The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-13 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD eII?CUI7'.—OxFoRD JuLY 12.

The C3mmission of this county was opened on Saturday
evening. Mr. Justice Coleridge and 111 r. Justice Coltman
took their seats in Court this morning at ten o'clock. Ihe ca-
lendar contains the names of only 16 priscners, andpressnts no
case of any particular interest.

- • CROWN COURT.
( Before Mr Justice COLERIDGE).
Richard Taylor and Richard Tollett were indicted for
having, on the 31st of October last, at the parish of En-
sham, feloniously entered the dwelling-house of Henry El-
tham, and stolen therefrom 17 sovereigns and a variety of other
ari ides.

Mr. Keating conducted the prosecution; Mr. Carrington
deft nded the prisoners.
The trial c f these men was to have taken place at the last
A sizes. but Tailor, on the day before they commenced, broke
his leg in the gaol.
The prosecutor is a confectioner living at Ensham, and
proved that, on the night mentioned in the indictment, about
one o'clock in the morning, he awoke, and found his wife
dressed, as if prepared for leaving home. On inquiry he found
five boxes, contair.ing the articles mentioned in the indictment,
and the whole of his wife's wearing.apparel, were gone, and
that she (his wife) was awaiting the return of the persons who
had taken th, m away, with the intention of accompanying
them. From the evidence of Mrs. Eltham herself it appeared
that, for some reason or other, discontented with her husband,
she had determined to elope with Taylor, who was an old ac-
quaintance, and that she came over to Oxford, and had two in-
terviews with him in the course of last July, at which the plan
for carrying her off, with all the money she could bring with
her, was arranged between herself and Taylor. She gave
her evidence with considerable coolness and effrontery, but de-
nied that any criminal intercourse had taken place between
Taylor and herself, though she admitted that they agreed to go
together to Gloucester to live as man and wife. Mrs. Eltham
seems to have been forgiven by her indulgent husband, and has
been living with him ever since; the boxes and their contents
having been recovered by him uninjured.
Mr. Justice Coleridge summed up the evidence, telling the
jury that a man who carries off the property of another, by the
d•rtction of the wife, is not guilty of felony, unless he be either
the paramour of the wife, or unless he carries it off with the
intention of living in adultery with her, and he left it to them
to say whether there had, in fact, been any criminal inter-
course between the parties, or whether Taylor carried off the
the goods with the intention of afterwards appropriating them
to his own use, when he should be living with the wife of the
prosecutor.
The jury found the prisoner Taylor guilty, and acquitted
Toll( tt.

The Learned Judge sentenced Taylor to fifteen months' im-
prisonment.

CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
WEBB V. TRIPP.

This was an action of trover, to recover possession of a sack
of barley and a plank belonging to the plaintiff, and taken pos-
session of by the defendant. •
Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and Mr.
Gray were for the plaintiff. Mr. V. Lee appealed for the
defendant. This action arose out of the dispute respecting the
right of the public to land goods at a wharf at Shillingford,
upon the river Thames, the Company, of whom the defendant
was a representative, claiming a tight to receive tog upon all
tessels unloading at the wharf. An action on which this right
was raised was tried at the Assizes for this county last year,
and a verdict given, establishing the tight of the public to un-
load their goods without any toll. The defendant, however,
notwithstanding this decision, persisted in demanding toll on
the occasion, and upon refusal took possession of the sack of
barley an,l the plank. These facts were clearly proved, and
the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice COLT3IAN certified (under Lord Denman's Act.)
that the action was brought to try a right, the value of the
barley and plank being only 19s.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION HOUSE.

George Everett, who stated that he was Superintendent
to the New Greenwich Steam Navigation Company, ap-
peared upon a summons to answer the complaint of
Thomas Samuel fir non-performance of contract on the
day her Majesty visited Woolwich on the occasion of the
late ship launch. The complaint of Mr. Samuel, which
was against the Company of which the defendant was
the representative, had been partly heard on Saturday,
and the following are the particulars of the evidence on
Saturday and yesterday.
Mr. Samuel stated, that having paid half a crown
each for his sister and himself for the passage to Wool-
wich, to see the launch of the Trafalgar, to the servants
of the New Greenwich Steam Packet Company, and re-
ceived the tickets, he and his sister went at the appointed
time to Ilungerford-stairs, where the steamers of the
Company were stationed. They proceeded to go on
board one of the Company's vessels, but were told that if
they chose to be passengers in her, they must pay five
shillings each. They tried another, and they learned
that the same price was demanded, and witness, upon
expostulating with the authorities on board, was threat-
ened with a turn out, if he did not at once leave the ves-
sel. To the third vessel he and his sister were admitted;
but the steamer had not proceeded far when she ground-
ed, and a great delay took place ; and when at length
she got to Greenwich, the launch had taken place.
The LoRD MAYOR—Did they undertake to take you
to see the launch of the Trafalgar ?
Complainant--Certainly they did ; but their great
object was to fill their two other vessels with five shilling
passengers, and to have those who had already paid
their half-a-crown each to take their chance. I contend,
my Lord, that such conduct was unworthy of respectable
men. Although we produced the Company's tickets,
they told us, that if we wanted to get on board,
either of the first vessels, we must pay five shillings each,
and they were going to push me out of one of them. The
Company acted shamefully by giving us tickets the day
before, upon the faith of which we calculated upon seeing
the launch.

The sister of the complainant stated that the launch
had taken place before the vessel in which she and her
brother went arrived at Woolwich. They had got on
board at the appointed time.

Mr. Everett said that it was true the defendant and
his sister had taken tickets, but not for the vessels into
which they had first applied to be admitted, and which
had been engaged by parties of limited numbers at five
shillings each. The vessels in which the half-crown
fares were received, and in which the complainant
and his sister were, set off in proper time, but in
consequence of the state of the tide, were stranded
near Waterloo-bridge, and were not got off for
a considerable time. As soon as she was free,
she went down the river as rapidly as she could,
and, in fact, she arrived at Woolwich just as the Tra-
fhlgar was " going off on the launch." He (witness) saw
her go off, and called out " There she goes," and a great
many on board saw her launched. There was no blame,
he assured the Lord Mayor, attributable to the captain
or other persons in authority in the steam-vessel, and he
could bring forward persons to prove that such was the
case beyond all question, and that the detention of the
vessel was quite accidental.
The LORD MAYOR said that he considered the Steam-
packet Company certainly in the wrong, and advised the.
superintendent to return the two half-crowns which had
been taken as the fare of the complainant and his sister.
If the superintendant did not chose to get out of the
business in that way, he might produce witnesses to
prove that his employers were justified in the course
pursued on a future day.
The defendant intimated that it was his wish to have
the case postponed for the production of witnesses, and it
accordingly came on again yesterday.
Mr. Samuel appeared, and so did Mr. Everett, but the
latter upon being asked whether he intended to have the
investigation recommenced, stated that although the
Company and their servants were totally blameless in the
matter, he thought it advisable to pay back the fares to
Mr. Samuel.

The Loan MAYOR commended the prudence of the
superintendent. .
Mr. Samuel requested that the expenses might also
be defrayed by the defendant.
The LORD MAYOR—Oh, certainly, the expenses must
be paid.
The defendant very reluctantly paid the expenses as
well as ate fares, and
Mr. Samuel immediately handed over the whole
amount to the Mansion-house poor-box, requesting that
it might be given to the objects of the charity, his object
in prosecuting the case being merely to serve the public.
A man named Bailey was charged with having broken
a window in the shop of Mr. Dowdney, the " Reform
your Tailors' bill" shop, in Lombard-street, value 151.
The complainant said he could not account for the vio-
lent conduct of the defendant, who had formerly been
employed by him.
Bailey said that he had worked on commission for Mr.
Dowdney, who refused to pay him 19s. 3d. due forlabour.
Mr. Dowdney declared that he did not owe the man
one farthing.
The LORD MAYOR (to defendant)—Then pay Mr.
Dowdnoy the 141. more which the window will cost.

Defendant—No, not I. I have got no money.
The LORD MAYOR—Then you must go to prison.
Defendant—To prison! for what?
The LORD MAYOR—For wilfully breaking a window.
You must go to hard labour.
Defendant—You don't mean that? What! to hard
labour!

The LORD MAYOR—Yes, you must go to the treadmill
if you don't pay.
Defendant—Oh Lord ! Oh Lord ! For breaking a
tailor's window to go the treadmill!—(Laughter.)
Committed to the treadmill.