The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-18 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

WATSON V. PITT.—DELIVERY OF NOTICES.
This was an appeal from the decision of Mr.
Smith, who had retained the name of Francis Pitt
upon the list of voters.
The facts of the case were stated as follows :—A
person on behalf of tie objector to Mr. Pitt's vote
went to his house between nine and ten o'clock at
night, on the 25th of August, for the purpose of
serving him with a notice of objection. He knocked
at the door several times, but as no one answered, he
placed the notice inside the house. The revising bar-
rister decided that it was not a sufficient delivery of
notice under the Ilth section of the Act. Mr. Pitt
was called upon to substantiate his vote.
Mr. Groves appeared for the appellant, and Mr.
Sergeant Byles for the respondent.
After some discussion on both sides,
The CHIEF JUSTICE said the revising barristers,
when they referred cases to the decision of the Court,
ought to state the particulars fully and explicitly, in
order that all delay and expense in requiring addi-
tional particulars might be avoided. In drawing up
the statement of a case, they ought to see that all the
facts were consistent. The Act stated that a notice
should be delivered at the " place of abode" of the
person objected to, and in the present instance it was
stated 1.)7 the barrister that it was delivered at his
house. That was not sufficient, because it might be
his house and yet not his place of abode. He also
omitted to state whether or not the party serving the
notice called more than once. If only once the
Court would hardly deem that sufficient, under
the circumstances of the case, to justify them in
deciding that the delivery was a sufficient one. It
appeared to him, therefore, that the case ought to be
remitted, in order that the particulars might be more
fully stated. He expressed his regret that the parties
would be subjected to delay and expense, and he
trusted that revising barristers would take more care
to state every fact which was necessary to enable the
Court to judge of the correctness of their decisions.
The statement of particulars was then ordered to
be remitted.
PRIOR AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, V. WAREING,
RESPONDENT.
This was an appeal from the decision of the re-
vising barrister for the borough of Lyme Regis.
It appeared that the appellants, who are four in
number, entered into an agreement with a Mr. Att-
wood, to become the joint occupying tenants from
year to year of Springfield House, Lyme, and it was
alleged with the exclusive object only of qualifying
them to vote. It appeared also that they made
occasional visits to Lyme for the purpose
of bringing them under the category of occupants.
The question, therefore, was whether the appellants
had a proper qualification under the Act ? The
revising barrister decided that they had not, and
and expunged their names from the list of voters.
Mr. Sergeant Byles appeared for the appellants,
Mr. Sergeant Kinglake for the respondents.
The COURT, after hearing the case at some length,
were of opinion that they could not entertain this
appeal because the circumstances were different with
repect to each occupant, and the barrister, by amalga-
mating them together, had done something which the
Act did not empower him to do. They considered
that it was not a consolidated appeal, properly speak-
in, the meaning of the Act.
The appeal was then dismissed.

ACCOMPLISHED
Blenheim-street. His person and
up his residence in Blenhei
to
all appearance he was
address'were respectable, and
cAarnNAe shortwith htiismwe infegoada sitew.;tonNalnSee:VdCalslstNaale,cpanjliEctoonbosk:
He was followed by a
in comfortable circumstances.which arrived by railway,
and cisuiastnetdity ofo ff
leather, ladies' boots, shoes,
largeconagnocoy goods,
and slippers, the whole of which he consigned to
Messrs. Taylor and Anderson, auctioneers, for public
sale, and they, of course, speedily_ disposed of them.
A' few days afar the sale, Mr. Charlton, sheriff's
officer, Newcastle, received a writ for the
sum of 4001. against the aid Isaac Jacobs,
who, it appeared, had obtained goods to that amount
from Sol. Myers, another Jew, and dealer in
leather, in London. At the time Jacobs made the
purchase of the goods of Mr. Myers, he represented
that he intended to go with them to Australia, and
on their being packed up and sent to a place accord-
ing to his direction, he gave a cheque for the
amount, but Mr. Myers, on presenting it to the
bank a day or two afterwards, ascertained that the
balance of Jacobs' account there was. only seventeen
shillings. It was in the interim that Jacobs set
off for Newcastle. Wall, the sheriff's officer, of
course went to execute the warrant intrusted to him,
but found, to his mortification, that all chance of ad-
mission had been precluded by the wary occupant.
cupant.
Days and weeks passed away ; the officer in
mean-
time using his best skill to effect his purpose, but

in vain. What was still more annoying was, that
Jacobs, though not visible during the ordinary days.
of the week, turned out in dashing style on the
Sundays, and, with his wife and sister, enjoyed the
benefit of the country air in a dashing chariot. The_
sheriff's officer, finding all his efforts useless, wrote
to Mr. Myers, who dispatched one of his agents to
aid Mr. Charlton. Jacobs, however, succeeded in.
eluding their united efforts, and the other day got.
safely off by the train to York. News of his escap.x
got wind, and the telegraph communicated his arri-
val at York, where he was traced to an hotel ; but
before another warrant could be procured for his de-
tention, he again got ahead of his pursuers by start-
ing for Manchester, and thence to Birmingham,
where his career received a check. It appears that
after selecting goods to a considerable amount, he
presented to a tradesman a valueless bill of exchange
for 2001. as payment, and this being detected, he was
immediately apprehended and taken before the ma•
gistrates. One or two parties also in Newcastle hare
suffered from his tricks, but not to any considerable
amount.—Neweastle Advertiser.

SINGULAR IMPOSTURE.
(From the Skerborne Journal.)
. .

We wish to put the public upon their guard
against a new and strange species of imposture,
which we have recently discovered, and which, in all
probability, is followed to some extent in the metro-
polis and elsewhere, by using the name of some
provincial newspaper. An application was made
to our office a few weeks ago for a Journal con-
taining an advertisement, offering a reward of one
hundred pounds to any one who could give intelli-
gence of one Mary Gundry. No such advertisement
having appeared in our columns, an intimation to
that effect was conveyed to the applicant : but
immediately after the application was renewed from
another quarter, and subsequently a gentleman wrote
to make the same inquiry for Earl Poulett, who had
been addressed upon the subject by some person in
town. Having put ourselves in communication with
this last-named person, we received the following
letter, which will explain the imposition and the
designs of the party imposing :—" 52, Lower Marsh,
Lambeth.—Sir, I beg leave, in reply to your letter,
to inform you of a very clever imposition concerning
Mary Gundry, no doubt being carried on to a very
great extent in London. On the 3d of November, an
old woman came to me while standing at my door, and
asked me to seal a letter, directed to the Governor of
the Bank of England, which I did. She then showed
me an advertisement, as she stated, cut from the
Sherborne Journal, offering one hundred pounds re-
ward for one Mary Gundry—her grandfather, a very
rich farmer of Crewkerne, having left her money in
the Bank of England. She had another paper
recommending her to some lawyers, signed with the
same name as yourself, and quite like your hand-
writing. She obtained a little assistance from me.
I afterwards went to where she said she resided, and
found I was imposed on. She, no doubt, makes a
fine thing of it.—She is nearly 70 years of age, and
knows Dorsetshire well.—l remain, sir, your obedient
servant, WILLIAM DIBDIN."