The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-02 00:00:00

IN, LONDON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1841

THE

dered. It appears that since the murder, the Lynchers
have driven the women and children from their homes in
Coahoma county, burned their houses, and sold their
land and property under 'sham judgments.' Judge Lacy,
of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, and some of the most
respectable citizens, have been threatened with death, if
they attempt to bring the Lynchers to justice:
MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL STATISTICS.—The amount.
raised by town taxes the last year, throughout the State,
for school purposes, was 15491,015 28, which, added to
the amount of income of the surplus revenue appropri-
ated to the same object, of $9,529 48, makes au annual
appropriation of half a million of dollars. The number
of children returned, between the ages of four and six-
teen, is 183,492. The average! sum appropriated to the
instruction of each child, is $2 70.

SPIRIT of the VUBLIC JOURNALS.

FRODI THE EVENINO PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.

GLOBE.—The -University of Oxford is at this
time the scene of a' conflict, in which the con-
tending parties are zeitiOnsly engaged in endea-
vouring, to establish' their claims to pre-eminence
in the UniVersity, and ultimately in the Church,
ostensibly originated in the question, which of
two candidates shall occupy the Poetry Chair.
The real question thus placed in issue is, whe-
ther the Puseyites shall be exalted or depressed
by the election or rejection of Mr. Williams, one
of the Tractarians. Dr. Pusey labours ear-
nestly in behalf of his disciple and coadjutor.
Mr. Garbett is put forward by those mem-
bers of Convocation who regard the theo-
logical doctrines of the Tracts for the Times
as tending to introduce the doctrines and prac-
tices of Popery into the Church of England.
The contention has waxed fiercer and fiercer as
the time fixed for the election approaches. Much
ink has been spilled and paper spoiled by the
active partisans on both sides. The odium theo-
logicum is displayed in full activity ; exempli-
fying the correctness of the old adage, that di-
vines manifest a greater degree of rancour
in their contentions than any other class
of disputants. In the midst of this heated
controversy, the question, Whether Williams
or Garbett be the best writer or judge of
poetry—and consequently the best fitted to fill
the Poetry Chair—seems to be almost, if not al-
together, merged in the inquiry, " Which is the
most orthodox divine ?" according to the stan-
dard of orthodoxy adopted . by the inquirer.
The Senate of Oxford has condemned the
Tracts"—Bishops have denounced them, as
strongly imbued with the doctrines of Popery,
and as leading the people of this Protestant
country back to Papal Rome and yet,
with these unequivocal tokens of strong apprehen-
sions of danger to the Church, and of disappro-
bation of those who from the high places of the
Church have " taught for doctrines the com-
mandments of men," and have, in effect, made
" the word of God void," by placing human tra-
ditions on a level with it, in authority and in-
fluence—we find no ecclesiastical censure passed
on the propounders of these dogmas—no steps
taken to purge the Church of their heresies !
STAND ARD.—Dr. Pusey assumes,per saltum,
that the qualifications of Mr. Williams for the
office of Professor of Poetry, by which, according
to the tenour of his argument, he must mean
talents as a poet and a critic, are the very first
in the University—so incontestibly the first, that
no man can be opposed to him, except upon
some extraneous ground. This is going a little
too far for a man, whose verses have not been read
or heard of, we are persuaded, by one of a
thousand of " the reading public," and whose
prose works, we believe, are limited to the
"Tracts for the Times," including the Romanist
article on "Reserve,"—the duty of withholding
the Gospel from mankind. What! Mr. Williams
the only fit Professor of Poetry to be found in
the Oxford Kalendar! We .open it at a venture,
and the first name presented by the sortes
Kalenderice, is that of John Gibson Lock-
hart, a first class man, and rather better
known as a poet than Mr. Williams. The
Quarterly Reviewer, and the inimitable trans-
lator of the Spanish ballads, will be surprised to
find his name in this article, but lie must blame
his chance and the sortes. Why, there are in the
Oxford Kalendar fifty names of men whom we
should insult by comparing their pretensions as
poets and critics with those of Mr. Williams. It
therefore, altogether a gratuitous assumption
that Mr. Williams, because he has written mid-
dling verses, can be opposed only on theologi-
cal grounds. The having written such verses,
and having written such verses only—the fact
of having written n " The Tracts for the
Times," especially the "Reserve" essay—
these t'acts alded by the championship of Doc-
tor Pusey, afford more than a presumption that
it is only upon theological grounds that Mr. Wil-
liams has been brought into the field as a
second candidate. And these facts hold out
a full assurance that the election of Mr. Williams,
will be received as "an assertion" solemnly made
on time part of the University, " that the opinions
of the Tract writers constitute a peremptory re-
commendation for her offices of instruction." We
have no fears that such an assertion will be con-
firmed. It was, we know, made some time
since in Parliament, and then indignantly repel-,
led. The University is not likely to be better
disposed to acquiesce in it.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEUN'S BENCH, Dec. 1.

DRAM V. DRAM.

Thi3 was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
a sum of 9,ii/ !2i. 1-;-.1- work and labour done. The
phlintiff, Christi psi Drash, was apprenticed to his father,
and co,-)nrman, and after he had served his time
1-,! continued in his father's employment for some years,
with the understanding that he should have some remu-
neration, which was not specified. In 1340 the plaintitr s
father married the defaadant, Mary Drash, and shortly
afterwards died, and the action was now brought against
his mother-in-law, as executrix of his deceased father, to
recover the above sum.

The evidence was of a soinewhat contradictory nature,
and the Learned Judge left it to the Jury to say to which
side they would attach credit.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
THE QUEEN V. KENRICK.

Mr. THESIGEII stated the case. It was an indictment
against the defendant and his son for a conspiracy by
false representations to induce the prosecutor, Mr.
Featherstonehaugh, a gentleman in the Foreign-office,
to purclia/ a pair of ponies and a carriage. The de-
fendant ia,rrictl on the business of a horse-dealer in Ox-
ford street, and was assisted by his son, against whom
the indictment was also preferred, but the son had since
then put a period to his existence. It appeared that in
February last the ponies were the property of a person
named i owis, a clerk to a solicitor in Bedford-row.
Whi!c they were his property they were extremely
vicious and unmanageable, and Powis having absconded
about that time, they were sent to Tattersall's for sale,
and wore there purchased by Mr. Kenrick for 301. About
a month afterwards an advertisement appeared in the
Times offering the ponies for sale, with a cab phaeton.
They were said to be the property of a lady, and to be
warranted in every respect. The prosecutor, being
anxious to make a present to a married daughter, went
to the defendant's stables, to which reference was made
in the advertisement. The defendant asked 2001. for the
act out, and the prosecutor at length, on the assurance
that they were gentle, and warranted in every respect,
agreed to give him 1681. The money was paid, and the
ponies sent down to Mr. Featherstonehaugh's residence,
and from thence they were sent to Mr. Markham's livery
stables, but they exhibited a great deal of vice and un-
manageableness, and nearly killed a groom. Mr. Fea-
therstonchatigh wrote to request Mr. Kenrick to take
them back and to return the' money, but he declined to
do so. These mere the facts of the case, as they would
be detailed by the witnesses, and it would be for the
Jury to say, under all the circumstances, whether the de-
fendant was not guilty of the charge imputed to him.
George William Featherstonehaugh, of Chester-street,
Belgra.ve-square, deposed to having gone to.the stables
of the i:efendant in Oxford-street, in consequence of
has-:tig seen an ailierisement about a pair of ponies and
a phaeton. Mr. Kenrick showed the ponies, and witness
said he would have nothing to do with them unless they
were the property of a private fr-nily. Mr. Kenrick as-
sured him they were, and said he had driven them him-
self repeatedly, and that they were as gentle to drive as
iambs. Witness asked what security he had, and Ken-
rick said, " Perhaps you don't know my character, but
if you look at this book you will find my character
in it." He then handed a book " Adventures in Search
of a Horse, by Caveat Emptor, Gentleman."—(Much
laughter.) Witness declined to look at the book, and
Kenrick said the ponies and carriage would be warranted
in every respect as it was set out in the advertisement.
He also showed the card of another gentleman, who he
Said was in treaty for the lot. The name was " Mr.
Book."—(A laugh.) After a good deal of conversation,
witness agreed to give 160 guineas, and Mr. Kenrick
said he would send him an answer that evening. Kenrick
jun., wrote that evening to say the lady had agreed -to
take the money, and witness wrote back to request
the ponies might be driven down to his house next
morning. Instead of the ponies Mr. Kenrick himself
cline, and said Cie lady would not allow them to be taken
out for such a purpose. Next day he called at Ken-
rick's, and saw tlia son who stated that he had frequently
driv.m the pe-Aies., and that they were extremely gentle
creatures. He Lad previously spoken to Mr. Kenrick about
a horse for himself, and Mr. Kenrick said, " I have
just the thing that will suit you."—(Great laughter.)
is now concluded, and we shall
Witness declined to see the horse then ; and the elder
Kenrick being sent for, orders were given to harness the
ponies. Mr. Kenrick then said, " Everything, I believe,
warrantry, and you can take althe set." Witness
vay
had the cheque ready in his pocket, and the receipt being
drawn out,which •
Wilson was unable to read, having left
upon the box, and drove the ponies very gently
give you a receipt and
his spectacles at home, he gave the cheque and put the
receipt in his pocket. Tho servant and witness then got
Markham's livery-to
stables in Chester-street.- If he had
known them to be the property of a dealer, he would
never have purchased them. On his return from Downing-
street, he received such information respecting the ponies
as induced him to write to Mr. Kenrick. He went to
Markham's mews, and saw a
groom lying in his gore
with a dreadful gash across his head. Re was taken to

the hospital, and witness went with the note he had
written to Kenrick, and told him he must take them
back, but Kenrick decline& and said 'the groom must
have been an awkward fellow ; that the ponies were as
quiet as ponies could be. Next day, in consequence of
something further he had heard, he sent back the ponies
and carriage.
Cross-examined by Mr. BYLES—When I drove the po-
nies down to Markham's they did not perform ill, but
the carriage was stiff and would not turn.
By the COURT—I have never received back any part of
the 160 guineas.
William Charles Markham—l am a livery stable-
keepe rin Chester-mews. I recollect the ponies and car-
riage coming on the 22d of April. I assisted two or three
others in taking the ponies out. One of them struck out
violently. He was very fidgetty. There was much more
difficulty in taking out the other. She lay down upon
the pole and appeared to be like an unbroken horse. I
saw afterwards she was very vicious. I gave one of them
his corn, and:he bit at me. , I afterwards heard of the injury
to Cronck, the groom, and desired that the ponies should
be taken out of the stables. I recognised one of the
ponies, particularly as having seen him at Tattersall's
live or six weeks previously, where he attempted to kick
me. Next day a person from Tattersall's came and saw
the ponies, and I told Mr. Featherstonehaugh. When
they were harnessed next day they were very unma-
nageable, and one of them kicked violently. In my
judgment they were very vicious animals. I saw one of
these ponies about a week ago in Mr. Kenrick's cab. I
never betted on the result of this prosecution. I was
twice at Mr. Kenrick's stables since about a horse, but
did not purchase. •
John M. Stephens—l am partner to the last witness.
I assisted in taking out the ponies when they came to
our stables. The one I went to kicked at me and just
missed my knee. The evidence was in corroboration of
the last witness. _

Thomas Cronck—l was ostler at Markham's stables
when the ponies were brought there. I went to dress
them at four o'clock, when one of them flew at me and
bit me in the side. I tied him up, and then he kicked
me in the side and knocked me down. lie kicked me on
the head and wounded me Yery much. I was nearly a
month in the hospital.

Robert Benson----I am coachman to Sir Henry Mild-
may. I heard the last witness cry out. He said the
little brute had bit him. Cronck went up to the pony
again and he kicked at him with both his lets, knocked
him down and then kicked him on the head. I pulled
him out. Cronck acted in a proper manner when he went
to the pony. I attribute the kicking to actual viciousness.
Richard Holkam—Was formerly groom to Mr. BOWLS.
He had two dun ponies for six or seven months. I had
the care of them. They were very vicious, and showed
it in kicking, biting, and running away. I have been
often bitten, and Mrs. Yowls was bitten. I was obliged
to muzzle them, and was sometimes obliged to cross the
stall to get away. Last time Mr. Pelvis drove them, in
February, they behaved very bad—kickinc, and unma-
nageable, I took them to Tattersall's, and told the ostler
they were vicious. I never said they were quiet, but
that they had been driven together. Mr. Bowls said he
would not venture himself behind them again.
_ _ _

Henry Nottingham—l married a sister of Mrs. Powis,
who is now abroad. I saw the ponies one Sunday even-
ing coming home. One of them was taken out, and the
phaeton was brought home by the other. Mr. Yowls had
the other. He was splashed all over with mud. They
were sent to Tattersall's, and Kenrick came and offered
me 281., but I refused to take less than 30L, which he
gave me. I said nothing to Kenrick of their qualities
when he purchased them.
Yeoman Newbeggin, servant to the prosecutor, proved
that the person who brought the letter to his master,
agreeing to take 160 guineas, was Kenrick, jun.
Mr. BMES addressed the Jury for the defendant. He
referred to the letter written by Mr. Featherstonehaugh
to the defendant, in which he stated, that if the money
wts not immediately returned, a criminal prosecution
would be instituted against him. It was clear from
that, that if the money had been refunded, they would
never have heard of the present prosecution. Ile thought
the proceeding a very unusual and unwarrantable
one in a case of a breach of warranty of a horse. The
Learned Counsel then referred to the extraordinary want
of caution of the prosecutor in taking everything for
gospel that was said by a professed horse-dealer. He
submitted that the evidence of conspiracy had not been
made out—that in a criminal prosecution the defendant
was entitled to the benefit of any doubt that might arise
in their minds, and that the defendant ought to be ac-
quitted.
Some witnesses to character having been examined,
Lord DENMAN summed up, and the Jury returned a
verdict of Guilty.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 1.
GIPPS V. IeQUEEN.._

Mr. CORRIE stated that the plaintiff in this case was
a brewer, at Chelsea, who brought his action to recover
the sum of 251., the balance of an account owing for beer,
under these circumstances: A man named Liddel was the
keeper of a beer-shop alio at Chelsea, who became insol-
vent at the time being indebted to the plaintiff. His
business while he was going through the Court was
carried on by the defendant, and to him beer was sup-
plied, the balance upon the account for which the sum
was due. After the action was commenced, a summons
was taken out to stay proceedings, upon payment of the
debt and costs; it was not attended to, and the pro-
ceedings being again commenced, another summons was
taken out similar to the former, but like it, it was unat-
tended to.

The summonses were proved by the clerk of the
plaintitY's attorney.
In his cross-examination, he said his master did re-
ceive instructions from the plaintiff to sue Liddel fur the
debt.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. WIIATELY submitted there was no case to go. to
the Jury.
Lord AHINGEII,—The evidences is very slight indeed,
but as there is some I cannot stop the case.
Mr. WHATELY, for the defendant,. said that the action
was an unjust andimpudent attempt to make one man pay
the debt of another. The beer was supplied to Liddel,
who was some relation to the defendant, who, so far from
being a beer-shopkeerer, filled the humble office ofporter
at the bank of Martin, Stone, and Martin. He had
nothing whatever to do with the action. The attorney
who took out the summons to stay proceedings did so by
the orders of Liddel, who wished to save a man any fur-
ther trouble who had been a pecuniary sufferer by him
already. lie called _ _

the attorney for defendant, who proved that
ho took out both summonses on the instructions of Lid-
del, and so far as he line v, the defendant M•Queen knew
nothing of either.
This closed the defendant's case, there seeming to be
mach hesitation in putting Liddel into the box.
Counsel having replied, the case' was left to the Jury,
who found a verdict for the defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. •
OLD COURT
CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT AGAINST A COLLECTOR
OF THE PARISH OF CLERKENWELL.
J. Hill was indicted for embezzling various sums of
money, the property of the parish of Clerkenwcll. [The
conclusion of the trial—which had not terminated when
we went to press yesterday—we proceed to lay before
our readers.]
In reply to Mr. M. D. HILL,
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said ho thought not.
Mr. M. 1). HILL submitted that Kemp had acted as
the prisoner's agent.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON would not stop the case, but
threw out what he had said as a suggestion.
E. 'Barnard, also a gate-keeper, had received 10s. of
Harr On 23d July, and had paid the same over to the
prisOner.
Cross-examined—l received ls. a week additional, and
more meat than other paupers, for keeping the gate. I
accounted to the prisoner for the 10s. within two days
of the time that I received it. I cannot say the amount
I paid him at that settlement. I never made any pay-
ments which I deducted from the prisoner's account. I
was never examined before the Magistrate on this charge.
Re-examined—l was in the habit when I received
money at the gate of wrapping it up in paper, writing
the name of the party from whom I received it on the
paper, and handing it to the prisoner on the first oppor-
tunity that presented itself.
W. Lovell, one of the auditors of the parish, audited
the accounts of the prisoner up to June 1840, they were
put in and road.
Mr. Pascell produced the payment-book, from which it
appeared that the last payment to Hannah Williamson,
the mother of Hart's child, was 10th April, 1839.
the payments to her ceased at that time, according to the
account in prisoner's writing. Against her name there
was written in prisoner's hand-writing, " in the house,"
which meant that the child was at that time taken into
the house, and that the payments to the mother ceased,
as the child was maintained by the parish.
John Hart being recalled, stated he knew the child
was taken into the house in April, P 339, and had re-
mained there ever since. •
Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury for the defence ;
and after commenting on the manner in which the
guardians performed their duty, complained of the
manner in which the prosecution had been got
up, and of the various matters having bean given
in evidence on the trial, to which no allusion had been
made before the Magistrates. He then went on to con•
tend that the appointment of the prisoner was contrary
to the Act of Parliament, but would not go so far as to
say that he was therefore released from responsibility.
The Learned Counsel then detailed to the Court various
facts which were subsequently proved by the evidence of
Mr. Selby. The question was not whether the prisoner
had omitted to record the receipt of the money in the
book, but whether he had omitted to do so for the pur-
pose of defrauding the pariSh. The items entered in
the audited accounts were items of totals, not of
each specific ten shillings received by the prisoner.
They ought not to have left his accounts unaudited
for two years, and then to have called upon hiM to ac-
count for a specific sum of ten shillings. It was a mere
matter of account between the parties, as was proved by
the conduct of the guardians in stopping moneys belong-
ing to the prisoner; and by the mode in which they had
always kept their accounts, and by their own resolutions.
The Learned Gentleman, having concluded his address,
called
Mr. George Selby—l• am the vestry-clerk of the
parish of St. James, Clerkenwell—l have been so 25
years. I was also clerk to the guardians. I resigned
that office some short time since. The prisoner has
been in my service 14 or 15 years. His occupations
have been multifarious, and a great deal of them.
I recollect his being appointed collector of the bastardy
clues in 1836. He had a great deal more parish business
to transact. There was a person at the gate to receive
sums received at the workhouse. I was called upon by
the Board of Guardians to make good certain reported
defalcations in the accounts of Hill. I applied to Hill
on the subject. There were other matters for which I
was liable to the parish, for which he was not.
I have always been ready to pay to the guardians what-
ever sums Hill's liabilities to the parish might amount
to. whether legally or morally responsible. I have, since
the prsoner has been charged With defrauding, received
money that ought to have been paid to him, with which
he had charged himself a sum of money from Cameron.
Mr. Pascell handed me a paper on the subject of the ac-
counts, and desired ine to get written answers, knowing
I could get them from no one but Hill. His character
is so good that I would have confided anything to him.
By the COURT—In all his accounts with me he has
been most correct.
Cross-examined—l did not recommend Mr. Hill for
the appointment. I gave a guarantee for him. I knew
the duties he would have to perform. In consequence
of the late change in the Poor-law, the bastard
cases have been fewer than formerly. I know
he is a defaulter in the broker's account, but
do not know exactly to what amount. I have heard
him say that the outstanding amounts upon that account
are nearly sufficient to cover the defalcations. I have
never had any mistake in the bastardy account. I have
not changed my mind.
Mr. M. D. Hill—Do you now intend to pay the bas-
tardy account? Witness—l cannot say Ido now. I think
I have been called on to pay inure than his defalcations
amount to.
Ito .examined—Mr. Pascell and Mr. Lovell came to me
some days ago, to know how much of the 7001., alleged
to be due I intended to pay.
Several witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent cha-
racter.
Mr. M. D. HILL having replied,
Mr. Baron ALDERSON summed up, and the Jury found
the prisoner guilty.
There were six other indictments against the prisoner.
Ile was again placed at the bar :upon one of the other
indictments, and after a short conversation with his
Counsel he expressed a wish to retract his plea of not
guilty and to plead guilty, and was permitted to do so
accordingly.
Mr. CLARKSON represented to the Court that the pri-
soner was himself a cripple, and that he had a wife and
seven children.
The COURT sentenced him to two years' imprisonment
with hard labour.