The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-12 00:00:00

9,140
1,875

what damages they would give against a man who
been guilty of this crime.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Dam
2501.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 10.
(Sittings as Nisi Prius at Guildhall before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and Special Juries.)
WALLER V. BISHOP.

The Attorney-General, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cleasley
conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder,
Mr. W. H. Watson, and Mr. Ogle appeared for the de-
fendant.
This was an action to recover a. sum of money alleged
to be owing by the defendant, in his character of a
member of the committee of the Duch Hanoverian
Railway Company, to the plaintiff, a stock-broker for the
purchase of shares and " continuaticns" for and on ac-
count of the company. It appeared that some time after
this company had been brought out, the plaintiff re-
ceived instructions from the board to purchase up
the shares as they came into the market, with '
a view of maintaining their value. For a length
of time these purchases were effected, and the
purchase notes male out " bought for account of N.
Ogle, Esq.," and although a letter was put in evidence,
which purported to be an authority from the company,
and wherein there was a recognition of the correctness
of the plaintiff's account, it was contended on the part
of the defendant that he had not only not signed the
paper, but that he had said he would not sign it for a
thousand pounds.
The case occupied the whole of the day, and the only
questions between the parties were, whether these pur-
chases had been made by the plaintiff on account of the
company, or on the private account of the director of
the name of Ogle.
The jury retired at twenty minutes past five o'clock,
and at five minutes to seven sent a note into court pray-
ing that they might be discharged, as there was not the
least chance of their agreeing to a unanimous verdict.
The Lord Chief Baron having left the Court,
Mr. Baines, from the Marshall's-office read the note,
and asked the attorneys on both sides if they would con-
sent to the discharge of the jury?
The Attorney for the plaintiff said he could not give
his consent.
Mr. Baines thereupon communicated that fact to the
jury.
. About eight o'clock the jury again sent out to ask
whether they might not be discharged, as the probabl-
y of their agreeing was more distant than ever.
Mr. Baines returned an answer in the negative, as the

parties would not give their consent.
shortly afterwards, however, Mr. Baines sent a mes-
senger to the house of the Lord Chief Baron in Queen-
square, communicating the request of the jury, and
asking for instructions.
At nine o'clock, before the messenger had returned,
the jury came into Court, and delivered a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 3,9291. 17s. 3d.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Abingdon, July 10.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and
a Special Jury.)
SMITH V. SCOTT AND OTHERS.
Mr. Whateley and Mr. Phipson appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Godson and Mr, Maynard for the de-
.

i'endant.
This was an action against the prooprietors of the
Morning Advertiser newspaper, for a libel contained in a
report of proceedings at the Judges' chambers, before
Mr. Justice Erle:and Mr. Justice Cresswell respectively,
on application by the plaintiff to get released from cus-
tody by virtue of his discharge and certificate under the
bankruptcy laws. The defendants pleaded only "Not
Guilty," and the principal question in the cause was,
whether the report was not a fair and correct account of
what took place.
It appeared that the plaintiff was formerly a barrister
on the South Wales circuit; that he, about the year
1836, originated some waterworks in Glamorganshire,
and subsequently started the Swansea Journal, and
afterwards, having become involved to the extent of
upwards of 20,0001., had a fiat in bankruptcy struck
against him in the Bristol District Court, passed his
examinations, and was discharged and granted a
certificate by the commissioner. Being afterwards
taken into custody by some of his creditors, who had
not proved at Bristol, he applied at the Judges' cham-
bers in London for his release by virtue of his certi-
ficate—first to Mr. Justice Erie, and subsequently to Mr.
Justice Cresswell. These applications were resisted.
on the ground that he had lost more than 201. in one
day by gaming since he had become a trader, this alle-
gation. of course, being supported by a sufficient number
of affidavits ; and on this ground, under a provision of
the bankrupt laws, that where a trader shall have lost
more than 201. in one day, or 2001. in one year, by
gaming, his certificate shall not be a protection to him,
the plaintiff's applications were refused, and he was re-
mitted to custody. All these facts the report in question
set forth, and so far the plaintiff did not complain ; but
the reporter, under a misapprehension as to the state of
the law with regard to what a bankrupt should swear
before getting his certificate, added that the plaintiff in
his examination at Bristol denied that he had ever lost
more than 20/. in one day by gambling ; and, further,
in his statement of the argument of Mr. Thomas Chitty,
the well-known special pleader, in opposing the plaintiff's
application, described that gentleman as contending that
the plaintiff had obtained his release by misrepresenta-
tion, whereas, in fact, the plaintiff had no occasion to
make such a denial in his examination at Bristol, and
Mr. Chitty had confined himself to urging that the loss
of more than 201. by gambling in one day made the
certificate void, and did not at all allude to the examina-
tion at Bristol. The plaintiff's counsel, in stating the
case, expressed his readiness to take a verdict for
such damages as would carry costs, if the defendants
would even now consent to apologise, and state that
they were in error in representing the plaintiff to have
denied that he ever lost more than 201. by gambling in
one day ; but this the defendants' counsel declined to do,
saying that the report was a correct one, and therefore
the defendants should not be punished in costs for its
publication.
On the part of the plaintiff it was admitted that he
had gambled largely before he became a trader, and the
gravamen of the libel was that he should have been re-
presented as having denied that he ever gambled, whereas
what he denied (not at Bristol but at the Judges' cham-
bers) was, that he gambled since he had become a trader.
It appeared that by the bankruptcy laws the plaintiff
should have made an oath that he obtained his certificate
by fair means, and that the certificate should set forth
that he had conformed, in all respects, to the bankrupt
laws; but the form of each oath vs as so vaguely framed,
that on a careless reading of it the deponent would seem
to swear that he had conformed in all respects to those
laws, whereas, he merely swore that he by fair means
obtained a certificate that he had conformed in all re-
spects to those laws; indeed, so apt was the frame of the
oath to lead an unlearned layman to the former conclu-
sion, that a quarter of an hour was consumed to day by
the Learned Counsel on both sides, and the Court, be-
fore the counsel for the defendant appeared satisfied
with, or rather ceased to contend against, the version
which we, in accordance with the decision of the Court,
have given as the orthodox one. It appeared in the
course of the case that the defendant's liabilities were
between 25,000/. and 26,000/, and that there were no
assets in hand.
Mr. GODSON addressed the jury on behalf of the de-
fendants, contending that the report was a fair and cor-
rect one; that when a reporter was compressing into a
reasonably readable compass the substance of what
occupied for several days the attention of judges at
chambers, where no regular course of proceedings was
pursued, but every one interrupted every body else, and
all was scrambling and confusion, no other errors could
be sought to be established against him—that from
the nature of the discussions which were proved to have
taken place, the very statements reported in the de-
fendants' paper must have been made on the part of
those who opposed the plaintiff's application for his dis-
charge; and that even if an error had been accidentally
committed, the plaintiff was not a character who could
possibly be entitled to more than half a farthing da-
mages.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, told the jury that if
they thought the report in question a correct account of
proceedings in a court of justice, then they should find
for the defendants; but if they were of opinion that,
though not correct, yet it was a fair, bond fide, and well-
intentioned statement of what occurred, they should give
the defendants the benefit of this impression, by limiting
the amount of the damages to which they should think
the plaintiff entitled.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, gave a
verdict for 40s. damages; and an observation having been
subsequently made at the bar as to costs, it being for a
moment doubted by somebody whether an action for
libel was not within the jurisdiction of the county courts,
the jury said that they intended to secure the plaintiff
his costs.

Oxford, July 10.
The commission was opened here to. day. The number
of prisoners is nine, and the number of causes two. One
is an action for goods .sold and delivered, and virtually
indefensible; and the other is an action on a warranty as
to the character of some elm saplings, bought some five
or six years back, of the defendant by the plaintiff.
The courts open at nine o'clock on Monday, and will,
in all probability, get rid of all the business in the course
of the day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
EXTENSIVE ROBBERY OF JEWELLERY, &C., IN LEA-
DENHALL-STREET.—John Daniell, alas Johnson, and
Marianne Smith, who had a child in her arms, were
brought before Alderman Gibbs, charged with having
stolen gold and silver watches, diamond rings, &c. &c.,
of the value of about 1,0001., the property of Messrs.
Brown and Walker, of Whitechapel and Leadenhall-
street. The premises in Leader.thall-street were those
in which the robbery was committed, and the moment
the discovery took place the prosecutor employed Daniel
Haydon and Robinson Webb, two of the most active and
vigilant officers of the City police, in the work of de.
tecting the thieves and recovering the stolen gocds.
Mr. Charles Brown said—l am in partnership with
Mr. John Walker, and carrying on business as jewel-
lers, &c., at No. 92, High-street, Whitechapel, and
also at No. 110, Leadenhall-street. The male prisoner
was shopman to us up to Saturday night last, and had
all the property in the shop in Lea lenhall-street under
his care. The articles wero very valuable, consisting
of gold and silver watches, gold chains, diamond rings
and pins, and the rest of the usual stock of a jeweller.
It wai the male prisoner's duty to sleep on the pre-
mises every night, and it was his duty every Tuesday
morning to bring the keys to us, and to come in the
evening for them end return to sleep in the house.
He brought the keys as usual last Sunday morning to
our house in Whitechapel, but he did not return in the
evening. Ivi sited the premises on Monday morning, at
about eight oclock, and saw that they were locked up ac-
cording to custom. I found my lad at the door, and he