The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-28 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-('l'illS DAY.)
T 111; CORPORAT:ON OF LONDON V. FLOCKTON AND OTHERS.
The defendant in this case and three other persons, named
Parecns, Knoweel, and Manning, had pleaded guilty to
having erected a pier at Paul', Wharf, belonging to the
llraternon's Cempsny. They now came up to receive the
ju,tosment ef the I :curt.
iii. justicc! Perresox, in passing sentence, said they had
p ended guilty to an indictment which charged them with
having coeserected a pier which was a nuisance to the navi-
gation of the liver. 'They had first pleaded not guilty, but
sub ,equently they withdrew that plea and pleaded
guilty. It appeared, however, that the pier was not
removed after they had so leaded, and that it re-
mained in use until, he believed, the 19th of November last.
It was then removed for a short time, but it was again re-
The defendant Flockton was the principal (Sender,
inasmuch as he was a director and manager of the com-
pany, and the pier was constructed under his instructions
the other defendants having only acted as servants
under his directions; but the Court was willing to
believe the statement in his adidavit, that he had no-
thing to do with the subsequent re-construction of the
pier, and that at that time the property in it had reverted
to another company. It was, at first, supposed that that
transfer was collusive, or at least with the understanding and
knowledge that those to whom it was transferred should re-
erect it, but the Court was willing to believe that it was not
done with that intention. It hadbeen urged in their behalf that
the corporation had erected piers equallyobjectionable in various-
parts of the Thames, one especially of a permanent character,
having been pressed upon the attention of the Court ; but
the Cola could not look upon such piers as being nuisances,
nor could they express any opinion whether indictments
ought or ought not to be lodged against them. It was clear
that the pier in question was a nuisance to the navigation ;
and as they did not abate it at once, or when they pleaded
guilty in June last, the Court could not pass over the offence so
leniently as they otherwise might have felt disposed to do,
and the Court wished it to be fully understood—he did not
know whether those who had bought the pier were present--
but the Court wished them fully to understand that if they
continued a pier, which was a nuisance to the navigation of
the river, notivitlistanding a jury had taken cognizance of the
matter, and declared that the pier was most objectionable, the
Court weu id certainly visit such an ofence with severe punish-
ment, because they could not suffer persons wilfully and openly
to disobey the law, and to do that which they knew they had
no right to do. They also wished it to be diqinctly under-
stood by those who acted under the new company with re-
spect to the pier, even although they might act under the
orders of other people, that they could not escape but with
'severe punishment.
He then sentenced Flockton to pay a fine of 201., and to be
imprisoned in the Queen's Bench until it was paid; and the
other defendants to pay a fine of Is. each, and to be similarly
imprisoned until the same were paid. He advised them to
take care that they did not commit a like a offence.
The defendants, we understand, paid the fine.
THE QUEEN ON TILE PROSECUTION OF THE GUARDIANS OF
PADDINGTON V. JOHN WATSON.
This case was tried here during the last term. The de-
fendant. who is a retired tradesman, was indicted for inde-
cently assaulting a girl, aged 12, in Paddington church-
yard, and for indecent exposure. The more serious part of
the charge was not maintained, but the jury found the de-
fendant guilty of having indecently exposed himself in a
put lic place.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now prayed the judgment of
the Court upon the defendant.
Sir FREDERICK THESIGER. moved on behalf of the de-
fendant to enter a verdict of not guilty instead of guilty, and
also in arrest of judgment. The first count, the one in
which the verdict was returned, set forth that the offence
was committed in a "certain open and public place called
Paddington churchyard, in the sight and view of divers of
her Majesty's subjects then and there." Now he contended
that the churchyard was not a public place. It was
enclosed with iron rails. There were two parallel paths,
which were public paths. but the offence was alleged to hays
been committed 140 yards from both. The day was the
24th of December, and the time after half-past tbur o'clock,
a tine of the year when the sun went down at four o'clock,
and when it was impossible for any one standing on the
paths to have seen persons at the distance of 140 yards. This i
was the first time an indictment had been framed against a
person for exposing himself to one person. In the books
be found the case of the King v. Sir Charles Sedgley, which
was an indictment at common law for exposing his naked
body in a balcony in Covent-garden, to a "great multitude
of people," and he was fined 2,000 merks. Then there was
another case, namely, an indictment against a person for
exposing himself by bathing, at the East Cliff, Baighton, in
the presence of a great number of persons. Chief Baron
Macdonald held that the act was a misdemeanour.
He said it might have been a very innocent act some years
before, when it was not a place of public resort; it might
also have been a blsmeless act, at one time, to have stripped
oneself naked in Montagu-fields, but the same could not be
said of Ittesselt-square, which was built in those fields.
Therefore, whatever outraged common decency was misde-
meanor at, counnen law. An exposure must be public to be
a misdemeanor, and anything short of that would not bring
it under the definition.
Lotd DENMAN said in this case it could not be said that
this offence amounted to a public exposure, and agreed to the application.
THE QUEEN V. JAMES lICTTON AND OTHERS.--CONSPIRACY.
This was au indictment against James Button, George
Button, Thomas Cordury, and \Valiant Wellesford, for con-
spiring to defraud their employee, Mr. Lewis, a dyer, in
Oxeneen-street, by dying articles with his materials
for their profit. The last-named defendant had pleaded
guilty : the others were found guilty. It appeared
that all the persons employed by the prosecutor
were permitted to dye articles belonging to them-
selves and their families free of expense. Twenty-one
years ago Mr. Lewis entered into an arrangement with
:fames Button, who was his foreman, to deposit in his
barite 13!)!. a year, which, however, was to be forfeited if'
Button committed any act which might render him amena-
ble to the law. Since the finding of the indictment, Mr.
Lewis had sold out the amount, which had accumulated to
2,000/.
• The parties tnw came up to receive judgment, but the
Court, on the application ut Mr. Sergeant Allen, acceded to
a rew trial.

CO-AiNiON PLEAS.--(THIS DAY.)
__ IN RE 311.5. snuTTLEwoirim—ALLEGRD I.trzfACY.
Mr. Serguatit
Dr. Millengen is Tau-sunt) said he appeared on behalf of
on Monday last answer to a writ of habeas corpus, issued
Rhoda Shattlawo'rt—
to brie" up the body of Martha Eliza
h. The lady in pursuance of that writ
w:i., now in attendaure.
The return or bt isni•
put in and read ai, hich 1. ingen to the writ was then
sild Mrs. Shattlewortln forth, that from the time of the
York-house, Battersea, nutirlg placed in his custody a$
delusions, and of unsound minl7. ,rshheer,Aemlnabitiousruir;)gpourncdoerf
this, allegation cited the medical certificates on which she
had been placed inwhliiieshchusatdodiL
tw,ittlethe order under the
Act of Parliament,
The allidavits on which the rule for fNinefe.l;rit had been
njoyed Were then read. The first was that oshur.!.luait, who
Isatei:::et..-cFcratphabfuler
deposed that he had known Martha Eliza
sonny years, aati that during all the thne
of managing her own business. She was
tent up to the time of her being taken into cu5t43",114"..
which tune she had been placed in a lunatic asylum a't V':
tersoa, where all access to the deponent or her solicitor was
denied. The deponent further stated that a right of the me-
dical certificates on which she had been confined had
been denied him, and that he believed they were altogether
insufficient. The afradavit went on to answer the several
allegations made on the other side, as to the habits of the
idledged lunatic, which were strongly denied and altogether
untrue.

Mr. John .Austin deposed to a similar effect respeeting the
a!ledgde lunar}-; as did also Mrs. Caroline Proding. The
)fitter had known the alledged lunatic for a considerabl time,
and she had always acted as a perfectly sane person.
Several other affidavits were read, deposing to the sanity