The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-08 00:00:00

HAINES V. RUTHERFORD.

The plaintiff in this action was lately the landlord of
the Mortimer Arms Hotel, in Tottenhatn-court-road.
The claim was for 81. Os. 6d. for goods sold, and 2/. for
money lent.
The defendant pleaded that be was never indebted.

Mr. BAGLEY, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that
the defendant was a student at law, and was a young
gentleman from the West Indies, and was in the habit
of using the plaintiff's. Some little difficulty always
existed to prove the &livery of each article, but it was
particularly so in this CASC, as the plaintiff had gone into
quite a different lino of business, and had mislaid his
books. lie (the Learned Couns.l), however, could nut
conceive what posAble defence the defendant could have,
for he had applied for and obtained a judge's order to
stay proceedings on payment of debt and costs. The
good=, consisting of port, sherry, claret, cigars, &c., were
supplied in August and September, 1845, and in October
two or three letters were written, in which the defendant
apologised for the nonpayment, and said he had been
" trusting to friendship of others and had been disap-
pointed," " that he was involved through having lent his
signature to a friend," but he fondly hoped that he
should soon be able to pay, so that the plaintiff should
have no further reason to regret that he had trusted his
honour.

These letters were put in and proved.
Witnesses were called who proved the orders and de-
livery of great part of the wine, &c., and a general sup-
ply of cigars, &c.
Mr. CLARKE, the defendant's attorney, put in a notice
to produce the books, which, however, were not forth-
coming. lie then addressed the jury, and said that the
defendant had put in an affidavit in which he denied
that he owed the money. When 'the writ was served
no particulars were given, and a judge's order was ob-
tained, and, after some delay, the ease went:on without
particulars being furnished, and ultimately an affidavit
was made that the plaintiff had torn out two of
the leaves of the book containing the defendant's
account, in order to send them to Mr. Salomon,
his solicitor, but that they were lost in the transit. and
he had since mislaid the books. This was a very impro-
bable story, and that in a case where the evidence was
doubtful, and regular entries in the books might have
confirmed it, their absence was a very suspicious cir-
cumstance ; to tear out leaves from a book, to say the
least of it, was an act of great folly on the part of a
tradesman. He also produced a bill of exchange for
251, dated August, 18-15, due in November, but witnesses
had spoken to larger dealings previously to the present
account.

The UNDER SHERIFF said defendant's affidavit denying
the debt could not be received in evidence, but left it to
the jury to say whether the witnesses had proved the
delivery of the goods to their satisfaction ; as to the bill
it might have been given for other goods, or on quite a
different matter, at all events defendant had not pleaded
payment, which he might have done, and given evidence
on the point.
The jury almost immediately gave a verdict for the
amount claimed.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT:
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)

STEALING A LETTER. Alfred Triggs, aged 27, a
postman, was indicted for sealing a letter containing a
cheque on the Union Bank, for 13i. 2s. 6d., the property
of the Postmaster-General. _

The Attorney-General, Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Bodkin
appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Payno for the
prisoner.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL stated the case to the jury.
He said, on the Ist of February it was the duty of the
prisoner to deliver letters in the Covent-garden district.ettr
On that day the Rev. John Fletcher, posted _le
to Mr. Haynes, secretary to the Clerical Club, a
No. 13,
Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, containinga a crossed
cheque for 131.25. 6d. on the Union
The letter
never reached its destination. The cheque eque was presented
at the Union Bank, but as it was crossed and not payable
except through a banker's clearinghouse, payment was
refused, and the cashier wrote across it, " Cross and
C 0.," to denote that it was a crossed cheque, and that
payment had been refused. He could not, however,
identify the prisoner. On the 10th of March the pri
soner ple(iged Pt frock coat and a pair of shears at Mr.
Fleming's, in St. Martin 3-1V:24; for 3s. 6d, Shortly after
the shopman searched the pockets of the coat, an u ftiAnd
the letter, in which tho cheque had been enclosed, in
the breast pocket. Mr. Fleming at once informed the
Post-office authorities of the circumstance, and the pri-
soner was taken into custody. He admitted pawning
the coat, and said he purchased it a day or two before
from a Jew, in Monmouth-street, whose shop he did not
recollect ; but it appeared that the coat was in his pos-
session some time before the occurrence. The letter was
not within the district of the prisoner, but in that of a
person named Wells, who was at the time delivering
letters at that part of the town, but the prisoner
offered to deliver it, and Wells, who could speak
to the letter, entrusted it to him. These were the simple
facts of the case. In his opinion they proved that the
prisoner was guilty of the offence imputed to him.
Witnesses having testified to the facts stated by the
Learned Attorney- G eneral,
Mr. PAYNE addressed the jury on behalf of the pri-
soner, and contended that the evidence was too slender
to convict his client of so serious a charge.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE summed up the evidence with
the utmost care, and the jury, after a short deliberation,
returned a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was sen-
tenced to ten years' transportation.
The prisoner had been three years in the service of the
Post-office. Several unopened letters, of some days old,
were found at the prisoner's lodgings.