The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-29 00:00:00

He said it might have been a very innocent act sane years
before, when it was not a place of public resort; it might
also have been a blameless act, at one time, to have stripped
oneself naked in Montagu-fields, but the same could not be
said of Russell-square, which was built in those fields.
Therefore, whatever outraged common decency was misde-
meanour at common law. An exposure must be public to be
a misdemeanour, and anything short of that would not bring
it under this definition. _

Lord thiNMAN said in this case it could not be said that
this offence amounted to a public exposure, and agreed to
the application.

THE QIEEN V. JAMES NUTT ON ANN OTHERS.-CONSPIRACY,

This was an indictment against James Button, George
Button, Thomas Corduroy, and William Wellesford, for con-
spiring to defraud their employer, Mr. Lewis a dyer, in
Oxendon-street, by dying articles with his materials
for their profit. The last-named defendant had pleaded
guilty : the others were found guilty. It appeared
that all the persons employed by the prosecutor
were permitted to dye articles belonging to them-
selves and their families free of expense. Twenty-one
years ago Mr. Lewis entered into an arrangement with
James Button, who was his foreman, to deposit in his
name 150/. a year, which, however, was to be forfeited if
Button committed any act which might render him amen-
able to the law. Since the finding of the indictment Mr.
Lewis had sold out the amount, which had accumulated to
2,000/.

The parties now came up to receive judgment, but the
Court, on the application of Mr. Sergeant Allen, acceded to
a rew triai.

COURT OF CUiJMUfv PLEAS, Jan. 28.
This Court was engaged
i all the forenoon with a part-
heard demurrer case, of no interest whatever to any one but
the parties concerned.

IN RE MRS. SII UTTLEWORTIL —ALLEGED LUNACY.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said he appeared on behalf of
Dr. Millingen, in answer to a writ of habeas corpus, issued
on Monday last, to bring up the body of Martha Eliza
Rhoda Shuttleworth. The lady in pursuance of that writ
was now in attendance.

__—
The return of Dr. Millingen to the writ was then
put in and read, which set forth, that from the time of the
said Mrs. Shuttleworth being placed in his custody at
York-house, Battersea, until now, she was labouring under
delusions, and of unsound mind. The return in support of
this allegation cited the medical certificates on which she
had been placed in his custody, with the order under the
Act of Parliament, which had led to the same.
The affidavits on which the rule for the writ had been
moved were then read. The first was that of Dr. Quail, who
deposed that he had known Martha Eliza Shuttleworth for
many years, and that during all the time she was capable
of managing her own business. She was perfectly compe-
tent up to the time of her being taken into custody, since
which time she had been placed in a lunatic asylum at Bat-
tersea, where all access to the deponent or her solicitor was
denied. The deponent further stated that a sight of the me-
dical certificates on which she had been confined had
been denied him, and that he believed they were altogether
insufficient. The affidavit went on to answer the several
allegations made on the other side, as to the habits of the
alleged lunatic, which were strongly denied and altogether
untrue.

Mr. John Austin deposed to a similar effect respeeting the
alleged lunacy; as did also Mrs. Caroline Peaching. The
latter had known the alleged lunatic for a considerable time,
and she had always acted as a perfectly sane person.
Several other affidavits were read, deposing to the sanity
of Mrs. Shuttleworth, and denying the statement that she
was incapable of conducting her business.
Counter affidavits were next read in support of the alleged
lunacy. The deponents were the Rev- J. C. Rowland, Messrs.
Wright and Wilmot, surgeons, and Dr. Millingen, who
alleged that when under the charge of Dr. Quail she had
been greatly neglected and badly used; that her mind was
evidently rambling and unsound, and that it was from feel-
ings of humanity they had caused her to be removed.
Mr. PARRY said he had moved for the writ on two grounds
--.3ne was, that the alleged insanity had not been established,
and the other was, that the certificates did not confer sufficient
authority for taking her into custody. The Learned Gentle-
man was proceeding, when
The Loin) CHIEF JUSTICE intimated it would be better
for their Lordships to see the lady first before hearing the
argument, and to inquire of her whether she desired to leave
her present residence, and to see whether she appeared to be
insane or not.

It was then arranged that sbe should b 3 taken into the
room of the Lord Chief Justice, and examined in the presence
of the Learned Judges and the counsel on both sides.
Their Lordships then retired. On their return,
The LORD CHIEF-Jusna said it was perfectly plain, from
the interview they had, that the lady had no mind of her own.
It was perfectly rambling and unconnected, and she did not
express any wish either to leave where she was or remain
there. She appeared to have no wish any way.
Mr. PARRY said he still maintained that she ought not to
be detained in custody, as the authority was insufficient for
her detention.

The COURT wished to know on whose authority the
Learned Gentleman appeared.
Mr. PARRT said he appeared on behalf of Dr. Quail.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that some grounds should
be set forth why Dr. Quail. interfered. Upon what autho-
rity did he do so ?
Mr. Justice MAULE said it was evident from the lady's
statement that she had expressed no wish to leave Dr.
Millingen's. If she was sane, as alleged by Mr. Parry,
then as she had expressed no desire to leave,
nor bad instructed any one to act on her behalf,
the first ground on which the Learned Gentleman
moved on, could not be entertained.

Mr. PARRY contended that, whether the lady was sane or
not at present, what they had to do with was the state of
the lady on the 9th of August last, when she was
taken into custody ; and also the validity of the order
on which she was paced in the custody of'Dr. Millingen.
He maintained the custody was improper, and the ground
on which he made that statement were the affidavits adduced.
The Act under which the proceedings bad taken place was a
public Act of Parliament, and their Lordships should be
careful how they construed it, affecting as it did the liber-
ties of an unfortunate class of individuals. The affidavits
filed did prove the sanity of the lady on the 9th of August,
and this he wished to press on the consideration of the Court.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought otherwise. He was
decidedly of opinion that, according to the affidavits of the
Rev. J. C. Rowland and the two surgeons, the lady must
have been insane on the 9th of August. No sane woman
would have stayed in apartments with one man only, and
without female attendants, or have been found in the state
she was described when the medical gentlemen were called in.
After some further discussion, _

i'heCOunT finally decided that they would neither be
consulting the public interest nor the lady's by making any
order in the case. The application for the release
of the lady must therefore be dismissed. They saw
no good to arise from going into the validity of the certifi-
cates on which she was committed, judging, as they (lid,
from the circumstances, that any order they would make,
taking her from her present custody, would be to her pre-
judice end harm.
The writ was accordingly dismissed.

COURT, Jan. 28.
SIRIOTHERS, V. MILLS.
PETERSH E
LEA .ru ; LCT O.
ANDU
The plaintiffs in this action are trustees of the Union Bank,
and the defendant is a gentleman residing at Greenwich. The
action was brought to recover the sum of 101/., paid to the
defendant in error.
The defendant suffered judgment to go by default.
The plaintiff's attorney stated the case. The defendant
had, in October last, an account with the Union Bank, and
there was also another customer of the name of Mills. In
October last a person called to pay in a sum of money to the
account of a Mr. Mills, but not knowing the christian name,
selected that of the defendant, which, with the
other, was named to him, and the amount thus got
placed to the credit of the defendant. The pass-book
was subsequently made up and sent to defendant, who drew
out the amount. When the error was discovered the de-
fendant was sent to, and on going to the bank admitted that
he was aware of the error, but said it suited him at the
moment to draw it out, but he would repay it. He had
since paid 631. on account, and the action was brought to re-
cover the balance and interest as on an oven-due account.
Mr. Scrimgour, the manager to the bank, was called, and
proved the error, and an interview with the defendant., in
which the latter made the admission spoken of, and that de-
fendant lamented that he had drawn the money out, but said
he would send it by the next packet. The interest was cal-
culated at five per cent., as on an over-drawn account.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.
HOLROTIII V. BAKER.
This was an action to recover the sum of 21. 59. for money
lent and goods sold. The plaintiff is an eating-house keeper
is the Old Bailey, and the defendant was a customer. The
claim was on an I 0 U for 1/. 10s., the remainder was for
dinners, &c. Some difficulty, however, existed in proving
the items.
The plaintiff's ATTORNEE said he had received a letter from
defendant's attorney, admitting the debt, but he could not
give it in evidence, as it was written " without prejudice."
The UNDER-SHERIFF said, if so, the attorney ought not to
have alluded to it—the evidence was very scanty. In the
defendant's absence strict evidence was required, especially
in such a case,
which might have been brought in an inferior
court without putting defendant to such a great expense.
The witness, on being further examined, said that de-
fendant had admitted that the account for 15s. was correct.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF—If you are satisfied, gen-
tlemen, I will record your verdict. It is entirely a question
for you.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.