The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-15 00:00:00

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD, FEE. ll.—This day a Congregation was
holden for granting degrees, &c., when the following were
s
conferred :
Masters of Arts—H. J. Bigge, of University College' •
T. E. Rogers, Corpus Christi College ; J. R. Miller,
Trinity College ; and A. Brown. Queen's College.
Bachelois of Arts—F. W. Robertson, of Brazennose
College ; R. G. Walls. Brazennose College ; H. L.
Walters, Christ Church ; C. R. Scott Murray, Christ
Courcii ; Lord Craniey, Christ Church ; E. J. G. Has-
luck, Pembroke College; Strangways, Trinity Col-
lege, and Samuel Holotei, Magda!en Hall.
here s ill be an examination of candidates to flil a
vacznt scl'olarship founded by Dcan Ireland on Monday,
Nlatch 1, and following days, in the schools These scho-
larships are tenable for four years—they are four in num-
ber, at 30/. per annum each.

WOLVES.—The Strasburg papers mention that
the cold has become so severe in that part of the country as
to render the wolves much more darieg than usual, these
animals having been committing ravages in several villages;
and a few nights ago two of large size came close to the in
trenched camp at Miotte, and were about to fall on a senti-
nel, when Le attached them'with the butt-end of his musket,
and put theta to flight,—Galignani.
THE BRITANNIA AND PHENIX STEAMERS.
—The appeal of the London Steam Navigation Company
to the Cour Royale of Rouen, against the deeiaion of the
Tribunal of Havre, declaring itself competent to entertain
the action brought by the owners of the Phenix for the loss
of that ship, from being run down by the Britannia, came
hearing on Saturday, to a when the superior Court deli-
vered a judgment confirming that .of tho Havre Tribunal,
and so fa declaring its competency.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

QUEENS BENCH, FRB. 13.

THE QUEEN V. LORD WALDEGRAVE AND CAPTAIN DUFF.
The Court was exceedingly crowded long before
the usual hour of commencing proceedings, it being
understood that the trial of the above case would take
place in the course of the day. There were three cases
before it. namely, " The Queen v. Moxon"—TheQueen
v. Fraser"—and the Queen v. Otley." The above
cases were indictments against the defendants, well-
known booksellers and publishers at the west-end of the
town, for selling certain books which it was alleged con-
tained articles of a blasphemous nature. It was under-
stood that the prosecutions were instituted by Henry
Hetherington, the bookseller, in the Strand, who, a
fortnight since, was convicted of a similar offence in
this Court, and sentenced to four months' imprison-
ment. In his case cheap blasphemous books were sold.
In that of the present defendants, the alleged blasphe-
mous works ware dear, and circulated only among
the higher orders of society. When the cases were
called on it was found that there was not a sufficient
number of special jury men in attendance to enable the
trials to proceed, and as the defendants' counsel refu►ed
to join in a prayer for a tales, which was made by the
counsel for the prosecution, the trials were necesear4
postponed until the next term. The case of The
Queen v. Waldegrave and another," was then called on
and again it was found that there was not a sufficient
number of special jurymen in attendance. But both
parties having prayed a tales, a jury consisting of six,
and as many common jury, was formed. When they
were about to be sworn, a long consultation took place
between Sir F. Pollock, Mr. Thesiger, Mr. James, and
Mr. Wortley (the counsel engaged for the defendants).
At length,

Sir F. POLLGCK, addressing Lord Denman, said, my
Lord, I appear before your Lordship on the part of
one of the defendants in this case (Captain Duff). It
was very late before I received my brief. Mr. Thesi-
ger appears on the behalf of the other defendant, and I
am icstructed now to say, that as far as both the de-
fendants arc concerned they are anxious that I on their
part and behalf should take the earliest opportunity
(and which they do under the advice of their Counsel),
of making the only reparation in their power, by re-
questing that the Court will give them permission to
withdraw their pleas of Not Guilty, and to suffer judg-
ment by default, and I trust that under the circum-
stances your Lordship will allow them to adopt this
Course.

Mr. THESIGEEt said, I have the same application to
make to your Lordship on the part of the other de-
fendant.

Lord DENMAN—What do the Counsel on the other
side say to this ?
Mr. CHAMBERS said, I appear as Counsel for the
prosecution. The defendants may withdraw their pleas
as a matter of right. I, of course, cannot oppose their
doing so.
Sir F. POLLOCK said, the defendants wish me to ex-
press their anxious desire to do in every way whatever
the Court may call upon them to do under the circum-
stances, in order to show that they are fully sen-
sible of the impropriety of their conduct, and anxious
to make every reparation in their power.
Lord DENMAN—The case is one that will perhaps
admit of private reparation being made. The defen-
dants may withdraw their pleas and plead guilty.
Sir F. PoLtocx—The defendants are deeply in-
debted to your Lordship for that observation. The de-
fendants then, by their Counsel, withdrew their pleas
of Not Guilty, and pleaded Guilty, and it is under-
stood that they will be brought up for judgment next
term, but in the mean time they, will make the prose-
cutor some compensation for the dreadful injury he has
sustained.

It will be recollected that the defendants in the
above esse, Lord Waldegrave and Captain Duff, were
indicted at the Middlesex July Session, for a most vio-
lent assault upon William Wheatley, a policeman, un-
der the following circumstances. Lord Waldegrave
and Captain Duff accompanied by two other gentle-
men, who have not yet been identified, sallied out of
his Lordship's house at Strawberry Hill, near Kingston,
about 12 o'clock on the night of the 4th of June, for
what is termed a " lark." They proceeded across the
river to Hampton 'Wick, and after indulging them-
selves some time in the gentlemanly amusement of pul-
ling the bells, wrenching off knockers, &c., they went
to the cottage of a poor woman, who gets her living by
mangling, and were in the act of tearing down a board
that was over the door, with the words " Mangling
done here," upon it, when they were observed by a
mounted sergeant of police. Oa seeing him, one of
them said, " we aro smoked ;" and pretended that they
had called at the cottage for some purpose. Another
said " its no use, they arc gone to bed." They then laid
hold of the sergeant's horse, and when doing so, he remon-
strated, desiring they would let him alone. At this
moment the prosecutor came up, when the sergeant
said, " Tu-n your light on these gentlemen's faces, and
see if you know any of them." The poor fellow had
no sooner done so, than he was knocked down by the
defendants and their companions, and beat in a most
brutal manner. The sergeant rode off for assistance.
On his return the gentlemen had all made off, leaving
the prosecutor laying in the road in a state of insensi-
bility, and bleeding profusely. He has been ill ever
since, and is at the present moment under the doctor's
hands—and it is feared that he will ultimately lose
his senses. The Commissioners of Police, on hearing
of the affair, very properly instituted the present pro-
secution. The defendants removed the indictment, by
certiorari, from the Middlesex Sessions into the above
Court, and the result is as above stated.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FRB 13.
(Sittings in London before Mr. Baron GURNEY and

Common Juries.)

THE LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANIC,--BOSANQUET

AND OTHERS V. CAUSER.

Mr. Platt, with whom was Mr. Batt, appeared for
the plaintiffs, the trustees of the London and West-
minster Bank ; and Mr. Erle and Mr. Humfrey for
the defendant.
Mr. BUTT, in opening the pleadings, said that the
action was brought by the plaintiffs on a cheek for 5001.
drawn by the defendant, and bearing date the 31st of
March, 1840, made payable at Messrs. Barnard,
Dimsdale, and Co.'s. That check the defendant had
passed to a person, a customer of the London and
Westminster Bank, of the natne of Uhippenford, who
had passed it to the manager of the Company's branch
back at Whitechapel.
The defendant pleaded that the check had been
made for the accommodation of Chippenford, and that
no consideration had passed between them for it. He
further pleaded that the check had been paid over to
the said manager, the representative of the plaintiffs,
without any consideration.
Mr. Ertex then said that, by the nature of the plead-
ings which the Jury had just heard from his Learned
Friend, it devolved on him, as the Counsel for the de-
fendant, to establish the affirmative of the pleas he had
put upon the record. The action, as they had already
learned, was brought by the plaintiffs in the character
of the trustees of the London and Westminster Bank-
ing Company, to recover from the defendant, who was
a gram-, the amount of 5001. upon his check. It ap-
peared that a firm of the name of Chippenford and Fos-
ter had carried on business as grocers in Leadenhall-
street, and had kept an account at the Whitechapel
branch establishment of this Banking Company. Of
that branch a person of the name of Rees was mana-
ger, who turned out to be a private friend of Chippen-
ford. This partnership was dissolved, and by the
terms of the dissolution it was agreed that Chip-
penford should receive all the accounts due to, and pay
the debts owing by, the partnership. Subsequently to this
separation Chippenford went into partnership with an
individual of the name of Silverlock. Now, it seemed
to be the rule of the Banking Company, that one or
more of the Directors should, at the expiration of each
quarter, visit the various branch establishments, for the
purpose of examining the accounts. The account of
Chippenford, in the course of time, became considerably
overdrawn, whereupon the manager called upon him to
place in his hands securities, in order that his account
might present a d fferent appearance than it really bore
when the Director should come down to make his exa-
mination ; and that, in the event of that party asking for
an explanation, he should be in a position to exhibit the
checks or bills which were lodged with him as papers
which had been deposited as securities. At this period
the account had been overdrawn to the tune of some
thousands. Chippenford thereupon went to his friends ens'
procured checks for different sums from them, the
whole of which he handed to the manager, upon the
promise of that party that they should be weturned to
him after the examination of the accounts had been
completed. The check which formed the subject of
the present action was one of those checks. On these
occasions there was a promise given by the manager
that the checks should not be presented, and should be re-
turned; but it so happened that this particular check had
not he returned. In the month of March last Chippen-
ford called upon the defendant with a request that he
would give him two checks for five hundred pounds
each. This request was complied with, upon the usual
understanding that they should not be presented at his
bankers, but returned to him. 11;s applications
for their return, however, were in this instance
of no avail, Chippenford telling him that the manager
had them, but would not present them. On
the 15th of June, however the D:rectors of the Bank-
ing Company having had their suspicions aroused as to
the way in which Rao, the manager, was conducting
their business, dismissed him, and took possession of all
with Rees Rees by Chippen-
ford. checks for 5001.
the papers which were upon the premises. Amongst
each,thos whichpapers
hwaderebetheen dleofdegneddantw's
ford. One of those checks was subsequently presented
at the banker's of the defendant and paid ; but, on tho
presentation of the
the
second, the attention of the house
was attracted by the staleness of date it bore—
namely, March--'-'3'
bast its, presentation was not until
after the middle of June. The bankers, therefore, sent
to the defendant upon the subject, who gave instruc-
tions that it should not be paid, and this action for the
recovery of the amount was the consequence. The
Learned Counsel concluded a lengthened address, by