The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-13 00:00:00

TEE SUN,' LONDON, MONDAY, DF_ICEMBER 13, 1841.

LAW IN TELLIGENCE:
SHERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 11.
HERBERT AND THE LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY

In consequence of a great number of cases depending
upon the result of the above claim, a very strong interest
was excited amongst the Directors and Shareholders of
the railway.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dee. 11.
At the rising of the Court Mr. Woodroffe made an ap-
plication for assistance on the part of " Llowelyn Wat-
kins Williams," who had been connected with the well-
known beef shop in the Old Bailey, and who was now in
a wretched state of destitution in Whitecross-street
Prison. It appeared that the insolvent had been twice a
bankrupt, and twice an insolvent. His failures were for
considerable sums. He had kept booths at races, places
of dramatic entertainment, billiard-rooms, baths, and
oyster-shops. These various speculations formed a part
of his debts on the present occasion, amounting to up-
wards of 9,0001. Mr. Woodroffe read an affidavit, show-
ing his great poverty. Ile had a family of twelve chil-
dren, nine of whom were depending on him. His mother
now lived in Field-lane, and was in very distressed cir-
cumstances.

Mr. Woodroffe read a certificate from Mr. Barratt, the
humane keeper of Whitecross-street Prison, showing the
extreme destitution of the insolvent.
Mr. Woodroffe informed the Court that Mr. Williams's
father had amassed a very large fortune, but the insolvent
thought the several speculations he had entered into a
" short cut" to wealth, and they had produced his failures.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said the fund was very limited,
he would, however, see what could be afforded for the man.
Mr. Woodroffe stated the taxed bill at 3:3/. 10s. 9d.
The Court promised to award a stun to the prisoner to
file his schedule.

(This is a distressing case as regards the mother of the
insolvent, who has lost all her property by the reckless
speculations of her son. The poor in the neighbourhood
will feel the loss. Some fifteen or twenty of them might
have been seen, before the son failed, every evening,
waiting opposite the place, and were generally supplied'
with what afforded them a plentiful meal. It is hard
that she should be driven at last to look for charity
herself,)

SURREY SESSIONS.
CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED RAPE.— William Lillipvhite,
a stupid-looking covitryman, was placed at the bar,
charged with assaulting Charlotte, the wife of Richard
Barnett, with intent to commit a rape. There was a se-
cond count, charging him with a common assault. The
witnesses were all ordered out of Court.
Mr. CORNER, having stated the case to the Jury.
called the following witnesses !
Charlotte Barnett, the prosecutrix, a very unattrac-
tive-looking woman, apparently upwards of forty years
of age, deposed—I live at East Grimstead. On the 30th
of October last I took my place in the Worthing lug-
gage van from London at half-past six. It started from
near the Elephant and Castle. Prisoner is the guard.
Twenty minutes after we left London prisoner came
into the van and asked a little girl who was in the van
to come out and see the fights. The child had been
placed in the prisoner's charge. Iltdvised the child not
to go out. Prisoner asked me-if I Was afraid ? I said
"No ; but that I liked company better." The prisoner
then made improper advances towards me.—(Witness
here described the nature of the assault.) I resisted
him. When we came to Ashstead I got out, and com-
plained to the driver of prisoner's conduct. I then got
into the van again. This was about twelve at night.
The van thou started. Soon after the defendant got in-
side the van again. lie then insulted me again. (Wit-
ness here &seats] the nature of the assault, which
could leave no doubt of the intentions of the prisoner.)
I resisted him. He did not say anything. I called out
for assistance, and struggled with him. Prisoner's dress
was disordered. I was sitting on the seat of the van
when this happened. Shortly after we arrived at a toll-
gate. I told the gate•keeper I must get out because of
the prisoner. The toll-gate man said, " Oh, d-- you,
sit still, he won't hurt you." I afterwards wanted to go out,
and the prisoner put his leg across the door and said I
should not get out. He again behaved indecently to me.
When the van came to Cape!, I jumped out, and ran
away, and walked home to Grimstead, a distance of six-
teen miles. The van goes through Grinstead, prisoner
was in a publie•house whets 1
,jumped out. I went on
NoveMber 8, to Sir Charles Burrell to complain of the
prisoner. I never gave authority to any person to com-
promise this case, or to receive any money from
prisoner. I have never received any. The little girl was
in the van while all this was going on, and desired him to
let me alone, and he told me it was no business of hers.
There was no light in the van.
Cross-examined by Mr. KNAPP, for the prisoner—
The van passes within three miles of our house. The
van did not overtake me. I stayed a little time at Ilor-
slmm. He commenced assaulting Me a few minutes after
he got There is a vacancy iu the door to let in light.
We stopped a moment or two at Tooting. I do not
know where at. A person came up, and said, " Look
out, it is a fair night." I did not complain of the con-
duct of the prisoner to that person. I was far from
home, and did not know whet to do. I was afraid,
and wanted to get home. They stopped afterwards
fly it might be. twenty minutes, I did not com-
plain. At Ashtead I asked to get up on the top of
the van. I got into the van again, because I thought it
might rain. - When I complained to the driver, he said
prisoner was big enough and old enough to know better.
I did not ask him to prevent prisoner getting into the
van. There were other persons there, but I did not
complain to them, because I wanted to get home. I
thought he would not insult me again after I had
complained to the driver. Alter I left Capel, I saw the
prisoner at the Burrell Arms with the van. That is six
miles beyond Horsham. Prisoner asked me if I
had walked. I said I had, for I didn't like his usage. I
then went into thelandlord, and complained of his usage,
and • asked if he knew the man. The landlord 'ad-
vised me to send a letter to his master. I did not do so.
When I got home I told my husband, and he said " We
must have him took up." I first applied to the Magis-
trate on the Bth. of November. My husband's brother
came on the 7th of November, and said the prisoner had
given him ten shillings, but I never authorised him to
take it ; and never intended 'to make it up. My hus-
band and his brother went to see the prisoner, but I
never authorised them to make it up. My husband
r
to
siwilta.e‘o I think he was sober, I did not know the priso» ►er.
rt,facet
leacictrtindliteasi(
ntihneketeitnusph.illings, nor me neither. I
By the COURT.—I called out when he first molested
—I live at Clapham, near lorthing. On 30th, t)et.
s
Elizabeth Searle, a girl apparently about twelve years
.vsoannewr ilsetehe guard.
it started. (The witness then proceeded to
g from
nd sn
particular.) Prosecu7;ixes
• rated the evidence of rt.4l;elllll(e,opi
elottri
plirttsihexbceytat :°;ll.tial srn:v:i(a' cfrn::)trtit: el:ritliri;Liel.-
off;" and he asked what busilnesaid.
said he did not hear hallooing., but the"
Leave
to
attacked prosecutrix several timsess.it was of
always resisted
resisted
prisofner., e
? lie
him and hallooed. The van stopped four hoursy at Capel
after prosecutrix left. It was raining hard at the time.
I remained in the van at Capel the whole time.
Crosslumined, by Ur, liNarr—l first saw it raiu at

COMPANY.
This was a precept directed to the Sheriff to inquire
what amount of compensation the claimant was entitled
to receive from the above Railway Company, by reason of
the damage alleged to have been sustained by him by the
construction of the railway.
Mr. F. Kelly, Q. C., and Mr. Bute appeared for the
claimant, and the Solicitor-General and Mr. Austin for
the Company.
Mr. KELLY stated that the claimant, Mr.. John Her-
bert, was lessee of certain premises in Anthony-street,
St. George's in the East, and had been reduced by a
moral necessity to bring his case before a jury. The
Act of Parliament under which the railway was con-
structed was obtained by a company of individuals on
the 28th of July, 1836. This railway differed from every
other that had been made in the United Kingdom, for,
as they were no doubt already aware, the London and
Liverpool and the Great Western Railways passed far
below the level of the surrounding houses, but the Black-
well Railway, on the contrary, intersected a densely po-
pulated neighbourhood. It had, therefore, been thought
by the Legislature that persons occupying houses within
50 feet of the railway might be incommoded, and their
property deteriorated in value, and upon this ground it
had wisely considered it necessary that such parties
should have an ecuitable claim upon the Company for
compensation. The 51st section of the Company's Act,
under which the Jury were empanelled, provided that,
although a person's property was not entirely destroyed,
yet if it was damaged and lessened in value, the Company
should be bound to purchase it if required to do so.,
The first question for their consideration, therefore
was, were the premises deteriorated in value ? And the
next would be, if they were, what was the value of those
premises ? It was not the duty of the Jury to say
what exact amount of damage was done to the premises,
but they must assess the whole value of the premises if
any portion of them were at all deteriorated or damaged.
Mr. Herbert had lived to an advanced age, above 80 years
old, and in consequence of the constant passing and repas-
sing of the trains, and the noise produced by the rope al-
most incessantly passing over the iron sheaves along the
line, and the vibration occasioned thereby, shaking thefire-
places, glasses, and other articles from the top to the bot-
tom of the adjoining houses, the claimant would be com-
pelled to leave his premises. After some further state-
ments the Learned Counsel said, Mr. Herbert had also
laid out in improvements 1401., which he was entitled to
receive. Then there was his business. He was netting
a profit of about 1201. per annum down to the completion
of the railway. He claimed for goodwill, therefore, two
years' value, amounting to 2401., and 371. for fixtures,
making in all between 7001 and 8001.
Witnesses were called to prove these statements,
when the SOLICITOR-GENERAL addressed the Jury in
mitigation of damages. He observed that the Com-
pany resisted this claim because they believed it was
not a bona fido ono made by Mr. Herbert, but that
it was got up by some parties who speculated upon certain
clauses of the Railway Company's Act. Whatever the
result of this case was the Company would have to bear all
th e expenses. The Company were not desirous of purchasing
the claimant's premises, and the first question for the con-
sideration
of the Jury was whether this was a case in
which the Company were compelled to take the pre-
mises. Although this claim was small, yet their verdict
was of very considerable importance to the Company, be-
cause if the Solicitor was successful in this, his first spe-
culation, there would be no end to the exorbitant de-
mands and number of actions that would be brought
against the Company. The Learned Gentlemen then
contended that the Act of Parliament providing for cow.-
pensation to be paid for any deterioration done to the
houses within fifty feet of the railway, applied only to
those cases in which substantial and permanent damage
was done to the buildings.
The Jury, after consulting together for a few minutes,
returned into Court and said, " We find that the property
is not deteriorated in value by the construction of the
railway."