The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-20 00:00:00

SHERIFFS' COURT.

BRIXHOLM V. WAGSTAFF.
Mr. CHADWICK JONES stated the plaintiff's case. It was an
action for the recovery of the sum of Si. for work and labour
done. The defendant was an apothecary and druggist in
Piccadilly, and engaged the plaintiff on the Ist of June last
to serve as a dispenser in his shop, where he remained until
the Bth of August, when Mr. Wagstaff dismissed him with-
out a preliminary notice of one month, as was customary in
such engagements. The plaintiff now sought to recover
the sum of 61. for wages during the time he was actually in
the defendant's service, and a further sum of 2/. on account
of the month's notice to which he considered himself enti-
tled previous to a dismissal. The plaintiff was engaged at
the rate of 321. per annum, and 61. had been paid into
Court by the defendant.
Witnesses having been examined to prove the compe-
tency of the plaintiff, and the rate of wages allowed to per-
sons in his capacity,
Mr. PETERSDORFF, for the defendant, took an objection
to the form in which the action was brought—the count
being for work and labour done ; whereas, according to
the plaintiff's own acknowledgment, and the evidence ad-
duced in support of his case, the whole amount set down in
the writ as for work and labour done did not amount to 81.,
a portion of that sum being claimed on the grounds of a
breach of contract. The Learned Counsel then quoted
and commented on several precedents in support of his
views.

Mr. C. JoNns having replied,
The Jury, under the direction of the Learned Under-
Sheriff, returned a verdict for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

A young woman, named Ann Brown, was brought, in
the custody of John Forrester, the officer, before Mr.
Alderman Wilson, charged with having bad in her
possession a 40/. note, which had been stolen in the
house of a gentleman named Watkins, in Middleton-

square.
Mr. Watkins' house had been, it appeared, entered
by thieves at the roof, there being an empty house next
door, by means of which, no doubt, facilities were ren-
dered to those who ventured, and plundered of a 50/.,
a 40/. note, and some railway shares. The p-operty
had been deposited in a box, which was Mund on the
parapet wall empty, and the thieves, who were disturbed
by the appearance of a gentleman who resided in the
house, and who arrived as they were carrying oil' the
plunder, escaped.

The woman at the bar took some goods out of pledge
at the house of a pawnbroker named Perkins, with a
bank-note for 401., and received 321. in change. The
notes were stopped at the Bank and traced to the pri-
soner, who said that she got 101. from a gentleman she
was in the habit of meeting, but whose house she did
not know, for getting the note changed.
Upon being asked whether she wished to say any-
thing, she replied that rho had nothing to say.
The prisoner was remanded for a week.

COURT OF SEWERS.

WESTMINSTER.

A Special General Court of Sewers was yesterday held
at ten o'clock, at the Office of the Commissioners, in
Greek-street, Soho, T. L. DONALDSON, 'Esq., in the
Chair, for the purpose of signing the precept to the She-
riff, to summon a jury for the purpose of trying the tra-
vesses made to the presentment of the last jury.
The precept having been presented for signature,
Mr. LESLIE said, that according to the wording of the
precept to which he objected, the Sheriff was merely re-
quired to summon a jury ; now, he would summon a jury
under Peel's Act, whereas the precept ought to state that
the jury was to be summoned under the Act of Henry
Eighth. At a subsequent period of the day, after the pre-
cept had been signed, Mr. LESLIE again alluded to the
subject, and stated that the case to which he had previously
alluded occurred in the Tower Hamlets. The Sheriff had
been called on to summon a jury of persons resident in the
district; he did so; they made their presentment; the case
was moved by certiorari into the Court of Queen's Bench,
and the rule quashed, on the ground of the Commissioners
having excoeded their authority in issuing such a precept.
Mr. ADE: said that the informality of that presentment
consisted in its pointing out to the Sheriff that he must
summon a jury from the district, instead of the county at
large.

The CHAIRMAN said that counsel had been consulted on
the subject, and they had given the form of the precept.
Mr. LESLIE said that the Act of Henry VIII. rt quired
such juryman to be a 40s. freeholder ; nom, under Peel's
Act, persons might be summoned who were not qualified
under the Act of Henry VIII., and on that ground the
rate might be quashed, perhaps.
Mr. ADEY said the question was whether the Act of
Henry VIII. was repealed by Peel's Act or not. It was
the opinion of the majority of the Court and the counsel,
that the Sheriff might summon all persons qualified to act
as jurors.
Mr. LESLIE thought they ought not to limit the Sheriff
under the operations of Peel's Act, as he might send a
jury of leaseholders.
In answer to a question, the SOLICITOR said that Peel's
Act did not mention the 23d Henry VIII.
The CHAIRMAN said it was drawn up in terms so large
as to include all the points.
Mr. ADEY contended that the Sewers' Jury was in-
cluded in the provisions of Peel's Act.
After a few words from the Chairman and the Solicitor
the subject was dropped, but Mr. Leslie, as we under-
stood, did not sign the precept.
An application was read from the traversers for the as-
sistance of the Court in compelling the attendance of
witnesses, &c., by subpoena, and it was agreed that the
Court would grant the application.
Mr. ADEY moved that the solicitors to the Commissio%
be instructed to prepare evidence in support of the pre-
sentment.
Mr. LESLIE thought they had the power to procure all
the necessary evidence without incurring that expense.
All they would want would be the parish books at.d the
surveyor's valuation, and he supposed they could compel
the attendance of the surveyors, without the assistance of
the solicitors.

The CHAIRMAN said they would be sure to attend.
Mr. LESLIE was of opinion, that in that case the in-
struct!ng the solicitor to summon would be incurring a
useless expense.

The CHAIRMAN said it was impossible to tell what evi-
deuce might be necessary, and that therefore it would be
better to instruct the solicitor.

The motion was then carried by 4 to 1.
Mr. LESLIE said the effect produced by this resolution
would Le a most unfortunate one, inasmuch as the Com-
missioners, who were the Judges, were making themselves
parti,is to the cause by directing the solicitor to support
the presentment.

ADEY said as Judges they must hear both sides,
which they could not do, unless some one were there to
cross examine the witnesses of the traversers and to sup-
port the interests of those rate-payers who were willing
to abide by the former presentment. Nothing was more
common than for the Magistrates in cases of appeal to in-
struct the clerks to support their convictions.
The SOLICITOR suggested the propriety of having a
previous view.

The CHAIRMAN concurred in the propriety of that sug.
gestion.

- Mr. LESLIE said it would be impossible for the jury to
have a view previous to their being sworn ; how could they
ascertain that the person who had viewed, would ultimately
serve on the Jury ?
Mr. ADEY entirely concurred in the objection which
had just been taken. The traversers, as any of the Jury,
came up to the book to be sworn, might object to them,
and if they had a previous view, it might so happen that
of all those who bad been present at the view not one might
serve on the Jury.
The CHAIRMAN said that a previous view should be
deemed necessary, which he for one thought would be the
case. The Jury might be summoned and sworn before the
day of trial, for the purpose of making the view.
The SouctToa suggested that instructions should be
given to write to the Solicitor fur the traversers to give
him notice of the intention to view, and to ask whether he
would be at one moiety of the expense ; he was aware that
they could not compel him to do this, but still be might
be asked.

Mr. LESLIE doubted whether the Commissioners bad
the power to offer to defray ore. half of the expense, which
ought to abide the issue.

It was uitimately arranged to leave the matter in the
hands of the Solicitor, to whom the precepts were handed.
An application was read from Mr. Hutt, the Vestry
Clark to the parish of St. Giles's and St. ,George's,
Bloomsbury, requesting to have access to certain legal

opinions.
The CHAIRMAN saw no objection to granting the applica-
tion, provided the approEation of Mr. Pemberton ware pre-
viously obtained, as, without that, the Commissioners had
no power of granting the request.
There being no other business before the Court, it WAS
adjourned to Friday.

SPOTS ON THE SUN.—For some time past the
spots on the sun's disc have been numerous, and occa-
sionally very large. At present there arc two or three of
considerable size, besides some clusters of small ones.
About a week ago one disappeared at the west limb, which
had been observed during two revolutions of the sun on ita
axis ; but its size had considerably diminished between its
first and second appearance. When first observed it was
of an oval form, and its longest diameter about 27,000
miles; but on its second appearance was reduced to 14,000,
and had become nearly circular. Two of those at present
visible are about the size of the earth. They may be dis-
tinctly seen with an ordinary telescope and dark glass.
NVIIITTLESEY MERE.--An absurd, but very
mischievous rumour gained considerable circulation in
Cambridge and its neighbourhood on Tuesday last, that
upwards of one hundred lives had been lost the preceding
day, or Sunday, en Whittlesey Mere. The rumour stated
that there were several thousand persons on the ice, and
that two of them fighting, a great number crowded round,
and the ice broke from the pressure. On making imme-
diate inquiry into the matter, we found that no person in
Cambridge connected with Whittlesey had received a line
on the subject, although several persons were alarmed for
the fate of friends and relatives; and we further ascer-
tained, from our correspondents in the neighbourhood of
the Mere, that no accident whatever had occurred. There
are two parties very much to blame in the affair,—the in-
dividual who amused himself with the practical but very
cruel joke of originating such a report, and the local news-
paper which gave it circulation.—Cambridge Independent
Press.