The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-08 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1847.

LAW INTEL LIGEN CE.
JUDGES' CHAMBERS, September 7.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
ELIZABETH GOUDY V. T. S. BUNCOMBE, M.P.

This was a summons taken out on behalf of the
defendant, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause
why he should not be dischasged out of the custody
of the Sheriff of Yorkshire, on the ground that he is
privileged from arrest, having been returned as M.P.
for Finsbury. The summons set forth that the de-
fendant had been elected M.P. for Finsbury on the
28th of July last, and that pursuant to such election
and return he is, and at the time of arrest was, a
Member of the House of Commons, and as such en-
titled to all the privileges of a Member of that House;
that he is at present on a visit to Copgrove, near
Boroughbridge, in the West Riding of Yorkshire,
the residence of his father ; and that whilst on such a
visit he was arrested and taken on execution by
George Acton, one of the officers of the Sheriff of
Yorkshire, at the suit of the plaintiff, in virtue of a
warrant bearing date the Ist of September instant,
granted by the said Sheriff of Yorkshire, in pursu-
ance of a writ of capias ad sati.sfaciendum issued in
this cause ; and that he was still in custody of said
Sheriff. It appeared that the sum for which the de-
fendant was arrested amounted to 4001.
Mr. CARLON, of the firm of Messrs. Carlon and
Haynes, appeared as attorney for the defendant.
He stated that the defendant was elected M.P. for
Finsbury on the 28th of July last, and that his arrest
took place on the 2d of September, Parliament being
summoned to meet on the 21st inst. The latest case
on the books relating to this subject was that of
" Philip v. Wellesley,' which was decided in favour
of the defendant by Mr. Baron Parke, with the full
consent of the whole Court, who ordered his dis-
charge, on the ground of his being a Member of Par-
liament at the time of arrest. This was a case ex-
actly in point, and on the same ground he asked for
the discharge of the defendant in the present case.
Mr. WILLS, who appeared as counsel for the plain-
tiff, said that the case just cited would be a good
authority for the defendant if he was at the time of
arrest entitled to the privilege of a Member of Par
liament, but not, as in the present case, when he did
not possess such a privilege. A Member of the House
of Commons, he contended, had no privilege from
arrest :except for a reasonable time to allow him to
come to Parliament. The question in this case
then was, what time a Member should be allowed
before Parliament met to enable him to come
to London. In the case of " Philip v. Wellesley"
Parliament met in the month of October.
He believed it occurred in the session after
the death of George IV. The application was made
to the court in Michaelmas term ; consequently his
privilege as a Member had accrued before the appli-
cation was made, whereas in this case Parliament
was not to meet till the 21st of September, and the
defendant was arrested before Parliament met, and
before his privilege accrued. It appeared from all
the books that great doubt existed as to the limit of
the privilege; but the House of Commons had them-
selves given an answer which seemed to him to dis-
pose of the case. There was a notion abroad that a
Member of Parliament was entitled to freedom from
arrest for forty days after every prorogation, and
forty days before the next appointed meeting of Par-
liament, which notion had been traced to an Act of
the Irish Parliament passed in the reign of Edward
IV. (the 31st of Edward IV., c. 1), which defined
the privilege, and limited it as above stated. The
only case, however, in which this question had been
pronounced on by the House of Commons was the
case of Martin, in 1586. Mr. Martin, it appeared,
was arrested twenty days before the meeting of Par-
liament, and the question was put to the House
whether they would fix a limited time certain within
which a Member was to be free from arrest, or
merely a convenient time, and the House answered
"a reasonable time." The House having held that
twenty days was within a convenient time, Mr.
Martin was discharged. The inference from this
was that a period beyond twenty days was a con-
venient time.

Mr. Justice WiLmAms—lt appears to me rather
that the House of Commons declined to say what
was the limit, but merely said that twenty days was
within the limit.

Mr. WILLS continued—lf twenty days was at that
period a convenient time for coming from any part of
the kingdom, it was surely much more so in the
present day. According to this authority, then, he
held that Mr. Duncombe was not entitled to his dis-
charge, as he was arrested more than forty days after
the dissolution, and twenty days, inclusive, before the
next appointed meeting of Parliament. If his Lord-
ship should decide differently, the result would be
that the plaintiff, who had used all due diligence,
would be deprived of her claim against the defendant
for seven years to come.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said it appeared to him that
Parliament always took care to prorogue to a day
which should operate as a protection to its Members.
He had always understood that the privilege lasted
for forty days before and after the meeting of Pariia-
ment. It was distinctly stated to be so by Black-
stone, and such was the universal opinion.
Mr. WILLS, referring to the Order in Council in a
recent Gazette, which was here produced, proroguing
Parliament from the 21st of September till the 12th
of October next, contended that this was exactly
forty days from the time of the defendant's arrest,
and that therefore, even if the popular notion of forty
days was correct, the defendant was not entitled to
his discharge.
Mr. CAIILON maintained that the defendant's pri-
vilege must be counted from the day of his arrest to
the 21st of September, and again from the 21st of
September to the 12th of October, as he was entitled
to forty days after every prorogation.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS remarked, that the de-
fendant was entitled to take a forty days' journey to
come to Parliament. Now, supposing he set out on
the 2d of September (the day of his arrest), and ar-
rived the night before the meeting of Parliament, on
the 12th of October, that would be exactly forty days.
He held, however, that practically it would be within
twenty days, for Parliament would meet on the 21st,
though it was only for the purpose of being prorogued
still farther, and therefore the 12th of October must
be held a second prorogation, and not as a continua-
tion of the first. But even if the plaintiff could have
shown that it was beyond twenty days, he (Mr. Jus-
tice Williams) would have been reluctant to disturb
the dictum of so great an authority as Judge Black-
days as the period, and
therefores t Black-
stone, n e ,
order the defendant to be dis-
charged. who
he stated
mus t forty
An order for the defendant's discharge was given
accordingly, his attorney consenting that no action
should follow for false imprisonment.
Mr. Coverdale, of Bedford-row, was present
watching the proceeding on the part of the Sheriff
of Yorkshire.

Wapping, said—ln August I purchased 15 cwt.
2 qrs. and 25 lbs. of rope, of Mr. 11. Cusell and Co.,
of Lime-street, for 365. per cwt. The packages came
from the Custom-house Wharf, where I had seen the
goods. Mr. Gray has been at my counting-house,
and has, I believe, seen the goods.
Mr. Hillory—What led to your purchase of the
goods ?
Mr. Clarkson objected to such a question.
Mr, Hillory observed that whatever objection might
be taken to the question in the Court to which the
case would be, no doubt, ultimately referred, there
could not, properly, be any made in a preliminary
inquiry, instituted for the purpose of eliciting the
truth.

The LORD MAYOR considered that the question
could not be put in such a form.
Mr. Goodman (the chief clerk to the Lord Mayor)
—Where was the contract made ? Mr. Frost—At
the Custom-house Wharf, on the 6th of August. Mr.
Cusell came to my warehouse, and I went with him
to inspect the goods, and purchased them. They were
to be delivered to us free of expense, and they were
accordingly so delivered.
Mr. Hillory—Was this rope Petersburgh hemp ?
Mr. Frost—lt was supposed to be such, but it was
of very inferior quality.
Mr. Hillory—Do you know that the raw mate-
rial of Petersburgh hemp costs forty shillings a cwt.
before it is manufactured ? Mr. Frost—Not such as
that, I am positive.
Herman Cusell, commission agent, of N0..52, Lime-
street, said, but in so indistinct a manner that it often,
in the course of his evidence, became necessary to
call upon him to speak up—l purchased goods last i
August. It was rope, in round packages, and Mr.
Holliday, the prisoner, was the person who trans-
acted the business with me. I bought in the name
of Gardner and Co. I believe I have got the invoice
at home. The transaction occurred at my office,
when Holliday first offered the goods. I had no
conversation with him about the goods before that
day. He said to me that he had got a lot of rope,
and asked me if I could dispose of it, or advance
money upon it. He did not say of whom he got it.
I said, I'll make inquiries, and if I can do it I will do
it. He then left the office. I made inquiries if I could do
the goods, but Icould not do anything with them myself.
I gave a sample of them to Mr. Loup, a friend of
mine, in Herbert-street, Hoxton, who sold them, and
gave me the money, after the rate of 365. per cwt.,
less five per cent. I paid Mr. Holliday. Before Mr.
Loup sold the goods, I paid some money to Mr. Hol-
liday. I afterwards saw the prisoner Gardner, but I
do not recollect whether I had any conversation with
him. I paid Holliday three items, but do not recol-
lect how much.

Mr. Hillory—Did not Holliday say from whom he
got the goods ? Witness—No. Mr. Loup sold the
first parcel. I sold the second parcel myself. I pur-
chased more a week or two afterwards of Holliday,
and to the best of my recollection I agreed to ad-
vance him 303. per hundred weight. I paid Holli-
day for the firm of Gardner and Co. They said it
was for that firm.

Mr. Clarkson—Who told you it was for Gardner
and Co. ? Witness—Holliday.
Mr. Clarkson—Had you any interview with Gard-
ner at all upon the subject? Witness—None at all.
Mr. Hillory—Then what did you mean when you
said they told you the payment was for Gardner and
Co. ? Witness—W by Holliday told me so, and
when I said they told me so I had no meaning at
all.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Hillory—llow long have you known Gard-
ner ? Witness—Several years.
Mr. Hillory—Now be cautious of the answers you
make me. Has not Gardner been in the habit of call-
ing at your office ?_ Witness—No.

-Mr.Hillory—Have you been in the habit of call-
ing at his ? 'Witness—l do not think I ever knew he
had an office.

Mr. Hillory—How long have you known Holli-
day? Witness—l knew Holliday about a week or
two before the first transaction with him.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Sept. 7.
The cases set down to-day for hearing were dis-
posed of by an early hour, but they possessed no fea-
ture of public interest.
In the case of Currie and Seignette, of Mincing-
lane, merchants, the proceedings in whose case have
been fully reported from time to time as they oc-
curred, this was a further and final dividend meeting,
about 3d. in the pound having already been paid, and
a further dividend of about ld. in the pound will be
officially announced in the course of a few days, upon
debts to the extent of 20,0001. The liabilities amount
to 87,0001., which were secured by property to the
extent of 85,0001.
Mr. Pennell is the official assignee.

Mr. Hillory—How did you become acquainted
with him ? 'Witness—l met Gardner, and after some
conversation, he took me to his office, at No. 4, Pan-
eras-lane, and introduced me to Holliday.
Mr. Hillory—Was he not at your house several
times during the week previous to last? Witness—
Once or twice.

Mr. Hillory—Was he not an intimate acquaintance
of yours ? Witness—l had frequently seen him.
Mr. Hillory—Did he not introduce Holliday to
you as his partner ? Witness—No. Ido not know
that they are partners.
Mr. Clarkson said he had allowed Mr. Hillory
great latitude in the examination and cross-examina-
tion of his own witness, but he must interfere to put
an end to a course which every one must know was
wholly at variance with legitimate practice. Mr.
Hillory's object appeared to be to make one man's
presumed guilt evidence of the guilt of another.
Nothing could be more fallacious.
Mr. Hillory said his object was the establishment
of the truth as regarded all the parties.
Mr. Clarkson—lt was because I was aware of your
unquestionable respectability that I allowed such a
course of examination to be pursued; but I must in-
terfere when advantage is taken of the indulgence.
Mr. Hillory—Now, witness, mind how you answer
my questions. Did you go into the Sugar Loaf
public-hou3e, in St. Mary Axe, on Friday last ?
Witness—l did.

Mr. Hißory—Did you see Holliday there ? Wit-
ness—l did.

Mr. Hillory—Did any gentleman put any question
to you regarding Holliday ? Witness—Yes.
Mr. Hillory—Did a gentleman ask you whether
you were a friend of Holliday's ? Witness—Yes;
and I believe the answer I made was that I knew
Holliday.
Mr. Hillory—Will you swear you said so ? Wit-
ness—No ; but I believe I said so.

Mr. Loup, of Aldermanbury, commission agent,
said he knew Cusell, but he had no knowledge of
either of the prisoners. He had sold some coils of
rope for Mr. Cusell to Mr. Duke, sail-cloth factor,
of Lower East Smithfield, at 345. per hundred
weight.
Mr. Duke said he had purchased on the 22d of
August, and two days subsequently, several hundred
weight of rope of Mr. Loup. He assumed that it was
manufactured Petersburgh hemp. He begged to be
allowed to state that it was very difficult to decide
upon the quality of ropes after they were (as our re-
porter understood the witness) tarred. Purchasers
had in such a case to be directed entirely by the re-
spectability of the manufacturer, and in the present
instance he could not at all learn who was the manu-
facturer. He wished too to say a word as to the
matter under consideration, for he was aware of the
prejudice capal-,le of being excited by being mixed up
in any way a transaction of a discreditable nature.
The Lour, MAYOR, said he could not hear any ex-
planation w.hen there existed no charge or apparent
cause for accusation.

Evidence having been given of the delivery of some
of the packages of rope at Fresh Wharf,
His LoyAnsuiresaid he should remand the prisoners
for a few days.
Mr. Clairkson said he had no idea of resisting the
evident 'intention of the Lord Mayor to send the case
for trial, but he felt convinced that there would be no
objection. to the acceptance of bail adapted to the cir-
cumstane!es of the prisoners.
Mr. Pillory hoped the Lord Mayor would not ac-
cept bail in the present condition of the case. His
Lordship, had shown that he was strongly impressed
with the circumstances. If the prisoners were let
loose, thy would have the chance of seeing certain
confeders.tes of theirs whom he was anxious to place
in that bar along with them. He attended upon the
present occasion not for the gratification of any whim,
but to perform a public duty.
Mr. _E-liflory said there were numerous witnesses in
other et sem; against the prisoners at that moment in
the justfce..room.
The I.ORD MAYOR—Let me hear a general state-
ment, n of upon oath, from any person who may have
a complaint against them.
Mr. Samuel Benson stepped forward. He was, he
said, a jeN yeller and silversmith on Ludgate-hill, and
Holliday, accompanied by Gardner, called upon him
some time ',ago and obtained from him a valuable article
which he !said he intended to ship for his rich prin-
cipals at Hamburgh. He subsequently called and
wanted other articles, but it was soon ascertained what
he and Ga railer were.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HO USE.
Gardner and Holliday, the persons who were
charged on Saturday last with having conspired to
defraud Mr. Gray of a large quantity of cordage, were
brought up for further examination.
The justice-room was thronged with warehouse-
men and tradesmen, several of whom were said to
have been victimised by the Pancras-lane partners,
and most of whom had been tested as to their credulity
in taking orders for goods for exportation.
Mr. Hiliory, of Fenchurch-street, attended for the
prosecution, and Mr. Clarkson appeared as counsel for
the prisoners.
The proceedings, which occasioned much interest,
were of great length.
The immediate charge against the prisoners was
that they had conspired to defraud Mr. Gray of rope
of the value of 179/. There however, besides that
decided loss to Mr. Gray, remains outstanding a 901.
bill, for which the unfortunate prosecutor gave
value to the prisoners, and which is not worth one
farthing.
The following was the additional evidence ;
John Pierce said, I am in the employment of Mr.
Gray, and I delivered ten packages of rope at the
Custom-house Wharf, on the 4th of August, for my
master. I gave a delivery note to the wharfinger for
the goods. On the 10th of August I delivered, at
Fresh-wharf, 14 packages ; on the 20th, 20 pack-
ages ; and on the 24th, 12 packages, and left the de-
livery notes upon all these occasions. I have since
seen some of the rope at Messrs. Frost and Sheader's
warehouse, in Wapping. I had packed it myself,
and it was marked P in a diamond, and I can, there-
fore, say it was the same rope.
Mr. Thomas Clark, in the employment of Messrs.
Hall and Co., of the Custom-house Wharf, gave
evidence to the effect that some of the packages had
been received at that wharf, that they looked as if
they had been packed for exportation, and that they
had been delivered, on the Gth of August, to a
lighterrnan. He did not know Holliday, but he had
seen Gardner, upon other occasions, at the wharf.
Fisher, a lighterman, proved that he took the ten
packages of rope from the Custom-house Wharf to
Messrs. Frost and Sheader's, of Wapping, ship-
chandlers, and delivered them there.
Mr. Frost, of the firm of Frost and Sheader, of 320,

The pris oriers were remanded till Monday, but the
LORD MAY .0 R said he should accept of bail, each for
himself in 1-±ie sum of 2001., and two sureties for each
to the amo- g.nt of 1001. each.
GUILDHALL.
James Z ti..' con, a warehouseman at Messrs. Bradbury
and Evans. 's printing-office in IThitefriars, and Emma,
his wife, w .e re-examined, charged with stealing a
large numl air of copies of Punch, Pickwick, and the
People's Jo Ernal.

They we re apprehended in consequence of some
numbers of the monthly part of the Pickwick having
been seen cta sale in Tottenham-court-road several
hours before the fixed time of publication. The news-
man was wait upon, and said he had them of Mrs.
Dixon, who :Tved in Fetter-lane.' This led to the
seizure of the books at her lodging, and to the appre-
hension of hell' husband.
Mr. Fell( ,vs, of Tottenham-court-road, news-
vender, was ,called to show that the copies of the
monthly Inv t of Pickwick, which were to be pub-
lished on '1 'u .day afternoon, were brought to his
house on Su Ads v night, and on Tuesday, about eleven
in the foren con,' he received the number of Punch
which would be published at five o'clock on Ihurs-
day morril,ng,. ile understood she was privileged
with an earty delivery for country circulation, and
these were a a ew surplus copies she did not require
for the purer e. He paid her trade
.price.
Mr. Jenki icon, a newsvender in Leather-lane,
stated that he knew the prisoner by the name of Mrs.
Turvey. Stu wrote to him to propose an exchange

of overplus copies, and for two months past he had
taken a dozen of Pickivicia of her in exchange for
some copies of Dornbey. He had no advantage by
exchanging beyond a fractio' of a farthing.
Richard Willison, one of fourteen persons employed
under the prisoner, deposed to having been sent
about once a week by the prisoner with a parcel to
his lodging. He did this openly, and received nothi.}g
fur his trouble.

Samuel Humphreys, the head warehouseman, was
called to show that the sheets of the Pickwick Papers
were delivered to the prisoner to be cold pressed, and
he had no right to keep back a single sheet. But the
sheets were not counted when they were delivered to,
or received from the prisoner. The sheets were
counted only three times, viz., when delivered to be
printed, when received back from the press, and when
delivered by the publisher or to the bookbinder.
Walter Tyler, the policeman, made a minute state-
ment of the search at the prisoner's lodging. Some
numbers of Pickwick were lying on the bed with an
apron thrown over them, and some numbers of Punch
were secreted between the bed and the sacking. On
apprehending the prisoner he told him the charge,
and he made no observation, but on the way to the
station he said, "I suppose I must suffer for all," as
if he meant that he had confederates at the office.
On searching the prisoner's department some numbers
of Punch (a publication which does not pass through
his hands) were found in his locked drawer, and in
another place a parcel of sheets and pictures packed
up ready for removal.
The male prisoner said his wife acted under his
direction.

She made a like statement, and produced the certi-
ficate of her marriage.
Mr. Alderman `Won said there was so much in-
dependent action on her part, so much dealing sepa-
rately with an evident guilty knowledge, concealing
her name, that he should send them both for trial,
and leave the [superior court to determine whether
she was entitled to the merciful construction of the
law. He remanded them that the depositions might
be prepared.
Thomas Thain Johnson, a town-traveller to Messrs.
Cockett and Redman, of Aldermanbury, ribbon-
manufacturers, was finally examined, charged with
embezzling 401. received on account of his em-
ployers from a customer named Jones, a draper, in
Strutton-ground, Westminster.
Mr. Humphreys conducted the prosecution, and a
solicitor attended on behalf of the prisoner.
Mr. Jones now stated, that upon the application of
the prisoner, he paid him 101. on the 20th of March,
and 30/. on the 21st of April. It was for goods he had
had from the firm and then owed for. He knew the
prisoner as the traveller of Mr. Cockett before Mr.
Redman became a partner. He had had some trans-
actions with the prisoner on his own account.
Mr. Redman and his clerk proved that neither sum
had been accounted for.

The prisoner's solicitor urged that an agent paid
by commission on his sales, and not by salary, was
not a servant, and could not be charged with embez-
zlement ; and, secondly, that the prosecutors had
caused a list of deficiencies to be rendered to the pri-
soner, debiting him with them as a debt, under a pro-
mise of payment, but the act could not be got rid of
because the money was not paid. It had becom e
and must remain, a debt. lie had other reasons
which he should reserve for another place.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said it was not fair to the
Magistrate to conceal from him any reason why he
ought not to be committed. The evidence showed an
artful contrivance on the part of the prisoner to con-
vert a criminal act into a debt by asking for an
account, but it was distinctly proved by the clerk
who rendered the account, that he did so on his own
responsibility, and not by direction of his employers.
He should send the prisoner to trial.
The prisoner was committed.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Thoma? Shouter, the conductor of a west-end
omnibus, was summoned before Mr. Bingham, for an
assault on Mr. Henry Elvery, Conduit-street, Bond-
street.

The complainant stated that on Wednesday night
he got into the defendant's omnibus, near Temple-
bar, with a lady, having previously asked the fare to
Piccadilly, and been told by the defendant that it was
three-pence each. When he got down in Piccadilly,
he gave the defendant sixpence as the fare of himself
and the lady. The defendant said his fare was six-
pence each, and he would take no less. Complainant
told him he happened to have no more money in his
pocket, and handed his address. The defendant re-
fused to take the address, and caught hold of him
round the body and by his coat-collar, in order to
detain him. Complainant afterwards went to the
station-house with the defendant, and there gave his
address.

Miss Epsley said she was with the complainant on
the night in question. She heard the defendant dis-
tinctly say that the fare was three-pence to Piccadilly.
The defendant said he did not tell the complainant
that the fare was three-pence to Piccadilly. The fare
was three-pence to Charing-cross, and it would be as
much as his place was worth to charge three-pence to
persons going beyond that place. To corroborate his
defence, the defendant produced a board, which he
said was placed outside of the omnibus to inform pas-
sengers that the fare was three-pence to Charing-cross.
Mr. BINGHAM said it would be better, in cases of
disputed fares, for persons, instead of entering into a
contention in the streets, to pay the demand, and to
summon the offender before a magistrate. In the
present instance, the defendant was undoubtedly
wrong in laying hands on the complainant. The de-
fendant had been guilty of an assault, and he must,
therefore, pay a fine of 3s. and costs.
MAR YLEBONE.

A man, who gave his name Thomas Williams, was
charged with robbing and threatening to stab with a
knife a soldier who attempted to apprehend him.
It appeared that the prisoner was observed to make
his egress from 58, Westbourne-terrace, Bayswater,
with something bulky in one of his pockets ; he
passed along at a quick rate towards Hyde-park, and
as it was strongly suspected that he had stolen some
property from the building alluded to, which is in an
unfinished state, he was followed by a beadle who is
employed to do duty at the terrace, when finding that
he was closely pursued, he threw from him a quan-
tity of new lead pipe and a brass tap, and made off
as fast as he was able. Two soldiers, who heard the
cry of " Stop thief!" endeavoured to secure him,
upon which he (prisoner) drew forth a clasp knife,
and opening it, threatened to stab any one who might
think fit to lay hands on him. At this: moment
Bennett, 197 D, arrived at the spot, and giving the
prisoner a rap on the hand with his staff, caused him
to drop the said knife upon the ground. He was
then taken into custody, and conveyed to the station-
house
The pipe and tap, which were produced in Court,
were identified as being the property of Mr. King-
dom, to whom the houses belong. This had been
taken from the building which the prisoner was seen
to quit.
The prisoner was committed for trial.
Several omnibus drivers were charged with having
caused an obstruction by suffering their vehicles to
remain longer in the Edgware-road than was neces-
sary for loading and unloading, or for taking up or
setting down passengers.
Penalties were in most of the cases inflicted.