The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-08 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. DUNN.

The only question to be considered was, whether the
Registrar of tha Court of Bankruptcy had the power of
administering an oath to the defendant under the pecu-
liar circumstances of the case, upon which affidavit the
indictment against the defendant was framed.
Lord DEN3IAN said that the Court were of opinion the
affidavit was sworn before a competent authority, and
the rule obtained by the defendant to arrest the judg-
ment must be discharged.

WESTMINSTER COUIV7'Y COURT, July 7.
(Before D. C. MOYLAN, Esq., Judge.)
HARVEY V. HANSARD.
In this case the plaintiff, Mr. George Harvey, a
printer, carrying on business in Charlotte-street, Black-
friar's-road, sought to recover of the defendant, Mr.
Luke James Hansard, the well-known philanthropist,
the sum of 151. 93. 6d.
It appeared from the statement of the plaintiff', in the
month of August last, soon after the flogging case at
Hounslow, a society was established having for its object
the " abolition of flogging in the army," and a meeting
was called at Exeter-hall in furtherance of it. At this
meeting the defendant attended and most liberally sub-
scribed. He became a member of the managing com-
mittee, and was appointed treasurer. For the meeting
bills and tickets were printed by the plaintiff, as well as
prospectuses, the orders for which were given by a Mr.
Plume, the secretary. The s@ciety became extinct, and
as the plaintiff could not obtain his money, he summoned
the defendant in his capacity of member of the committee
of management.
The defendant denied his liability, contending that he
knew nothing of the society until after the meeting on
the 19th of August, and that he could not be made
liable for those articles which had been supplied prior to
that date.
The plaintiff produced his books and copy of de
prospectus of the society, printed on the 12th of August,
in which the name of the defendant appeared as one of
the managing committee, and the JUDGE accordingly
made an award in favour of the plaintiff.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and Mr. Justice MAULS,

William Smith surrendered to take his trial upon an
indictment charging him with publishing a libel con-
cerning John Broome, the pugilist.
In some of the counts the intent of the defendant was
laid to be to extort money.
Mr. HUNFREY, who appeared for the prosecution, said
he was instructed that it was the intention of the defend.
ant to plead guilty to that count of the indictment which
merely charged him with publishing the libel, and if he
did so, it was not the intention of the prosecutor to offer
any evidence upon the other counts of the indictment.
He would only be required to enter into his own recog-
nizances to appear and receive the judgment of the Court
if he should be called upon to do so ; but if he did not
offer any further molestation to the prosecutor, he would
hear no more of the matter. •
Sergeant WILKINS, who was instructed for the defence,
said there was not the slightest foundation for those
counts charging an intention to extort money, and he
thought his Learned Friend had only exercised a proper
discretion in abandoning them. The fact was that Mr.
Smith had listened to some gossip about Mr. Broome,
and he had foolishly published it, and he felt that there
was no defence to the charge of publishing the libel in
question, and, acting under his advice, the defendant
would plead guilty.
The defendant then retracted his plea of not guilty,
and one of guilty was recorded upon the first count in
the indictment, and upon his entering into his own re-
cognizance to appear and receive judgment, if called
upon, he was discharged.
Mr. lIUMFREY applied to the Court to allow the
trial of a person named Pollard, who had been com-
mitted on the previous evening upon a charge of stealing
certain bills of exchange, the property of Prince Louis
Bonaparte, to be postponed to the latest period of the
session that would be consistent with the convenience of
their Lordships. The defendant was most anxious to
meet the charge, but having been committed so recently
there had been no time to prepare the defence.
Mr. Justice MAULE inquired what was the nature of
the charge ?
Mr. CLARKSON, for the prosecution, said the case
would assume the shape of larceny, and he considered
that it might be advisable to have it disposed of by one
of their Lordships.
The Court ordered the trial to be fixed for Friday.
Joheph Willett surrendered to take his trial upon an
indictment for wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Phinn prosecuted; Mr. Ry•
land and Mr. Ballantine were for the prisoner.
This was a prosecution instituted by the assignees
appointed under a fiat of bankruptcy issued against the
defendant in October, 1844, the alleged perjury having
been committed by the defendant upon his examination
before the Court of Bankruptcy, and having reference to
one of the items of his balance-sheet. It appeared that
in 1843, a year preceding his bankruptcy, the defen-
dant, who carried on the business of a currier at Cog-
gleshall, in Essex, was indicted at the Essex assizes for
an assault, and two professional gentlemen, named Bick-
more and Smoothey, were engaged to conduct his de-
fence. On the day the trial took place, and just before
the jury returned their verdict, it appeared that the de-
fendant handed to Mr. Biakmoro a canvass bag contain-
ing money, and the contents of that bag formed the na-
tural subject of the present inquiry. It seems that in
1844 the defendant got into difficulties, and was declared
a bankrupt, Messrs. Hackblack and Emsworth, the
prosecutors of the present indictment, being appointed
the assignees. A balance-sheet was filed by the
bankrupt, and in the account he gave of his estate
he said that upon the occasion above referred to he gave
Mr. Bickmore 921. in the bag, and made him a creditor
to his estate in that amount. This assertion was contra-
dicted by Mr. Bickmors, and the result of that proceed-
ing was that the last examination of the bankrupt was
adjourned sine die. The defendant applied again to the
Court of Bankruptcy in 1846, and an examination took
place on the 4th of May, when he again repeated his
former statement relative to the 921., and declared that
he gave that sum to Mr. Bickmore. A person named
Wilisher was examined as a witness in confirmation of
that statement; but after hearing the depositions of Mr.
Bickmore and Mr. Smoothey, and a full investigation
of all the circumstances, the Commissioner again ad-
journed the examination sine die, and the present pro-
ceeding was then instituted against the defendant, the
sole question in the cause being whether the defendant
did really give the sum of 921. to Mr. Bickmore at the
time referred to or not.

Mr. Bickmore was called, and he deposed that he
defended the prisoner at the assizes at Chelmsford, with
Mr. Smoothey, and a day or two before the trial the
defendant handed him 201. on account of the expenses.
He required some more money from the defendant on
the day,of the trial, and just as the proceedings concluded
he handed to him a bag containing money, which he
examined afterwards at the inn, and found it contained
twelve sovereigns. He declared positively that the bag
contained no more than that amount, and it appeared
that about two months after the transaction the defen•
dant applied to him for a loan of 21., and no claim was
made upon him respecting the 921. until after the bank-
ruptcy, when he was applied to by the official assignee.
The witness was cross-examined at some length by
Mr. Ryland, but no material fact was elicited. He de-
clared most positively that the bag only contained 12
sovereigns.
In re-examination, Mr. Bickmore said that no de-
mand or application of any kind was made to him for
the restoration of the 92/. until he received a communi-
cation from the official assignee.
Mr. Smoothey proved that at the time of the trial at
Chelmsford, Mr. Bickmore came to the inn, and pro-
duced a bag containing money, which he counted, and
said that the defendant had given him 121. He met the
defendant after he came out of prison, and on his asking
him when he intended to pay his bill, he promised to do
so on the February following ; and he at the same time
said he did not think he owed Mr. Bickmore much, for
ho had given him 201. before the trial, and had handed
him a bag containing twelve sovereigns after he was
convicted.

A witness named Knight also proved that the de-
fendant told him that he had only given Biekmore twelve
or fourteen pounds.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. RYLAND addressed the jury for the defence, and
said that the question the jury had to decide was whether
the story told by the defendant, or that told by Mr.
Bickmore, was the truth. He said that the prisoner had
all along persisted in the same statement, and he trusted
he should be able to satisfy them, by the evidence he
should adduce, that he had really handed over the sum
he had stated.
Benjamin Willsher was then called as a witness, and
he stated that at the time of the trial at Chelmsford he
was in the defendant's service, and about ten o'clock in
the morning on which the trial took place he saw the
defendant count out 921. in gold and notes, which he
placed in a canvass bag, and ho said that the defendant
had given the same bag with its contents to Mr. Bick-
more.
In cross-examination, he said that at this time the
defendant owed him 261. 103. He then said it was
30.105., and eventually, upon the deposition he had
made at the Bankruptcy Court being produced and read,
he said he then recollected that the amount was 72/. He
stated that that money had been given him by his wife's
grandfather, hut when he was examined before he
represented that he had saved it. Ile was a witness at
the trial at Chelmsford, but he did not know what he
was called to prove, and he had forgotten what he swore
on that occasion. He had been accused of assisting the
defendant to remove his goods, and prevent the creditors
from getting them, and he placed a quantity of leather
in a false ceiling. He admitted that he had told the
solicitor for the prosecution that what he had stated at
the Court of Bankruptcy was not true, and that he had
been led into it by his master, and ho said he believed it
was a false statement that Mr. Bickmore had the 921.
defendant, he said, upon one occaiiun told him that
he only gave him 121.
The mother and a brother of the defendant were then
examined, with a view to show that they had asked Mr.

Bickmore to come to some settlement respecting th
money, but the evidence given by them was very incon-
clusive and unsatisfactory.
Mr. Justice PATTESON summed up the case to the
jury, and they immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.
The defendant was then placed in custody, and the
Learned Judge, after observing that there could be no
doubt of his having committed, in a most deliberate
manner, the serious crime ()I:wilful and corrupt perjury,
and that there was also too much reason to fear that he

had endeavoured to defend himself by perjury and fraud,
which was a great aggravation of his offence, said that
the Court felt it an imperative duty to pass a severe sen-
tence. He then ordered the prisoner to be confined for
one month in the House of Correction, and at the expi-
ration of that period directed that he should be trans-
ported for seven years.
Thomas Truman, the rate-collector of St. Andrew's,
Holborn, who, it will be recollected, was convicted at
the last session of embezzling money belonging to the
overseers of the Saffron-hill district, the point of law
being reserved, whether he was properly described as
being the servant of the overseers, was placed at the
bar and arraigned upon another indictment for em-
bezzling other sums of money belonging to the overseers.
Mr. Claikson and Mr. Robinson appeared for the
prosecution, and Mr. Huddlestone for the prisoner.
Mr. CLARKSON said there was no dispute in this case
as to the facts, and the only question was whether the
prisoner was properly described as the servant of the
overseers. He was appointed by the board of guardians,
under the authority of the Poor-law Commissioners, and
he gave a bond to the guardians for the due perform-
ance of his duties, but he was entirely engaged in the
service of the overseers, and collected the rates and paid
the money over to the bankers on their behalf. The
question was, whether he was properly described as their
servant.

After a brief technical argument, which it will not be
necessary more particularly to allude to,
Mr. Justice PATTESON, after conferring with his
Learned Brother, said that they were of opinion that
the indictment could not he supported : and it appeared
to him that a number of sections had been jumbled
together in the Poor•law Act which rendered it impos-
sible to indict any person in the position of the prisoner
for embezzlement. From the character of the appoint•
ment of the prisoner he did not appear to be the servant
either of the board of guardians or of the overseers.
The jury then, under his Lordship's direction, re-
turned a verdict of—Not Guilty.
Mr. ROBINSON said there were two other indictments
against the prisoner, but as the same point was involved,
it would be useless to proceed with them.
A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly recorded
upon both these indictments.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE applied to the Court to order the
prisoner to be discharged. He was convicted at the last
session upon an indictment for embezzlement, but the
same legal objection was then taken, and was reserved
for the consideration of the Judges. After the opinion
expressed by their Lordships, that conviction clearly
could not be sustained, and therefore the prisoner was
entitled to be discharged.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said that application must be
made to the Secretary of State, who would refer to the
Judges, and, upon their report, no doubt the prisoner
would at once be liberated.
It was stated upon the last trial that the prisoner bad
embezzled money altogether to the amount of six hun-
dred pounds and upwards, and the effect of the present
decision will be, that he will entirely escape punishment
except the short period of imprisonment he has already
undergone.
The prisoner was afterwards brought before the Cow'
mon-Sergeant in the New Court, and ordered to be St
once discharged.

NEW COURT.
(Before the COMMON-SERGEANT.)
Robert Austin, 50, shoemaker, was indicted for bigamy,
in feloniously marrying Mary Ann Rush, his wife being
alive.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. Payne, who
defended the prisoner, that this indictment was pre•
ferred under rather peculiar circumstances. The pri-
soner married his first wife nearly twenty years ago,
and they shortly afterwards separated, and he then con-
tracted the second marriage, and also separated from
the second wife, and no communication had taken plaeB
between them for many years. At length a relation or
the second wife died, and left her some freehold pro-
perty, and upon her desiring to dispose of it, her mar•,
riage with the prisoner was found to present a difficulty,
and the present prosecution appeared to be adopted
Solely with a view to annul the validity of the ceremony
The prisoner was sentenced to one month's imprison'
meat.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
AIANSION-HOUSE.
George Silverton, jun , and William Clewley were
brought before Alderman Gibbs charged with having,
to the obstruction of the navigation of the river Thatnest
which the recent circumstances connected with the con'
iervancy of the river as affecting the Government And
the City authorities have made a subject of considerable
importance, thrown a quantity of rubbish overboard.
W. T. Bridges, inspector of the Thames police, stated
that at a quarter-past one o'clock on Tuesday morning
he saw off the Temple pier a boat driving down the
river, and something very bulky upon the water under
the stern. Upon going to the spot he saw Silverton on
the cabin-head, and upon questioning him was told that
ho was only throwing over a little elean straw. Wit-
nessltook a sample of the clean straw from the boat, and
found it to be very noxious rubbish, and that Silverton
said he had got it from the Magnet steamer. Clewlel
was rowing the boat at the time.—Guilty.
Silverton, the elder, was then charged with having
worked a barge on the river without being free of the
Waterman's and Lightermen's Company.
The beadle to the Waterman's Company stated that,
on the 21st of June, he saw the defendant in a barge
lying alongside of the Magnet steam-boat, on Brewers-
quay, taking in ashes. He also saw the defendant and
his son navigate the barge to the tier at Horsleydown•
and leave it alongside of a steamer called the Caledonian.
There was no person of the name a freeman of the
Company.
It was proved that Silverton, the elder, was in the
habit of taking away the ashes from the Magnet.
This defendant was also found guilty.
In the first case Alderman GIBBS sentenced Silvertont
jun., to pay 51. penalty, and Clewley to pay 40s. ; end
in the second case he sentenced Silverton, sen., to Pei
5/. penalty. The Alderman said that persons wh°
violated the law, in regard to the River Thames, should
feel the penalty in a severe manner, and that each of the
persons who were fined 51. should, in default of the par
ment, be confined one month ; and the person who was
fined 40s. should, if likewise unable or unwilling to pats
be confined seven days in the common gaol.