The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-17 00:00:00

DEXTER V. GIBSON,

This was an action for overworking three horses,
which the plaintiff let out to the defendant for hire.
Mr. Thesiger and Mr. James appeared for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Sergeant Bompas and Mr. Cleasby for the de-
fendant.

It appeared that the plaintiff was a large livery-stable
keeper in Whitechapel, and the defendant a timber-mer-
chant at Stratford, in Essex. The plaintiff's business
consisted principally in letting out cart-horses to hire ;
and the defendant in February last hired three cart-
horses of him for an indefinite period. In a short time,
aowever, one of them was sent home very ill, and died
she next morning ; a few days after that the plaintiff re-
.;eived information that another was ill, and before he got
to the defendant's premises that horse also died. The
third was subsequently sent home ill, but he did not die.
There, were post mortem examinations of the two former,
and symptoms appeared of their having been considerably
strained. The evidence was very conflicting. The plain-
iff's case was that they must have been cruelly over-
-.vorked and ill-fed ; the defendant's case being that
every possible attention was shown to them ; that dur-
ing the time they were with .the defendant they had
several days' rest, and before that time they had been put
to very severe work by the plaintiff himself.
The LOAD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, and the Jury
found a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 15.
BURDETT V. JOHNSON.

Mr. Platt and Mr. Ogle appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. J. Jervis and Mr. Martin for the defendant.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the
SUM of 2/. odd, for necessaries furnished to the wife of
the defendant. The defendant pleaded that he was not
liable, inasmuch as his wife, from whom he had long
been separated, had been living in adultery.
It appeared in the course of the trial, which lasted
several hours, that Mrs. Locke, a widow, who had for
some years carried on a somewhat flourishing trade as a
3taymaker, in Brook-street and Bond-street, had married
the defendant, who was a coal-meter, or coal-weigher;
but that shortly after, in consequence of his habits of
life, and of his cruelty to her, they lived apart. This
was in 1334. By and bye the stay business proved to be •
extremely unprofitable, and she became greatly distressed
in her circumstances; during which period a correspond-
ence, which had occasionally existed between her and
husband, was continued. Subsequently to this, Mrs.
Johnson, having lived at other plar...es, took lodgings in
the Waterloo-road, where for upwards of nine months
she supported herself by keeping a school. It was at this
residence that the adultery was more particularly alleged
to have been carried on, with a man of the name of Hoo-
man. The evidence on the part of the defendant to sup-
port this allegation, however, failed in satisfying the
Jury upon the point, and they therefore returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for the amount sought to be recovered.
It appears that the total number of new cases which
have been entered during and [-Ter the Term just ended,
is as follows :—Queen's Bench 255, Common Pleas 115,
Exchequer 247.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

Elvey Jacques Deschamps, aged 32, and Felicite Des-
champs, aged 28, were indicted for feloniously stealing three
nrtificial flowers and 17s. 10d., the property of Mr. George
Watt s. _ _

It appeared that on the 24th of April last the pri-
soners went into the prosecutor's shop to look at some
artificial flowers, and after looking at several they close
three, and asked the wife of the prosecutor if she could
give them change for a sovereign. She said she
could, and put down seventeen shillings and tenpence. The
male prisoner took it up and put down a farthi ig, and imme-
diately left the shop. The prosecutor's wife did not disenver
the imposition for some time afterwards. As soon as her hus-
band came in she told him of it, and he went in search or the
prisoners and gave them into custody.
Neither of the pri•ooers c9it'd speak English, and an inter-
preter attended to translate the evidence to them.
The prisoners were undefended, and the Learned Juke
having summed tip the evidence,
The Jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty, and the
male prisoner was sen.enced to seven years' transportation,
and the female to six months' imprisonment.
It appeared that the prisnoershad been to several other shops
practising the same kind of imposition.
Thomas Hattersbary wai indicted for feloniously
breaking into the house of Charles Spencer March
Phillips, and stealing two coats, two waistcoats, one pen-
cil-case, and other articles his property, valued at 41.
and he was also further indicted for stealing two coats,
valued at 12s. the property of Edmund Beals.
The prisoner, having pleaded guilty, was sentenced to
be traxportul for tea years, with au intimatiou that he

would be imprisoned in the Penitentiary, for a shorter
term of years, th prosecutors having expressed a desire
that such might be the case.

Several other cases were tried during the day, but they
possessed no features of public interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.
_ _

John Stephen Pardy, a person living in Whetstone-
park, Lincoln's-inn-fields, appeared to a summons, charg-
ing him with detaining a valuable Newfoundland dog,
the property of Messrs. Williams and Co., of Friday-
street, Cheapside.
A clerk to the complainants stated that the dog in
question was lost about a fortnight ago, and that a day
or two since, in consequence of some information he re-
ceived, he went to the house of the defendant, of whom
he made some inquiries respecting it.
The defendant at once gave him a most correct descrip-
tion of the animal, and admitted that he knew where 'it
was, but refused to produce it until he was paid his fee of
one guinea. When the dog was lost it had a collar on,
with the name and address of its owners upon it. The
defendant, when questioned as to the collar, said he knew
nothing about it ; and that if his fee was not paid be-
fore two o'clock, the dog would be sold. Witness, not
choosing to pay the defendant's demand, applied to this
office, and obtained a summons against him for detaining
the dog.
An attorney, who attended on the part of the de-
fendant, said his client, since he saw the witness, disco-
vered that he had not got the complainant's dog, but
another Newfoundland dog, that was very much like it.
Even if he had got it, he would not part with it until he
was paid his fee.

Mr. JARDINE inquired on what pretence the defen-
dant demanded a fee of one guinea ?
The attorney said his client was at great expense in
advertising dogs that had been lost, and afterwards came
into his possession.

Mr. William Best—But my dog has not been adver-
tised at all.

The attorney said he would admit that particular dog
had never been advertised, but his client had inserted a
general advertisement
.in several of the newspapers,
stating that persons having lost dogs might probably
hear of them on applying at his depot. A few days
since he was the means of 'restoring a dog that had been
lost by Lord Palmerston, and his Lordship paid the fee
immediately, and without any hesitation.
Mr. JARDINE said he did not think the complainant
was bound to pay the expense of a general advertise-
ment like that mentioned, but he would certainly be
liable for the expense of the dog's keep ; and the de
Pendant (supposing he had the complainant's dog) would
be justified in detaining it until that expense was paid.
The attorney said the defendant had not got the com-
plainant's dog. He was willing to show the complainant
the dog supposed to be his ; and if he (complainant)
could prove it was his, he might have it on paying the
expense of its keep.
Witness said the defendant told him distinctly that he
knew very well where the dog was, and could produce it
in five minutes, but insisted on his fee of one guinea
being paid first. As to going to see a dog that was like
it, he had no doubt that defendant could produce one
like it, or the dog itself, if he chose.
The attorney repeated that his client knew nothing of
complainant's dog.
After some discussion, it was arranged that complain-
mt should see the dog the defendant had, and if he
identified it as his, it should be given up to him on pay-
ing the expenses of his keep.
In about an hour after the above case had been dis-
posed of, the witness came to the office in a state of great
excitement, and stated that in pursuance of the above
arrangement, he went to the defendant's house for the
purpose of seeing the dog. The defendant immediately
said to him, " I've been civil to you before, but I shall
act very differently now," and immediately struck him a
violent blow on the ribs, and afterwards laid hold of him,
and a scuffle ensued, in which witness's coat was torn
in several places. He at length ran into a sawyer's
yard adjoining, and applied to the worknien for protec-
tion, and a policeman came up and prevented further vio-
lence on the part of the defendant. •

Mr. JARDINE immediately granted a *arrant, and the
Itfendant was brought in custody to the office, when
complainant repeated the above statement.

Defendant, in answer to thecil;i;,-S;id the witness
had irritated him by calling him a dog-stealer, and col-
lecting a mob about his house. He refused to let him see
the dog, and on his insisting, quietly put him out of his
house.

Mr. JARDINE said it was expressly arranged that
complainant should see the dog.
The defendant called two witnesses, who roundly swore
that the defendant did not assault complainant.
Mr. JARDINE said the assault had been clearly
proved, and the conduct of the defendant had been most
ligraceful ; he would say nothing more about the dog
case, but for the assault he should fine him forty shil-
lings, and in default of payment commit him for eight
days to the House of Correction. The defendant paid
the fine.