The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-06 00:00:00

occupied the other side, and who paid one-fourth of 1 tied to an uninterrupted right of way, be was in a posi-
the outlay. Messrs. Knight being nearer the doors lion to show that Mr. Knight's fattier, forty or fifty
than any of the other parties, it was arranged, for their I years ago, allowed the passage from three to six feet—
general convenience, that the; should keep the key of its r 7- • h n.l ii u thetien-e haul
the door which was closed, and which, it was right to I allowed hie right to fell sorneeeat into abeyance, he was
mention, was very rarely used ; they had, however, entitled to rail off for his private use three feet of the
keys of both the openings, which were in the nature of passage. He was in a position t s explain the whole
folding doors. This state of things had continued for qur scion of the right of way claimed by the defendant
some time, when Messrs. Knight began to entertain a I it they were upon that issue, and that the plaintiff had
notion, from some matter which he could not undertake no reasonable claim to the free and uninterrupted right
to explain, but which could not be material to the case, of the paseege.
that one half of this passage belonged exclusively The CHIEF BARON inquired if the parties were willing
to them, and they erected a wooden partition so as to to take a suggestion from }ilea as to what ought to be
render the passage p, rtectly useless to tlze plain'iff, es done ?
he could not get his large bales of goods through the Mr. Pmesos expressed his ill:ngnets, but he wished
confined pace which remained. Before this took place before his Lordship oitl SO to state that he could prove
a very respectable business, which had been carrit don diet the act of tha plaintiff amounted to a breach of the
for several years by Messrs. Brown, was discontinued, peace. He could also prove that the business of Messrs.
and another not so pleasant, but equally respectable, was Knight had beers stopped and incommoded by the con-
commenced on the premises by Messrs. Clarke, who duct of the plaintiff, and that, although the act of the
employed a number of parsons, and as many plaintiff might not amount to a breach of the peace on
had occasion to go backwards for the purpose of seeking Salisbury-plain, that it did in this particular case.
work, more inconvenience was caused to the other rest- The CHIEF BARON repeated what he said yesterday,
dents than during the occupancy of Messrs. Brown. that he did not think a breach of the peace had been
The defendant applied to the plaintiff to assist him in committed. He did not think the jury would be of
putting a stop to this increased use of the passage by opinion that a breach of the peace was committed.
Messrs. Clarke, but he declined, as he considered that Mr. MARTIN wished to read a letter from the plaintiff
Messrs. Clarke bad the same claim to an uninterrupted to the defendant, silting that he would, at any time,
right of way as Messrs. Brown, and he declined to inter- allow him to have the use of the key.
fere. On this they would be surprised to hear that the The CHIEF BARON interposed. lie said he supposed
defendant refused to let the plaintiff have the keys of all that the plaintiff wanted was a verdict of a sufficient
the door for the purpose of bringing up his goods. On amount to carry costs. If this were assented to, the
the 21st of August the plaintiff wanted to get action brcught by Clarke ought also to be stopped on
some bales up to his warehouse; he sent to the the payment of the costs by the defendant.
defendant for the keys, but as he refused to let him have Mr. MARTIN expressed his willingness to adopt the
them, he intimated that if he adhered to his resolution suggestion of the Learned Judge.
he should resort to force to obtain egress for his goods. The CHIEF BARON repeated that a man had no right '
The defendant had erected a partition which divided the to use force to obtain admission into a hereditament of
court in two, but was so arranged that it could slide his own ; but the defendant in this case had no right to
backwards and forwards, and Mr. McGregor on that oc- send a man to prison who was so well known as the
casion asserted his right in person, with the aid of his plaintiff. A man was not always to be governed by the
servants, and pushed the partition against the mere law of the case. If every man in this city had to
wall. On the 24th of the same month be found be restrained by the law, he would be a bad citizen, and
that the partition had been restored, and the city would not be worth living in. A great deal bad
that the door on the left had been fastened to be done in this country with which the law had
with a padlock, and as the defendant refused to remove nothing to do, and which bad to be left to the religious
it, the plaintiff knocked it off with a hammer. Although and good feeling of the country.
the plaintiff was well known in the City, although he The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said some compensation
carried on business for 13 or 14 years, although he was ought to be given to the plaintiff for the injury which he
a man of the greatest respectability, Mr. Knight had sustained by being given into custody. A respect-
sent for a policeman and had him and his able citizen should not wantonly be deprived of his
servant paraded through the public streets, liberty.
attended by a large crowd of people, to the station. Mr. MARTIN replied that none of his neighbours would
house in Bow-lane, where he charged him with think worse of him from what had occurred.
wilfully destroying his property, and with having as- The ATTORNEY-GENERAL inquired how the Learned
saulted him. The Learned Counsel then read the Counsel would like to be taken into custody, and con-
charge sheet, which described the plaintiff as a merchant, veyed through the streets in charge to the police-station?
carrying on business at 150, Cheapside, as being 5 feet Mr. MARTIN said he should not object if he received
8 inches in height, with light hair, and grey eyes.—(A 40s. compensation.
laugh.) All this seemed to be very ludicrous, but it was The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—What during the time
a very serious and important matter to the plaintiff, and the courts are sitting, and special jury cases are being
a gentleman who exposed another to such treatment tried?—(Laughter).
should know what he was about, and the consequences Mr. MARTIN—No, no. You must recollect this took
which would result from his conduct. He sent for a friend, place between five and six o'clock in the evening.
who put in bail, and he was liberated, but he went on the A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff for 40s.
following day, as he was bound to do, before the Lord Mayor by consent. The defendant will therefore have to defray
and Alderman Wilson, to answer any charge which the whole of the costs, which will amount to a consider-
might be brought against him. They heard everything able sum.
that the parties had to say, and in dismissing the case,
those magistrates, in strong language, expressed their
opinion of the course which a neighbour, and a fellow-
citizen, had taken against another. Now, the plaintiff
complained that he had been taken to the station-
house, away from his business and friends, leav-
ing his neighbours to speculate as to the cause
which led to his being taken into custody. He was
charged with committing a breach of the peace, but
there was no breach of the peace, or if there was,
the violence of Mr. Knight, who caused persons
to collect about the court, occasioned it. The
plaintiff, however, shut the door to prevent a greater
crowd from gathering, and to obviate any disturbance.
The second plea of th defendant was that the plaintiff
committed a wilful damage of his property, but his
Lordship would tell them that if a man possessed a right
of way he was perfectly justified in knocking down any
obstruction to it; in fact, that to do so was, in reality,
trying his right, and, therefore, it was ridiculous to sup-
pose that that plea could have any foundation. The
third plea was, that the defendant acted under the Police
Act, that he was demolishing palings, and that the
policeman took him into custody; but that plea was
equally untenable. He asked, therefore, after the
plaintiff had been in undisputed possession of the right
of way for fourteen or fifteen years, and was
treated thus for simply asserting that right, if
he was not entitled to come forward, and say to
the defendant, " You have acted without advice; if you
do not make an apology, I will carry my case into a
court of justice and sue for damages for the injury you
have done me." He did not ask for extravagant
damages, but whatever sum they might award he
would derive no benefit, as it was his intention to pre-
sent it to some charitable institution; he simply sought
to vindicate his character, which was irreproachable. If
Mr. Knight had made an apology for what he had done
he was sure the case would have extended no further,
but when he had not done so he was sure they would
agree with him, that it was due to himself and his
friends that the plaintiff should seek a verdict at their
hands. Unfortunately, however, this trial would not be
the last of the matter, as the question of right of way
would still have to be tried; he was sure also that they
•k. .L.tociant had been
would agree with. hire
guilty oi me most improper conduct, and that the plain-
tiff was perfectly justified in the course he had pursued.
The following witnesses were then called :
Richard Clarke, the plaintiff's servant, was examined
by Mr. Knowles, and proved the occurrence on the days
in question, and the use of the passage by the plaintiff,
and the attendance before the magistrate and dismissal
of the case.
William S. Mason also corroborated the facts of the
case as proved by the last witness.
William Murrils, police-constable 447, said he was
called into the premises on Friday, the 21st, by Mr.
Knight. He also proved the facts of the case, and the
taking the plaintiff into custody by himself and his bro-
ther pol iceman.
Mr. Goodman, chief clerk at the Mansion-house, said
he recollected the plaintiff being brought before Alder-
man Wilson and Alderman Johnson, on the 25th of
August. Solicitors appeared for the parties, but as the
matter was considered by the magistrates one for the
consideration of the higher courts, the defendants were
discharged without the witnesses being sworn.
Mr. Brown, merchant and warehouseman, proved the
occupation of the premises in Cheapside by himself and
his predecessors in business since 1819, and the constant
and uninterrupted use of the passage in question, and that
the north door was the one always open.
The CHIEF BARON said, it was clear from the evidence
already adduced that the plaintiff had reason to believe
that he was entitled to a right of way, and he questioned
if the right of way could be tried in this case.
Mr. MARTIN explained that he simply held the brief
of Sir Frederick Thesiger, and that he should be pre-
pared to prove that the plaintiff did not possess a right
of way.
The CHIEF BARON said if the evidence was irrelevant
he could not allow the public time to be wasted because
Sir Frederick Thesiger was not there to make a speech.
If at the time the defendant gave the plaintiff into cus-
tody he had reason to believe that he was going to do
further mischief, he thought he was right in giving
him in charge, but ho seemed to have waited till the
plaintiff did something to justify hie doing so.
It would have been far better if he had said to the
police—" prevent anything being done," but he waited
until he struck a blow, and then gave him into custody.
Was that the case ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had some difficulties
to deal with. He had a great number of witnesses to
show the right of way.
The CHIEF BARON said they were not there to try the
right of way. The question was, whether the plaintiff,
at the time, considered that he had a right of way ; but
they had better proceed with the evidence.
John Hedgeland, formerly in the service of Messrs.
Brown, said he had been twenty-six years in their ser-
vice, and proved the constant use of the passage, and
that the north door now clused by the defendant, was
the one always opened.
Thomas Riley, also formerly in the employ of Messrs.
Brown, said he had never heard of any interruption to
any one who had a right to use the court.
James Mitchell said he was in the service of the East
India Company in 1785, and his employment generally
ceased about two o'clock in the afternoon. Ho was em-
ployed, after that hour, as a packer, by Messrs. Brown,
of Cheapside, and corroborated the last witness.
Mr. James Sparks, formerly partner in the firm of
Sparks and Co., Cheapside, proved the use of the court
by his firm uninterruptedly for many years.
The CHIEF BARON here suggested whether it would
not be more advisable for the parties to come to some
arrangement; but, after some discussion, the case pro-
ceeded.
Mr. Henry Gage, merchant, of 155, Cheapside,
cor-
roborated the evidence of the preceding witnesses with
regard to the right of way.
Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was unwilling to
waste time; he would therefore be glad to know the
opinion of the Learned Judge.
The CHIEF BARON said he was of opinion that at least
the plaintiff had an apparent right.
Mr, MAR
TIN said there was no doubt of it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should not call any
more witnesses.
The CHIEF BARON wished to know what Mr. Martin
intended to prove.
Mr. MARTIN said he should call for a lease from the
Grocers' Company, showing that the defendant had a
right to three feet, and that he maintained that right up
to the present time.
The CHIEF BARON said it appeared to him that the
defendant had a right to call in the police to interfere
to prevent a breach of the peace, or what looked like a
breach of the peace ; but on looking at the plea,
it appeared that there was no actual breach of
the peace, for knocking off a lock with a sledge hammer
was not a breach of the peace. But if a policeman bad
been called to prevent its being done, and the plaintiff
had done it at his personal risk, it would have
been another matter; or if the defendant had said
he should not knock down the door unless he knocked
down him, and then called to the police to interfere, but
instead of doing this he stood by and saw the act done
before he gave the plaintiff in charge.
Mr. MARTIN said he should call evidence.
The CHIEF BARON—In my opinion the case has come
to a conclusion.
After some discussion, the further hearing of the case
was adjourned till Tuesday (this day).

INSOLVENT COURT-(T HIS DAY)
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.-IN RE ZACHARLLg

SMITE.
This insolvent was opposed on the part of a young
woman, named Maria Caines, for the damages in as
action brought for a breach of promise of marriage.
It appeared that the damages awarded were 1001., and
the costs had been taxed at 1211. The insolvent had
paid 1001., and the question was, whether the money
had been paid on account of the damages or the costs?
The insolvent alleged that the payment was made for
the damages, and, on the other side, it was declared that
it was given for the costs. The question was a material
one in respect to the opposition. It was stated that the:
attorney bad applied the money to the payment of the:
costs, and that the young woman had a good ground of
opposition.
Mr. COOKE, for the young woman, prayed a judgment
for the damages awarded in the action for breach of
promise of marriage, and further complained that several
persons had been preferred to the party, who had great
cause of complaint apinst the insolvent.
Mr. NicitoLs, for the insolvent, contended that the
payment of 100/. was for the damages in the action, and
there:ore no remand could be given. He further con-
tended that the insolvent had accounted for his property,
and that a person who had received 1001. had no cause
to complain of payments to others.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS was of opinion that the
young woman was entitled to ask the Court for a
judgment ; and subsequently remanded the insolvent
for six months from the vesting order.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.

(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
Jesse Butcher, an agricultural labourer, aged 24, was
charged with killing one sheep, the property of John
Ginges, with intent of stealing the carcase.
_

John Bagshaw, police•conaable 237 S, about three
o'clock on the 26th June last, found the sheep lying
dead, maimed and cut in different ways, and near it the
prisoner asleep in the ditch. His hands were bloody, e
bloody knife was found underneath his thigh, and other'
marks that appeared conclusive against him.
The prisoner was found Guilty, and sentenced to sews
years' transportation.
John Patie, aged nineteen, was carried into the dock
in a fainting fit, which, save for a short interval, when
he pleaded Not Guilty to the different indictments, con-
tinued throughout the time he was in court. The first
indictment on which the prisoner was tried was for
stealing a watch, value 31., from his master, John ,
Had-
field High Holborn. _ _

It appeared that the prisoner, being in the service of
the prosecutor about the Bth of June last, was sent into
the bed-room where the watch was hanging. The watch
was missed
.a short time after, and found by the police•
man, pledged with David Jones, a pawnbroker.
The prisoner, though he now pleaded not guilty to
the indictment, confessed before Alderman Johnson to'
having stolen, but not pledged, the watch. He was
found Guilty. A previous conviction for felony was also
produced against him, and there remained two other
indictments, one charging him with stealing a cash-boi
and two half sovereigns from his master, Thomas
Somiez; and the other with stealing a oiagraph, value
61., the property of Edward J. Rogers.
The prisoner was sentenced to seven years' transpor•
tation, and was then carried out of the dock insensible.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
Henry Johnson, the young man who was remanded•
from Friday last on a charge of forging a certificate 01
the Court of Examiners of the Apothecaries' Company,
was again brought before Mr. Henry.
Mr. Mullens appeared as solicitor for the Apotbr
caries' Company, and Mr. Clarkson defended the pri-
soner.

Mr. Mullens, having put in two letters which had
been received by Mr. Salt from a person signing
himself "J. Hudson, " whom he supposed
to be the prisoner, said that since he had.
entered the court this morning he had received
a communication respecting the circumstances under
which the original certificate had fallen into the pri-
soner's hands, but he did not wish to place those circum-
stances before the court until he should first consult the
company. If he should decide upon giving any evidence
on that point at the trial, he should supply Mr. Clarkson
with a copy beforehand.
The prisoner was then committed for trial, being ad-
mitted to bail in two sureties of 1001. each, with the
understanding that his father would be admitted as one,
of them.

IVIARLBRO'-STREET-(THIS
James Hughes, a well-known thief, was charged by
Miss Mary Waters, of 62, Frith-street, Soho, with pick-
ing her pocket of a purse, containing one sovereign,
three shillings and sixpence, and a silver rupee.
The prosecutrix stated, that on the previous afternoon,
between three and four o'clock, she was walking along
Wells street, Oxford-street, when she felt some person
touch her dress behind. She looked round, and saw the
prisoner and two other men close by her. Directly the
prisoner saw that he was observed he ran away, followed
by his companions. Witness then felt in her pocket,
and missed her purse. She called out " Stop thief,
and shortly after she saw the prisoner in custody. The.,
purse produced, containing the amount named in the
charge, was her property.
Joseph Church, a fireman, residing at No. 7, Adam
and Eve-court, said that yesterday afternoon he was
standing near the engine-station in Wells-street, when
he heard the cry of " Stop thief." He looked round,
and saw the prisoner running. Witness pursued him,
and overtook him in Adam and Eve-court. He collared
him, and found the purse in
.his right hand. The pri-
soner begged witness to let him go. He refused to do
so, and took him into Wells-street, where he gave him-
into the custody of a constable.
In answer to the charge, the prisoner said he wag
standing at the corner of Adam and Eve-court, when be
saw a person running down the court, and throw away
the purse. fie picked it up, and as the lady said it was
i hers, he gave tup to her. He denied all knowledge of
the robbery.
Mr. BINGHAM said he, would give him an opportunity
of making a jury believe that tale, by committing him
to take his trial at the Middlesex sessions.

WORSHIP-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
Two ill-looking fellows, and another, not in custody,
described as haymakers, were charged with the follow-
ing, and perhaps unprecedented assault :
A man, named Wilson, stated that himself and wife
had been engaged the whole of yesterday at the farm of
a gentleman named Craven, at Stamford-hill, and as is
usual with haymakers, when there is not a sufficient
number of sheds for them to retire to rest in for the
night, he (witness) and his wife mounted one of the hay
ricks for that purpose. During the night, however, he
was alarmed with violent screams proceeding from his
wife, and he perceived three men, with whom he had
been working during the previous day, endeavouring to
take improper liberties with her. He remonstrated with
them, but the whole of them at once attacked him. One
of them succeeded in making his escape ; two, however;
were taken into custody by the police, who had been
attracted to the spot by the alarm made.
The prisoners made a rambling defence, and
Mr. ARNOLD, who said that a more heartless and
cruel outrage had scarcely come under his notice, ordered
the prisoners to be brought up again in a few days.

THIS DAY.
➢'GREGOR V. KNIGHT.

On the sitting of the Court this morning, Mr. Phipson
(in the absence of Mr. Martin) intimated that he and
his Learned Friend had gone carefully through the evi-
dence, and although they were prepared to admit that
the plaintiff brad reason to believe that he was enti-

PALL IN TILE PRICE Or BREAD.—The bakers
throughout the metropolis made a reduction in the price
of the 41b. loaf of a. A-d. to Id. At the west end the best
bread is now charged 10d. and 10)rd., second class ditto
9d. and BP. In Whitechapel, Southwark, &c., it is only
7d. and 7i d., Nwigbed on delivery, and of good ciugity.