The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1841

might et anY time have quitted at a week's notice. That
et.tainly would show that the injury, if any, had been
of a very trifling nature. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded to comment upon the injury that had been
shown by the evidence to have been done to the premi-
ses ; if the raising of the school-house wall had occa-
sioned the smokes the putting up of the pots, by which
the thitiitity was raised above the wall, must have put
an end to the nuisance, and the whole damage
_done
amounted to is. 6d., the sum paid tt tlie Witness War-
ren. He would show f'dftner that the wall upon which
the sehetl-tionse was built, was not the wall of the
plaintiff.

- - -
Lord DENMAN—Although you heAre a right to build
upon the wall, yet if yoit Occasion injury to your neigh-
bour you must compensate him. •
Mr. THESIGER contended that unless, as in the case
of windows, the plaintiff had acquired a right by twenty
years, he could not claim compensation.
Lord DENMAN did not think it required twenty years
usor to entitle a man to have his house habitable. It
differed from the case.of stopping up windows, inasmuch
as it was a positive injury
Mr. THESIGER said there was another view of the
case in which the question was cf some importance. It
was clear that the wall was a party wall, and if the de-
fendant had used it under the Building Act, the plaintiff
could not recover unless, under the 100th section of:that
Act; he had given previous notice, and unless he brought
his action within three months. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to comment upon the other parts of the
case, and submitted that the defendant was entitled to
the verdict of the jury. -
Mr. Barnard, a surveyor, was examined as to the po-
sition of the hedge and ditch. • said the land on which
the-houses were built could never have drained into the
ditch as it is much lower than the 4401,
John Elliot—l purchased the land in which the
cottages were built from Pocock, and sold it in
1832 to the plaintiff. I built the eight cottages which
plaifftiff now holds. I applied to Laycock' the owner of
the wall, to use it, and I got his consent by payinß for
half of it. He stipulated that I should not drain into-
the ditch, but into Pocock's land. I built the cottages
two at a time. I drained from the roof down upon the.
washhouse, and thence into a cesspool upon the premises.
I cut holes through the wall into the ditch as a tempo-
rary measure, but I did not obtain Laycock's consent to
do so, nor was he aware of it. I never represented to
plaintiff that I bought the wall, It was Laycock's wall.'
Thomas Stein, a surveyors examined the wall at . the
back of plaintiff's cottaqe& and was of opinion that it was
a party wall. His oplmon was founded upon the manner,
in which the wall was used in building the cottage& The
wail was fourteen inchei thick, and the houses had been
built upon nine inches of it, --
The Foreman of the jury here intimated that they
were satisfied that the wall was a party wall, and that it
was unnecessary to call further witnesses. -
Mr. Sergeant Sura then replied, and
Lord DiiNMA.N having summed up, the Jury found a
verdict for the defendant.

creditors. lie then left Leeds to avoid being arrested at
the suit of a creditor for 41. 10s., who had offered to take
a composition of 10s. in the pound. At the time he left
Leeds he had El. to take him to London, where he was
soon afterwards arrested.

Mr. WOODRUFFE addressed the Court in aggravation
of judgment. and contended that the insolvent was ar-
rested by a friend, for the purpose of enabling him to
pass throngli the Cotirt. 1e Must have been dishonest,
for he left Leeds with more than three times the amount
of the sum for which he was sued.

2'he Learned COMMISSIONER said, in the present state
pf the case he would not pass judgment on the insolvent,
bUt enotigli had beeti elicited to induce him to state that
when be did, the judgment of the Court should be a very
strong one. He should adjourn it to the 17th of January,
and, in the meantime let the attorney prepare a new
special balance sheet,

circumstance of her being at that time near her confine-
meat the judgment of the Court was respited. The
Learned Recorder then sentenced her upon the former
indictment, and. said that taking into consideration the
fact of the prisoner having been confined only a fortnight,
and the further circumstance of her already having been
in prison for three months, that sentence would be a
light one. The sentence cf the Court was that for that
offence she be further imprisoned for the term of fourteen
days, to commence at the expiration of the former sentence.
The Learned RECORDER then gave directions that the
surgeon's report should be made to the Court, in order to
ascertain if the prisoner was in a fit state for the addition
to the sentence of hard labour.
NEW COURT. _

Moses Hunt was indicted for stealieg, and John Row-
land for receiving, with a guilty knowledge, two nose-
bags, containing a quantity of oats, the property of Tho-
mas Johnson. The prisoner Rowland pleaded guilty.
The property was missed .by the prosecutor, and he,
suspecting the prisoners, had their houses searched, and
the bags and corn were found upon the premises.
The Jury at once found the prisoners Guilty.
The two prisoners were then severally sentenced to
live months' imprisonment and hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION HOUSE.

John Farrell, a young man of respectable appearance
and connexions. was brought up in the custody of Daniel
Forrester, the officer, before Alderman Copeland, charged
with having stolen two 301. Bank of England notes.
ye. Walton, the solicitor to the London and West-
minster Wank, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
- ;neared for the prisoner.
11opilre.r, -nish,
Charles lle.
Westminster Joint-StOck, ' cashier in the London and
Company, stated that the pri-
soner presented a check
counter
nd C for the sum of
Co., between four
of 481. Iss. 6d. drawn by Dougias,...-4 it tatie paid in
and five o'clock on Saturday, and wishes
four notes for 101. each, and the rest in motii.. :v. W•itness
paid the check. Shortly afterwards a person'p.
a check drawn by Mr. Rokosky for 60/., and askew
two notes of 301. each. Witness went to another clerk
in the office to ask a question, and then took from his
drawer two 30/. notes, and gave them to the man he
supposed they belonged to.
Alderman GOPELAND—Do you recollect whether you
gave the notes into the hand of the person they belonged
to, or placed them upon the counter ? Witness could
lilt say. He afterwards paid another check. He saw a
person standing at the counter, and asked him what he
was waiting for, to Which the person replied, that he was
waiting for his two 301. notes. Witness told that person
that he had paid him the notes, and was told that he had
not done to. -Witness immediately got the numbers of
the notes, and went over to the Bank of England to make
the necessary inquiry, arid found the prisoner there re-
ceiving money.
Mr. William Wybard (a clerk in the Bank of Eng-
land), stated, that he paid the prisoner sixty sovereigns
for two 3a. notes on Saturday evening between four and
five o'clock. (Here the bank notes were produced.)
Witness had not seen the prisoner before to his recol-
lection. The name of John Smith was on the back of
the notes at the time, and witness told the prisoner to
write his name and address (a customary thing) on the
I top of the face of the notes, and the prisoner then wrote
the name " John Smith, No. 7, Aldgate."
Mr. Thomas Phillips (a clerk in the Bank) produced
the two
.bank notes, which were identified as those paid
by the cashier of the London and Westminster Bank to
the individual he believed them to belong to.
Alderman COPELAND lamented that he was obliged to
commit a person who had held a respectable station in
thociety. The check paid in the first instance was the
pr: ray of the prisoner. He (Alderman Copeland)
could nut ;90 that Any reason could be given why a re-
mand should take. place. There appeared to him to be
quite sufficient „ends for committal. He had no idea
of sitting in the Chair .1:‘: hear a trial of the case—a
rat in
.Police Courts.
pra&ice.he considered too prevail'.
The evidelige VTAS quite enough fel- ,m without the
cross-examination and argUrnerits of Counset .2.nd soli"
eitors.—The prisoner was then committed fur trial: - -
WORSHIP S TREED.

John Stoker, an elderly man of respectable exterior,
Was charged with having violently assaulted Mr. Wood-
hatch, a grocer and cheesemonger, in South-side,
Vinsbury,
The complainant stated that he was formerly on inti-
mate tents with the prisoner, who was a frequent visitor
at his house, but the latter availed himself of the oppor-
tunities thereby afforded him to engage the affections of
his wife, on discovering which he broke off the acquaint-
' ance. It having- come to his knowledge, however, that
a clandestine intercourse was still carried on between
the parties, he sent his wife home to her friends, but con-
sented to allow her a separate maintenance on condition
that she discontinued the disgraceful correspondence.
Apartments were taken for her in Brunswick-
street, Hackney-road, which were furnished at
the bxpoiisti of witness, and on Sunday evening
he proceeded thither -with a friend, in order to
restore to her a necklace wiiieft she had left behind, but
he was informed that she had gcrio out to spend the
evening. Suspecting that she had an assignation with
the prisoner, he resolved to remain in the street till she
returned, and after waiting some tin he saw her
approach in company with the prisoner, who enter.o the
house with her. Witness followed them, rtccompante,
by his friend, and finding the prisoner seated in the
parlour he began to reproach him for his perfidious con-
duct, upon which the prisoner got up and immediately
knocked him down. Ile then wrested his umbrella from
his hand, and beat hitn with it till it broke. The land-
lady of the house, on hearing the disturbance, called in a
policeman, who tiok the prisoner into custody.
Police constable N 173 stated that on entering the
apartment he found the complainant standing passively
in a corner whilst the prisoner was striking at him right
and left with his fists. The complainant's nose was
bleeding, and he appeared to have suffered severe
ill-treatment. His wife was, in the meantime, engaged
in a struggle with her husband's friend, whom she had
grasped so tightly by the throat, that he was almost
strangled. Upon being dragged away she said she did
not care a d—n for her husband, but she addressed seve-
ral endearing expressions to the prisoner, and she was
about to give him a parting salute in the street, but wit-
nets prevented it.
Mr. BROUGHTON • said that the prisoner had been
guilty of a very violent and unjustifiable outrage, which
was greatly aggravated by his previous conduct, as do-
tailed by the complainant. He should order him to pay
a fine of 305., or be committed for one month to the
House of Correction.'
The fine was paid.

CURIOUS TRIAL IN lIOLLAND.
A letter of the 19th instant from the Hague notices
a prosecution then pending before the Provisional Court
of that city, which vi e mentioned some time ago, and
which at the present moment excites public curiosity in
Holland in the highest degree. It arses out of an im-
putation of fraudulent bankruptcy against a late manu-
facturer of Leyden, named Adrian, who in times nest
bad received pecuniary assistance from the present King
of the Netherlands when Prince of Orange. Adrian has
previously been accused of forging the name of the Prince
to bills of exchange, and sending them into circulation,
having antecedently discounted other bills actually signed
by the same personage. In the first prosecution
Adrian was said to have escaped because he threatened
to inculpate the Prince. This rumour coming to the
knowledge of the King, his Majesty was extremely
anxious that the new process should be carried on, so
that his real share in the transactions of Adrian might
be made apparent. Adrian, among other witnesses,
demanded that the King should be cited, and even
sent him a formal summons. It was, however, the
general opinion that his Majesty could not possibly be
allowed to appear in Court. From the Handelsblad
of Amsterdam we learn that the trial commenced on
Friday, when, after the indictment was read, a list of
twenty-three witnesses was given in, with several

important documents, among which was a letter from
M. Van den Bosch, ex-Minister of the Colonies.
The Counsel for the defendant intimated that he had
also cited tl,ree other witnesseF, one of whom was a
valet-de-charnbre, and another a footman of the King.
He further stated that he had written to the Pro-
curcur-General to say that he wished to have the evi.
deuce of the King himself, but this having been con-
sidered as inconsistent, he was obliged to renounce
the idea, whereby Adrian was placed in a difficult
position. He was accused of not accounting for a
sum of 45,000 florins, which he received in the be-
ginning of 1840 from M. Van den Bosch, which sum,
however, Adrian affirmed he had returned to the
King. On Slturday the hearing was resumed, and
lasted from ten in the morning till four in the after-
noon, but was entirely occupied with the examina-
tion of one witness, Mr. J. Montague of Leyden,
one of the curators of the bankruptcy, whose evidence
confirmed in most part the statements in the in-
dictment. The proceedings of Monday established the
fact of the Kin..* having drawn upon a respectable firm
of Amsterdam far a most enormous sum, and in the
name of Adrian, who had received in cash the whole of
these sums, and remitted them to the King, who wilt
not admit this position, which would save tho accused.
It is now a question, in the event even of it being
proved that the said Adrian did not remit these sums
to the King, what could have induced the latter to lend
such an enormous sum of money to a in in of bad re-
pute, and whose exi:ttence in the city wherein he re-
sided was, according to the energetical declaration of
one of the witnesses, exceedingly enigmatical.

A Bayonne Correspondence of the France Me-
ridionale writes on the 22d:—" The French chasse maree,
La Nouvelle Lune, having been driven on shore vvithir_
two gun-shots of Behobia, the Spanish authorities de-
manded the usual dues in such cases, maintaing that the
easel had stranded on Spanish ground. The captain
appealed to the Commissary of Marine, who, seeing that
orders 'had beerigiven to the Spanish troops to enter on
the disputed territory, and. make a seizure of the Nou-
velle Lune, demanded the aid of the armed force. Two
companies were immediately marched from Crogne to
Irendaye, to support the detached company in that vil-
lage, and a brisk firing ensued, which was heard at St.
Jean de Luz. The fact is positive, but any further de•
tails are wanting. There are fifty men employed at our
arsenal in making up 9,0.00,00 ball.cartridges, and it ap-
pears beyond all doubt that five or six regiments will
shortly be in this country. The arrival of three regi-
ments of dragoons and some strong detachments of ar-
tillery is talked of.
The Augsburg Gazette states that the staff of
the Austrian army is about to be considerably reduced,
beginning with the'Artillery, and that a sytem of great
economy is to be adopted in Prussia with regard to the
Landwehr.