The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-13 00:00:00

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

The trial of Alexander, Wilbeam, and another,
charged with uttering a bill of exchange for 5001., with
intent to defraud Messrs. Fuller and Co., the bankers,
was postponed until next session. _ _

' The Recorder having disposed of the only remaining
case, which possessed no feature of public interest, the
Court rose before the expiration of the morning. The
sessions then terminated.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD ClRCUlT—Gloucester, April 10.
CIVIL SlDE.—(liefore Mr. Justice MAULE and
Special Juries.)

CHRISTY AND OTHERS v. POWELL, PIDGEON, AND OTHERS.
Mr. Sergeant Tallourd and Mr. Gray were Counsel for
the plaintiffs ; Mr. Whateley and Mr. Selie for the de-
fendant Pidgeon.
The plaintiffs, as trustees of the London Joint-stock
Bank, recovered judgment for the sum of 2,0031. 2s. Si,
damages and costs, on the 25th of August, 1t343, against
Walter Scott; the public officer of the Newcastle-upon-
Tyne Joint-stock Banking Company. In January, 1846,
that company suspended payment, and the present suit
was a proceeding by Acire facias upon the judgment
against the defendants as shim eholders in it. The test of
the writ of scare facias was the 6th November. Powell
allowedjudgment to go by default. Pidgeon, who alone
appeared now by counsel to defend the is:tion,
pleaded •`that he was not, nor is he now, a member
of the company, in the 'manner and form as in the
declaration alleged." The plea, of the other defendants
was to the same effect. -The main question in the
cause was whether Pidgeon was a shareholder. On
behalf of the plaintiffs, a transfer of 250 shares in
the Newcastle Bank, in the month of September,
1843, to Pidgeon, by one Thomas Richardson, an original
shareholder, and which transfer was signed and sealed by
him (Pidgeon), was given in evidence. Upon this trans-
fer the name of Pidgeon was entered and registered in
the books of the bank as shareholder ; and it was proved
that three dividends were actually paid on his written
authority. His name appeared in the register of share-
holders lodged at Somerset-house, under the 7 George
IV., cap. 46, and it still appeared on the books of the
bank as that of a shareholder. The deed constituting
the company was put in, and it contained the following
clause:--" That every person to whom shares shall be
transferred, and who shall nut then be a member of the
company in respect of any other shares, shall, as to all
duties, obligations, claims, and demands upon or against
him in respect of such shares, be considered a member
of the company from the time of the same shares being
so transferred or so becoming vested in him ; but as to
all profits and rights, privileges and benefits to arise
from the same shares, such persons shall not be consi-
dered is a member until he shall have executed the deed
of settlement, or some other deed of accession thereto."
It appeared that Pidgeon had not executed the deed of
settlement, or any deed of settlement thereto.
On the close of the plaintiff's case,
Mr. WI(ATELEY submitted that as the defendant (Pid-
geon) had not executed the deed of settlement, and that
deed:deprived all mere transferees who had riot executed
it of all right to the profits of the company, and various
cases had decided that a community of profit was essen-
tial to constitute a partner, Pidgeon was rot one, and
consequently rhe issue, member or not member, should
be found for him.

Mr. Justice Al AULE said that this company was not a
corporation, or constituted under any Act of Parliament,
but in effect an ordinary partnership, and although con-
stituted by deed, there was nothing to prevent the com-
pany from coming to any new togyement they pleased,
by parole, to vary the. terms of thet' partnership; and that
although the deed might hare had the effect of prevent-
ing Mr. Pidgeon from having shy claim to receive a share
of the profits of the company as between the members
themselves, yet when the company dispensed in practice
with the effect of the deed, end allowed him to receive
his share of the profits, and to be registered both in
their own books, and in the public register at Somerset-
house, as a shareholder, it did not lie in the mouth of
Mr. Pidgeon, or of the company, as against the
public, or those persons who might give credit to the
company, to set up the terms of the deed, or to say
that he was not a shareholder. He felt not the smallest
doubt upon the subject, and he should direct the jury
accordingly.
His LORDSHIP then told the jury that the question for
them was whether, upon the evidence before them, they
were of opion that the defendants, or any of them, were
members of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Joint stock Bank-
ing Company.
Mr. WHATELEY said he should except to this ruling, on
the ground that his Lordship should have told the jury
that, upon the evidence before them, they could not find
a verdict against Mr. Pidgeon. The question was one of
the greatest possible importance, and in reality involved
a sum of upwards of 200,0001., and would be, if neces-
sary, brought before the highest court in the realm.
The jury then found fur the plaintiffs against all the
defendants. The biil of exceptions is to be drawn up
hereafter.

PARRATT V. LAMBERT.
This was an action by a London advertising agent
against the defendant as provisional committeeman of
the Jamaica Southern, Eastern, and Northern Railway
Company, to recover the sum of 6401. for ads ertising the
prospectus of that company in divers newspapers.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Phipson appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Godson and Mr. Pigot for the
defendant.
The evidence of the defendant's liability was, that Ee
was a member of the provisional committee up to the
16th of September, 1845, when they appointed a manag-
ing committee. The defendant being displeased at not
being placed un the managing committee, stated then, to
one of the directors, that he would not attend again,
and did not attend again at any meeting, though he
occasionally called to hear how matters were going on.
Some orders, to the extent of 1481., had been given for
advertisements up to the I Gth of September, 1y the
Secretary of the company, in pursuance of directions
given at preliminary meetings, at which the defendant
was present. Those for the residue were given after
that day. The def,,ndant had not sent in a formal
resignation.

Mr. GODSON having addressed the jury for the de
fendant, and

His Lonnsurp having summed up,
The jury retired for about ten minutes, and then re-
turned with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 118 L
This was the last of the specialjury cases.
The following case was tried before a common jury:—

FEIIREBEE V. PORTING

Mr. Godson and Mr. Greaves were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Gray for the de-
fendant.

The action was for an assault. The defendant pleaded
only that he committed the assault in his own defbnce.
The plaintiff is an ironmonger at Stroud, in this county,
and the defendant a butcher.

Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 40s.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Sergeant GAZELER
Josiah Gregory and Edward llyn.es were put to the
bar to answer to an indictmqnt, which charged that a
certain die with the impression of a lion passant being
used by the Company of Goldsmiths of the city or'
Exeter, for the purpose of stamping and tnarltirg
wares, they had, at the parish of St. Andrew, in the city
of Bristol, feloniously et uaterfeited the said die, and ha-ci
in their possession divers silver spoons stamped with
such counterfeit die.

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Whateley, and Mr. Gor-
don, appeared for the prosecution ; and Mr. Greave.
and Mr. logs for Gregory, Bynes being and !fended.
It appeared that the prisoner Gregory, who was
about fifty years of age, had carried on business for
nearly fifteen years in Bri3tol as a respectable silver-
smith, and that Bynes, who was an old man
about seventy, had been his foreman and shopman.
The motive imputed to them for the forgery in question
was, a wish to avoid the payment of the small duty
payable on having their silver wares properly marked
with the die of the Goldsmiths' Company, within whose
jurisdiction they were. A policeman, who went to
arrest the prisoners, found in Gregory's house a box
containing a punch, a piece of' brass, and various other
implements of forgery, and some silver spoons. Some
of the spoons were marked with the counterfeit die, and
the mark on those which had the genuine stamp was
slightly defaced, or, as it was called, guttered. A young
man, who had been formerly an apprentice to Gregory,
and who appeared to-day to be in the last stage of con-
sumption, swore that he had been in the habit of seeing
for years silver spoons, and other silver ware stamped
by the prisoner with the die used by the Company of
Goldsmiths of the city of Exeter. It appeared that the
impression was taken off a geauineiy-stamped spoon, and
transferred to the spoons sold by Gregory, in somewhat
the same manner as the Post-office authorities were said
to have taken the impressions off the seals of letters, and
so made new seals to reproduce the same impressions.
The apprentice swore that Gregory was in the habit of
carrying the box found by the policeman up stairs every
night, and of bringing it down every morning, and that
it usually contained nearly the same articles that were
found in it by the policeman. This witness admitted, on
cross-examination, that he had been discharged by Gre-
gory. It appeared in evidence that the die used by the
Exeter Company of Goldsmiths had, besides the lion
passant, three other mysterious symbols. At the close
of the case for the prosecution,
Mr. GREAVES submitted that there was a variance
between the allegations in the indictment and the evi-
dence, inasmuch as the indictment described the die as
bearing only a lion passant, whereas the die proved in
evidence had three other marks in addition to the lion.
Mr. WHATELY had no objection to the point, if there
was anything in it, being reserved.
His LORDSHIP reserved it.
Mr. GREAVES then addressed the jury for Gregory,
contending that they could not rely on the evidence of
the apprentice, who was an accomplice at the least, even
according to his own statement, and was altogether un-
corroborated, and was, moreover, hostile to Gregory for
having dismissed him.
Several witnesses spoke highly of the good characters
formerly borne by both prisoners.

Mr. WIIATELEY having replied for the Crown, and his
LORDSHIP having summed up,
The jury, after five minutes deliberation, found both
prisoners Guilty, but recommended them to mercy.
On the prisoners being called on in the usual manner
to say why the Court should not pass sentence upon
them according to law,
Bynes said that he had be en already very severdy
punished, having been frost-bitten in his hands and feet
during the severe weather of the last winter, from the
coldness of the cell in which he was confined
at Bristol.
Ills LORDSHIP, after severely animadverting on the
cruelty of such treatment to a prisoner, sentenced Gre-
gory to eighteen and Bynes to twelve calendar months'
imprisonment, with hard labour.
There are still 13 Crown and 12 Nisi Prius cases un-
tried, and it is probable that the business will not be
over before Wednesday. The Nisi Prius Court cannot
sit beyond that day, as the distringases arc returnable I
of term.
on Thuraday, the Brat day