The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-28 00:00:00

was "an uncommon fine child to be sure." The plain-
tiff got well, but the defendant did not marry her and
take her home, and make her comfortable, but on the
contrary his atto:ney refused for him, in reply to a re-
quest, on the part of her attorney; that he should do so
forthwith. •

On the part of the defendant, some evidence was
called for the purpose.of showing that the plaintiff was a
person of light conduct and demeanour. It was stated
that just before the time of her going to town she was
drinking tea with a neighbour, and whilst she was there
the neighbour's son called her out of the room, and they
took a walk together. An aunt of her's, who had quar-
relled with her family, also stated that she had often
seen her walking with one Robert Halliday in the public
streets, and once in the churchyard of Derehani. But
no evidence of any improper act or Rxpression was given.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON, in summing up the evidence,
told the Jury that the pleas of justification had not been
sustained by the evidence, and that the only questions
for their consideration were, whether the plaintiff- had
proved a promise of marriage, and if she had, to what
damages she was entitled.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found a verdict
for the plaintiff, with 50/. damages.
This case occupied a considerable portion of time ;
the rest of the day in the Civil Court was spent in the
trying of trifling actiDns for debts, of interest to the
litigant parties, but to no one else, unless it be the pro-
, fessional men.

In the Crown Court, Mr. Justice Williams has been
relieving. the criminal calendar by trying short and un-
interesting cases.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Mr. Harris, a gentleman connected with the Agricul-
tural and Commercial Bank of Ireland, was summoned
before the Lord Mayor for having unlawfully taken pos-
session of, and detained, a letter, belonging to Mr. Ste-
phenson, a clerk in the same establishment. Mr. Hobler,
jun., appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Murray for
the defendant. The case was remarkable for the uncere-
monious manner id which one person opened the desk of
another, and took out, read, and possessed himself of a
letter addressed to the brother of the party who was
thus unceremoniously treated with impunity.
Mr. Stephenson stated that Mr. Harris, on the 9th of
July, 1840, deliberately went to his (witness's) drawer
in the banking-house, routed about the papers in it. and
possessed himself of a letter which witness had been writ-
ing to his brother. The letter contained imputations
against Mr. Harris, but witness never intended that the
contents should be seen, and regretted that he had writ-
ten it. Nevertheless, he considered that Mr. Harris had
no right whatever to take a letter, which, if meant for
any body's eye, was not meant for his, and, least of all,
had he a right to open the private drawer of another for
the purpose of getting hold of the letter. Witness's ob-
ject was to have the letter returned or destroyed.
The LORD MAYOR—Are you able to prove any in-
jury to yourself arising from the detention of this letter?
Did it contain a draft for money, or anything of that
kind ? Mr. Stephenson replied that the letter contained
nothing of the sort, but he thought he could show that
the detention of it did him injury. In fact, he had ex-
pected to be connected more particularly with the bank.
In answer to questions from Mr. Murray, Mr. Ste-
phenson said that Mr. Harris was his superior in office,
and although not by any means authorised to discharge
him, had given him his dismissal, by telling him that
the establishment had no further occasion for him, an in-
timation given to others as well as to himself.
Mr. Murray—Was it not on account of that letter that
Mr. Harris discharged you ? Mr. Stephenson—l don't
know that-it was ; but I contend that be. had no sort of
right to take a letter from my papers not addressed to,
or intended for himself.
Mr. Murray How are you engaged now ? Mr.
Stephenson I tried to form an insurance com-
pany, but I did not succeed, and I am now connected with
the press.
The LORD MAYOR—Is the bank of which you speak
in business ? Mr. Stephenson—lt has given up busi-
ness, but I havo every reason to suppose, from the com-
plimentary manner in which the Directors spoke to me in
Dublin, that I should be elected by them in preference
to Mr. Harris if it were going on.
The LORD MAYoR—I hope Mr. Harris will have good
taste enough to give up a letter which he had no right to
touch.
Atr. Murray said that Mr. Stephenson had spoken of
the letter to others (a circumstance not denied by that
gentleman), and that Mr. Harris, as the superior agent
in the concern, considered that he had a right to take
possession of the letter, as well as any other papers con-
tained in the drawers of the establishment.
The LORD MAYOR—I cannot see that he was at all
justified, and I would advise that if the letter contain any
thing offensive toMr. Harris it be destroyed in the pre-
sence of both.
Mr. Murray—The letter has been taken away twelve-
months, and contains nothing of any importance to the
writer ; but it is, I think, proper that Mr. Harris should
keep it, as it was the cause of the dismissal, and is Mr.
Harris's justification.
The LORD MAYOR—Nothing can, in my opinion, jus-
tify this act of Mr. Harris. I-speak from the influence
of that feeling which has directed me through life. At
the same time I do not see how I can interfere, except
merely in suggesting the natural and honourable course
of proceeding.
Mr. Hobler, jun., said that the latter was a chattel,
and that the case carne properly under the jurisdiction
of the Lord Mayor, who had the power to compel resti-
tution.
Mr. Murray said he had not the least objection to let
the solicitor for the complainant see the letter, and he
considered that it was not likely to be of any importance.
Mr. Hobler, jun., read the letter, and admitted that
there was but slight grounds for apprehension as to con-
sequences, but still urged the propriety of restoring or
destroying it.
The Lord Mayor's advice was not adopted in the pre-
sence of the public.
Sir P. LAURIE came to the Justice-room for the pur-
pose of complaining Of the wooden pavement in the
Poultry, opposite to the Mansion-house. He declared
that although the horses in the omnibuses contrived to
get over the blocks, it was most dangerous for gentleman
either to ride or drive on them. In fact, life and limbs
Of men and horses were in imminent hazard wherever
the wooden pavement was laid down. For his part, he
chose rather to undergo the inconvenience and danger of
riding through narrow streets and lanes than the much
more imminent peril of an experiment upon the wood.
The LORD MAYOR said he was not aware that the
wooden pavement was considered so dangerous as Sir
Peter Laurie represented it to be.
Sir P. LAURIE said it was quite distressing to see the
falls of the poor horses on the wood. In fact, the horses
which were not fastened up and protected in the tin-
wieldy omnibuses were so perfectly aware of the danger
of slipping, that the moment they got upon the wooden
pavement, they trembled in every limb. The effect was
quite palpable. On the granite pavement, the contrast
was remarkable, from the firmness and security with
which the horses passed along. The Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty.. to Animals 'would, he hoped, as
they were bound, turn their attention from the com-
paratively frivolous matters in which they were engaged
generally, to a subject of such paramount importance.
He should himself mention the nuisance in the Justice-
room, as a notice of his future intention.
The street-keeper of the Poultry said, upon being
asked by Mr. Hobler to state the result of his daily ob-
servation of the wooden pavement, that when the blocks
were partly wet, the country horses, which were not
used to such pavement, tumbled about in great confusion.
THE STEAM- PIER NUISANCE AT BLACKFRIARS-
BRIDGE.—Sir P. LAURIE said that he- felt it to be an im-
perative duty upon him to persevere in calling attention,
wherever he could be heard, to subjects of great public
grievance. He had alluded in another place to the
dangerous pier at the east side of Blackfriar's-bridge,
and to the hazard which a gentleman had incurred in
landing. He had received a letter from the gentleman
who had nearly lost his life, and as the whole public
were interested he should hand it in, although not aware
that it was intended for more than his own eyes, and as
containing suggestions directed to his own and the City
Solicitor's attention :

" Witley, near Godalming,
" Tuesday, July 20, 1841.
" Sir,—The urbanity and courtesy shown to Mrs.
Taylor and me last week, induce me, now that I have
reached home in safety, to Write a statement of facts for
your better information; and the guidance of the City
Solicitor, whom you intended that I should have had the
happiness of seeing, prior to leaving. Guildhall.
" I attribute my dangerous and perilous descent into
the Thames on Thursday the 11th, to the following
causes : Ist. The Captain's haste to get rid of his pas-
sengers, of whom I saw several disembark, prior to my
being sent to the bottom.
" 2d. To the medium of communication from the pier
(Blackfriars) to the packet (Starlight), which was a
board, apparently a.worn-out door, minus any bolt, bar,
or other fastening whatever, to prevent it from being
thrown out of position by the motion of pier and packet.
" 3d. To the pier itself, at the end of the said medium,
which presents to the eye of persons coming from the
rural plains of Surrey,. a mass of confusion jumbled to-
gether, which only watermen or persons wonted, could
tread—i. e. the board from the packet not being in line
with that part of the said pier, where persons who have
just preceded stand to deliver their tickets, surrounded
by vociferous fellows calling for tickets and giving pro-
miscuous orders, which prevent others disembarking from
off the said board, so communicating with the packet,
at an elevation above the flooring of the pier in general,
"Then there are (or were) ropes obliquely crossing from
side to side of that end of the pier adjoining the said
board. and not clear from the feet of passengers, when so
preceded by and impeded by persons as above mentioned.
It being a floating-pier, some motion must be given to
it by the tide, which is directly opposed to that little
motion which the packets still retain, however slightly,
when put first along side, either to or from Vauxhall,
which opposite motions are enough to dislodge such a
medium of communication as was used that day, and, I
am sorry to add, some days after. As I chose to recon-
noitre the pier before I returned to Witley, it was still
there, perhaps still continues, to the future hazard of
lives. Allow me, Sir, to inform you, that being recog-
nised by the parties who manage the business on that
pier, I was insulted and accused of injustice in my com-
plaint before you. One of them said I should not have
been saved but for his assistance. Let me never forget
to be grateful. I beg to acknowledge some aid after I
ascended to the surface ,intending to swim ashore,&c. Upon
inquiry I found this man had called at the Surrey and Sus-
sex Hotel (where I was put in hot blankets, with bottles
placed to my feet, and plied with brandy and water, &c.,
to recover warmth) for my signature to some paper that
would entitle him to the reward. I would not give my
signature upon finding that he was one of the managers,
or mismanagers, of the said pier. No, I would not offer
a premium for another individual's submersion in the
Thames, off Blackfriars-pier. Allow me to assure you
that I have a sincere regard for your good offices as a