The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
JUDGES' CHAMBERS, September 2.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
BUNN V. LIND.
In this action, brought by the lessee of Drury-lane
Theatre against the celebrated Mdlle. Jenny Lind,
for an alleged breach of an engagement, two sum-
monses, taken out on the part of the defendant, came
on for hearing before his Lordship in the course of
the afternoon.
Mr. Corrie, as counsel for the defendant, attended,
with her solicitor, Mr. Jennings ; and Mr. Lewis
(Lewis and Lewis) appeared for the plaintiff.
In this matter Mr. Justice Coleridge made an order
for a commission to issuelto examine witnesses abroad.
The application was I eported in The Sun on the 18th
of June last. It was then stated that the action
could not be tried ,until the sittings after Hilary
Term next.
Mr. LEWIS called the attention of his Lordship to
the first summons on the present occasion, which
summons called upon the plaintiff to show cause why
the defendant should not be et liberty to examine
viva voce the witnesses mentioned in the order of Mr.
Justice Coleridge, dated the 17th of June. He
would not trouble his Lordship with the matter, as
it was better that the order made should be rescinded,
and liberty given to examine the witnesses viva voce,
as also for any person now in England to be examined
before one of the Masters of the Court of Queen's
Bench.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, on the assent of Mr. Jen-
nings, made an order to the effect mentioned.
Mr. LEWIS then proceeded to show cause against
the second summons in the case. It was, in his opi-
nion, a very ridiculous one, and he would read it to
his Lordship. It was to show cause " why the plain-
tiff, Laving threatened to hold the defendant to bail,
should not forthwith make any intended application
for bail or security, the defendant being about, tem-
porarily, to be absent from this country, and in de-
fault thereof that he be barred from applying for bail
or security in this cause." He had never before heard
of such a summons, and he would submit to his
Lordship that it could not be entertained for a single
moment.
Mr. CORRIE said he apprehended that the summons
could he entertained. Tne object of the application
was to prevent the lady, the defendant in the cause,
from being arrested as she was about to set her font
on the steam-vessel to leave this country.
Mr. LEWIS remarked that it was quite wrong.
Why did not the parties, if they thought so, at once
put in hail ?
Mr. Justice 'WILLIAMS said the matter had been
brought before him on a former day by Mr. noggins.
Mr. LEWIS—And Mr. Corrie now appears to in-
duce your Lordship to make such an order. It is
quite ridiculous.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS intimated that he could not
make an order to the effect required.
Mr. CORRIE urged the matter on his Lordship as
one of some consideration to the defendant. It was
wished to prevent any annoyance to the defendant,
which might be shown by any ill-feeling on the part
of the plaintiff. If it was intended to make any ap-
plication for bail, it should be made at once, and not
delayed until the party was about to get on board a
steamer and leave England.
Mr. LEWIS said no application had bean made, and
the plaintiff was called upon to let it he known that
he ever intended to apply in the matter.
Mr. Justice Wsmaaais observed that it was a very
novel application.
Mr. JENNINGS—It is a very novel case, my Lord.
We have been waiting nine months to be arrested.
Mr. LEWIS declared that his Lordship had no
power to make such an order. Besides, he might go
to the Lord Chancellor without an application to a
judge at chambers to hold to hail.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said he had discussed the
matter with Mr. noggins. The defendant could
give bail.
Mr. LEWIS —That is all we want.
Mr. CORRIE repeated his observation, that the
object was to annoy the defendant. It was intended
to drive off the proceeding to the last moment, and
the object of the summons was that it should be made
at once, so that bail could be given, if it was con-
sidered necessary.
His LORDSIIIP sail the summons must be dis-
missed.
Mr. LEWIS asked for costs.
Mr. JENNINGS objected to costs being paid.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—WeII, I shall only give
fis. Bd. costs. His Lordship was understood to say
that there had never been such an order made as the
one applied for, and he should certainly not grant
such an application.
Mr. CORRIE—There :never was such a case, my
Lord.
Mr. JENNINGS observed that the plaintiff had
threatened to apply to the Lord Chancellor for a writ
ne exeat regno.
Mr. LEWIS said, they had discussed the matter in
order to ascertain whether it was intended to make an
application to hold to bail.
His Lounsitir dismissed the summons, with 61. Bd.
) costs to the plaintiff's solicitors.

SECONDARIES COURT, Sept. 2.

..... - .... -
TILE QUEEN V. VERTUE.-CROWN EXTENT FOR MALT

DUTIES.

This morning a writ of extent, directed to the Sheriff
of London, was executed before Mr. Secondary Potter,
to ascertain of what lands, tenements, goods, and chattels,
Horatio Vertue, of Ipswich, maltater, was possessed on
the 4th of June, within the City of London.
Evidence having been given that property, consisting
of seeds, &c., at the defendant's counting-house bad
been seized, and were of the value of 2001., a verdict was
given for that amount. The debt due to the Crown was
278/. 14s. 2d. The defendant's property at Ipswich had
been seized by the Sheriff of Suffolk.
The Court did not sit on Wednesday, and only two
cases are set down for to-morrow (this day).

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Yesterday Moyce, the principal cook at the London
Tavern, and Matthews, a person also connected with
that establishment, were brought up. They had been
charged by the proprietors some days ago with having
seized upon, as their perquisites, a quantity of pies,
puddings, jellies, &c., which they had deposited in a
cab, for the purpose of being conveyed by one of the
rail ways into the country.
The object of the owners of the London Tavern
(who, it appeared, had always entertained the highest
opinion of the two persons whom they found it neces-
sary to apprehend) in proceeding to aay serious extent
in the case was to put an end to an idea, which seemed
to he very prevalent amongst the servants at taverns,
that they were at liberty to supply their families with
the remains of the sumptuous entertainments given at
such places.
It was expressly understood, when engagements
were formed with the prisoners by Messrs. Breach and
Bathe, that they were to take away nothing without
permission ; and it WR3 quite certain that permission
had not been given in the present instance. The pro-
prietors, however, had consented to forego prosecu-
tion, upon condition that the prisoners would acknow-
ledge and apologise for their error.
The apologies having been made by the solicitor of
the prisoners.
The LORD MAYOR said he hoped the conduct
of other officials in taverns would be regulated by the
disagreeable consequences with which the above-
mentioned appropriation had been visited. The pri-
soners were not an atom more justified in taking
away what had been found in their possession, than a
grocer's shopman could be justified in abstracting
pounds of tea and sugar as his perquisites.
the prisoners were then discharged.
GUILDHALL.

Yesterday James Cochrane, a young man dressed
like an artisan, was charged with an impudent theft
on the preceding afternoon, at Peele's Coffee-house,
wine vaults, in Fetter. lane. •

Sophia Maynard, the barmaid, stated that about
three o'clock she went into the private parlour ad-
joining the bar, and in a moment she heard the chin':
of gold in the bar. She looked into the bar, and
found the prisoner on the counter, with the horn con-
taining the gold in his hand. He instantly replaced
in on the shelf from which he had taken it. She
missed five pounds' worth of silver, which was lying
counted up in piles of one pound on the same shelf
where the gold was, and she called out " Stop thief."
One of the porters pursued him, and brought him
back.
George Hearn, the porter, stated that he saw
the crowd running, and got up to the prisoner in
Temple-street. The prisoner was very restive till a
second porter came up.
Edward Bryant, a porter at 151, Fleet-street, stated
that he saw the prisoner and another man at the door
of the vine-vaults before the robbery. The other man
put his head inside the door, and then the prisoner
did the same. They then talked together, and the
prisoner went in alone. In about a minute the pri-
soner ran out, and as he passed the other man he
said to him, " Five pounds." Witness ran after him,
calling " Stop thief,' and never lost sight of him till
he was stopped.
Mr. Alderman WOOD asked if he saw the prisoner
pass anything to the ether man ? Witness said he
did not.

Policeman No. 324 said he found the whole of the
money on the prisoner. He had put the silver in the
pockets of his trousers, and had only 4d. in additioa
to the 51.

Mr. Alderman WOOD asked the prisoner if he had
anything to say to the charge ? The prisoner said
he was quite innocent. What Bryant had said about
his mentioning 51. as he rat: was a pure invention.
The money was his own. He put questions to the
witnesses to show that their statements at the station -
`,ous,_. did nrt e r!hr.t they now de
posed.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said a jury should have an
opportunity of judging of the evidence, and committed
h4m for trial.