The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, June 2.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. GIBBERT.
The arguments for the defendant in this cause were con-
cluded to-day, but the Attorney-General not being able to
attend the further hearing of the cause was postponed till
Friday next.

COURT OF REVIEW, June 2.

Sir J. Knight Bruce sat as Chief Judge in Bankruptcy
this morning, at Westminster, but nothing of public interest
was brought before the Court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Edmund Duggins, clerk to Mr. Watson, a conveyancer,
of Dyer's-buildings, was charged by Mr. Charles Lemon
Greaves, a solicitor, of Furnival's Inn, with enforcing
payment of his fee as a barrister's clerk by unlawful
means. Mr. Greaves laid his charge as either an assault,
an extortion of half-a crown, or the stealing of half-a-

Crown.
Mr. Ballantine supported the complaint, and Mr
Horry defended the prisoner. •
Mr. Ballantine stated that his client went to the con-
veyancer's chambers to speak to him on business, and
upon entering the prisoner closed the door, and refused
to let him leave until he paid him a shilling. There
being no such recognised fee, the prisoner raised it to
half-a-crown. Upon another person coming to Mr.
Greaves's call for assistance, Mr. Greaves held out some
cash, and told him that he might take what he demanded,
but he would have to answer it. Either because he
wanted the money, or did not care what he did, the
prisoner actually took a sum of 2s. 6d., there being
nothing due to him at the time. He was not at liberty
to press the case as one merely of assault, but would
leave it to the magistrates to say what offence had been
committed.
Mr. Harry remarked that his client had been already
charged with felony at the station, and it would be better
to state whether that charge was now made or not.
Mr. Ballantine wished only to place the fact before
the aldermen, and leave them to say what the offence
was.
Mr. Greaves then stated that he had been in the habit
of going to Mr. Watson's chambers, but he did not owe
him or his clerk any money. On Monday evening he
called at the chambers and asked if he could speak with
Mr. Watson ? Without answering the question, the
prisoner put his back against the room door, and asked
hire for a shilling. Witness replied he did not owe him
a shilling. The prisoner said, " I'll be d—d if you shall
go cut till you give me the shilling, unless you go out at
that window." Leaving by way of the window would
have been inconvenient, as he must have dropped a dis-
tance of 12 feet. Witness called out of the window to
some children, offering them a penny to fetch a police
man, and witness then said, " You blackguard, what
are you detaining me for ?" The prisoner then, in a
menacing attitude, said, "If you call me that again, I
will knock your head through the wall." Mr. Besant, a
solicitor, came to witness's aid, and in his presence he
held out some money in his hand to the prisoner, and
told him to take what he demanded at his peril. The
prisoner took 2s. 6d. Witness would have stayed in the
chambers all night rather than have submitted to the
extortion, if he had not engaged to go to a dinner, which
engagement he incidentally mentioned to the prisoner
when he inquired for Mr. Watson.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said the facts, as stated, would
support either a charge of assault or larceny.
Mr. Ilorry asked the witness if he had not delivered
to Mr. Watson instructions to draw a bill of foreclosure
in the case of " Greaves v. Godfrey."
The witness said he had.
Mr. Hurry asked if he left the clerk's fee along with
the papers?
The witness said he had not, because the fees were not
due till the work was done.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said, there was this reason for
not paying the conveyancer's and clerk's fee at the time
the papers were delivered,—the solicitor could not fore-
see the extent of the work to be done, and the proper
charge for it. _ _

Mr. lorry asked the witness if the prisoner did not
ask for a shilling on account?
Witness replied he did not.
Mr. lorry asked if the prisoner had not called on him
for the fees in this case?

The witness said, yes, but only for the purpose of an-
noyance,

Horry inquired, what he meant by " for the pur-
pose of annoyance?" Was not the money due ?
Witness said, he meant by annoyance that he tried to
insinuate himself into witness's room.

Mr. Alderman Noon asked how the prisoner would
be relieved from the charge of assault if the money were
due. Suppose it were due, he could not enforce pay-
ment by assault.
Mr. Alderman JOHNSON asked, what was the custom
with regard to payment of fees to barristers' clerks?
Mr. Greaves said, sometimes fees were delivered with
the papers; but the usual mode was, to pay when the
work was done; and it had not been completed in this
case.

Mr. Alderman WOOD added, that generally the fees
were allowed to run to the end of the term, and then
paid off.
Mr. Ballantine, to show that nothing was due to Mr.
Watson at the time, put in an I 0 U for 11. 7s. 6d.,
which Mr. Watson had signed on Saturday last and
given to Mr. Greaves.

Mr. Horry expressed his readiness to meet the case
at the sessions either as a larceny or an assault.
The Aldermen consulted, and
Mr Alderman WOOD then said, they would deal with
it summarily as an assault, which they had power to do,
and they fined the prisoner 405., or, in default, to be im-
prisoned for one month; and further, to enter into his'

recognizance in 101. to keep the peace for six months.
Zr. 'lorry expressed some disappointment, as he
should have been prepared to go further into the matter
at the sessions. Ile was ready to give bail to appear at
the sessions.

Mr. Alderman WOOD replied, he thought it was a
proper case for the exercise of summary jurisdiction.
The defendant paid the fine and was discharged.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
A solicitor and a gentleman (understood to be the
uncle of the Hon. Henry Arundel, who was lately fined
51. for an indecent assault on an Italian boy, and in ad-
dition sent to prison for a month for an assault on a
police-constable,) entered the Court yesterday and men-
tioned to Mr. Hardwick that an application had been
made to Sir George Grey, the Secretary for the Home
apartment, for a commutation of the sentence of im-
prisonment on the Hon. henry Arundel, and that this ap-
plication was now under consideration. The solicitor
also wished to know how it happened thut the circum-
stance of the apprehension of Mr. Arundel became
known to a certain individual who made his appearance
is court, and who took an active part in attempting to
procure an alteration of the sentence on Mr. Arundel.
Mr. HARDWICK said he could give no information on
that point. The police must be applied to. He also
said, in the course of conversation, that the public, and
indeed the persons connected with the law, who mighr
be supposed to know better, exhibited remarkable igno-
rance with respect to the powers vested by law in ma-
gistrates in cases of assault.
in In all cases of common as-
sault, however outrageous character, or however re-
spectable the station of the accused, a magistrate was
prohibited from inflicting a penalty higher than Si. Now,
as this penalty was found to be totally inadequate to re-
press the taste for such outrages on police-constables,
the law was altered, and a magistrate had power given
to him to substitute a limited imprisonment for a fine.
.The,cxe,r,fiseof, ties power-has been ,zfotiziditn prcritistr
salutary results; and it was generally resorted-to by ma—
gistrates, and this was the reason why he had inflicted
this punishment on Mr. Arundel. Magistrates were
frequently abused and vilified, and had all sorts of im-
putations cast upon them, because they had not gone be-
yond the law in cases of outrage, and inflicted a punish-
ment that the law did not permit.
The applicants, after some further conversation, left
the court.
A military-looking man, who gave the assumed name
of John Butler, was fined 51. for an indecent assault
upon a boy in a public-house in Green-street, Leicester
square.