The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-03 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING,_ NOVEMBER 3 1H47.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 2.
ROGERS AND ANOTHER V. NOW LL.
'Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The declaration alleged that the defendants put a
mark—V. R., a crcwn, and the name J. Rogers and
Sons—upon penknive sof an Inferior description ma-
nufactured by them, for the purpose of falsely repre-
senting them as those of the plaintiffs, and that they
were thereby hindered and deprived of disposing of a
large number of knives. The Learned Counsel then
submitted that it was shown at the trial, that,
instead of losing by the act of the defend-
ants, the plaintiffs business had greatly increased,
and that the penknives in question were not at all
inferior to those made by the plaintiffs. Then, with
regard to the summing up, the Learned Judge laid it
down as a general principle, and as the only principle
of law involved in the case, that no man had a right
to sell his own goods under the false repre-
sentation that they were the goods of an-
other, and that such other person had a right
of action against the party. Mr. Chambers then
stated that the mere false representation that the
goods belonged to another party would not sustain
an action, without an intention to defraud, and some
proof being given that damage had resulted there-
from.

The arguments of the Learned Counsel occupied
the Court the whole afternoon, at the conclusion of
which
The CHIEF JUSTICE said it appeared to him that
there was no ground to justify the Court in granting
the rule. The action arose out of very ordinary cir-
cumstances, and he thought it would be a reproach to
our law if the yerdict was not sustainable. The real
question was whether the law would protect a man
from having goods sold as made by him, when in
truth they were not made by him. He, therefore,
with regard to all the points urged, via., the summing
up, the damages, and the arrest of judgment, was of
opinion that nothing had been sustained by the learned
counsel to entitle the court to grant the rule.
The other judges concurred in the above opinion.
Rule accordingly refused.
The court did not adjourn until a quarter past five
o'clock.

ARCHES' COURT, Nov. 2.
This being the first day of term, the sessions of the
ecclesiastical Courts were opened with the customary
solemnities.
Dr. FetherstonStonestreet, of St. John's College,
Cambridge, was introduced in the usual form, and,
after taking the oaths, was admitted an advocate, by
virtue of a rescript from his Grace the Lord Arch-
bishop of Canterbury.
THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED Br BROOKES
.AGAINST CRESSWELL.
This
are
e wasf
proceeding against the Rev.
Somerset,
r
vicar of Creech St. Michael,
excesses, in which the Court
Cresswell,
certain
held the articles to have been proved, and sentenced
Mr. Cresswell to be suspended from office and bene-
fice
for eighteen months, from the Bth of March,
184.5, and until he should produce a certificate from
three beneficed clergymen that he had been of good
behaviour in the interval, and further condemned him
in the costs. The taxed costs amounted to 5811., and
a monition was decreed for their payment; but though
attempts were made to serve it, they were unsuccess-
ful. In April, 1846, Mr. Brookes, the promoter of
the suit, died, and no step was afterwards taken to
enforce the payment of the costs. The term of the
suspension having expired in September last, and a
certificate of three clergymen being exhibited,
Dr. ADDAMS, on behalf of Mr. Cresswell, prayed
the Court to admit the certificate, and to decree the
Suspension to be relaxed.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE, on the part of the admi-
nistratrix of the promoter, opposed the motion, on the
ground that, the costs net having been paid, the sen-
tence of the Court had not been complied with.
Sir H. JENNER Fusr said, the first question was,
whether he should receive the certificate ; and as the
certificate was, in his opinion, sufficient, he was
bound to receive it. The next question was, whether
Mr. Cresswell had complied with the sentence of the
Court so far as to entitle him to a relaxation of the
suspension ? He had not paid the costs, but nothing
had been done since April, 1846, to enforce their
payment. He was of opinion that Mr. Cresswell had
so far complied with the sentence as to be entitled to
a relaxation of the suspension, and to be restored to
the performance of his clerical functions. With re-
gard to the costs, he was still before the Court, and
was not released from the obligation of paying them,
though the monition taken out by the deceased pro-
moter could not be enforced.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE, on behalf of the
.admi-
nistratrix of the promoter, moved for a monition
against Mr. Cresswell to show cause why the costs
should not be paid, which the Court granted.

XNIGIIT AGAINST KNIGHT.
This was a suit for a divorce by reason of adultery
by Mr.
William Knight against Martha Knight,
his wife.

After hearing Dr. Twiss, on the part of the wife,
in objection to the proof of the adultery, founded
mainly upon the evidence of the particeps criminis,
who, he contended, was not confirmed by other wit-
nesses, or credible per se ;
On the motion of Dr. CURTEIS, for the husband,
Sir H. J. PUS; without entering into the details
of the case (which the Learned Judge said were
perfectly disgusting), pronounced for the divorce.

GEILS AGAINST GEIES.
' This case, a suit for restitution of conjugal rights
by Mr. John Edward Geils against Frances, his
wife, met on.her part by a plea of cruelty, adultery,
and another charge, was opened merely, the pleadings
and evidence being formally read. The argument
will commence next court day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 2.
Two Commissioners sat to-day, Messrs. Shepherd
and Goulburn. The former disposed of a long list of
insolvency cases, norm of which possessed a feature of
interest. Before the latter there was a dividend
meeting in the matter of Alexander Rainy, who was
an auctioneer and estate ag€nt in Regent-street.
Nothing of interest sprang up at the meeting, but it j

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 2.
The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the bench
at half-past one, and was occupied for a considerable
time upon an appeal case, the details of which did
not, however, possess any matter of public interest.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 2.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
LICENSING PUBLIC-ROUSES.—THE JUSTICES OF ESSEX.
Mr. HUMFREY, Q.C., applied to the Court, on be-
half of a publican in Essex, to issue a mandamus,
calling upon the justices of Essex, at quarter sessions
assembled, to show cause why they refused to grant
the person on whose behalf he applied a license. It
appeared that the justices had refused his application
and that he had carried an appeal to the quarter ses-
sions, the justices at which refused to entertain his
application on the ground that he did not, in the
terms of the Act George IV., c 61, state that he
was aggrieved by the act of the justices. It ap-
peared, however, that he did state, though not in the
exact terms prescribed by the Act, that he had suf-
fered by their act.—Application acceded to.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 2.

This being the first day of term, their Lordships,
after breakfasting with the Lord Chancellor, came
down in procession to Westminster Hall.
The Lord Chief Baron, Baron Parke, Baron Alder-
son, and Baron Rolfe, took their seats on the bench
about half-past one o'clock.
(Sittings in Banco.)
DROMIBLAW AND BROWN V. SAUL AND OTHERS.

In this case Mr. MARTIN moved for a rule nisi to
enter a verdict for the plaintiff on the several issues,
or to reduce the damages.
The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Wightman
at Liverpool, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff
for the sum of 4,6501,

The declaration was an assumpsit, and stated the
following facts :—lt appeared that a Mr. Scarisbrook,
a gentleman of property in Lancashire, the owner of
a colliery, and plaintiffs alleged that, in the year 1842,
an agreement had been come to between them and
the plaintiffs, and a third party, one Thomas Oldham,
for a lease to them of this colliery. That contract was
alleged to be contained in certain letters put in evi-
dence at the time of the trial. By that argreement
the sum of 5001. per annum was to be paid to Mr.
Scarisbrook. The parties entered into possession in
the year 1842, and erected a considerable quantity
of machinery, for the purpose of working the
colliery in question. The colliery was, how-
ever, worked only to a very small extent, and
no rent whatever was paid. On the 13th of
March, 1847, the plaintiffs and defendant entered
into an 'agreement for a free conveyance of the plain-
tiffs' undivided two-thirds interest in the property,
and after the agreement they went to the attorney of
Mr. Scarisbrook, at Wigan, and upon the recommen-
dation of the plaintiffs asked him to execute a lease
direct to them. The attorney stated that about 2,0001.
was already due for rent, and until that sum was
paid Mr. Scarisbrook could not execute the lease.
The defendant [upon this paid a sum of 7001., and
gave two acceptances of 7001. each for the balance,
upon which Mr. Scarisbrook executed the lease, taking
no notice of the former bargain.
Mr. MARTIN now contended that the case ought to
stand alone upon the letters which had passed between
the parties, and that the verdict ought, therefore, to be
entered for the defendants upon all the issues in which
the production of the letters was concerned.
The COURT suggested that, as several points of law
were connected with the case, it would be better to
make a special case of it.
To this course Mr. MARTIN assented, and stated
that he would speak to the other parties upon the ,
subject.

Some other witnesses were called, whose evidence
:ended to confirm the statement made by the pro.
secutrix.
The prisoner, when called upon for
i his defence, de-
nied having committed the assault imputed to him,
and repeated his charge against the prosecutrix.
The COMMON SERGEANT asked him if he had any
witnesses to call ?
The prisoner said he had not. He expected to have
been provided with the assistance of a counsel and
attorney, but they had not attended. He added, that
Harker, the usher of the court, knew him very well,
and could speak to his previous character, and he
wished to call him.
Harker was accordingly sworn, and he said he had
known the prisoner a great many years. He for-
merly had an extensive business as a livery-stable
keeper, and had become reduced in his circum-
stances, but he never heard anything against his
character.
The jury, after a short deliberation, found the pri.
soner Guilty of a common assault.
The CONIMON SERGEANT sentenced him to be kept
to
,lii.ahredplraibsoolulerrfosaridthrheee
wasnio a
nthsc.ripple,
and could not
perform hard labour.
The COMMON SERGEANT—Oh, very well; then the
seritynce is three months' imprisonment without hard
labour.

William Wilson was indicted for a misdemeanour,
in having committed an indecent assault upon Frances
Oxley.
When the case had nearly gone to the end of the
evidence, it was found that the grand jury had ignored
the bill, and that it was by mistake the prisoner had
been.put upon his trial.
The COMMON SERGEANT, upon being informed of
the fact, said that fortunately no harm had been
done, and the prisoner had suffered no injustice. lie
then addressed the jury and informed them that the
bill against the prisoner had been ignored, and,
therefore, as it was by mistake that he had been put
upon his trial, they could proceed no further, and the
prisoner WS3 ordered to be discharged.
In the course of the session the girl Mary Doyle,
who was convicted at the last session of deserting
her infant, and whose case created some public at-
tention on account of the treatment she appeared to
have experienced at the hands of the authorities of St.
Pancras parish, was brought up for judgment, and
sentenced to four days' imprisonment.
The business of the present session concluded about
six o'clock and the Court adjourned to the 23d inst.

GUY FAWKES AND LORD MAYOR'S DAY.--Yester-
day the Lord Mayor issued a notice, prohibiting the
firing of guns, or fireworks of any description, on the
sth, being Guy Fawkes' day, or the ensuing Lord
Mayor's day, under the penalties of the Act of Parlia-
ment, which will be rigidly enforced.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY.—The following notice has
been issued :—The Professor of Poetry will deliver his
terminal lecture, at the Clarendon, on Thursday next,
the 4th inst., at two o'clock.

was understood that a dividend (the first) of 23. 6d. in
the pound will be declared in a few days.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 2.
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN RE JOHN DROWN.
The insolvent, formerly a publican in Oxford-street,
appeared to-day for final hearing. The case had been
adjourned for the correction of some matters in the
schedule. On a former occasion the insolvent was
opposed by a creditor, who complained that he had
been " jockeyed " in a horse transaction ; but it ap-
pearing that the insolvent had been indicted at the
Old Bailey, with other parties, for the offence, of
which he had been convicted, and had undergone six
months' imprisonment,
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that the wrong
committed against the creditor had been expiated by
the punishment inflicted, and the insolvent was, there-
fore, now entitled to the benefit of the Act, and must
be discharged forthwith.

IN RE WILLIAM ELSWORTII.
This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Cooke. He had
originally appeared on the 10th of August, on which
day also another insolvent, named Pennick, was
heard, and some striking coincidences being disco-
vered, induced the Court to adjourn both cases for
production of the detaining creditors. Pennick shortly
after obtained his discharge from the detaining cre-
ditor, but Elsworth still remains in custody.
To-day it was proposed, on behalf of the insolvent,
to put in an affidavit from his detaining creditor to
prove the existence of the debt ; but
Mr. CooKE objected that the order of the Court
was for the production of the detaining creditor,
which, not being done, the insolvent could not be
heard without making a special application.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER concurred in this view,
and ordered a further adjournment, that the insolvent
should comply with the order already made, or show
cause why he should be heard without producing the
party required.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
Another of those scenes of disorder which have
been so frequently the subject of public observation
yesterday occurred in this court.
In order that the matter may be better understood
it is necessary to explain, that while the Common
Sergeant was sitting in the Grand Jury-room, which
had been formed into a third Court on Saturday, Mr.
Prendergast made an application with reference to a
case in which he was engaged. The jury were in de-
liberation at the time upon another case, and while
the Court were so engaged, Mr. Under-Sheriff
France called out " Silence," and upon this, Mr.
Prendergast, it appeared, became very angry, and
said that the Under-Sheriffs had no right to interfere,
and that they were merely doorkeepers, and had no
right to interrupt counsel.
Mr. PRENDERGAST now applied, with reference to
the same case, and complained that the trial had been
postponed without the sanction or knowledge of the
defendant, for whom he appeared, and who was
anxious to take his trial at the present session.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE, who was instructed for the
prosecution, said that notice had been given to his
Learned Friend that application would be made to
postpone the trial.
Mr. PRENDERGAST denied that he had received any
such notice : and complained, that at the time of his
making the application to the Court, on Saturday, he
was interrupted by the Under-Sheriff in the perform-
ance of his duty.
The COMMON-SERGEANT said that he considered
himself quite justified in postponing the trial, and
the Learned Judges whom he had consulted con-
curred with him in that opinion.
Mr. Under-Sheriff FRANCE begged to explain the
course he had taken upon the occasion alluded to by
the Learned Counsel. It was a very small room,
and while the jury were engaged in deliberating upon
their verdict, Mr. Prendergast addressed the Court,
and the jury intimated that they were disturbed by
the proceeding, upon which he certainly requested
Mr. Prendergast to desist until the jury had delivered
their verdict, and he then insulted the Under-Sheriffs
by saying that they were only in the position of
doorkeepers and had no business to interfere.
Mr. PRENDERGAST admitted he did say so, and he
repeated it. They were merely a superiorkind of
doorkeepers, and it was no part of their province to
interfere with the proceedings of the Court.
Mr. WIRE here made some observation which was
not distinctly audible, to which
Mr. PRENDERGAST responded by a remark in which
the word " vagabond" was distinctly audible, as well
as some observation about pulling a nose.
Mr. IVIRE bold the Learned Counsel that he was
protected by his position, and that he would not have
dared to make such an observation out of court.
The COMMON SERGEANT postponed the trial, and
this stopped further altercation.
Jolla Gray, an old man, was indicted for a misde-
meanour in assaulting Mary Anne Lewis, with intent
to commit a felony, and he was also charged with a
common assault.
Mr. Parry conducted the prosecution.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutrix,
that her husband carried on the business of a music-
seller in Cheapside, and in September he was in diffi-
culties, and an execution was put in by the Sheriff,
and the defendant was left in possession. Her hus-
band was absent from home endeavouring to get up the
amount of the debt, and it appeared that the defendant
had taken advantage of this circumstance and had
made most disgusting overtures to her, asking her to
kiss him, and upon one occasion he seized her by the
arm, and she was compelled to barricade herself in
her bed-room to prevent him from approaching her.
She communicated what had taken place to a female
relation, fearing to tell her husband, on account of
the position in,i which he was already placed by his
pecuniary difficulties, and that it would increase his
excitement. In the presence of that relative the pri-
soner "acted with similar violence, and during one
whole night he kept the two women on the watch,
and frightened them so by his proceedings that they
were afraid to go to bed,
The prosecutrix was cross.examined by the pri-
soner, who endeavoured to show that she had con-
sented to an improper intercourse with him in the
absence of her husband ; but she indignantly repelled
the insinuation, and asserted that there was not the
slightest foundation for it.
Mr. Lewis, the husband of the complainant, said
that, upon being informed of what had occurred, he
asked the prisoner for au explanation, and he at first
said it was all stuff, but on being pressed he said that
his wife had conducted herself in an immoral manner,
and he made the statement in such offensive and dis
gusting terms that the witness could not control his
Apl rr s
oLneewr, iss sai(l
nt.he
con-
duct to the sheriff's officer who had put him in pos-
tfehealtinhges'and subsequentlyknock e knocked
represented
end
toesdv
session, and be immediately removed him from the
house.

Mr. Clarkson felt himself unable to screen his client
from the consequences of the summons. And
Mr. JARDINE, after stating that the case was a most
shameful one, inflicted the full penalty of lot. on the
principal, and 51. on the carter, with costs.
The defendant, Coombes, was, of course, respon-
sible for both.

111ARYLEBOIVE.
ROBBERY.—Ann Simmons, Robert Simmons, and Wil-
liam Hickman, were yesterday placed at the bar, having
been remanded, on a charge of stealing goods to a
large amount, the property of Mr. Marshall, her em-
ployer, and the other prisoners with having received
the same.
Mr. Ballantine appeared for Hickman, and Mr.
Clarkson appeared for the prosecution.
The depositions of the witnesses who had already
been examined, having been read over,
Mr. Marshall was called, and in reply to Mr. Bal-
lantyne stated, that on the first occasion when he
called at Mr. Hickman's he did not leave his name
and address. On the Thursday morning he received
all the information he required at Mr. Hickman's,
upon giving his name and address.
Thomas Jessom examined—Had been appointed
a special constable on the 23d of October.
Went with Mr.
,Marshall to Simmons's, and
went round the house. The prisoner said,
whatever Mr. Marshall claims let him have.
He found property which he (Mr. Marshall) claimed.
Mr. Marshall said he was in search of the hair trunk,
and Mr. Simmons said he would show where it was.
He then went to Miss Simmons's house. Miss Sim-
mons was the sister of Mr. Simmons. Mr. Sim-
mons went to the farm and brought out the
hair trunk. This trunk contained property be-
longing to the prosecutor. Assisted in carrying
it into the yard. Mr. Marshall then took it to Lei-
cester. Was sent for again on the same day, and
was told by Mrs. Simmons to go to Miss Simmons's
barn and fetch a chest. Mr. Marshall was present.
He did as he was directed, and the chest produced
was taken away by Mr. Marshall. The box weighed
two hundred and three-quarters. The straw was
loose about it. Simmons did not say a word abou
the contents of the box.

Mr. Clarkson said that he might bring another
member of the family of the unfortunate female into
this matter,lbut as he had not received instructions to
that effect he would not do so. That was all the evi-
dence he proposed to adduce at present. Subse-
quently, however, the Learned Counsel called
Mary Burton, the laundress of Mr. Hickman, who
stated that the female prisoner had slept at Mr. Hick-
man's the night before the discovery of the property.
The female prisoner had access to Mr. Hickman's
chambers.

Mr. Ballantyne said he trusted that the magis-
trate would accept the same amount of bail as
had been already received. His client, he was bound
to admit, was still deeply attached to the unfortunate
female prisoner, and he had been led into an indis-
cretion through that attachment, but under all cir-
cumstances he would leave the matter in the Magis-
trate's hands, merely stating there were present
several witnesses as to the character of his client, who
was a respectable merchant.
Mr. BuouGuToN said as there was no objection on
the part of the counsel for the prosecution, he would
not object to taking bail for Hickman.
The further hearing of the case was then postponed
till this day week, and Jessom was bound over to
appear then.

SOUTHWARK.
Yesterday James Bird, a young man in woman's
attire, was brought before Mr. Cottingham, on the fol-
lowing charge :
Policeman No. 45 M stated, that between three and
four o'clock that morning, while on duty at Shad-
Thames, his attention was arrested by observing the
prisoner dressed as a woman walking with a man to-
wards an unfrequented spot. Having his suspicions
aroused, although at the time he was ignorant of the
prisoner's sex, he followed them at some distance, and
saw them act in such a manner that he hastened for-
ward and secured the prisoner, who was lying on the
ground. The man who was with him at the time, on
perceiving him (the policeman) approach, immedi-
ately took to his heels, and made his escape down one
of the streets in the neighbourhood; and the prisoner
was forthwith conveyed to the station-house, where
he confessed his real sex, and said that he assumed the
disguise of a woman for a spree.
Mr. COTTINGIIAM said that he had not words suffi-
ciently strong to express his disgust at the recital of
the prisoner's conduct on the occasion, and that he
lamented the man who was in his company was not
also taken into custody. The magistrate then asked
the prisoner who and what he was, and where he
lived ? To which he replied that he was a waiter out
of place, and lived in Bear-yard, Lincoln's Inn-fields.
Mr. COTTINGHAM—For what purpose did you as-
sume the garb of a woman in which you now appear ?
Prisoner—The fact is, I went to a fancy dress ball,
and drank until I became intoxicated.
Mr. COTTINGHAM—W here was the ball given ?
Prisoner—l don't know the name of the place.
Mr. COTTINGUAM—Do you know the man who
was seen in your company, as represented by the
policeman ? Prisoner—l know nothing about it, I
was so drunk ; in fact, I was not aware that any man
was with me at the time.
In answer to further questions he said, that since he
had been out of a situation he had sold artificial
flowers about town, and he added that he was not a
married man.

The policeman was here asked if the prisoner was
drunk, and his answer was that he appeared to have
been drinking, but he was not so intoxicated as not to
know what he was about.

Mr. COTTINGIIAM said, there was little dependence
to be placed upon the prisoner's assertion that he at-
tended a fancy dress ball, but he suspected lie went
out in female attire for some horrible purpose. He
should have assuredly sent him for trial if his corn •
panion had been secured, but that not having been
effected, he would adjudge the prisoner to enter into
his own recognizance of 1001., and find two sureties
of 501., and to be imprisoned until those sureties were
found. The magistrate directed that exertions should
be used to take the other man into custody, in which
case he should commit them both for trial.

TVESTMINSTER.
Ellen Motirans and Jane Ince, two women of the
town, were charged with hocussing and robbing a
gentleman named Seacombe, whose health has been
seriously impaired by the drug administered.
It appeared that a short time since a private soldier
of the Grenadier Guards, named Sloddy, was com-
mitted to prison for having been found at Ratcliffe-

POLICE IN.TELLIGENCE.
MANS) ON-HOUSE.
John Burgess, and TI/illiam Mitchell alias Captain
Broadwater, were broul rht up for final examination
upon suspicion of having been concerned in robbing a
lady on the Liverpool B ailroad of Bank of England
notes to the amount ,of 1501., which notes were
exchanged for American bank notes, in passing which
American notes the prisoners were apprehended upon
the charge of Mr. Spellman, of Lombard-street, who
had been applied to by them to give cash for the
latter.

In answer to questionn put by Mr. Hobler for the
prisoners, Mr. Speilman said he believed the Ameri-
can notes were genuine ; he was in the habit of
changing such notes.
Mr. Thomas Redin, superintendent of police at
Liverpool, said he knew Burgess well. Burgess
formerly kept a public-house at Liverpool, from
which place he had been lately absent. He had not
been in America. Witness knew Mitchell by sight,
and had seen him in Burgess' house at Liverpool. As
superintendent of police, witness had received infor-
mation that a person had been robbed of bank-notes.
He had also received information that one of the
notes (for 1001.) had been exchanged in Liverpool for
American notes, and he had reason to suppose that
Burgess was the person who changed it. Application
had been made to the magistrates of Liverpool on the
subject of the robbery, and witness was in expectation
of receiving a warrant from the magistrates to conduct
the prisoners from London to Liverpool.
Mr. nobler cross-examined Mr. Speilman and Mr.
Redin for the prisoners, but elicited nothing calcu-
lated to weaken their testimony in chief. He then
argued, that at all events there was no evidence
to prove that Mitchell knew anything at all about
notes.

The LORD MAYOR said there was quite enough to
authorise him to give up the prisoners to the custody
of the superintendent at Liverpool. If Mitchell knew
nothing of the business -why did he appear as Captain
Broadwater?
The prisoners are to be taken to Liverpool by the
superintendent this day.
BOW-STREET.
Nathaniel Coombes, a coal merchant, carrying on
business under the title of " The Northern Coal
Company," in Craven-street, Strand, was charged,
together with his carter, John Brown, with delivering
coals without having the requisite weighing •machine
and weights sent therewith.
It was proved that the order for two tons of coals
had bee❑ given to Coombes, to be sent to a Mr.
Mitchell's in Arundel-street. On the arrival of the
coals Miss Mitchell had reason to suspect that they
were deficient in weight, and therefore requested the
carter to weigh them; but he said the weighing-
machine was out of order and the weights were
lost. She then called the attention of the street-
keeper to the circumstance, but the man persisted in
shooting the coals until only six sacks were left in
the cart.
John Phillips, the street-keeper, corroborated this
evidence, and expressed his belief that there were not
more than two-thirds of the quantity ordered in the
cart. They carried the remaining sacks and shot
them out on the bulk without weighing them. This
witness deposed to a subsequent interview with
Coombes, who wanted to " settle" the matter with
him by paying 21., and giving the complainant his
coals.