The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-25 00:00:00

IN RE JOHN BROWN.

This insolvent, who lately kept the Three Tuns
public-house, in Oxford-street, was opposed by a
creditor named Stiff, who complained that he had
been defrauded of 451. in a horse transaction. It ap-
peared, however, that the insolvent, together with
two other persons, had been tried at the Old Bailey
upon a charge of conspiracy preferred by Mr. Stiff
in connexion with this transaction, and having been
convicted, had suffered six months' imprisonment.
His HONOUR remarked, that such a case as this had
never occurred before. He did not think that having
chosen to regard the matter as a criminal proceeding,
the creditor could now be allowed to oppose as for a
simple debt. Upon examining the schedule, the
Learned Commisioner found no mention was made
therein of the insolvent's trial and conviction.

The case was, therefore, adjourned until Nov. 2,
for the schedule to be amended.

IN RE BORDEN CHADWICK.

This insolvent, an old man, a pensioner of the
Royal Artillery, was opposed by Mr. Nichols on
behalf of Mr. A. W. Grant, and by Mr. Cooke for
Messrs. Broadwood and Co., brewers.

Mr. NicßoLs complained that his client had been
compelled to bring an action of ejecttnent against the
insolvent to recover possession of a house in Poland-
street, to which, together with a large extent of pro-
perty in the neighbourhood, the insolvent had set up
a claim.
His HONOUR asked under what clause he could re-
mand the insolvent ?
Mr. NicttoLs submitted the case was one to which
the discretionary clause should be applied.
Mr. COOK E said, Messrs. Broadwood and Co. had
been put to 1,5001. law expenses by the insolvent's
proceedings, and, unfortunately, this waM not the first
time they had been so annoyed. It appeared there were
numerous parties in Lancashire bearing the name of
Chadirick, which they seemed to consider entitled
them to the Chadwick estate, upon a portion of which

Messrs. Broadwood's premises are erected.
The insolvent, upon being examined, said that he
derived his right to the property by heirship from Sir
Andrew Chadwick, from whom he was descended by
four removes. The property he claimed comprised a
great part of Broad-street, Poland-street, Carnahy-
street, Marlborough-street, some portion of Golden-
square and Berwick-street, besides about three acres
not entirely built upon.
The insolvent stated that he had some papers in
prison relating to his claim, and the schedule requir-
ing amendment, the case was adjourned for the pro-
duction of the former and completion of the latter.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Yesterday John Martin, aged 18, but who had the
appearance, of being younger, was charged with rob-
bing his employei,. Afar. Farley, who keeps a toy-shop
and post-office in Fleet-street.

Mr. Farley stated that he had been aware for a
long time that he was being robbed, but he could not
tell how. In taking an account of his dealings in the
last year, there was a deficiency of 3001., and it had
been a source of great anxiety to him. The prisoner
was away three days lately from illness, and, finding
that his accounts for those days balanced exactly, while
there was always some deficiency on previous days,
he became convinced the prisoner was the thief.
About a fortnight ago he missed 301. from his cash-
for the post-office on
shillings,bt
ho rx,
e
a few
he called the prisoner into a room up stairs,
ethedaayms o; unatndof
ythesetetradkainyr
upon
missing
and challenged him with having robbed the till. He
desired him to produce the contents of his pockets.
pence. He hesitated
thew other, and wanted to
i
tgOooupdtrooowfd
down
one he.
athihrees e pulledolnl rtietnonnteslsygn
fianfssted upon his emptying
Into the fire.
thatg
the pocket. He at first endeavoured to secrete some-
thingthis was observed and
an officer had arrived,
hne vseuredidgennsl3 and some
of two half-
h eari n undergthe hnhfideiulsslnohgrmianhteg, i
sb,
andum t
silver,osneeein
iy, o
n 350/. a month.
s
Sir P. LAURIE asked how often he accounted to the
P)t o said, once a month. His
iaolssni•r p
e nffit.csLea?AmungAniltsir.
teadslkit aboutaenrdley
what amount of stamps or
labels he sold ? Mr. Farley replied, to the extent of
2,0001. a year.
Sir P. LAURIE asked how much he took in cash
prepayments with letters ? Mr. Farley said, the
amount varied from 50/. to 85/. a month. His takings
in various ways amounted to 4,0001. a year, and he
had placed unlimited confidence in the prisoner.
Sir P. LAURIE asked how long he had been in his
service, and what wages he had ? Mr. Farley said
he took him as an errand b.sy two years ago, and as
he was a sharp lad he determined to advance him.
He paid him 6s. fid. a week, and he boarded and
lodged with his parents. He was afraid the prisoner
had formed some bad connexion, as he was becoming
ive the prisoner if he would
was often buying new
ealnfrtehqinugen. teirioef
wthnentldhefaotrrge and
tell what had become of the money he had stolen.
He could not have spent the 301. he took a fort-
night ago.
Sir P. LAURIE asked if the place where the pri-
soner slept had been thoroughly searched ? Mr. Far-
ley said, the officer had searched, but he was obliged
to attend as a witness at the Old Bailey that morning,
and he should feel obliged if the Alderman would let
the case stand over for a short time.

Sir P. LAURIU said he would adjourn it till the
next day.
Sir. P. LAURIE put a few questions to the priso-
ner's mother, who said, she understood presents were
occasionally made to the prisoner by his master and
mistress. He also represented that he saved a part
of the money she gave him to provide his dinner, and
she thought nothing of his spending 6d. to go to a
theatre. She did not know that he had any com-
panions.
The prisoner was remanded till the next day. He
did not utter a word.

WORSHIP-STREET.
Yesterday Mrs. Mary Anne Hutchinson, an elderly
lady of acknowledged respectability, was charged
with having knowingly uttered a counterfeit shilling
in payment of her fare by an omnibus.
William Reading, the conductor, stated that the
defendant was a passenger in his omnibus on the pre-
ceding evening from the Elephant and Castle, at
Newington, to the Eastern Counties Railway ter-
minus, in Shoreditch, where, upon descending, she
handed him a shilling, which he immediately dis-
covered to be spurious, and told her so, but the de-
fendant declared that she had given him a good shil-
ling, for which he had substituted the base one in
question, and after some altercation between them,
he called a policeman and gave her into custody.
Mr. ARNOLD asked the conductor whether he had
applied to the lady for her name and address before
he had given her in charge ?—The conductor replied
that he had not done so, but that so much money had
been palmed upon him since the introduction of the
reduced fares, that he was resolved not to allow
another attempt of the kind to pass with impunity.
In answer to the charge the defendant indignantly
denied the imputation, and said that before she left
the omnibus she placed a shilling, which she firmly
believed to be a perfectly good one, in the hand of
her accuser, who had some other money in it at the
time ; but that on getting out and demanding her
change he produced a bad shilling, which he insisted
was the one she had presented to him, and, notwith-
standing her earnest protestations to the contrary,
almost immediately gave her into custody.
The MAGISTRATE inquired how long the defendant
had been detained upon the charge at the station-
house, and was answered by Sergeant Tait that she
had been locked up in one of the cells the whole night,
as the charge was of such a nature that, although she
was known to be a person in easy circumstances and
respectable, they did not feel justified in making any
distinction in her favour.

Mr. ARNOLD said, that the conductor had acted in