The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-30 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, IVev. 29.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Westminster, before Chie
Justice WILDE.)
CHAMBERLAYNE V. WEST.

In this action, which was brought to recover the
amount due upon a bill of; exchange endorsed by the
plaintiff, a verdict was found for the plaintiff for
2.54 ls. 6d.

KENDALL V. WATKINS.

In this case Mr. Lush appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Humfrey for the defendant.
It was brought to recover the snm of 301. upon an
I 0 U, given by the defendant to the plaintiff, and it
arose out of the disposal of a fishmonger's business,
which was carried on in White Rose-court, Coleman-
street.

The particulars of the case were entirely devoid of a❑y
general interest.
A verdict was found for the plaintiff.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. Stinton, the other partner, was then examined at
some length by the Attorney-General in corroboration.
He was cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, who
endeavoured to elicit from him that he had written letters
to Anne Simmons,:and that when her boxes were being
searched, he called her into the bed-room, and begged
of her, for God's sake, to give him up all the notes he had
written to her. The witness vehemently and indignantly
answered, " Upon my soul, I never wrote to her a note on
any subject in my life."
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—You are not here to swear
upon your soul. The only soul you are upon here is
the sole of your foot.—(Great laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL protested against the in-
decency of the observation, and said that the witness
had only exhibited a natural resentment at an insulting
imputation.
The cross-examination proceeded, in which the wit-
ness solemnly denied that he gave Simons the dress in
which she went to the ball at Cricklewood, or that he
wrote a note to her, requesting she should wear a blue
dress.

A sister of the prisoner Simons was called, but she
only proved that Hickman sent money and legal assist.
ance to the prisoner when she was taken into custody.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL endeavoured to elicit from
the witness that she obtained her living in a disreput-
able way.

Mr. Sergeant 'WHArNs protested against the indecency
of the Attorney-General disparaging so vilely his own
witness.

After some discussion, the question—" Do you live
under the protection of any gentleman ?" was allowed
to be put, the Judge informing the witness that she was
not obliged to answer the question. She accordingly
declined to answer. She had repeatedly seen Mr.
Stinton walking in Regent-street and elsewhere at
night. He always passed witness without speaking.
The laundress of the chambers occupied by Hickman
Was called. She merely proved that he occupied the
room& for four or five years—that Simons visited him,
seemed to possess his entire confidence, and had exclu-
sively the keys of the chest of drawers, as well as of
the boxes in which the goods of the prosecutor's were
found. He might not know anything of what they
contained. Nothing was ever removed from the chambers
by Mr. Hickman during:the years that he was there.
The witness's servant confirmed this, and added that
Rickman was out of town when the boxes were brought
to his chambers by Simons.
Several other witnesses were examined for the prose-
cution, but added nothing material.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS addressed the jury at great
length for the prisoner Simons. He complained of th•
conduct of the counsel for the prosecution, and said
tbat the jury must have perceived from the questions put
'to Mr. Stinton, that the defence which he was instructed
to offer would implicate him in this case, although the
intimacy with the prisoner, alleged to have subsisted be-
tween them, was carried on in secrecy, and not per-
fectly capable of proof. The sister, however, had sworn
to meeting them walking at night about the streets,
under circumstances which gave some colour to her
allegation, when it was considered that he was a
married man. It was evident that the prisoner's
statement that Stinton introduced her to the
establishment was true, because Mr. Marshall swore he
never saw her until she was in the house; and the sister
swore positively that it was he who gave her the place.
The Learned Counsel also dwelt at great length on the
circumstance that Mr. Stinton had the control of the
affairs of the establishment, the management of the
books, purchases and sales, and of the taking of stock.
It wasstrange, too, that whilst he denied that he gave
the dress in which Simons went to the ball, he could
not recollect the dress of any other lady whatever, not
eK•n of his own wife. He contended also that the
defence of the prisoner was corroborated by Mr.
Stinton's conduct, from the time she was accused
until she was coanilted. Ho said nothing upon
the subject when the charge was first made in
his presence—he never reproached the prisoner,
never spoke to her, although she stood beside his desk.
Mr. Stinton also admitted, itecontradiction of his partner,
that Barber was discharged for saying that he (Stinton)
Was too intimate with Simons. It was strange also that
both partners admitted that not one of the articles found
in• her possession had ever been missed, and they ad-
mitted that the persons employed were allowed to pur-
these goods at cost price over the counter. He pressed
`the latter admission upon the consideration of the jury,
in connexion with Mr. Stinton's saying, that he believed
her to be a young woraan of some property, and her
allegation that she had the property with his know-
ledge.

Sir FREDERICK THESIGER then addressed the jury
for Mr. Hickman at considerable length.
Mr. Justice Coltman summed up, and the jury almost
immediately returned a verdict of Guilty against the
prisoner: Simons, and Acquitted Mr. Hickman.
The e, was an attempt at applause in the court when
the vi;rdict was delivered, but it was speedily repressed.
sr.r. BODKIN said there were two other indictments in
wh'Ach Mr. Hickman was charged as receiver, 'hut after
the verdict that had been delivered, and the full inquiry
etrat had taken place, he considered it unnecessary to
Livoceed with them.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN, in ordering the discharge of
Itr. Hickman, said he quite concurred in the verdict of
the jury. He believed that he had only acted with in-
discretion, and that there was not the least ground for
supposing that he was actuated by any felonious intention.