The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-13 00:00:00

LA W IN TELLIGENCE.

SECONDARIES' COURT. Sept. 10.
(More Mr JAmEs and a Common Jury.)
T.tyLoa v. ALVAREZ.

This action, the trial Of which occupied above eight
hours, was brought by Mr. George Taylor against
Joseph Alvarez, to recover a balance of 19/. for Portu-
guese prize-money. -• • •
Mr. C. Jones appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hog-
gins fur the defendant.
The circumstances of the case may be thus briefly
stated :—The plaintiff was •tt seaman in the service of
the Queen of Portugal in 1833, and served on board the
Don Pedro, under Captain Napier, in the month of
July, in that year, when the Miguelite fleet was cap-
tured. The plaintiff Had been paid two sums of Si. by
an agent of lkf. Menlizabel at Portsmouth, but falling
into distress, he borrowed sonic money of a navy agent,
named Neck, and made an assignment of the remainder
of his priznoncy, tanottn!ing to 231. over to that per-
son. The plaintiff,: attorney and Captain Dillon, whose
claim against the British Government had so often been di§,-
cussed in l'arliament, afterwards called upon thedefendant,
who requested them to leave Taylgr's papers with him.
and it' they were right he promised to pay within a few
days. He subsequently, however, refused to pay the ba-
lance of prize-money to :my but Taylor, and that person
being at sea, the present action was brought for IF,L;
in order to save the expense of trying the case in a su-
perior Court. The defendant, it was proved, was the
cousin of Mendizabel.

For the defence, it was contended, that the Jury
would not be justified in relying upon admissions stated
to have been made by the defendant to the plaintiff's
attorney and his frictrA Captain Dillon, particularly as
those admissions not only went to fix the liability upon
the defendant, bat actually assumed the plaintiff's right
to bring this action. It was further urged that there
was no proof of the plaintiff being entitled to the prize-
money, or, in fact, of his existence, and the action was
characterised as a speculative one to obtain costs.
The SECONDARY having summed up, the Jury retired,
,and at eight o'clock entered the Court with a verdict for
the defendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Sept. 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Tim. Rom)
IN THE MATTER OF J. CLEMENTSON.

The bankrupt carried on very extellsi;ebusiness as
a tea-dealer, general grocer, &c., in Thames-street, and
this was the day fixed for his final adjourned examina-
tion ; but, as we have before stated, in consequence of
his being placed in a lunatic asylum he was unable to
attend the Court. A few additional proofs were ad-
mitted without any opposition. The debts and liabilities
are very heavy, but tito creditors are few in number, and
it is supposed that there are sufficient assets to meet the
demands against the estate.
The very unusual circumstance in this case of the
bankrupt not having been able to surrender to his fiat in
consequence of his insanity, and from the melancholy
continuance of the same cause, being unable to appear in
person to pass his final examination, it was adjourned to
a future day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Margaret Linsey, who works for Mr. J. Clarke, an
extensive tailor, who employs from 800 to 1,000 people,
was brought before the Lord Mayor and Alderman
Kelly,' charged with having pawned two new coats,
which were entrusted to her by her master, the prosecutor.
Mr. Annis, a pawnbrAer, was summoned to attend
with the property pledged ; and the great object of the
prosecutor was, whether the Magistrates could not com-
pel the pawnbroker to give up the property to the owner
without the alternative of a prosecution. A great deal
of interest was excited by the case.
William Merchant, who stated that he was in the em-
ploy of Mr. Clarke, the prosecutor, identified the two
coats produced by the pawnbroker's servant, which he
had given to the defendant to make, and which were to
be returned when made. Instead of returning them,
however, the defendant pawned them at Mr. Annis's shop
for 18s.' on Saturday last, and, in acknowledging that
she had done so, stated that she mentioned at the pawn-
eroker's that she• was too 14te to take home the work to
Mr. Clarice's, and that she wanted the money to carry
her over Sunday. The money she was to have received
for the work was 6s. Gd. Now witness submitted to the
Lord Mayor, that the pawnbroker, not having exercised
due caution in making inquiry about a person of so
poverty-stricken an appearance, might be compelled to
give up the goods, independently of the prosecution of
the prisoner, whom Mr. Clarke did not wish to punish
with severity,.partienlarly as she was in an advanced
state of pregnancy. It was n:!eessary to observe that the
prosecutor always received security from persons em-
ployed as the prisoner was, that the work should be duly
returned.

MO LORD MAYOR—Do you mean to contend that you
can recover against the pawnbroker or the prisoner?
Mr. Merchant said he meant to contend that the pawn-
broker knew that the pawning was illegal ; for it could
not be supposed that garments of that
,description could
have been honestly, possessed by such a woman. Those
who received ?0 'per cent. for their money had a right to
use discrimination.

Mr. Heath (the pawnbroker's shopman), said that
Mr. Annis had very fairly offered to give up the
goods, with the loss of half the money; but the offer was
ejected. With respect to judging from appearances in
taking in articles, no, reliance was to be placed in that
mode of discriminating, for many persons in very mean
apparel dealt largely. Besides, it was not known t) the
prosecutor that the woman had the coats from Mr. Clarke.
The LORD Mai on—Dues Mr. Clarke mean to prose-
cute the woman ? Mr. Merchant—Certainly ; for the
*Ake of the trade he must. I should state that it is the
constant practice of pawnbroltcrs to say to persons in the
prosecutor's condition, " What is it to you ? You can
come down on your security if your goods are pawned."
I admit that ; but then Mr. Clarke considers himself
conscientiously bound to protect the security he receives.
If a summary conviction before the Lord Mayor be con-
sidered sufficient to oblige the pawnbroker to restore the
property, why then Mr. Clarke will be satisfied with
that conviction and a'slight infliction of punishment upon
the defendant ; but if not the Old Bailey will be re-
sorted to. In a ease. of the kind before the county Ma-
gistrates the summary conviction was declared to be ade-
quate, and the goods pawned were delivered up.
Mr. Hobler said that the decision of the county Ma-
gistrates happened to be made under the Metropolitan
Police Act, which did not extend to the City, and that
the offence charged was a misdemeanor, and not a fe-
lony. It must be proved, too, that the pawnbroker
" knowingly bought or took in time goods," of which
there appeared to be no direct evidence.
• Mr. Merchant did not accuse the pawnbroker of any-
thing but not having exercised the necessary caution.
The LORD MAYOR said that he should convict the de-
fendant, and sentence her to pay 21. Bs., and the fine of
ten shillings for the heavy offence she had committed, in
default of whieli she should go to Bridewell for a month.
At the entreaty of Mr. Merchant, however, the impri-
sonment was limited to fourteen days.
Mr. Heath requested to know what was to be done
with the clothes which had been pawned ?

Alderman KELLY advised the pawnbroker to give them
up to Mr. Clarke without any demand.
Mr. Heath appearing very reluctant to deliver up the
property without receiving part of the money at any rate,
Mr. Hobler said—Suppose Mr. Clarke brings an action
against you, how Will
.you defend it ? Mr. Merchant—lf
.
the clothes are not given up, the prosecutor will most
certainly bring an.action in trover for the money.
The coats were then handed over to the prosecutor,
and the defendant was committed to Bridewell.