The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-24 00:00:00

Ely licA IN 6, DECEIMS 1.11 ft g 4, 1614.

other witnesses, to support his sta.temeetts, after which
.and Mr. Sergeant Shee's reply,
Lord DENMAN summed up the evidence. His
Lordship said there had been a great deal of conflict-
ing testimony in the case, as to false starts and
charges of " fouling," on the one side and the other;
but the main questions for the consideration of the
jury would be, as to whether the property was the
plaintiffs', and as to whether the defendant had been
guilty of conversion in handing it over to Browne.
Undoubtedly, it was quite clear that the
plaintiffs had, on the 10th of June, about three
days before the race, paid Messrs. Chillingworth
and Burton 231. for the boat; but if that were not
so, if they even had not paid for it, the defen-
dant had no right to hand it over to Browne. It was,
at the time he did so, in dispute—the plaintiffs
had not given their decision—they were judges in
the race, duly appointed. They pronounced it to be
a foully contested race, and had made applications to
the defendant fur the boat, which was still their pro-
perty, to dispose of, and which could only be dis-
posed of by their fair decision, according to the rules
governing the race. The defendant, then, clearly had
no right to give it up to Browne, and in having done
so he was clearly, according to the evidence, guilty
of conversion. It would be for the jury, however, to
say so, and also whether they believed the boat had
been paid for by the plaintiffs.
.....

The jury conferred together for a few moments,
and returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—damages
231.—the amount paid for the boat, and expressed
their opinion, in answer to a question from Lord
Denman, that the plaintiffs had paid for the boat.
Thus ended the business of the sittings.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 23.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before the Loan CHIEF BARON
and Special Juries.)
MACHER V. SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.
This was an action brought for the purpose of re-
covering the sum of 12.5/. 16s. 10d., being the value
of a certain bale of silk, sent by the plaintiff, from
Andover to London, by the South-Western Railway,
and which was alleged to have been stolen by one of
the servants of the company.
Sir F. Thesiger appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Martin for the defendant.

It appeared that the silk in question was forwarded
from Andover in the month of March. Upon the
arrival of the bale at the Nine Elms station, it was
handed over to Messrs. Chaplin and Horne, the
carriers to the company, to be by them conveyed to
its final destination, and it was while under the charge
of Messrs. Chaplin and Horne that the robbery was
alleged to have taken place. Upon the 10th of.
March the solicitors of the plaintiff wrote to the direc-
tors of the company, requesting payment for the miss-
ing goods, and in answer to that communication he was
informed that his application would receive attention in
due course. The principal evidence in support of the
robbery, was that of a person who stated that he was
employed occasionally by the police to hunt after
suspected characters, and that he had seen the person
charged with the robbery take the bale from one of
the carts of Chaplin and Horne, but declined to give
any information to a police-officer whom he met im-
mediately afterwards, on the ground that the police-
man appeared to him to be " a raw Irishman." The 4
witness further stated that he had followed the pri-
soner for several days to watch his motions, and
finally pointed him out to a policeman, who took him
into custody on the charge of stealing the bale.
James Johnson, the party so charged, was committed
by the police magistrate, and upon his trial at the
Old Bailey was acquitted.
On the part of the defendant Mr. MARTIN con-
tended that the directors of the South-Western
Railway were not liable, their railway being em-
ployed only for the purpose of conveying the goods
in question to London, and that having arrived at its
destination at the Nine Elms station, the liability of
the company was at an end.
The LORD CHIEF BARON dissented from that
opinion, and ruled that that would depend entirely
upon the arrangement which might be made between
the parties. In this case it appeared that the railway
company professed to carry the goods the whole dis-
tance, and employed others to act for them after.
Such persons, so employed, would undoubtedly be-
come the servants or agents of the company, and their
servants would also be the agents or servants of the
company.

Mr. MARTIN, in replying upon the evidence, said
it would be very hard upon the railway company if
they were to be called upon to pay so large a sum as that
which they were now called upon to pay, they having
received only the trifling sum of 2s. Bd. as carriage
for the goods. The plaintiff, to be entitled to make
good his claim for compensation ought, in compliance
with the Act regulating the carriage of goods by
carriers, to have paid an additional sum beyond the
charge for carriage as insurance. The plaintiff de-
clined to do so, and having refused to pay a small
additional sum, he must bear the consequences. The
Learned Counsel then proceeded to describe in very
strong terms the conduct of the witness who stated
that he had seen the'goods stolen, but refused to give
any' information which would lead at once to the
detection and apprehension of the person who had
committed the theft, and thought that the jury ought
not to attach much weight to his evidence. The
person whom he had charged with the robbery. had
been tried, and by the verdict of a jury had been ac
quitted. Looking carefully to the whole of the case,
he confidently anticipated that the jury would return
their verdict for the defendant.

The LORD CutEr BARON, in summing up, told the
jury that the real questions for them to consider were,
whether the goods in question were or were not
feloniously stolen by one of the servants of the com-
pany, and whether the plaintiff gave notice to the
defendants that the silk was worth more than the
sum of ten pounds.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

COURT OF COMMON, PLEAS, Dec. 23.
,Sittings at Nisi' Prins, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)
BENNETT 17. PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM-PACKET
COMPANY.
This was an action brought by Captain Bennett
against the Peninsular and Oriental Steam-packet
Company for the refusal to allow him to proceed to
Gibraltar by the vessel called the Montrose.
Mr. M. D. Hill and Mr. Fetersdorff appeared for
the plaintiff, and the Attorney-General, Mr. Sergeant
Byles, and Mr. Ogle, for the defendants.
From the statement of Mr. HILL, it appeared that
thewas formerly in the service of the
company,
as captain of the ship Lotus, and that he
plaintiff
was superseded by Captain Moody in 1841, the com-
pany intimating by letter at the time of his dismissal
that they had no intention whatever to impugn his
February, 1847, the plaintiff was de-
sirous to Gibraltar, and for that pur-
charactnefr.
proceeding In
pur-
pose he went to Southampton in order that he might
shin Montrose, which was appointed to sail
On arriving at the quay from
on that blhatthe day.
which the vessel was to sail, he was met by Mr.
Andrews, an assistant manager of the company, who
refused to allow him to take his passage in the vessel,
and on inquiring the grounds of the refusal, he was re-
ferred to the directors in London. The plaintiff then
applied to the directors on the subject, but no answer
was returned, and the present action was instituted.
There being sufficient accommodation in the ship the
defendants were in the position of common carriers, and
I were bound to carry plaintiff as well as the passen-
gers, to the places to and from which the ship sailed.
Mr. Andrews was then called arid stated that he
was instructed by the directors to refuse a passage to
Captain Bennett.
Cross-examined—The Montrose was to call off
Oporto, which at that time was in a state of blockade.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then addressed the jury
for the defendants, who were entitled to refuse a
passage to any person in their vessels, if they thought
that the person was the agent of another who was
opposed to foreign Powers with whom the Queen of
this country was on terms of amity. The plaintiff,
who he should prove was intimate with. Don Miguel,
applied for a passage to Oporto, which the director
refused to give him, believing that it might lead to
an interruption -of the intercourse between this
country and Portugal. He afterwards applied for
one to Gibraltar, but as they thought this. was merely
an evasion, and that it was his intention to land at
Oporto, they also refused to take him as a passenger.
Mr. Francis Ignatius Van Zeller, gortuguese
Consul-General, had refused to supply
thai plaintiff
with a passport, in consequence of an
received from the Spanish Ambassador.,tba,:,thatDon
intimation he
Miguel was living with Captairli Bennett at, the time
he applied for a passpOrt.
John Webb was in the habit of going to the plain-
tiff's house, No. 4, Canonbury-cottages,: Islington
There were several gentlemen living with him, one
of whom was known as " Don the King." He had
frequently seen the king in company of the plaintiff.
A gentleman, who stated that he was an agent of
Spain, and also agent for Don Miguel, was next exa-
mined. Don Miguel was living with the plaintiff in Fe-
bruary last, and remained with him about three or four
weeks. The plaintiff in March went to Portugal,
and was absent about a month. He told witness that
he went direct to Oporto in a small vessel. Was not
aware that the plaintiff had n o passport. After his
Miguel ihgnuuesle.freqznenr.tmlyi viuseiltefidrshtimar,ribvuedt did
this country in January.,
nreotturrens'idDe aotn
1847.
Mr. Van Zeller recalied4stated that if the plaintiff
had obtained a passport from the British Government,
it would either have come through his hands or that
of the Spanish Ambassador's.
Mr. HILL was heard in reply.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up,
said, in hisopinion, a public company offering to carry British:
subjects and others to foreign parts had no right to
inquire into the political reasons of their journey.
He could not understand how a passepgf sr in one of

_ ;

the company's vessels could land at Oporto if the
persons in command objected to it, as it ap-
peared that the mails were sent on shore by a
small boat, over which of course they had the entire
control. It was for the jury to consider whether a
British subject who had been so treated was or was
not entitled to compensation.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, re-
turned averdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 2001.

he would be back in three weeks. On Monday leaned
again, and caused the box to be forced open, and I
found in it a quantity of linen and other articles, and
two carpet bags, from which the locks had been
apparently wrenched off. Mr. White identified
the property as part of that which he had lost in
the manner described by him. Being authorized to
go after the thief. I went yesterday afternoon to
Cheltenham, and apprehended the prisoner at his
father's house, in bed. I told him who I was, and
that he must consider himself my prisoner upon sus-
picion of having committed a robbery on the Black-
wall Railroad. He dressed himself, and I told him
to show me all the property he had. lie then
pointed to a portmanteau and a couple of coats,
and at two portmanteaus which were under the
bed. I took him to the station at Cheltenham, but
he contrived to make his escape. There were some
hundred people at his heels, and he was secured after
some difficulty. He had a silver watch and two sove-
reigns about him.

The prisoner is, it appears, one of those clever
artists who watch the property placed in railway
vans from the moment it is deposited, get into the
nearest carriage to the van, and slip out and appro-
priate what they fancy at the first convenient oppor-
tunity. Mr. White, it is conjectured, had been seen
to be the owner of the carpet bags, and been accord-
ingly marked by the victimizer, whose success in this
mode of plunder made him somewhat negligent upon
this occasion.

Thu LORD MAYOR—Prisoner, do you wish to ask
any question, or to make any observatio❑ ? The
prisoner—Not at all.

The prisoner, who will be committed for trial when
the depositions shall have been made out, was then
sent back to prison.

The LORD MAYOR said he gratefully acknowledged
having received for the poor-box from the Grocers'
Company, through the hands of Mr. Walton, one of
their officers, the sum of 10/. ; from " J. Y.," 2/. ; and
from Mr. Harker, the foreman of the Grand Jury of
the Central Criminal Court, 155., being the amount in
hand after payment of the refreshment expenses of
the October Grand Jury.
John Phillips was on the preceding day brought
up charged with having been a " picket man," em-
ployed to intimidate the workmen of Mr. Trego, of
Coleman-street, builder, but that gentleman expressed
his willingness to forego the prosecution if the gang
of which the accused formed one would pledge them-
selves to drop the illegal practices of which they had
been guilty; the prisoner appeared yesterday in ac-
cordance with his undertaking.
The foreman of Mr. Trego stated that Mr. Trego
authorised him not only to stop the prosecution in
the present case, but to intercede to procure the
immediate liberation of Mahony, the person who had
been convicted and sentenced to hard labour for three
months for a breach of the law, if the committee, as
they called themselves, would pledge themselves to
abstain altogether from the system of annoyance upon
which they had been acting. It appeared, however,
that penitent as Phillips seemed to be, the committee
would not make any condition of the kind, hut, on
the contrary, were determined to act offensively, and
Mr. Trego was therefore resolved to prosecute in every
instance.

The LORD MAYOR and Alderman Gross approved
highly of the decisive conduct of Mr. Trego, and
desired that the evidence should be gone into.
Mr. Ilumphreys, who attended on Wednesday as
solicitor for the prisoner, and advised the committee
to abandon the intimidation system, refused (we were
given to understand) to come forward to defend upon
this occasion, as he had assured them that their con-
duct was totally indefensible.
Witnesses were then examined, but they distinctly
stated that, although the language of intimidation had
been used by several others of the " picket-men," they
had not heard any observations from the prisoner cal.
culated to intimidate.

The LORD MAYOR and Alderman GIBBS said, that
as there was no proof of intimidation, they had no
alternative but to dismiss the case, but they repeated
their assurance that in every instance in which evi-
dence of the offence should be given the full penalty
would without the remotest chance of mitigation be
inflicted, and as it appeared from some of the state-
ments made by the witnesses that the language of
intimidation had been used to them by several well-
known members of " the picketers," and that, although
Phillips had not used that sort of language to them, he
had not been sparing of it to others, it would be ad-
visable in Mr. Trego to cause every one of those
against whom satisfactory evidence could be produced
to be charged as soon as possible.
Mr. Trego, who attended towards the conclusion of
the proceedings, said he should most positively act in
every case according to the suggestion of the magis-
trates. He had lost several valuable men im conse-
quence of the picketing system.
The LORD MAYOR said, that he and his brother
magistrates would do all in their power to put down
so unjust a combination. In the case of Mahony, who
had been convicted, Mr. Trego had allowed his com-
passion to interfere most strongly for that person. It
would be his business, in all future cases, to look to
justice alone.

LAMBETH.

TITE LATE CASB OF CONVICTION OF AN INNOCENT
PERSON.—As Mr. Norton was ab,)ut to leave the
bench, Mrs. Ward, the mother of James William
Ward, the lad who had been convicted at the Old
Bailey, and sentenced to seven years' transportation,
for stealing his grandfather's watch, and who was also
the prosecutrix in the case of Mary Ann Turpin, who
had been unjustly sentenced to six months' hard
labour for the same offence, entered the Court, and
entreated his Worship's advice under the following
circumstances :—She stated that that day a letter
which her son had written to his late master had
reached her hands, in which the boy stated, in the
most solemn manner, that his uncle, Henry Wenman,
it was, who had induced him to steal his grandfather's
watch ; that out of the fifty shillings received for it
he had only got five ; and that his uncle, who had
kept the remainder of the money, had told him to ad-
mit receiving the whole of the fifty shillings, else they
should be both transported. This avowal on the part
of her son completely confirmed her (the applicant's)
opinion that her brother was really the guilty party,
though her son had been sacrificed.
Mr. NORTON desired her to state the other circum-
stances which she alluded to, as strengthening her
suspicion, and she went on to say—That on the day
before the watch had been stolen, her brother, Henry
Wenman, had been to her house, and some difference
of opinion having taken place between him and her
husband about the workmanship of English and
French watches, she produced the one in question, for
the purpose of settling the point. Her brother, at
that time, had an opportunity of examining the watch
(which was one of a peculiar description) minutely;
and at that time she told him it belonged to her father,
who had left it with her to have a glass put in, and
that she was particular about it. Notwithstanding
this, her brother, in a day or two after, received the
same watch from her son, and sold it upon the
mere representation that she, the mother, wanted the
money for it. Besides this, her brother called at her
house twice while the young woman Turpin was
under examination, and though he must have been
perfectly satisfied that the charge against her was that
of having stolen the identical watch that he himself
had sold, he never disclosed the fact, but merely
endeavoured to prevail on her, applicant, not to press
the charge against the young woman Turpin. Further
than this, her brother, though bound over to give evi-
dence against her son, at the Old Bailey, had not ap-
peared until after the trial was over, and the judge gave
directions that he should be taken into custody.
Police-constable George Quennier, 201 P, who had
the case, having been called on by the magistrate to
explain how this was, said that Wenman had been
bound over as a witness, and was told by him to be
in attendance at the Old Bailey on the day of the
trial, at nine o'clock, but-he did not make his appear-
ance in time to be examined, in consequence of which
the Recorder directed that his recognizances be
entreated, and that he should also be apprehended.
Shortly after the trial was over Wenman made his
appearance in court, and applied to the judge to
rescind his order, and the Recorder at that time did
not order him into into custody. The officer further
stated that neither at the time of his taking her son
.
into custody, nor during his examination, had Mrs.
Ward said himawordto about bootu t herhis
seeingsuspicions
the watch
of her
brother, or the circumstance
before it had been stolen, or his visits to her house
while the young woman Turpin was
under remand at
this court,
(Quennier) also felt it to be his duty
to inform his Worship that the lad Ward, both at the
time of his taking him into custody and on all occa-
sions up to the trial, had acknowledged having re-
ceived the whole of the .50 shillings from his uncle and
,6 good spree" with it. ,
had a
Mrs. Ward admitted that what the officer said was
perfectly true, but the declaration of her son that he
money
thhhead orr
ioonun
1)1;1
8304.
pt f
ns ifiotenhd e
tt
hheat
,4h,aet
re wh
bas
rhoatt
dhh aebtre we
mustnhi
stolen
h hc ao
vn
by
yrbmeh
been
ndr
boy, if he did not, as her son now confessed, prevail
upon to take it ; and therefore she wished that the
more guilty parry should be brought to justice.
Mr. NORTON remarked that there was nothing in
the law to prevent a convict giving evidence, but still
the evidence of such a person should be received with
much caution. He (Mr. Norton) could not help ex-
pressing his surprise that the applicant had not, when
giving tier evidence against her son, stated the whole
of tb circumstances against her brother. lie should
carefully read over the letter put in by the applicant,
and give the matter his best consideration by the fol-
lowing (this) day, when he requested the applicant
to attend again.

DAIRY.—The iron works are again in full opera-
tion—the furnaces were in blast on Monday, having
been only one week suspended. The workmen are in
full employment. Business here is very brisk.—Ayr
Observer.

---_

SUNDERLAND ELECTION.

SUNDERLAND, WEDNESDAY EYENING.—The Re'
turning Officer held a Court this morning, to make
the official declaration of the poll. On counting 1113
the books the following were found to be the numberi
recorded for each candidate :
Sir H. Williamson .. 707
Mr. Wilkinson
.••• • •—•.••••

Majority for Sir H. Williamson ... ]29
Total electors polled
Do. at the last election ..
Mr. Wilkinson polled nine votes more than he did
at the last contest, and Sir Hedworth Williamson
polled 61 more than Mr. Barclay. There were 31
fewer electors polled at this contest than at the gem;
ral election. In four polling booths Sir Hedworth had
the majority, in one the numbers were equal, and ia
three the majority was in favour of Mr. Wilkinson.
Sir Hedworth's gross majority could have been in'
creased full 150 more, as that number of voters
wore
ready to go to poll had they been required, and most
of them were waiting at the Committee-room, or ia
the vicinity of the polling booths, to be ready if Ile"
cessary.
On the Returning Officer declaring Sir Hedworth
Williamson, Bart., of Whitburn Hall, duly elected,
great applause followed the announcement.
Sir REDWORTH briefly thanked the electors for Ow
honour conferred upon him, and assured them 11°
would endeavour to prove himself worthy of the
high trust and confidence they had reposed in him;
He had predicted a victory, and had in no respee'
been disappointed.
On Mr. WILKINSON presenting himself he Was
received with great cheering and waving of hats. He
said they had been defeated by the same combination
as before, and "he wished the parties good luck of
their bargain." He congratulated her MajotYll
Government, or rather a Noble Lord high in office,
in having used every means in his power to return
an opponent of that Government on the import:int
questions of the navigation and the currency laws'
Had he been elected he would zealously have sill?:
ported the Government on these questions, but h,
opponent would be hostile to them. He could 110'
possibly have anticipated the result, as he had' 68
promises on his canvass books, and 19 had voted for
him who did not promise him. One hundred and
twenty-four of his promises had not voted, and 3?:
had voted against him. He would not pledge hirOse„P
to contest the borough again, but he urged .tu,a
Liberal electors to persevere, and they would uit'
mately be successful.
A vote of thanks was then given to the returning
officer, and the crowd speedily dispersed.

ANOTHER. SHIPWRECK OF
SKULL HARBOUR.

(From the Cork Examiner.)
SKULL, ONE O'CLOCK, P.M., DEC. 17.--Abe4t
four o'clock on the morning of the 17th instant,
ship, laden with deals and oak staves, was driven
ashore at Gunpoint, about two miles west of Skull
Harbour, and three from where the Stephen Whitney
was lost, and in a few moments became a total wreck.
Her name has not as yet been ascertained,
although we went to the place where the wreck
was driving ashore, in hopes of being able t°
learn something of her. None of the crew
have been seen ; some suppose they abandoned her,
others, that they were drowned ; and I can with safety
to myself say that were they on board when 31'8
struck they could never land, the beach being so Pre*
cipitous and the breakers running so high. A poor
man, named John Griffin, while in the act of taking
one of the deals which the surge left on the rock,
was carried away and drowned by the receding sum'
he has left a wife and three children to deplore his !crib
Another vessel has also cast anchor this morning
outside Skull Harbour, and in consequence of the
violent storm which was then raging was obliged to
cut away her masts. The commissioned boatmen
and one of the coast guards at Skull, with three
other volunteers, went to sea to try and render
the crew and vessel what assistance they could, but
the sea ran so high and the gale being still un-
abated, they were obliged to return when more
than four-fifths of the way without being able to
accomplish their object, the boat which they 111 d
not being of the best description. no
I would most earnestly recommend to the narnathe
or some other Society to furnish a life boat to the
means guards of the Skull station (as it might be the
means of saving many valuable lives),
boat could render any assistance to a vessel in do'
tress off Skull Harbour on such a day as this, or
even on a much more moderate day. Any further
particulars which I may learn will be furnished-a§
soon as possible. a 3 no ordinary