The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 14.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the LORD CHIEF BARON and
a Special Jury.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. HITCHCOCK.
In this case the Attorney-General, the Solicitor. General,
Mr. Watson, and Mr. Wilde appeared for the Crown, and
Mr. Boville for the defendant. . . .

_
It was an information at the instance of the Excise against
the defendant, who carries on the business of a brewer at
Boxford, in Suffolk, charging him with secretly and clan-
destinely manufacturing malt, in a room not entered for
that purpose, and thereby evading the payment of duty.
The case on behalf of the Crown was, that in the autumn
of 1845 the defendant erected a cistern at the back of his
kitchen fireplace, in a place previously occupied as a back
kitchen, and which communicated with his malt-house by
means of a secret trap-door, and in this way fraudulently
contrived to manufacture malt for the space of a whole year.
The cistern was discovered by an Excise officer in November
last, upon information given by a person named Spooner,
who had been in the defendant's employment, but was sud-
denly dismissed. When the trap-door was discovered all
the necessary implements for the manufacture of malt were
found, and a residuum of damp mud, which had been left
after an extensive and long-continued malting, was found at
the bottom of the cistern.
The defence set up was that the cistern had not been
used for the purpose of malting as alleged by the Crown,
and in support of the case several labourers, who had been
in the defendant's service, were examined.
Their evidence, however, did not seem to be satisfactory,
for the jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
for the Crown, with penalties to the amount of 4,000/.
May 16.
IMPORTANT CASE.-CHILTON V. THE LONDON AND
CROYDON RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action for assault and false imprisonment.
Sir F. Thesiger. Mr. Sergeant Channell, and Mr.
Peacock, appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Kennedy

for the defendants.
Sir F. THESIGER stated that Mr. Chilton, who is one
of her Majesty's counsel, on the evening of the 15th of
October, 1845, took a ticket to proceed from Sydenham,
where his family resided, to London, by the Croydon
Railway, in a first-class carriage. He was very well
known to the officers, and there was no difficulty in iden-
tifying him. Mr. Chilton lost his ticket, and stated the
fact upon his arrival at the London terminus to Smith,
an officer of the company. He offered to pay one shilling,
which is the fare from Sydenham to London, but Smith
insisted upon having ls. 3d., being the whole fare from
Croydon to London, which Mr. Chilton refused to pay,
whereupon Smith gave him into the custody of a police-
officer. Mr. Chilton refused to go without being forced
to do so, whereupon the constable laid his hands upon
him, and Mr. Chilton said that was sufficient, and he
would go with the officer, and he accordingly went to
the station-house. Mr. Chilton, fearing that his
family might be alarmed at his absence, offered to
pay the ls. 3d., which Smith refused to re-
ceive, and insisted on the charge being taken.
The charge was entered, " For having rode in a
railway carriage without paying his fare." It happened
that a Mr. Roberts, a solicitor, was passing by, who,
knowing Mr. Chilton, offered to become bail, which was
accepted. Mr. Chilton having been detained about halt
an hour. The next morning Mr. Chilton attended be-
fore a magistrate, who made an order fur the payment
of Is. 3d., but afterwards rescinded it, feeling that he
had not the power to make such an order. On the 17th
of October Mr. Chilton wrote to the company, com-
plaining of Smith's conduct in the matter, and request-
ing that the by-law, which was supposed to give such
power to the company, should be abrogated. This,
however, was refused. Much correspondence followed,
and ultimately Mr. Chilton brought his action. The
defendants pleaded, first, not guilty ; and, secondly,
justification under the by-laws. To this last plea the
plaintiff demurred, and the Court, upon argument held
the plea to be bad. This state of facts came out in
evidence before the Court yesterday.
The CHIEF BARON suggested to the defendants to
apologise.
Mr. KENNEDY, however, declined to do this, and ad-
dressed the jury, observing that the arrest was made by
the defendants' officer, upon the belief that the by -laws
of the company gave him that power, and the company
always conceived they had that power, until the Court
upon the decision respecting the demurrer, declared that
they had Rot. The power, however, was necessary, not
only for the benefit of the company, but fir the security
of the public, and the Company would go to Parliament
to get the power.
The CHIEF BARON, in summing up, expressed his
belief that Parliament never would grant the power in
question, as it was one which no body of men oeght to
possess over the subjects of this realm.
The jury returned to csnsider their verdict, and after
a lengthened consultation, eame into Court, and returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 500/.

QUEEN'S BENCH, May 15.
WALLINGTON V. LAMBERT.

This was an action to recover a suo2 of money from
the defendant, Sir 11. Lambert, of Oxfordshire, as a
director of the Great Welsh Junction Railway Company,
in respect for maps prepared for that railway by the
plaintiff. The defendant's liability was not established,
as he was only a director conditionally, and the jury
returned a verdict for the defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Baron ALDERSON.)
Char!es Brown, aged 38 years, described as a plumber, who
was found guilty yesterday of uttering a forged acceptance
to a bill of exchange for 2281. 155., with intent to defraud
William Patrick Gray, was brought up to-day for judgment.
Baron ALDERSON, in passing sentence, said that as the
prisoner had not obtained any money by means of the forged
instrument, and as he had received a good character, he
would not inflict the full penalty of his offence, and instead
of transporting him, sentenced him to two years' imprison-
ment and hard labour.
Lydia Basel, a widow, aged 50, and Louisa Norris, a
spinster, aged 28, were placed at the bar, charged, the former
with feloniously uttering to the Paymaster-General a docu-
ment purporting to be a declaration and certificate of the
identity of one Frances Laudon Guiltery, as the widow of one
James Guiltery, and entitled, as such widow, toa sum cf money
as a pension, with the interest, to defraud her Majesty the
Queen, and Norris with feloniously inciting, procuring, and
aiding her to do so, and commit the said felony.
The prosecution against the latter prisoner was not pressed,
but the former pleaded Guilty.
Baron ALDERSON, in passing sentence, said, that the con-
duct of the prisoner was most culpable, and calculated,
though he hoped it would not have that effect, of defeating
the charitable intention of the Government, and inducing
them to discontinue such pensions as they had heretofore
granted. He would certainly transport her but for her age.
The sentence of the Court was, that she should be imprisoned
for three years, and kept to hard labour.
Edmund Garbett, a man of very respectable appear-
ance, was indicted for forging the acceptance to a bill of
exchange for 50L, with intent to defraud William Booth.
This case appeared to excite a more than usual interest,
owing, perhaps, to the extraordinary circumstances
under which the prisoner was committed for trial. It
will be recollected that at the last assizes at Kingston,
an action was brought by a person named Blagney,
against Mr. Booth, to recover the amount of the above
bill of exchange, alleged to have been accepted by him.
The defence was, that the acceptance in question.was a
forgery; and to prove that fact the prisoner was put in
the box, when his evidence was of so extraordinary a
nature as to induce the Learned Judge, before whom the
case was tried (Lord Denman), to conclude that the wit-
nessctordoi
efoermal
andnmtd.
chi
rrnerae.
a. g.nmldy
Martin..ll,
l.
nr.l.,Tlnihoo committedanwvtaiangtpguopee takecarChambers
mhai
bss
ecounsel
trialufno
sroe nit
hft
eoh
for
the
hcharge.
prisoner.p
ro s
e
had himself forged the acceptance, and he was ae-
cu-
briefly stated the case on the part
gcepi
ovrupeoAsnyembeit
titßhohsnee ,
prisoner
tprrirosoonngelsyre
short-handod
objected
b jiwtnherceittteaehdbrlosfivtneor
ostttrtehisainstance,
evi-
dence
evidence
being received. The evidence that a man gave in a
civil action could not afterwards be made use of against
him in a prosection for felony.
Mr. Baron ,ALDEnsoN, however, thought it would be
better to receive the evidence than to reject it, because
if it were rejected there would be an end of it. If, bow.
ever, he did wrong in receiving it, he would be set right
by the other judges, fur whose future decision he would
reserve the point.
The notes were then put in and read. The most
material part of the prisoner's evidence on that occasion
was to this effect :—That the acceptance in question was
not in the handwriting of William Booth ; that he knew
who it was accepted by having been present at the time,
and when asked to name the party, he said, " I am in
the hands of the Court," and he declined to answer any
questions on that point, whereupon be was committed by
Lord Denman, as already stated. The next evidence
was that of the prosecutor.
William Booth, who stated that he was a farmer, and
resided in Shropshire. He had known the prisoner
about fifteen years. When he first knew him he was
clerk to an attorney, residing at Wellington, but at the
expiration of his artieleihip he set up in business for
himself, and afterwards went into partnership with a
person named Dulling. In the year 1846 witness em-
ployed the prisoner in several professional transactions.
(He here stated the nature of them at great length.)
The only material part of his evidence in chief was that his
acceptance to the bill in question was not in his hand-
writing,
and that he never, directly or indirectly, au-
thorised the prisoner to accept for him.
The witness was cross-examined at great length by
Mr. Chambers as to other bills. He admitted his know-
ledge that the prisoner had accepted several other bills
in his name, and that he had taken no steps to punish
him for so doing. or to prevent a repetition of such con-
duct, but he denied most distinctly having ever said tothe
prisoner, with reference to those bills, "I don't mind
your using my name, providing I don't get into any
trouble." -He further stated that at the time when the
bill in question was issued he did not owe the prisoner
any money. The bill was then put in and read. It we-,
for 501., dated June, 18-16, drawn by the prisoner on, and
purported to be accepted by William Booth, and payable
at three months after date. This was the case on the
part of the prosecution.
Mr. CHAMBERS addressed the jury at great length on
the part of the prisoner ; but the main point of his arg:u
ment was that as the presrcuter had re.-eived due notic,•
long before the transaction which gave rise to the present
pri.eeedings, that certain bills purporting to be accepted
he him had been circulated by the priioner,and had taken
rep Neps to punish him for making so free with his
name, prisoner might, considering the intimacy that
existed between them, have construed that into an inn-
plied authority to continue such conduct, provided the
bills were provided for when they came to maturity.
Implied authority could not be judged of by the mere
denial by the party interested, that he had given it, but
might be inferred by his general conduct in reference to
previous transactions- cf a similar nature. The question
ehealreedd
was one entirely for a jury to decide The Learned
Counsel then urged that after the alleged forgery, the
prisoner might have kept out of the way if he pleased,
instead of which he
present unfortunate predicament. In conclusion, he said.
if the jars entertained ;'oshais.Abietinnt.,gsi p
loanc
et
dh e
in his
the proceedings at wahpi
Ivey doubt upon the case, it wile