The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-04 00:00:00

MARCH 41 1847.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Durham, March 2.
This morning the learned judges proceeded to the county
courts at noon. Mr. Baron Alderson proceeded to charge the
grand jury in the Crown Court, while Mr. Baron Rolfe com-
menced the trial of causes en the civil side.
The cause list presents eighteen causes; the calendar
about as many prisoners. Neither appears to be of a heavy
character. There are three cases of manslaughter, which,
though fatal to life, do not appear to be of a ferocious cha-
radar.

CROWN SIDE.
IVidiant Ertington, was charged on an indictment fur
having on the night of the 22d cf December last assaulted
and robbed Thomas Brown, at Sacristan, of 111. 10s. in
money, some groceries, and a watch.
Mr. Otter conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Matthews
the defence.

It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor that on the
22d of December he had been to Durham and Sherborn Hill
to settle some accounts, after which he had between 11/. and
121. left. On his return he had called at a public-house called
the Halfway House. He and the prisoner entered together,
and he treated the prisoner. About ten o'clock they left
together, both quite sober. The prisoner carried a bundle
which the prosecutor bad, and proposed to see him home.
After they had proceeded some distance the prisoner went
behind him, and knocked him down and rifled his pockets.
After some time the prosecutor got to a Mr. West's cottage,
where he obtained assistance, and police-officers were sent• in
pursuit. It was not, however, till after a chase of 1,150
miles that the prisoner was captured, at some coal works
near Paisley, in Scotland. Previously he had worked at the
Sacristan pit. The prosecutor swore positively to his identity,
and other persons spoke to their being together at the pot-
hour.

Mr. llArrnEws addressed the jury for the prisoner.
"Verdict—Guilty. To be transported for twenty years.
Ralph Greenwood was indicted for attempting to discharge
a loaded gun at Thomas Watson, a police•oficer, on the 2ith
of December last, near Hartlepool.
Mr. S. Gray conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Matthews
the defence.

It appeared that on the morning of Christmas-day- last
the prosecutor was in his boat, when he observed the prisoner
and another, each with a gun, beating a hedge for game. lie
went to them, and attempted to take the other, when the
prisoner levelled his gun at him, and said, " My gun is
loaded; what if she goes off ?" and pulled the trigger. The
prosecutor heard the snap, but it did not go off. He then
went for assistance, and the prisoner and his companion
quietly walked away. The prosecutor returned with assist-
ance, and they were taken into custody, and taken to llartle-
pool station-house. The gun was then loaded, and a cap was
on the

Mr. MArrigEws, for the prisoner, contended that there was
no proof that the gun was loadei at the time, or that there
was then any cap on the nipple. Plenty of time had elapsed
while the officer was away to load the gan. If it was not
loaded, or if there was no cap on, so that it was not in a state
to go off, the prisoner wag entitled to a verdict.
Verdict—Not Guilty.
Nothing of interest occurred on the civil side.

WESTERN CIRCUIT:— 11 March 2.
NISI PRICS COURT.--(Before Mr. Justice CEESSWELL. )
JONES V. CLARK.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was a
stockbroker at Southampton, against the defendant, who was
also a stockbroker at that place, to recover damages for the
non-acceptance of certain scrip in the Oxford, Newbury, An-
dover, Manchester, and Southampton Junction Railway.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Massey conducted the plaintiff's
case ; Mr. Cockburn and Mr. M. Smith appeared for the de-
fendant.

The declaration contained two count; the first alleging a
sale of the scrip to the defendant generally, and a non-
acceptance by him. The second count alleging a retainer
by the plaintiff of the defendant, as broker, to sell the said
scrip for the plaintiff for certain commission and reward, in
the way of his business as a broker; in consideration
whereof he (the defendant) promised the plaintiff to be re-
sponsible to him for the payment of the price of the said
scrip when sold, with allegations of the tender, and non-
acceptance of the scrip. The defendant pleaded general
pleas; first the general issue, and then traverses of all the
material averments in the declaration, with a special plea
setting out that since the making the promises in the decla-
ration mentioned, and before the tender of the scrip, the con-
tract had been dissolved, by the company having changed
their capital from 600,000/. to 900,0001., and also altered the
deposit, and thereby voided the contract which had been en-
tered into by the defendant.
It appeared by the statement of the Learned Counsel for
the plaintiff, and the witnesses called in support of his case,
that the plaintiff and the defendant were sharebrokers, car-
rying on business at Southampton, and that in the early part
of October, 1845, the plaintiff applied to the defendant to sell
for him scrip for fifty shares in the Oxford, Newbury, An-
dover, Manchester, and Southampton Junction Railway. This
he agreed to do, and on the 16th of that month sold them to a
Mr. Mackay, a solicitor, in Southampton (who was the pro-
moter of the line), at a premium of 21. ss. per share. The
allotment was not made until the 31st, and on the 29th of.
Nsiiiii,
November the scrip was tendered by the plaintiff olicitor
to the defendant, and the money for the same deman , but
the defendant refused to receive the same, saying t at he
had sold the shares to Mr. Mackay, and that as soon as Mr.
Mackay paid him, he would pay the plaintiff. Mackay,
however, having got into difficulties, and the scrip being down
in the market, refused to accept the shares and pay for the
same ; whereupon the present action was brought against the
defendant, on the ground that, according to the usage amongst
brokers, he was responsible to the plaintiff for the value of
the scrip at the time it was sold, and evidence was given of
such usage amongst the brokers in Southampton.
On cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, it was
elicited that there were only three sharebrokers in South-
ampton, including the plaintiff and the defendant, and also
that after the sale of the scrip, and before the tender of the
same, the committee of management of the railway had, by
the advice of their engineer, increased their capital from
600,0001. to 900,0001., and also altered the deposits from 2/.55.
per share to 2/. 2s.
Mr. COCKBURN submitted, on the part of the defendant,
that there was no case to go to the jury. First, he contended,
that the first count in the declaration was not proved, as it
was clear that the defendant acted purely as a broker, and
did not buy the scrip for himself, but merely acted as agent
between the parties ; and as to the second count, that there
was no usage whereby to charge the defendant, as a broker,
with the responsibility of paying for the scrip unless he had
received the money from the party to whom it had been
sold ; he also submitted that the scrip tendered was not the
article bargained for, as the capital in the railway had been
changed, by being increased one-third, and the deposits on
the shares altered from 2/. ss. to 21. 2s.

Mr. Justice CRE.SSWELL, however, observed, that there was
some evidence on:both counts to go to the jury, both of a
sale to the defendant personally, and also of the usage to
charge the defendant with responsibility, even if he sold
merely as agent. With' regard: to the alteration of the
capital and deposit, he would reserve that point if necessary.
Mr. COCKBURN then addressed the jury for the defendant,
and contended that this was an unworthy attempt, on the
part of the plaintiff, to make the defendant liable in a trims-
action in which it was never intended that he should be
liable;' the real intention of the parties being that the de-
fendant should merely act as agent for the plaintiff in the
sale of the scrip, and as soon as the money was paid to him
he was to hand it over to the plaintiff. He also called wit-
nesses to show that the defendant had mentioned to the
plaintiff the name of the person Mackay, to whom the scrip
had been sold, before the sale to him, and that he had as-
sented to the sale to that person, and therefore, even if there
was such a usage existing in Southampton as that relied
on by the plaintiff, yet it could not avail here, as there was
the express assent of the plaintiff to the sale to 'Mackay.
Mr. CROWDEIt having replied,
Mr. Justice Cax.sswELL left it to the jury to say, first,
whether the defendant agreed to by the scrip for himself;
and, secondly, if they did not, whether they thought there
was such a known usage in Southampton between the broken
as would make the defendant responsible to the plaintiff for
the sale of the scrip; for even if they thought this, still they
were to consider whether the plaintiff had not assented to
the sale to Mackay; and, if so, they would find their verdict
for the defendant.
The jury, after a short consideration, found their verdict for
the defendant generally.
This was the only case of any interest tried during the
day, and lasted till a late hour.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
James Board was charged with having, on the 7th of Ja-
nuary last, burglariously broken and entered the dwelling-
house of the guardians of the poor of the parish of St. Mary's,
Southampton, and stolen therefrom six pounds weight of
pork and other articles. There was a second count in the
indictment, laying the burglary to be committed in a build-
ing within the curtilege of the said dwelling.
Mr. Saunders conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner was
undefended.

prosecution
workhousev
31
itona ps pweearr
eeadknt
that
arpottam.
adjoining
hoTteilnrlheeienregwev iashidtae,
dnai cnbebewreaenhtal
bread room
hunrcoeibordormenoanaga
rtaattheand
idenphgoae
trdhtfi
extorofe
fixed
ttrhhoi ene-
the wall of this room, but shortly before the 7th of January
it had been stolen therefrom, upon which the hole was built
up with bricks and mortar which was not dry at the time of
the present robbery. The room was duly locked on the night
of the 7th of January, but on the following morning it was
discovered that the bricks with which p the hole in the room
had been stopped up, had been removed, and an aperture
made large enough to admit the person of a man. It was
also found that a quantity of salt pork, beef, and nine loaves
of bread had been stolen. On inquiry being made, it was
ascertained that the prisoner had been seen on the morning
of the robbery jumping over a wall of the deanery, at about
200 yards from the workhouse. He was then seen to stoop
down and pick up something heavy, and carry it away.
Traces of wet salt were found at this place, leading from the
wall to the bread-room, and also from the wall to a house
in the neighbourhood, and on a policeman who was making
the search entering the house, he found the prisoner there,
and also a large piece of beef in the cupboard. A woman
who lived in the house was called, and stated that the beef
was brought there by the prisoner, who had said that he
brought it from on board ship. It was also proved that there
were some foot-tracks found at the place where the salt had
been traced, which corresponded with the shoes worn by the
Prisoner at the time of his apprehension.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, in summing up the case to the jury,
told them that perhaps it was not sufficiently made out that
a burglary had been committed, but *till that they might
convict the prisoner of the larceny if they: thought the
evidence sufficient.
The jury, however, to the surprise of the whole court, re-
turned a verdict of Not Guilty.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Northampton, March 3.
GIBBONS V. 13.1.TTIEBSBY.
This was an action for a libel, and a special jury case, the
plaintiff, being a grocor and confectioner, and also a wine and
spirit merchant, in Stamford, and th - defendant the proprie-
tor of the Lincolnshire Chronicle, in which an article appeared
in September last reflecting on the manner in which a drink-
ing-room in the plaintiff's house was conducted. Verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages 200/.
IVith this case finished the business of the Northampton
assizes, the lightest assize that has been known here for some
time.

HOME ClRCUlT.—Hertford, March 3.
The commission for this county was opened on Tuesday
by Chief Justice Wilde, and this morning business was pro-
ceeded with in both Courts, Lord Chief Justice Denman pre-
siding on the Civil side, and Sir T. Wilde in the Crown
Court. The business is very light, as, although twenty

PRICI SD.

causes are on the list, a great many of them are undefended.
On the criminal side there are eighteen prisoners for trial,
bat, with the exception of a charge of child-murder, all the
charges are of the ordinary description. The business dis
posed of to-day did not possess any feature of interest to the
public.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Rcading, March 2.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice 3IAui.E and a Common
Jury.)

VINES V. THE SREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff; a solicitor at
Reading, to recover compensation from the defendant& for
injuries done to a phaeton, through the negligent and ine-
cure way in which the approaches to the station at Reading
were kept on the 12th last September. Mr. G. Hardy
arrived at the station at ten o'clock in the evening, where,
in accordance with a previous arrangement, the carriage,
horse, and coachman of the plaintiff had been sent to await
his arrival. He took his seat in the hinder part cf the
phaeton, the coachman driving upon the box. The carriage
then proceeded along the road leading from the station
into Friar-street; the horse, described as a lively animal,
was startled at something supposed to be the whistle
of the engine, proceeded on its journey, darted onwards,
and came in contact with a log of timber, which pro-
jected about twelve feet from the fence, which marked
the boundary of the road. The carriage was lifted up
into the air, the coachman was thrown from his seat to
the ground. Mr. Hardy kept his place until the vehicle came
in contact with the large gates belonging to the railway
company, and which lead from Friar-street to the station.
The effect of the concussion was to shiver the carriage to
atoms, to injure the horse, and to throw out Mr. Hardy, and
inflict a permanent injury to the joint of one of his thumbs.
The Learned Counsel contended that the railway company,
having dedicated a space of their ground leading to Friar-
street from the station to form a road, were bound to keep it
reasonably secure an free from obstructions, so that passen-
gers to and from tl4railway might proceed in. safety.
The. jury found a terdialar the plaintili—Pamagea 281..
the amount of injur done to the carrier

done to L., „—_
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice MAuLE.)
Henry James Page having been put to the bar, charged
with uttering a counterfeit sixpenny piece, and no counsel
appearing for the prosecution, his Lordship inquired the
cause, and was told that the solicitor for the Mint having
declined to conduct the prosecution, and the 7th Geo. IV.,
c. 64, sec. 22, which gave prosecutors and witnesses their
costs in misdemeanours, not applying to a misdemeanour like
the present,•the prosecutor did not like to go to the expense
of preparing a brief and feeing counsel.
Mr. Justice MAULE—The fiction of law in criminal cases
is, that the judge is counsel for the prisoner; but here it is
sought not only to upset and to reverse that doctrine, and
make counsel for the prosecution, but to throw the whole
burden of the prosecution on me, and leave me to make out
the best case I can against the prisoner by a careful and dili-
gent perusal of the depositions. But 1 will not do it. I
will be counsel for the prisoner, and let these (the deposi-
tions) be handed to some counsel learned in the law.
Mr. Scotland, who examined the witnessess for the pro-
secution, said it appeared that the prisoner on the 25th of
last month offered the coin in question in payment of some
small articles of food, first to a baker, who immediately
after the prisoner had quitted the shop ran after him with it,
and returned it on the ground that it was bad ; and then to a
grocer, who did net discover that it was bad until a police-
man came to inquire whether the prisoner had passed a
counterfeit sixpence. The conduct of the prisoner in other
respects, as far as appeared from the evidence, was consistene
with a belief on his part that the coin was a good one.
There was no scientific evidence that it was bad.

Mr. Gray addressed the jury for the prisoner.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
(Before Mr. Sergeant GAMETAL& )
THE ABINGDON AULT ROBBERY.—The circumstances of this
robbery are doubtless in the recollection of our readers. The
principal feature in them was the fact that for s. veral years
past Richard Janes, a confidential servant of Miss Mary Ann
Spenlove, the owner of the Abbey Brewery at Abingdon, had
been plundering his mistress of malt and hops, which he sold
to one Blagrove, who disposed of them to brewers at Oxford.
An investigation took place before the magistrates, who com-
mitted for trial upwards of twenty persons, amongst whom
were three brewers of Oxford, charged as receivers.
The prisoners were this day put on their trial, and all
pleaded Not Guilty with the exception of Jones, who had all
along admitted his guilt, and now confessed it in form.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Carrington and Mr.
J. Williams; and the prisoners were severally defended by
Mr. Selfe, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Pigot, and Mr. Huddlestone.
Four distinct prosecutioas against several of the prisoners
(some as principals, and others as accessories) having failed
frem insufficient evidence, it was intimated that no other
cases would be proceeded with, and that a verdict of Not
Guilty might be taken on behalf of the other prisoners.
Mr. Justice Maule dispose) of eight or nine trifling larcenies
and misdemeanours in the other Court, and rose about two
o'clock.

One case only remains to be tried, which comes on by ap-
pointment to-morrow morning before Mr. Justice Maule,
and in which Mr. Sergeant Talfourd is retained on behalf of
the prisoners.