The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEIrS BENCH, June 26.
DOE DEM. HENRY C. STURT 7.7..WLLL1A3.1 MORES.

This case was partly heard on Friday, and the defence
was opened at the sittin., of the Court to-day. It was an
ejectment to recover certain lands, &c. in the manor of
Hoxton, of considerable value, which had been in the
possession of the Sturt family for upwards of fifty years.
In the year 1839, however, the present defendant, having
served an ejectment on the tenant in possession of the
name of Matthews, by collusion with that person ob-
tained possession, which he has since held up to the pe-
riod of bringing the present action. The case excited
much interest from the high station and wealth of one of
the one party, and the mean condition and poverty of
the other; a topic which the Learned Counsel for the de-
fence did not neglect to make a fair use of. Mr. Strrt,
the member for Dorsetshire, a man of old family, high
connections, and great wealth; William Mobbs, the de-
fendant, a man born in a workhouse, and without any
visible means of subsistence, whose father was said by
the witnesses to be a man of " irregular habits," which
were explained to mean " playing at skittles at a public-
house adjoining his residence, and being brought home
drunk from thence every other night in the week." By
this course of dissipation, it was said on the part of the
defence, he had dissipated a large fortune, consisting of
property in Hoxton which he had acquired through his
first wife, and reduced himself to that state that he was
obliged to spend the last years'ef his life, with his second
wife and her two children, James Mobbs. an elder brother
of the defendant (since dead), and the defendant, in the
parish workhouse.
The chief evidence in support of the defendant's claim
was a will signed by John Mobbs, his father, a year
before his death (in 1791), and whilst in the workhouse ;
by which he devised in the most untechnical and un-
grammatical terms, " estates," " plate," and " funded pro-
perty," in a manner that seemed incomprehensible on
the part of one who, though having or thinking he had a
claim to the first, had certainly none whatever to the two
last species of property. This will came out of the cus-
tody of the Barbers' Company, in whose muniment room
it was said to be discovered by the brother of the defen-
dant, since dead, who had made a previous search some
time before without success. Great doubt was thrown
on this part of the evidence. There were also produced
two receipts for rent in 1774, signed John Mobbs, and
other evidences which were open to exception.
On the part of the plaintiff it was shown that he de-
duced title from his grandfather, who was seised in fee
of the manor of Hoxton ; that the rents had been ever
since 1793 paid to him and his family ; and that old in-
habitants, one of whom had lived for fifty-seven years
opposite to the house in which defendant's father, John
Mobbs, was said to have resided, had never heard of such
a person, or of such a claim being made as the one now
set up.

Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury, after a short
deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 26.
BELL V. GARDINER.

This was an action on a promissory note for 3001. Mr.
Sergeant Channell and Mr. Whitehurst appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and another Learned
Gentleman for the defendant.

This was an action commenced by the plaintiff as the
public officer of the Provincial Bank of England, who
were the holders of the promissory note in question,
against the defendant, a schoolmaster, who had given the
note by way of taking up a bill, for the payment of which
he had been applied to as indorsee. It appeared that
the bill, which the defendant had indorsed, had subse-
quently to that indorsement been altered both as to the
date of the bill and the day at which it was stated to be-
come due ; and the defence was that that alteration hav-
ing been made without the defendant's knowledge or
consent, his liability ceased, and that consequently the
present plaintiff, to whom the second security had been
given, could not recover upon it. The questions in fact
raised upon that plea were, whether the defendant had
knowledge of that alteration in the bill when the pro-
missory note was given. On one side letters and con-
versations were given in evidence for the purpose of lead-
ing to the inference that the defendant was not aware of
the alteration ; whilst on the other side it was sworn
that the former bill was produced and handed to the de-
fendant when the promissory note was given.
After the summing up of the Learned JUDGE, the Jury
found a verdict for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
HATTON-GARDEN.

On Saturday Mr. Sibert, master-tailor, of Fleet-street,
attended by numerous other respectable tradesmen, ap-
plied to Mr. Combe for his advice and assistance, under
the following circumstances
Mr. Sibert stated that a man of respectable appear-
ance and good address, and blind, whose name was dis-,
covered to be Rigby, and who was connected with a gang
of swindlers, had with his associates been practising the
most extensive acts of swindling in the neighbourhood
of the Strand, Fleet-street, Holborn, and the west end
of the town, and scarcely a respectable tradesman resid-
ing in the trand and Fleet-street had escaped being
cheated. In some instances they had obtained goods to
the amount of 1001., 2001., and 300/. Rigby, who was
the principal against whom they applied, represented him-
self as an independent man; he Was generally accompa-
nied by a groom, who was connected with him in his
swindling transactions, and the plausibility of his man-
ners lulled suspicion•, and after giving large orders for
goods, he directed them to be sent to a house in the
neighbourhood of Bedford-row, Holborn, which being
done, and the money subsequently applied for, they
found that the house was besieged by defrauded trades-
men, who were laughed at, and refused payment for
their goods.
Mr. COMBE inquired whether any of the applicants
could bring forward any case to substantiate a false pre-
tence, for the purpose of obtaining the goods, and to
warrant an apprehension ?

Mr. Siberi' replied, that they certainly parted with
their goods in such a way that it might be construed
legally into a matter of debtor and creditor, but it was
evident they were the unsuspecting dupes of swindlers.
He, however, mentioned one case, in which something,
he thought, bordering upon a false pretence, was
adopted. They (the applicants) did not like, singly or
individually, to take the responsibility upon themselves
of giving the party into custody until they applied for ad-
vice upon the subject.
_

Mr. ComnE could not assist them : they might, if
they thought proper, give the party into custody upon
their own responsibility, and endeavour to make out
a case.

Mr. Sibert said, that it was a lamentable thing that
respectable tradesmen should be liable to such gross im-
positions by designing persons, and said, if the law
could not catch hold of them, it would be a caution to
the public, and check such vagabonds, if the press would
give publicity to the case. _

llr. Comi3E suggested that, as he could not assist
them, the best thing they could do would be to consult
with some respectable attorney on the subject, to in-
struct them how to proceed to catch hold of the party
so as to fix them with one false pretence. The appli-
cants gave a description of the blind man, who had been
the principal in the transaction, and it corresponded in
every respect with that of a person who held a promi-
nent situation at the bar of this court between one and
two years ago, when he was charged with being con-
cerned with another party, who advertised in the news-
papers that he could procure a clerkship on the London
and Birmingham Railway for a douceur of 501., and
committed for trial. They were placed at the bar of
the Old Bailey, when the former pleaded guilty, and
the latter took his trial. They were convicted, and sen-
tenced to a year's imprisonment in the House of Cor-
rection. The former, who at the time of his appre-
hension lived at Newington, Surrey, as a broker, was
afilcted in his sight, and after being confined in tho
House of Correction for a very short period lost his
sight altogether, and he was eventually pardoned and
set at liberty. (as we understand), in consequence of his
heavy affliction, by Lord Normanby.
The applicants thanked his Worship for his attention,
and left the court, saying they would consult with an
attorney, according to his advice.