The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-02 00:00:00

DRASH V. DRASH.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
a sum of 931. 12s. for work and labour done. The
plaintiff, Christian Drash, was apprenticed to his father,
an oil and colourman, and after he had served his time
he continued in his father's employment for some years,
with the understanding that he should have some remu-
neration, which was not specified. In 1840 the plaintiff's
father married the defendant, Mary Drash, and shortly
afterwards died, and the action was now brought against
his mother-in- law, as executrix of his deceased father, to
recover the above sum.

The evidence was of a somewhat contradictory nature,
and the Learned Judge left it to the Jury to say to which
side they would attach credit.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
THE QUEEN V. KENRICR.

Mr. THESIGER stated the case. It was an indictment
against the defendant and his son for a conspiracy by
false representations to induce the prosecutor, Mr.
Featherstonehaugh, a gentleman in the Foreign-office,
to purchase a pair of ponies and a carriage. The de-
fendant carried on the business of a horse-dealer in Ox-
ford-street, and was assisted by his son, against whom
the indictment was also preferred, but the son had since
then put a period to his existence. It appeared that in
February last the ponies were the property of a person
named Powis, a clerk to a solicitor in Bedford-row.
While they were his property they were extremely
vicious and unmanageable, and Powis having absconded
about that time, they were sent to Tattersall's for sale,
and were there purchased by Mr. Kenrick for 301. About
a month afterwards an advertisement appeared in the
'Times offering the ponies for sale, with a cab phaeton.
They were said to be the property of a lady, and to be
warranted in every respect. The prosecutor, being
anxious to make a present to a married daughter, went
to the defendant's stables, to which reference was made
in the advertisement. The defendant asked 2001. for the
set out, and the prosecutor at length, on the assurance
that they were gentle, and warranted in every respect,
agreed to give him 1681. The money was paid, and the
ponies sent down to Mr. Featherstonehaugh's residence,
and from thence they were sent to Mr. Markham's livery
-stables, but they exhibited a great deal of vice and un-
manageableness, and nearly killed a groom. Mr. Fea-
therstonehaugh wrote to request Mr. Kenrick to take
them back and to return the money, but he declined to
do so. These mere the facts of the case, as they would
be detailed by the witnesses, and it would be for the
Jury to say, under all the circumstances, whether the de-
fendant was not guilty of the charge imputed to him.
George William Featherstonehaugh, of Chester-street,
Belgrave-square, deposed to having gone to the stables
of the defendant in Oxford-street, in consequence of
having seen an advertisement about a pair of ponies and
a phaeton. Mr. Kenrick showed the ponies, and witness
said he would havo nothing to do with them unless they
were the property of a private family. Mr. Kenrick as-
sured him they were, and said he had driven them him-
self repeatedly, and that they were as gentle to drive as
lambs. Witness asked what security he had, and Ken-
rick said, " Perhaps you don't know my character, but
if you look at this book you will find my character
in it." He then handed a book " Adventures in Search
of a Horse, by Caveat Emptor, Gentleman."— (Much
laughter.) Witness declined to look at the book, and
Kenrick said the ponies and carriage would be warranted
in every respect as it was set out in the advertisement.
He also showed the card of another gentleman, who he
said was in treaty for the lot. The name was " Mr.
riook."—(A laugh.) After a good deal of conversation,
witness agreed to give 160 guineas, and Mr. Kenrick
said he would send him an answer that evening. Kenrick
jun., wrote that evening to say the lady had agreed to
take the money, and witness wrote back to request
the ponies might be driven down to his house next
morning. Instead of the ponies Mr. Kenrick himself
came, and said the lady would not allow them to be taken
out for such a purpose. Next day he called at Ken-
rick's, and saw the son, who stated that he had frequently
driven the ponies, and that they were extremely gentle
creatures. He had previously spoken to Mr. Kenrick about
a horse for himself, and Mr. Kenrick said, " I have
just the thing that will suit you."—(Great laughter.)
Witness declined to see the horse then ; and the elder
Kenrick being sent for, orders were given to harness the
ponies. Mr. Kenrick then said, "Everything, I believe,
is now concluded, and we shall give you a receipt_ and
warrantry, and you can take away the set." Witness
had the cheque ready in his pocket, and the receipt being
drawn out, which Wilson was unable to read, having left
his spectacles at home, he gave the cheque and put the
receipt in his pocket. The servant and witness then got
upon the box, and drove the ponies very gently to
Markham's livery stables in Chester-street. If he had
known them to be the property of a dealer, he would
never have purchased them. On his return from Downing-
street, he received such information respecting the ponies-
as induced him to write to Mr. Kenrick. He went to
Markham's mews, and saw a groom lying in his gore
with a dreadful gash across his head. He was taken to
the hospital, and witness went with the Rote he had
written to Kenrick, and told him he must take them
back, but Kenrick declined, and said the groom must
have been an awkward fellow ; that the ponies were as
quiet as ponies could be. Next day, in consequence of
something further he had heard, he sent back the ponies
and carriage.
Cross-examined by Afr:BvLEs—When I drove the po-
nies down to Markham's they did not perform ill, but
the carriage was stiff and would not turn.

By the COURT-I have never received back any part of
the 160 guineas.
William Charles Markham—l am a livery stable-
keeper in Chester-mews. I recollect the ponies and car-
riage coming on the 22d of April. I assisted two or three
others in taking the ponies out. One of them struck out
violently. He was very fidgetty. There was much more
difficulty in taking out the other. She lay down upon
the pole and appeared to be like an,unbroken horse. I
saw afterwards she was very vicious. I gave one of them
his corn, and:he bit at me. I afterwards heard of the injury
to Cronck, the groom, and desired that the ponies should
be taken out of the stables. I recognised one of the
ponies, particularly as having seen him at Tattersall's
five or six weeks previously, where he attempted to kick
me. Next day a person from Tattersall's came and saw
the ponies, and I told Mr. Featherstonehaugh. When
they were harnessed next day they were very unma-
nageable, and one of them kicked violently. In my
judgment they were very vicious animals. I saw one of
these ponies about a week ago in Mr. Kenrick's cab. I
never betted on the result of this prosecution. I was
twice at Mr. Kenrick's stables since about a horse, but
did not purchase.
John M. Stephens—l am partner to the last witness.
I assisted in taking out the ponies when they came to
our stables. The one I went to kicked at me and just
missed my knee. The evidence was in corroboration of
the last witness.

Thomas Cronck—l was ostler at Markham's stables
when the ponies were brought there. I went to dress
them at fbur o'clock, when one of them flew at me and
bit me in the side. I tied him up, and then he kicked
me in the side and knocked me down. He kicked me on
the head and wounded me very much. I was nearly a
month in the hospital.
Robert Benson—l am coachman to Sir Henry Mild-
may. I heard the last witness cry out. He said the
little brute had bit him. Cronck went up to the pony
again and he kicked at him with both his legs, knocked
him down and then kicked him on the head. I pulled
him out. Cronck acted in a proper manner when he went
to the pony. I attribute the kicking to actual viciousness.
Richard Holkam—Was formerly groom to Mr. Powis.
He had two dun ponies for six or seven months. I had
the care of them. They were very vicious, and showed
it in kicking, biting, and running away. I have been
often bitten, and Mrs. Powis we:bitten. I was obliged
to muzzle them, and was sometimes obliged to cross the
stall to get away. Last time Mr. Powis drove them, in
February, they behaved very bad—kicking and unma-
nageable, I took them to Tattersall's, and told the ostler
they were vicious. I never said they were quiet, but
that they had been driven together. Mr. Powis said he
would not venture himself behind them again.
Henry Nottingham--I married a sister of Mrs. Powis,
who is now abroad. I saw the ponies one Sunday even-
ing ooming home. One of them was taken out, and the
phaeton was brought home by the other. Mr. Powis had
the other. He was splashed all over with mud. They
were sent to Tattersall's, and Kenrick came and offered
me 281., but I refused to take less than 301., which he
gave me. I said nothing to Kenrick of their qualities
when he purchased them.
Yeoman Newbeggin, servant to the prosecutor, proved
that the person who brought the letter to his master,
agreeing to take 160 guineas, was Kenrick, jun.
Mr. BYLES addressed the Jury for the defendant. He
referred to the letter written by Mr. Featherstonehaugh
, to the defendant, in which he stated, that if the money

was not immediately returned, a criminal prosecution
would be instituted against him. It was clear from
that, that if the money had been refunded, they would
never have heard of the present prosecution. He thought
the proceeding a very unusual and unwarrantable
one in a case of a breach of warranty of a horse. The
Learned Counsel then referred to the extraordinary want
of caution of the prosecutor in taking everything for
gospel that was said by a professed horse-dealer. He
submitted that the evidence of conspiracy had not been
made out—that in a criminal prosecution the defendant
was entitled to the benefit of any doubt that might arise
in their minds, and that the defendant ought to be ac-
quitted.

Some witnesses to character havingbeenexamined,
Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury returned a
verdict of Guilty.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,Dee. 1.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. DERNEN.
This was an information filed for the purpose of re-
covering from the defendant three times the value of
goods seized on his premises, which had not paid the
duty upon their importation. They were condemned for
the sum of 105/. 12s. ld.
Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Wylde conducted the case on the
part of the Crown, and gave the evidence of the seizing
officers, Dobbs, Cox, and Wheel, that upon the 15th. of
March they went to a warehouse occupied by the defen-
dant in Bow-lane, in which they found in cartoon boXes
and a liqueur case 161 dozen pairs of silk gloves and mits,
49 silk purses, and 30 dozen gloves and mits made of
silk and other materials. The defendant said the purses
belonged to a friend, and the duty on them had
been paid. The other goods belonged, he said, to a Mr.
Haylyer, for whom he was a commission agent, and he
believed the duty . upon them had not been paid. All
were seized, and on his lodgings being searched, twenty-
seven other,pairs of
,silk gloves. The purses were after-
wards proved to haAre been regularly imported, and the
duty paid ; they wereaccordingly given up. It was also
proved that Haylyer had resided in a house in Silver-
street in the latter part of 1840. The defendant came
to live in the same house, and was introduced to Haylyer
by the landlady; after which parcels ofgloves were brought
to them generally twice a week, in a blue bag. They
were undressed, but were gummed by both parties and
finished in their rooms. Upon the seizure, the defendant
readily gave up his books, and was several times at the
Custom-house before May, when be was arrested upon
the charge.
Mr. ERLE (with whom was Mr. V. LEE) addressed the
jury for the defendant, and said there could be no doubt
of three facts in the case. The goods seized had not
paid duty, they were found in the possession of the
defendant, and the value was 1051., but the Crown must
go further, and prove that they were in the possession of
the defendant, with a guilty knowledge. That they had
not done, for with the exception of the alleged con-
versation with the officers, there was not a particle of
evidence to show any criminal knowledge, and they had
a strong interest in the event of the cause; and his con-
duct after the seizure, in going into the very jaws of his
powerful oppressors, claiming some of the goods, and on
other business, showed that, so far as he was concerned,
he did not know that he had violated the law. Besides,
even the officers proved that the goods were all
lying openly about the warehouse, which was
not the conduct of one who knew that he was thereby
lying] himself open to such a heavy penalty. If there
was a doubt on the mind of the Jury, that being a highly
penal proceeding, they were bound to give the defendant
the benefit of it. The Crown had already got the goods,
and they ought to be content.
Mr. JARVIS replied, upon the speech of Mr. Erle, it
being a privilege enjoyed by the Crown to reply although
the defendant calls no witnesses.
His LORDSHIP (the Chief Baron) having summed up,
the Jury found a verdict for the Crown.

GIPPS V. M'QUEEN.

Mr. CORRIE stated that the plaintiff in this case was
a brewer, at Chelsea, who brought his action to recover
the sum of 251., the balance of an account owing for beer,
under these circumstances: A man named Liddelwas the
keeper of a beer-shop also at Chelsea, who became insol-
vent at the time being indebted to the plaintiff. His
business while he was going through the Court was
carried on by the defendant, and to him beer was sup-
plied, the balance upon the account for which the sum
was due. After the action was commenced, a summons
was taken out to stay proceedings, upon payment of the
debt and costs; it was not attended to, and the pro-
ceedings being again commenced, another summons was
taken out similar to the former, but like it, it was unat-
tended to.

The summonses were proved by the clerk of the
plaintiff's attorney.
In his cross-examination, he said his master did re-
ceive instructions from the plaintiff to sue Liddel for the
debt.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. WHATELY submitted there was no case to go to
the Jury.
Lord AnINGER—The evidence is very slight indeed,
but as there is some I cannot stop the case.
Mr. WHATELY, for the defendant, said that the action
was an unjust and impudent attempt to make one man pay
the debt of another. The beer was supplied to Liddel,
who was some relation to the defendant, who, so far from
being a beer-shopkeeper, filled the humble office ofporter
at the bank of Martin, Stone, and Martin. He had
nothing whatever to do with the action. The attorney
who took out the summons to stay proceedings did so by,
the orders of Liddel, who wished to save a man any fur-
ther trouble who had been a pecuniary sufferer by him
already. He called

Mr. 11a11, the attorney for defendant, who proved that
he took out both summonses on the instructions of Lid-
del, and so far as he knew, the defendant M.Queen knew
nothing of either.
This closed the defendant's case, there seeming to be
much hesitation in putting Liddel into the box.
Counsel having replied, the case was left to the Jury,
who found a verdict for the defendant.

STOODLY V. FROWDE.

This was an issue directed by the Court of Exchequer
to determine in whom was the property in certain effects
seized by the Sheriff of Surrey.
Mr. KELLY (with whom was Mr. Peacock) stated the
case to the Jury. The plaintiff was an old gentleman,
who, having a deep interest in the welfare of a young
man named Middleton, advanced him money to com-
mence business as a brewer. Like most others in that
trade, he wished to speculate in public-houses, and took
the " Harp," in Princes-street, Lambeth, into which he
put a man, named Manton, to manage the business,
which did not appear to answer. Manton was discharged,
and the defendant put into his place. The affairs of
Middleton not prospering, the plaintiff's attorney fre-
quently applied to him for security for the
large sums which had been advanced to him,
and, failing to do so, an action was commenced,
and a judgment obtained, for a sum of between 4,0001.
and 5,0001., under which the goods in the " Harp "
were seized and sold by public auction, at which the
plaintiff became the purchaser of the largest portion of
the goods, which he allowed to remain upon the pre-
mises, in which the defendant was still allowed to carry
on the business as the servant of the plaintiff, but it
not prospering, the plaintiff desired that it should be
brought to an end, which was done. At that time
Middleton owed the defendant some money, which he
could not pay. The defendant then brought an action
against him, and he, having neither money or any de-
fence, judgment issued against him; and, although the
defendant was in the house at the time the former sale
took place, he issued a warrant against the goods of the
plaintiff which remained in the Harp. He would prove
the advance of the money, the regularity of the judg-
ment, the sale by auction, the purchase by the plaintiff
of goods at it to the amount of 1101., and its being left
upon the premises, and then he could not, for a moment,
conceive what defence could be made.

----- -
The Learned Counsel proved his statement by several
witnesses, the principal of whom was Mr. Middleton. His
cross-examination merely showed that the action and
judgment against him at the suit of plaintiff was not a
hostile one.
Mr. ERLE addressed the Jury for the defence, and
contended that Middleton was not a witness upon whose
testimony, unsupported as it was, they could safely rely.
He contended that there was no sufficient proof of the
debt due to the plaintiff, and if the Jury were not satis-
fied of that, then the judgment would be fraudulent, and
the sale under it would not pass the property of the
goods from Middleton to the plaintiff; and if that was
their opinion they must find for the defendant.
His Lordship summed up, and the Jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 1.
IN RE CASE.

The bankrupt in this case (which has been already
published in The Sun) was the proprietor of certain tin
and lead mines in Cornwall, and on the groundof
being likely to be worked at an enormous profit, indtuhceeidr
others to take shares to the amount of nearly 300,0001.
fixed The further investigation of the case being for this
day, the bankrupt and several creditors appeared in Court.
sums which had
in the aggregate,
Sir C. WILLIAMS read the several
id, together with a later
been lost on each distinct mine, which,
0101.
tlo3s.
readBd. Tahe
letter Learned
amounted to 173,4241. 18s. 10
, one of Commissioner
sChraerdeistoinrs
much for thferomll:en
theefit
c,f hi s
thense m of
f proceeded 19,
bank-
rupt to Mr. Bingham
(Mr. Bingham's) sisters to purchasesothe
that it would be very,thestaittiensg_
peth Mines to the amount of
prosperous state of the concern,' 00/., which he, from the
again for 6,000/. in af would be glad to buy up
year, •
ex-
pected they would be at 1251 not approved of, as he
short time. premium, if not more, in a
The Bankrupt—It was the general opinion in the
country at that time that the
mines were in the most
prosperous and flourishing
_ condition.
A.M
Sir C. WILLIS
. —There is no use in your attempting
to assert that you heard those reports from competent
authority. In your last examination I gave you my
subject.
opinion on that sub examination
Bankrupt—Those shares to which Mr. Bingham
alludes, lurchased at the rate of 10 per cent. Mr.
Bingham 6 himself
appeared as a bankrupt some time since
in this Court, when I opposed him, and to that fact I at-
tribute his present opposition to me.
Sir C. WILLIAMS—The bankrupt said, in his previous
examination, that he took no active part in endeavour-
ing to dispose of shares. How did it happen, then, that
he sent out a reverend gentleman to Algiers to dispose
of them, and paid him 100/. to defray his expenses? The
conduct of the bankrupt throughout had been quite the
reverse of straightforward or mercantile, and there had
been a great deal of mining, as well as what was going
on under ground. In one instance, such was the infa-
tuation with regard to those mines, that a person
bought shares to the amount of 5,0001., to raise which
sum he mortgaged even his wife's annuity. When the
bankrupt came to pass his final examination, he (Sir C.
Williams) should unreservedly read all the fetters which
passed between the bankrupt and the parties with whom
he was connected in these mining affairs, so as to place
the whole matter in a clear light before the public. No man,
except one acquainted intimately with this case, would

'~~~

MORNING SUl‘r

believe in the credulity of the public wheis anything
like the chimera of making a vast profit on their money
arose. Among the number of speculators in this affair
were 12 clergymen, whose shares amounted to 112,0001.
They (the speculators) he felt inclined to condemn much
more than the bankrupt, for if, instead of a vast deal
of learning they possessed the least common sense, such
cases as Dim, dragging ruin and destitution in their
train, would not be of such frequent recurrence. He
should, in fairness to the bankrupt, say that he considered
him entitled to pass his, final examination, for he had
rendered such an account as to be lucid and perspicuous
to the creditors ; hoWever, it would be for them to give
effect to his (Sir C. Williams) decision by refusing, or
otherwise, to Sign' the certificate.
The bankrupt then underwent an examination touch-
ing the removal of certain pictures and furniture which
had been removed from Thomas's hotel, in which there
appeared no feature of general interest.

INSOLVENT DEI37'ORS' COURT, Dec. I.
IN THE MATTER OF BARNABY DUNNE.
The insolvent in this case carried on business as a cirina
and ornamental glass manufficturer at No. 202, Picca-
dilly, and at Jern4u-street, St. James's.
Mr. COOKE opposed his application to be discharged,
for dishonest and heartless conduct towards certain par-
ties, on whose account he acted as trustee. He then
stated the Partieulars of the case.
Mr. Commissioner Law denounced his conduct in
strong terms, and ordered him to be remanded for 18
months from the date of his vesting order.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT

CHARGE OF STEALING BOOKS FROM THE BRITISM
MUSEUM.—Charles Wilcox, aged 23, a decently-dressed
young man, was indicted for stealing a book, the pro-
perty of the British Museum.
Mr. Bodkin conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Payne
(in the absence of Mr. Chambers) defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner, who had been in the
habit of reading at the British Museum, was suspected
by the officers of that establishment of taking away
books. He was watched, taken into custody, and a book
belonging to the Museum found in his possession.
For the defence, it was contended that the prisoner
had merely borrowed the book to read, and intended to
return it.

The prisoner received an excellent character.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON summed up, and the Jury
found the prisoner Not Guilty.
The prisoner was again indicted for stealing a book,
entitled " The Baronet," and also the first volume of
" the Hunchback of Notre Dame" from the British
Museum.

In addition to the evidence given in the former
case, a bookseller swore to the prisoner as the person
who had sold him the books produced, which one of the
officers of the British Museum swore had belonged to the
library of that establishment. The tickets given by the
readers of books at the Museum to the librarian for the
books in question were found at the prisoner's lodgings.
Mr. CHAMBERS, for the defence, contended that the
fact of the tickets being found at his lodgings proved his
innocence, inasmuch as if he had not returned the books
he could not, supposing the officers of that establishment
had done their duty, have got possession of those tickets,
and that if he had disposed of those books, as stated, he
would have destroyed the tickets, and not have left them
at his lodgings to fix him. •
Mr. Baron ALDERSON summed up, and the Jury found
the prisoner Guilty.
_ _

Mr. Baron ALDERSON, before passing sentence, made
inquiries of the Rev. Mr. Morgan, one of the gentlemen
who 'Cad given the prisoner a character, as to what the
prisoner's situation and pecuniary prospects had been at
the time of the commission of the offence, and from his
answers it appeared that the prisoner was a member of
the University of Cambridge, and had written several
articles for the Cambridge Magazine, for which he had
received payment, and that he was at the time
of the commission of the offence engaged on
a literary work for a Cambridge publisher, which
was nearly completed, and on which the publisher
had advanced him money. The prisoner seemed,
according to the Rev. Gentleman's statement, to have
been tolerably well off. The person with whom he
lcdged stated that the prisoner had not paid her, but
told her he had large expectations. Although, not well
off, he was not in a state of poverty or want.
The prisoner having been called up for judgment,
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said, It was a most painful
thing to have to pass sentence on a young man who,
from his liberal education at a University ought rather
to have been in a situation to teach others, than to be
taught the lesson he would have to learn in his prison.
It was a most painful thing to see a person of the
prisoner's education in such a situation. During his
imprisonment, he doubted not but that the prisoner
would feel deeply thb disgrace which he had brought
upon himself by giving way to temptation. He would not
add to those feelings by enlarging upon the subject, but
would at once pass on him the sentence of the Court,
which was that he be imprisoned for one year.

CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT AGAINST A COLLECTOR

OF THE PARISH OF CLERKENIVELL.

J. Hill was indicted for embezzling various sums of
money, the property of the parish of Clerkenwell, lie
pleaded Not Guilty.
. .

Mr. M. D. Hu.i having stated the case for the prose-
cution, called the following witnesses:—
James Pascell, examined by Mr. Bodkin—l um trea-
surer of the parish of St. James, Clerkenwell. I was a
guardian of the poor in 1838, and have continued so up
to the present time. Prisoner was a clerk in the office
of Mr. Selby, the vestry clerk. He was also appointed
to collect monies for affiliations, &c., for the Board of
Guardians. He was appointed in August, 1830. It was
his duty to pay to the Treasurer all moneys in his hands
belonging to the parish, when the same should amount
to 201. Ile had also to keep a debtor and creditor account
with each person from whom he received money, and
enter it in the ledger. The accounts were audited.
The accounts of John Hart, in the ledger produced, is in
prisoner's handwaiting. The last entry of payments by
Hart to prisoner is dated Sept. 10, 1838.
Cross-examined by Mr. CLARKSON—According to a re-
solution appointing the prisoner, Mr. Selby was to be
accountable for the moneys the prisoner might collect.
Mr. Selby has never been called upon to account to my
knowledge. I believe he has not been called upon to do
so. The parish has been unfortunate. The last person
was deficient 10,0001. The deficiencies of the pri-
soner I believe to amount to more than 1001.
Mr. Selby is still vestry clerk, buthas resigned the office
of Clerk to the Guardians, in consequence of defaults in
the parish accounts. Prisoner had made payments to
the mothers of bastard children for some years past, but
had not returned them in his accounts. I have seen him
make such payments. He had no orders to do so from
the Board. Prisoner has returned money as received by
him which he had never received, but which had subse-
quently been received by Mr. Selby, and paid by him to
the parish banking account. It might amount to 50/.
That amount makes no part of the deficiency for which
the prisoner is indicted. I gave the prisoner into cus-
tody; there was no resolution of the Board to that effect.
I did it on my own responsibility. There were two
members of the Committee with me.
John Hart—l have been in the habit of paying money
to the parish of Clerkenwell for the support of a child.
I paid 10s. on the 23d July, 1839. I paid it at the gate.
I paid 10s. on the 20th August following. I made that
payment to the prisonekor:cthwoibhsefeirn.hiltilahnlsao:evarpeparidopdlmauccoeend.e7laabpioanuisatt
olinornymtbnhoogat date up to June, 1840.
etlgieeineninttriyfrnheeisnfofrl
twenty
Cross-examincd---The last payment I made to Hill
was in Aug. 184a1nOyt.
moboToconthk.tehrwl,eBha3invb9c•ahas an order of affiliation
upon Th Thomas s Kemp I was a gatekeeperpbasleasrresedchaieittisytteiohndei
initials.
loessp.. rworkhouseoilsfov‘nt,hiethe
swearasli ansatCp‘lp'e'
ireltkanpreesans fromi
s in that
before the Christmas following.
whose-teox theam parish,ned husbands
8 thatnl e
paid I paid aiittdhe mtoforsfrothn.eeyllmr.iieci,
mesiovymedperacbtoy
practice
Abevolmenegns
Cross
was to settle the account with Hill, and either pay or
receive the balance. I had paid a woman named Kellymoney, as it appeared to me on account of a bastard
child. I had authority from the prisoner to pay it out
of money which I had received.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON put it to the prosecution whe-
ther this testimony was sufficient. They must show that
the particular sum of 10s. had come into the hands of
the prisoner. New they had not shown which waythe
balance was at the settlement in question. They
to show the definite sum embezzled bad come to the
hands of the prisoner. ought
d the
Mr. M. I). HILL submitted that if they
amount that would be sufficient. showed

In reply to Mr. M. D. HILL,
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said he thought not.
Mr. M. 1). HILL submitted that Kemp had acted as
the prisoner's agent.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON would not stop, the case, but
threw out what he had said as a suggestion.
B. Barnard, also a gate-keeper, had received 10s. of
Hart on 23d July, and had paid the same over to the
prisoner.
Cross-examined—I received ls. a week additional, and
more meat than other paupers, for keeping the gate. I
accounted to the prisoner for the 105. within two days
of the time that I received it. I cannot say the amount
I paid him at that settlement. I never made any pay_
ments which I deducted from the prisoner's account. I
was never examined before the Magistrate on this charge.
Re-examined—l was in the habit when I received
money at the gate of wrapping it up in paper, writing
the name of the party from whom I received it on the
paper, handing it to the prisoner on the first oppor-
tunity that presented itself.
W. Lovell, one of the auditors of the parish, audited
the
t 1 o 839.
the
the
the accounts of the prisoner up to June 1840, they were
putmr.
i ll
in and
produced the payment-book, from which it
child,
at ld,
that was
time, 10t h
according
appeared that the last payment to Hannah Williamson.
the
of
hlarete'
Darts
ceased paymentsmother
to
account in prisoner's writing. Against h
her name there
was written in prisoner's hand-writing, ~ i
which meant that the child was at that time
nthe house,"
the house, and that the payments to the taken into
mother
as the child was maintained by the parish. ceased,
John Hart being recalled, stated he knew
was taken into the house in April, the child
1539, and had re-
mained there ever since.

Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury for the defence ;
and after commenting on the manner in which the
guardians performed their duty, complained of the
manner in which the prosecution had been got
up, and of the various matters having been given
in evidence on the trial,. to which no allusion had been
made before the Magistrates. lie then went on to con-
tend that the appointment of the prisoner was contrary
to the Act of Parliament, but would not go so far as to
say that he was therefore released from responsibility...
The Learned Counsel then detailed to the Court various
facts which were subsequently proved by the evidence of