally clergymen from
whom you have extorted money by your begging !etters.
You stated in your communications that your wit: was
lying dead, and that you were suifering from ill health,
and that you merely wanted to raise af' .w pounds to
purchase desk-i, 'stools, &c., to enable you to open a boys'
scho:)1. Such is all a tissue of Macho' di, ald made
of to carry on your nefari ;us system of plunder, under
the assumed garb of religion.
Prisoner—l arn really suffering very acute pain from

disease,
Mr. Nowroil..--Y..5, I have no doubt you are suffering
from a swindling complaint.—( Laughter.)
Prisoner (rather Sharply)—That may he your opinion.
Mr. NORT. ,N —I want to hold no conversation with
you, as I have many letters before me that I am en.
tirely disgusted with your vil!aiie.us coti3uct. The bankiT
whom I have alluded to have forwaribui me three letters,
supposed to be seat by your suns to his ratnily. Now, I
have no doubt they were written by yours.lf. I have
received a letter also from a solicitor in Redford :quare,.
attempting to extort money. Another letter hail been
sent to his mother, and when he arrived at his office ho
found two other letters, addressed to his partners, nt,ik-
ing four begging letters to one family. There was no
end of letters from all parts of the coantry ghee the case

had been reported in the newspapers, many complaining
of hooks not being sent after forwarding to him the
ett,:!;; and what ,'i.:7usr,d 01,..m to
re than anything wag
the :-.up-rt.crip,t,,n being knarkt-d'• private" and " imme
and all unpaid letters.
Mr. Feiguson, of the Alundicity Society, informed the
rnaghtrate that they had received upwards of 200 litters
from the country respecting the prisoner, and exposing
his nefarious system.
Mr. SAomons said that the letters bad nothing to do
with the present charge. The prisoner had acknow-
ledged pledging the articles, and had stated his intention
of redeeming them. There was nothing to show false.
pretence, as many had received their books.
Mr. NORTON—But a vast many have not, which you
see by the huge pile of letters before me. lam really
sorry I cannot punish him for the latter, although he has
swindled a number of people all over the country. I
have no doubt his hitherto thriving trade is now put an
end to by the publicity given by the press.
Mr. S.lomons—l don't think it very thriving.
Mr. NORTON—But I do. This week, since he has
been in custody, a sovereign has been sent to his lodg-
ings. Is the woman Mrs. Meavan in attendance, as I
can punish bins for robbing her? Romaine—She has
been taken very ill with the cholera, and is not able to
be examined. I have therefore sent her home in a cab.

Mr. NORTON said that, as such was unfortunately the
case, he sitiould not send him for trial, although he so
richly deserved it. He could punish him under the
Pawnbrokers' Act by inflicting a fine for unlawfully
pledging the prosecutor's property, but he would pay
that, and be immediately set at libarty to clrry on his
begging system with impunity. He should, therefore,
take advantage of the. Police Act, by committing him
to prison, with hard labour, for VA o months.