The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-23 00:00:00

Lord DZNMAN said that on Monday the Court would hear
the application. There would be no necessity to bring up
the prisoners again.

HOPKINS V. PRIDE.

Mr. ATitnisoN continued, that as to the paternity of
the defendant there could be no question, I s he had been
present at the christenimg, and it was at his desire
that the child was named after him.
Several letters were also put in, in which the de-
fendant said that he would pay the p...intiff.
The plaintiff's daughter was then called, and gave
evidence as to the nature of the connexion between her
and the defendant.
Other witnesses were called, but could not prove that
defendant had ever contrated with the plaintiff to keep
the child. and

Mr. LOCKE submitted that there must be a nonsuit.
Mr. ATKINSON said •here was evidence on the face of
the letters of an existing contract.
The UNDER-SHERIFF considered that there was suffi-
cient evidence to go to the jury.
Mr. LOCKE then addressed the jury, and contended
that the evidence was insufficient, under the decisioe in
the case of Mortimer v. Wright. 6 Meeson and Willsby,
and that even if the child had been legitimate, a father
would not be bound to pay for its support unless he
contracted with the party, but he might have been made
liable by au order of a magistrate under the 43d
Elizabeth.

The UNDER-SHERIFF left it to the jury to say whether,
from the evidence, and letters, they could infer that de-
fendant had ever contracted to pay for the maintenhnce
of the child to the plaintiff,
The jury immeeiately gave a verdict for the amount
claimed.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
The Court sat yesterday morning, at ten o'clock, for the
disposal of what are termed the bail cases.
THE CAST[ OF MAJOR lIIPHOWSKI.—JUDGMENT.
The defendant in this case having surrendered upon his
recognizances to receive judgment upon the conviction
awarded at the last sessions,
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE said it was his duty now to pro-
nounce judgment upon the defendant for an assault, which he
must term one of a most aggravated nature. It was an as-
sault committed after a lapse of upwards of six years had
intervened between it and the alleged provocation, without
making inquiries of any individuals except those al:tided to
in his affidavit, and whose names were not even mentioned.
Assaults of this nature were of a far more reprehet:sible cha-
racter than those ordinarily bruugh t before the Court, where par-
ties, acting upon a sudden impulse of passion, took revenge upon
the spot at tke moment the provocation was given. Had
such been the case, :he should have treated it in a different
manner. But the defendant in this case had, after waiting
for six years, gone up to the prosecutor the first time he met
him—first proffered him the hand of friendship, and then,
when Mr. Urquhart refused it, assaulted him in the manner
established by the evidence. With respect to the infliction
of a fine, he (the Assistant-Judge) was rather in the dark,
because he was not aware of the circumstances of the
defendant; but he had reason to believe, that if he were to
impose a heavy fine upon him, he would be unable to pay it.
Under all the circumstances of the case, the sentence of the
Court was, that the defendant be imprisoned iu House of
Correction for one calendar month, and that at the expiration
of such term of imprisonment he enter into his own recogni-
sauces in the sum of 504, and find one surety in 254
Major Ileniowski (apparently much adceted)—Aly Lord,
may 1 speak a few words? Your sentence will be my ruin.
The ASSISTANT JUDGE-It is irregular to allow parties to
address the Court after judgment has been pronounced;
however, trim the latter part of your sentence I am willing
to hear you.
lafajor Beniowski—l know well, my Lord, that you have
no intention to impose upon me a heavier punishment than I
deserve, or than you consider necessary fn- the good of so-
ciety. I could observe that your Lordship was wavering as
to whether you should inflict a fine or a sentence of imprison-
ment; but believe me, my Lord, that the sentence you have
passed entails upon me more evil than the heaviest fine you
could possibly inflict. No money can compensate me
for a month's incarceration from this date, because the
17th of May is the last day allowed me for the perfection of
three patents granted to me by her Majesty for inventions of
mine. My Lord, that day has been gazetted ; on that day
I will be in prison according to the terms of your sentence,
and I do implore of you to reconsider your sentence, and see
whether it would not be consistent with your duty to alter it
from imprisonment to fine. I know, my Lord, that you feel
convinced you are not sitting there to execute revenge, but.
to protect society; and surely you will not impose a sentence
which would entail ruin upon the party convicted.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGX considered that the matter about
the patents was such its to justify him in a departure front
the ordinary course. From the statement, of the defendant
—and he had no reason to doubt its truth—it would appear
that it the prisoner were to be imprisoned previous to and on
he day fiT which his patents were gazetted, it would entail
upon him effects that would be perhaps ruinous. Under
those circumstances he should alter the sentence from fm

prisonment for a month to a fine ..of 50/.,andir;VeimpWoi;.ed
until such time as it shall be paid, and order the defendant
to enter into the same recognizances as that specified in the
first judgment.
The iletendant paid the fine soon afterwards, and was
iberated.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.
John Denby, a young man employed as a letter-
carrier in the Post-uffice, was charged with stealing
some country notes and securities to the value of
1101. 19s. 2d., which had been transmitted from Ly.
mington. His wife, Sarah Denby, was charged with
negotiating them.
The notes, &c., had been enclosed in a letter, which it
was the prisoner's duty to have delivered. It was proved
that he and his wife went together to a s in
pawnbroker'
Whitechapel-road, and there tendered one of the 5/.
Lymington notes in payment foraherinhgu,sbsealnedcteedndboyrstehde
latter, and some other articles. T
illiam
Willis."
of the Telegraph public.
the note, eir ‘e'sWhlan
house, in Oxford-street, Mile-end, proved that the pri.
soner paid her another of the 5/. notes for certain chances
in a " Derby sweep" coming off at her house.
The prisoners were taken at their lodgings in Oxford-
street, Mile-end, the wife having the ring purchased at
the pawnbroker's then upon her finger. From her
demeanour, however, it appeared evident that she had
no concern in the robbery. Her husband at once
admitted his guilt and avowed the innocence of his wife,
who went into a hysterical fit on hearing the constable's
mission.
The wife was discharged by the direction of Mr.
HENRY, who remanded the other prisoner for further.
examination.

WORSHIP-STREET.
A man of respectable appearance, named James
Knowles, described as a commercial traveller, was
charged with having, by wanton and furious driving,
run over and seriously injured a child eleven years of
age, named James Bland, the sou of a labourer at Mile-
end.

A witness named Locke stated, that while standing at
his door at nine o'clock on the preceding evening, he
saw a horse and kind of gig. cart, driven by the prisoner,
advancing towards him at a furious rate; and, appre•

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 22.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WILLIAMS V. CLARKE.
This case was tried before the Lord Chief Baron, at the
sittings in London after Hilary Term last, when a verdict
was returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. WATSON now moved for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not be had, or a nonsuit entered. The
action was brought upon a foreign bill of exchange made at
Bruges, in Belgium, by Charles Williams, the plaintiff,
directed to one Captain Dickson, and payable to the order of
defendant, for the sum of 2001. The bill was endorsed by
the defendant to the plaintiff, and the whole case turned upon
the question, whether or not the defendant had had notice of
the dishonour. The evidence proved that notice (if notice
it was) had been given in due time. The Learned Counsel
moved on an affidavit of surprise, which stated that it was
only at the time that the trial commenced that be was
aware that the drawer and the plaintiff were one and the
same person.—Rule refused.
SHERIFkS COURT, April 22.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCRELL.)
FRASER V. SIRED.
This was an action to recover the sum of 171. 3s. Bd.
on a guarantee. The defendant suffered juCgmcnt to go
by default.
Mr. CHARNOCE, who appeared for the plaintiff, said
that he would take the case as undefended.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said, that perhaps the defendant
might appear after the case was over.
Mr. CHARNOCK said he would run the risk. He then
stated that the defendant was anxious to raise a sum of
1,300/. on an estate, and he applied to the plaintiff for
the amount, giving him a guarantee that the plaintiff
should be indemnified against any expenses in investi-
r gating the title, &c., if it should be found defective, or
the negotiation should go off in consequence of the
neglect or default of the defendant.
. Mr. Burton, who had acted as the attorney on both
sides, proved that the negotiation went off in conse-
quence of the defendant's neglect; the law expenses
amounted to 141. 13s. Bd., and the surveyor's charges
to 6/. 10s., which had not been paid.
Mr. CHARNOCL said the plaintiff was entitled to re
cover it, as he was liable to the surveyor.
The jury gave a verdict for 17/. 3s. Bd.
COGAN V. FISHER.

The plaintiff in this action is an oil and colour rner.
chant, and the defendant a painter, &c. The defendant
had suffered judgment to go by default, but appeared in
person to deny that he was indebted to the plaintiff; as
directly he was served with the writ, he went to plaintiff
and paid him the debt and got a receipt.
Mr. LEWIS, the plaintiff's solicitor, said that that
question had been settled before Mr. Justice Erle.
The defendant said that he was not asked to show the
receipt, but the fact was Mr. Lewis was going on for
costs.

The UNDER-SHERIFF asked whether the defendant
had the receipt ?
The defendant said he had got it at home.
The UNDER- SHERIFF—Did you employ any attorney ?
Defendant—No, I only spoke to a friend, who said he
would " do" the case for me.—(Laugh ter.)
The UNDER SHERIFF—It appears that he has.
There being, however, no plea of payment, nor any
evidence that such was the fact, the jury gave a verdict
fur the amount claimed.

The plaintiff in this action is a shoemaker in Lambeth,
and the defendant is a surgeon, residing at Groitrewen
House, Pentardulais, near Swansea. The demand was
for 121., for the board and lodging of an infant, named
Clarissa Hopkins Pride.
Mr. ATKINSON appeared for the plaintiff, and pro-
ceeded to state the case—that the defendant had for-
merly been a surgeon at Blenheim-street Dispensary,
and the daughter of the plaintiff consulted him profes-
sionally, and this ultimately led to her seduction, as
would be clearly shown.
Mr. LOCKE objected to such statements, as the bare
question was, whether the defendant ever undertook to
pay the plaintiff?

The UNDER-SHERIFF said it would be much better if
the matter could be amicably arranged, so as to avoid
unnecessary exposure, but if the case went on he could
not prevent all the circumstances which were connected
with it from being stated.
Mr. LOCKE having declined consenting to the arrange-
ment,