The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONJYON, TUESDAY
_IVENI N'G, NOVEMBER, 23, 1847,

siding, and that the Members for the City should be
invited. Millions of money which ought to go to
creditors were annually frittered away in pensions,
in sinecures, end other matters, which he could not
but characterise as filching.—(Hear.)
The motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. MANIIING proposed the next resolution.
" That the thanks of this meeting be g., en to the
Right Hon. Lord Ashburton, the Hon. Edward P.
Bouverie, M.P., and to Mr. Commissioner Fane, for
the valuable assistance which they have afforded in
forwarding the views of the committee, and also to
the several Members of Parliament who have at-
tended this day." He was entirely in favour
of arrest, because it secured the property of the
debtor and kept him in custody for future
adjudication. He did not, however, object
to his admission on bail, which would secure his
property and his appearance. A man after adjudica-
tion would possess a higher character than under any
other mode. He saw no difference between a man
who got fraudulently into your debt and another who
stole your spoons, and he wished to see these men
placed by the law in juxta- position.
The motion having been seconded, was carried.
A vote of thanks was then passed to the Chairman,
and the meeting separated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 22.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. DOUGLAS.

This was an indictment against the defendant, for-
merly the East India Company's Resident at Tan-
jore, for having unlawfully, and against the provisions
of the statute 33 Geo. 111., c. 52, s. 62, accepted pre-
sents from certain native Princes of India. 'fhe
indictment consisted of sixteen counts, and alleged
the receipt of presents from a certain Sevajee Raja.
The case was tried some time since before Lord Den-
man in London, when the defendant was convicted.
A motion was afterwards made to arrest the judgment,
on the ground of certain alleged defects in the in-
dictment, and a new trial was applied for on the
ground that some evidence had been improperly
admitted. These applications had not been successful,
except to this extent, that a nolle prosequi was entered
as to seven out of the sixteen counts, and the verdict
was affirmed upon the remaining nine counts. The
defendant was now brought up for judgment.
Sir F. MESMER prayed the judgment of the
Court.

The notes were read, and an affidavit of the defen-
dant in mitigation of punishment was put in.
Sir F. Thesiger, i Ir. Wigram, and Mr. Forsyth
addressed the Court in aggravation of punishment ;
Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Peacock were heard on the part
of the defendant in mitigation of punishment.

Mr. Justice COLBRIDGE then delivered the sentence
of the Court as follows :—Archibald Douglas, you
are now to receive the sentence of this Court upon
nine counts of an information founded upon the 33c1
of George 111., and which charges you with having
committed a very grave offence and misdemeanour
while holding a public situation in India. It is abso-
lutely necessary that a severe punishment should follow
the crime of which you have been found guilty. The
East India Company, in the administration of the
immense empire confided to their care, have to deal
with many states nominally independent, whose Go-
vernments are entirely arbitrary, and whose rulers
and subjects are wanting in that high sense of justice,
that reverence for the laws, and that love of truth
which are professed in Europe, and which are neces-
sary to enable the Company to carry out the Govern-
ment so as to conduce to the happiness of their sub-
jects. Keen in intelligence, yet wanting in moral
courage, yielding to the hand of the oppressor, and
yet desirous to effect their object, they endeavour by in-
direct and clandestine means, rather than by a straight-
forward course, to effect their purposes. This has led
to the necessity of establishing the high and respon-
sible office to which you were appointed at Tanjore.
It was the duty of your office to stand between the
company and the raja, and between the raja and his
subjects. And if there be one quality more essential
than another to make the appointment of an English
Resident useful in carrying out the object for which
he is there placed, it is that he may set an example of
unspotted integrity, of personal honesty and truth,
and that, by denying himself all immediate benefits,
he may tell the people and the Governments that he
will pursue an undeviating course of honesty. Reason
and sad experience hove made the Legislature of this
country fed this ; and it has made the receiving of a
gift or present, or anything in the shape of a present,
from a native prince or sovereign, an offence of a very
grave character. You have been convicted of an
offence against this Act of Parliament, in receiving
large sums of money from a native prince. In miti-
gation of the punishment to be awarded for this
offence, you have urged in your affidavit, and your
counsel have urged on your behalf, first that you were
ignorant of the law upon this subject. I will hope, that
in so saying you were speaking the truth. But this cir-
cumstance can not operate in mitigation of your punish-
ment. You had held the office of Resident before,
and then you had taken the prescribed oath ; hut on
being the second time appointed to that office, you
avoided the taking of that oeth. It Ilea been debated
at the bar, and you were well aware that for a subject
in India to pretend to receive money in your name
was a great offence; and that appears by a memoran-
dum under your own hand. You must have known
that you were committing a very grave offence; and
it matters but little whether it was against the law
of the land, or against the regulations of the Com-
pany. You have stated also that you committed
these offences undsr embarrassed circumstances, pro-
duced by your removal from office, after your first
appointment. But I must say that integrity and ho-
nour are cheaply purchased when a man's rank and
fortune place him beyond the reach of temptation. The
trial of integrity comes under the pressure of want. It
is vain, therefore, for you to urge that in your defence.
Your counsel and your own affidavit have most feel-
ingly pointed out the heavy consequences which have
followed you in the commission of this offence. It
often happens, and by an immutable law of justice,
that the natural and independent consequences of
crime are heavier than those which a court of justice
can award. We have been asked whether, if you
had been called up for judgment immediately upon
the commission of your offence, we should have in-
flicted upon you a severer punishment than you have
already endured ; and when I consider the loss of
your rank and character, the sufferings of your wife
and children, the destruction of your property, and
your imprisonment, perhaps we should not. But
those circumstances which persons bring upon them-
selves in the commission of an offence, and in the
endeavour to defend themselves, are not to be brought
forward in mitigation when judgment is to b lr )-
nounced. They are too uncertain, and have too
little to do with the requirements of public
justice, to be allowed to regulate the judgment of the
Court. The crime of which you have been convicted
was systematic; it was committed in a distant part
of those dependencies remote from the seat of Go-
vernment,
and it is one which a large class of officers
may be tempted to commit. It is one which it is
difficult to search out by direct proof; it may often
be committed and not suspected ; but it is one which
deserves the severest punishment when brought before
a court of justice to be repressed. Considering all
these circumstances—remembering, we hope, what
strict justice requires, with a due censideration of
what you have suffered and do suffer, and of the
character which you maintained up to a certain
period, the sentence of the Court is, that you pay to
her Majesty upon each of the counts of the indict-
ment the sum of 1,0001., the same 1,0001. to be re-
fervble to each count of the indictment ; that you
be imprisoned in the Queen's prison for twelve
calendar months; that you do forfeit the sum of
3,5451. 16s. Bd., being the full value of the presents
received by you; and that you be further imprisoned
until these sums are paid.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,:Nov.22.
(Sittings in Banco.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL P. SPILLER.
The Attorney-General appeared to show cause
against a rule recently obtained in this court by Mr.
Sergeant Wilkins, who now appeared in support of
the same.
The case turned entirely upon the construction of
an Act of George IV. regulating the collection of the
excise duties upon malt.
The Court took time to consider.
HALL. V. LACK.
The Court give judgment in this case to-day, de-
ciding that the judgment should be for the plaintiff.

this deficiency of 3001. until it was pointed out to him I
by the official assignee, and informed his accountant
of it upon making up the last amended balance-sheet.
He did not take any criminal proceedings against his
shopman.
Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE said that if the
assignees thought this a case for ulterior proceedings,
the better course would be to let the bankrupt pass.
The Court must have some specific question upon
which it could say that the answer given by the bank-
rupt was unsatisfactory.
Mr. LAW said that there was 701. which Townshend
stated he had lost by a hail-storm, which did not ap-
pear in the previous balance-sheets.
Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN said that there was
no doubt but that the accounts were unsatisfactory,
and that the bankrupt had been extremely culpable.
If there was concealment of property the bankrupt
might be taken before the jury. His Honour was of
opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to com-
mit him.

Mr. Commissioner HoLRoYD entirely agreed with
his brother Commissioner, that the evidence was too
weak for a commitment.

The bankrupt having been examined by the Court,
and stated that he had never taken stock correctly,
but discovered that he was robbed,
Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUB said we do not
consider the evidence sufficiently precise for a com -
mittal ; but our opinion is that it is just the case for
an adjournment sine die.
Mr. Duncan said that now the case was over, he
wished to state that the balance-sheet commenced in
1847. The robbery took place before this date, and
therefore could not be included in it ; but the bank-
rupt having been desired to commence his accounts
prior to this period, it was accounted for.
Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN, in his summing up,
appeared to adopt the argument used by Mr. Duncan
in defence of the bankrupt upon a former occasion,
and concluded by hoping that the Legislature gave
the Commissioners the power of punishing bankrupts
more severely than by adjournment sine die; but
they were bound to administer the law as they (the
Commissioners) found it.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 22
(Before the CHIEF Commussiorait.)
IN RE GEORGE BORN.

In this case application was made on the part of
the insolvent to dismiss his petition, on the ground
that, as a trader, he owed more than 3001., including
the debts of a former insolvency.
His HONOUR declined to grant the prayer, but
named a day for the final order. It was probable
that if the debts exceeded the prescribed amount, the
petition would be dismissed.
(Before Mr. Commissionei Law.)
IN RR JAMES WELLS.

This insolvent, who had obtained a protection, did
not appear.
A creditor attended, and a letter was read from the
insolvent's attorney, stating that as his debts as a
trader exceeded the amount, he would not take the
benefit of the Act.
Mr. Commissioner LAW thought that unless the
Court interfered in cases to ascertain the amount of
debts, the Act might be abused. A man could file a
schedule, and get a protection for three weeks, and
it would then appear that he was not entitled to the
protection.
The attorney for the creditor (Mr. MsGoon) said
in this case a judgment he had obtained had been
suspended for three weeks by the protection from the
Court. _ _ _

His HoNora made some remarks showing the
necessity of watching the cases, and of alterations in
the Act to enable the Court to carry out its provisions.
He refused to dismiss the petition, and ordered the
insolvent's non-appearance to be recorded.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Pumurs.)
IN RE JOHN MORRIS.

This case, which has been several times before the
Court, was now concluded.
The insolvent was a bankrupt, and it was alleged
that he could not be heard in this court until he had
applied to the other tribunal to finish his case. He
had, by order of the Court, applied for and obtained
his certificate in the Court of Bankruptcy.
Mr. Nrcirom, for the insolvent, exhibited the cer-
tificate, and said the insolvent, who had been on bail,
rnust go into custody, and would then be discharged
by a judge's order. By his certificate the debts in
the schedule were barred.

The insolvent went into custody, and it was stated
that an application would shortly be made on his be-
half to dismiss the petition.

IN RB JACOB HURREA.

This insolvent, a trader, had been relieved by the
Court of Bankruptcy, and the debts in his former
schedule and the debt in the present would exceed
3001.—the ex':ent allowed to trailers.
His I-lo Noun decided that it was a case in which he
had no jurisdiction, and he decreed the dismissal of
the petition.—Dismissed accordingly.
[VENT ILA.TION 0F,711E COURT.-Mr. Commissioner
Phillips ordered some alterations to he made in the
ventilation of the court. He declared that he would
have none of the qusckery of letting in cold and warm
air, as in the Central Criminal Court and other places.
Persons had suffered severely from the system, and in
his court he would have none of it.]

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT, Nov. 22

(Before D. C. MOTLAN, Esq.)
JUDGMENT.—WHITS V. NUTTLEY,

The Learned JUDGE said, this is a proceeding
under the 122 d section of the Act 9th and 10th
Victoria, cap. 95. Mr. White, the landlord, seeks to
recover possession of certain premises of which
Nuttley is tenant, at a weekly rent of 15s. 6d.
It becomes necessary to consider, on this state of
facts, whether the Court is ousted of its jurisdiction
under the 58th section of the Act, which says, " that
the Court shall not have cognizance of any action of
ejectment, or in which the title to any corporeal or
incorporeal hereditaments, or to any toll, fair, market,
or franchise shall be in question." Ido not think the
question of title is here raised in such a manner as to
bring the case within the proviso. If it appears that
the title comes fairly and bona fide into question, no
judge of a county court would think of assuming
jurisdiction ; but it is otherwiFe if the point is raised,
as it appears to me to be in this case, for the purpose of
obstructing or delaying the operation of the law.
Upon that preliminary question, the judge of a county
Court must be allowed to exercise his judgment. In
the present case the contract is clearly established
between the plaintiff and defendant. The relation of
landlord and tenant has been proved, and the latter
has estopped himself from disputing Mr. White's
title. If any question of title does exist it must be
between the present plaintiff and Chinnock ; and Chin-
nock's rights, whatever they may be, cannot he
affected by the warrant I shall now issue to the High
Bailiff, authorising him to put the plaintiff into pos-
session of the premises.
The warrant was accordingly issued.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
Yesterday George John 21(aris Wilson, a person of
gentlemanly appearance, surrendered to answer a
charge of assaulting Anne Ho!ford, with intent to
commit a felony, and in another count he was charged
with a common assault.

Mr. Bodkin conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Bal
lantine appeared for the defence.

80-lAtts, in opening the case, said that the
defendant was a medical man, a person of respecta-
bility, who resided at the time of the occurrence in
Great Portland-street, Marylebone, and he was one
of the vestrymen of that parish, and he need hardly,
therefore, he said, remind the jury that the present
inquiry was one which affected his interests most
vitally. The girl upon whom the assault was alleged
to have been committed had been an inmate of the
Marylebone workhouse for several years, and she
went from that establishment into the service of the
defendant, and while she was so engaged the assault
in question was committed upon her. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to detail the circumstances of
the offence, and said, that upon the girl leaving the
defendant's house, which she did immediately after
the occurrence, she was again received into the work-
house, and upon the facts being made known to the
parish anthorities, they felt they had no alternative
but to institute the present prosecution, their only
object of course being that justice should be done to
both parties.
The prosecutrix was then examined. She deposed
that she was sixteen years old, and she went into the
defendant's service on the 27th of last September.
Before that time she had been in the Marylebone
Workhouse, for five or six years, and she was sent
to the defendant's service by the parish authorities.
The defendant was a medical man. He resided in
Great Portland- street, and his establishment con-
sisted of a housekeeper and shop-boy, and his father
and mother lived in the house. His bedroom was
behind the shop, and it was necessary for her to go
through it when she had to answer the bell. On the
12th of October, between three and four o'clock in
the afternoon, she heard the bell ring, and on her
going into the bedroom she saw the defendant there.
He asked her where the shop-boy was, and on her
telling him he was in the kitchen, he asked her to
kiss him. She refused, and upon this he caught hold
of her and threw her on the bed. The witness then
detailed the particulars of the attack alleged to have
been made upon her, and which are of course unfit
fnoarirtlpi:unedbbltioycahielorrn., and she said, that having succeeded
ioriwnef; gettingni
:t
th:tprosecutrixh
tohueosueh toNIONi,
sfietht
oohfue
at
underwent
Nira,room,onnwoman
a bonnet
o shena n
namedei
severe immediately mc da
CI
shawlr adrtie:nls
gs oreo anxn
cross-exami-
nation and
t
lta nhtaidn eh,
but left them all aftet:
to the workhouasever
happened,
The
the course of it she
to service at three other places,
short period and re-
turnedsaid that she had been
occur-
rence took place the shop-boyAt the time the
was down stairs, and

the defendant's father was in the room overhead, but
still she did not scream loud enough to be heard,
and she accounted for not doing so by saying that
she was afraid to do it. It also appeared that the
bed to which she referred was a swinging bed or
hammock, only intended for one person, and the pro-
secutrix said that while the defendant was endea-
vouring to force her upon this bed she made no
attempt to defend herself by striking or scratching
him. She also said that on the same day the de-
fendant, at an earlier hour, committed an indecent
assault upon her; but although she saw the house-
keeper and the defendant's mother a very short time
afterwards, she did not make any complaint to them
of what bad happened, and the reason she assigned
for this was that she did not think of it when she saw
them.
Mrs. Paddington, the woman referred to by the
prosecutrix, proved that on the day in question she
came to her house in a very excited state, and related to
her what had taken place, and that she requested
a neighbour named Hales to accompany the prose-
cutrix back to her master's house. Upon that occa-
sion it appeared that the defendant denied that there
was any foundation for the charge made against him.
Mr. BALLANTINE, in addressing the jury for the
defence, said that a charge of this description very
seriously affected the character and position of any
person against whom it was made, but it was utterly
ruinous in the case of a medical man, and he en-
treated the jury to weigh all the circumstances of the
case minutely before they came to a conclusion which
must be utterly destructive of a man, who, he should
show them by testimony of the most respectable cha-
racter, had hitherto borne an unsullied reputation.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to comment
upon the improbable character of the story told by
the prosecutrix, and argued that according to her
own showing her conduct in reference to the alleged
transaction was such as to disentitle her to belief.
Mrs. Tree, the housekeeper of the defendant, and
his shop-boy were then called as witnesses, but their
evidence appeared to have little or no bearing upon
the case. The boy, however, said that he was pre-
sent at the period when the girl alleged the first in-
decent assault to have been committed upon her, and
he saw nothing of the kind take place.
A number of gentlemen among whom were Mr.
, Wakley, M.P., and Sir Felix Agar, gave the prisoner
a high character for morality and good conduct.
The RECORDER having summed up the case with
considerable minuteness,
The jury, after deliberating for a short time, ex-
pressed a wish to retire. They left the court at half-
past six o'clock, and did not agree upon their verdict
until eight, when they found the defendant—Not
Guilty.
NEW COURT.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Bum.ocx, and Aldermen
CHALLIS, JOHNSON, and Sir PETER LAURIE.)
Thomas Jones, 36, described as a shoemaker, was
indicted for, and pleaded guilty of feloniously break-
ing and entering the dwelling house of Richard
Brooke and another, and stealing therefrom a cup of
the value of seven guineas, their property.
The COURT sentenced the prisoner to be trans-
ported for seven years.
John Wheeler, 30, an engineer, pleaded guilty of
breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Francis
Dodd and another, and stealing therein two gold
rings, of the value of 51. 12s. 61., their property.

Sentenced to hard labour for 18 calendar months.

k';'arah Jones, 40, spinster, was indicted for stealing
two 51. Bank of England notes, the property of Wil-
liam Smith, in his dwelling-house.
The evidence was clear against the accused, and
the jury found her Guilty.
Sentenced to six monnths' hard labour.
William Jenkins was indicted for stealing a dia-
mond pin, value 101., the property of William
Hughes.

The prosecutor stated, that he is a jeweller, carry-
ing on business at 117, High-street, Borough. The
prisoner went into the shop, and asked to look at
some jewellery. A tray of diamond pins was shown
to him, and while he pretended to be selecting one to
purchase, he slipped one into his left-hand coat pocket.
He seemed greatly to admire one particular pin, for
which he would call on the following Saturday, and
he agreed to leave a deposit of 2s. 6d. As he was
about to leave the shop prosecutor stepped from be-
hind a side-door, where he had been watching all the
prisoner's movements, and said, before he left the
shop he would feel particularly obliged to him if he
would turn his coat pockets inside out. The prisoner
then took out the pin, and threw it on the counter
amongst the others. He was then given into custody.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Sentence, seven years' transportation.
Fanny Norman was indicted for stealing a ring and
a pin, value 10 guineas, and a variety of other articles,
value 10'., the property of Walter Hills, Esq., her
master, a barrister-at-law, residing in Hamilton-
terrace, Kensington-park.
It appeared that the prisoner entered Mr. Hill's
service in February last, and remained until October,
when she was discharged. After she was gone the
property in question was missed, and the prisoner
being suspected, information was given to the police,
and the result was that the articles were traced to a
TaNs-nbrolier's in Drury-lane, where they bad been
pledged by the prisoner for IGs. The evidence
brought the charge direct to the prisoner, and
The jury found her Guilty.
Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK sentenced her to be
transported for seven years.
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

The particulars of the case tlre not fit for publi
cation. _ _

He was fully committed for trial.
John TVilliams and Eliza Saxton were finally ex
amined, charged with having attempted to commi
suicide.

It may be recollected that the prisoners were
sweethearts, and the male prisoner felt jealous in
consequence of seeing Saxton with another. She
purchased some oxalic acici„ and showing it to Wil-
liams and threatening to destroy herself with it, he
snatched it and swallowed it himself, when he was
taken to the Royal Free Hospital, where he had ever
since been in a dangerous state.
Sergeant Lester, E 10, said the male prisoner was
now perfectly recovered, and both prisoners were
now very friendly, and sorry for what they had done.
Mr. CoMDE discharged them, and they left the
Court arm-in-arm together.

him, and then witness gave him into custody.—
Fully committed.

WORSHIP-STREET.

Wm. Stuart. Sheridan, a clerk in the Excise-office,
who was getting on. The pr:soner affected not to knc w
stood charged with having administered &ramie to
his mother, Mrs.. Francis Sheridan, and thereby
caused her death, was placed at the bar for final ex
amination, and the following evidence was proceeded
with :

Catherine Sheridan, the prisoner's sister, was again
examined, and, in addition to her former testimony,
stated that about Christmas last, she accidentally dis-
covered two small packets containing some white
powder in the pocket of a waistcoat belonging to the
prisoner, who told her, in answer to her inquiries re-
specting it, that it was only some morphine which
he had obtained for the purpose of producing sleep.
The prisoner, however, appeared at the time in a
state of perfect health. He was repeatedly in the
habit of uttering complaints respecting the obligatory
insurance npon her life, which he had effected at the
instance of the gentleman who appointed him to his
situation in the Excise-office, to secure some provision
for his mother in the event of his death, and more
than once declared that it was a waste of money to
pay the annual premium upon the policy. He was
also in the habit of expressing the same repugnance
to the compulsory payment to the deceased of 641.
per annum out of his salary, and intimated to the
witness, on her calling at the Excise-office, upon a
recent occasion, for the half-quarter's allowance, that
that was the last time it should ever be received.
He complained at the same time with great asperity
of the conduct of his mother, in suffering her married
daughter to remain in the house, and not compelling
her husband to contribute towards her maintenance.

Mr. William Randall, the landlord of the house in
which the deceased and her family resided up to the
time of her death, deposed to a conversation which
took place between himself and the prisoner, subse-
quent to his mother's death, and relative to the post
mortem examination, in the course of which the pri-
soner declared that he would not have had such an
occurrence for all the world.
Mr. Samuel Giles, one of the clerks to the London
Life Association, produced a policy of insurance
which had been effected upon the life of the prisoner
on the 22d of May, 1828, for 5001. On the 29th ult.
(his mother having died on the previous night) the
prisoner called at the offices of the Association, and
surrendered the policy, in consideration of the sum of
96/. 2s. 6d., which was at once paid to him.
Sergeant Hawkes intimated to the magistrate that
there was only one witness more to complete the case,
namely, the undertaker, who had been called in by
the prisoner to conduct the funeral of the deceased,
and
,who had most material evidence to offer, but he
was at preferent suffering from illness, which pre-
cluded his attendance.

Mr. Humphries, on behalf of the prisoner, then
asked the magistrate if he had come to any decided
conclusion as to the manner in which he intended to
dispose of the case.
Mr. HAMMILL said that it was undoubtedly his
intention to commit the prisoner upon the charge.
Mr. Humphries—Then in that case any observa-
tions which I might feel called upon to offer would
at present be perfectly futile; but do you consider
it a case in which bail could with propriety be ac-
cepted ?
Mr. HAMMILL answered shortly in the negative.
The prisoner (who displayed the most perfect self-
possession throughout) was then ordered to be
remanded, to enable the police to perfect the evi-
dence.'