The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-24 00:00:00

SMITH V. ROYSTON,

Which was argued last term. The plaintiff brought his
action for trespass, he alleging that the defendant had
built upon his freehold. The property in question was
a ring, to the extent of four yards, round a park, called
an ancient "Buckleap." The question at the trial was
entirely for the consideration of a Jury. The fact of
possession being deposed to in a most contradictory
manner, the Jury then found for the defendant, and
the Court were of opinion that there were no grounds
to disturb the verdict. The rule was therefore discharged.
The. Court then took the new trials standing over from
last term. Only one was partly heard, and it presented
no feature of public interest.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, May 22.
IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES JOSEPH CARTTER.

The bankrupt in this case, who was a solicitor, residing in
Greenwich, having appeared in Court on his examination,
Mr. Binns, a solicitor, applied en the part of Mrs. Mary
Edward, to have the bankrupt examined relative to the dispo-
sal of certain moneys which he received under the will of Mr.
Rout, who died its the year 1815. Mr. Binns said that he was
instructed to state that the bankrupt, in his capacity as agent
for certain parties, had received money to a large amount, and
he now wished to knew how it had been disposed of, and to
whom paid over, as his (Mr. Binns') client was a legatee under
the will of Mr. Rout, and likewise under the will of a Mr.
Penton, in which the bankrupt was also concerned.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said he did not think that he
would be justified in acceding to Mr. Binns' application, as
it appeared to him that the bankrupt was acting as the soli-
citor to another party, and under such circnmstances an'exa-
mination into these private relations would be improper.
Mr. Binnes said his client was very poor,' and had been a
long time waiting for the legaoy to which sue was entitled
under those wills, and he understood the money, to a large
amount, had been received, and all he now required was, that
the bankrupt should state in Court to whom the money had
been paid.
The LEARNED COMMISSIONER said there might be hard-
ship attending the case, but still he could not require the exa-
mination of the bankrupt.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A young man, named Arthur Woodruffe, was brought
before Alderman Wilson, in the custody of Daniel For-
rester, the officer, charged with having forged a promis-
sory note for 100/., dated Bristol, 18th of April, 1841,
signed George Ancell, purporting to be accepted by the
firm of Messrs. M‘Calmont, Brothers, and Co., of Philpot-
lane, and made payable at Sir R. C. Glynn's banking-
house.

John Knight, a porter at Lincoln's-inn, stated that
the prisoner called to him as he was under the gateway
of Lincoln's-inn, at half-past three o'clock, and asked
him to go into the City on a message. The prisoner
then walked down Chancery-lane about twenty or thirty
yards, and then told witness, who followed him, that he
must go to Glynn's bank with the promissory note and
bring away the amount in gold to Mr. Farren's offices in
Lincoln's-inn. Witness obeyed the directions, and called
at the office in question, but did not see the prisoner. He went
back into Chancery-tane, having in his hand a handker-
chief containing a bundle of halfpence, which he carried
as a blind by the direction of Daniel Forrester. The
prisoner who, no doubt, had been watching for the wit-
ness at some private place, at once ran up to witness
and seizing the handkerchief, said—" Have you got the
sovereigns ? lam glad of it." Witness then followed
the prisoner to chambers in the neighbourhood, and just
as the handkerchief was opened Daniel Forrester told
him that his presence was required at the Mansion-
houSe. The prisoner stated that the note had been
given to him.
Mr. T. Williams, cashier at Glynn's banking-house,
stated that the bill was brought at four o clock to the
counter. He entertained no doubt whatever as to the
fact that it was a forgery. Messrs. M`Calmont kept an
account at their house.
Mr. William Johnson Newell, a partner in the house
of M'Calmont and Co., stated that the acceptance was a
palpable forgery.
The prisoner said that he had received the bill from a
party who would be much inconvenienced by being
made responsible at that bar.—He was remanded.
The London and Westminster Steam-boat Company,
the Directors of which firm long suspected that they were
extensively plundered by some of their servants, have at
last detected a robbery. A young man, named Poole,
was charged with having defrauded the Company of a
considerable sum of money, under the following circum-

stances :
Mr. A. Leith, the Secretary and manager of the com-
pany attended, together with some of the directors,
and stated that the prisoner had been connected with
the company for two or three seasons as receiver of tic-
kets at one of the stations. To commit robberies the
concurrence of another of the servants was necessary,
and luckily for the concern the prisoner proposed the
mode of appropriation to a new comer, who favoured
the deception, while he informed the Company of the
meditated plan of depredation. The prisoner was paid
30s. per week, and robbed at the rate of eight pounds.
William Tyrrell, inspector and check-taker at Hun-
gerford-market, stated that he received checks from pas-
sengers who disembarked at that station. The prisoner
went to him on Tuesday week and proposed to meet
him in the evening after business was over, and when
they met, said, " Our wages are but little, and we can,
if we please, increase them. So, if you give me five or
six dozen cheques a day of those you receive, I'll pay
you a shilling a dozen for them." Witness asked whe-
ther that was all, and prisoner then said, " give you
seven shillings for six dozen." Witness said he must
have time for consideration. He then went to the Secre-
tary and informed him of the proposition that had been
made to carry on the system of plunder, and arrangements
were accordingly made to insure detection. Witness
having subsequently expressed his concurrence to the
scheme, supplied the prisoner With three dozen cheques
on Friday, all marked privqtelY• Afterwards he gave
the Inioner several wore -dams of cheques, for an of

which he received at the rate of seven shillings for six
dozen.

The prisoner said that Tyrrell was the proposer of the
plan to him, and he joined in it and paid Tyrrell, who
disclosed the circumstance from the fear of detection, as
it was known that the Secretary suspected dishonesty
somewhere, and was active in making investigation. The
argument used by Tyrell was, that they might as well be
guilty as suspected. In fact, he (prisoner) considered
that the only person to blame was Tyrrell.
The Secretary said he had no doubt that the Com-
pany was plundered of 1,0001. a year at least by the sys-
tem just exposed, and they were determined to prosecute
in every case.
The prisoner was committed for trial.