The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-30 00:00:00

HERTFORD MIDSUMMER SES

SIONS.
Before the Marquis of SALISBURY and a full Bench of
Magistrates.)
THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY, APPEL-
LANTS; W. PARKER, ESQ., G. S. THORNTON, ESQ., AND
OTHER COUNTY MAGISTRATES, RESPONDENTS.
This matter, which has been long in dispute, and
exciting considerable attention in this part of the county,
was again brought before the public in the shape of an
appeal against a conviction by the Magistrates at Ware
Petty Sessions.
It appeared that the commencement of these proceed-
ings originated in an information laid by the Rev. W.
Blakesley against the company, for not stopping a
certain train previous to crossing the road at Amwell-
end, in the Hertford line, as directed by the company's
Act, 7th Vict., cap. 35, which states that the " train to
and from Hertford and London shall in all cases stop
within 150 yards of the said road of Amwell-end," &c.
The hearing under this information took place before
the bench of Magistrates sitting in petty sessions at
Ware, on Tuesday, the 15th instant, when the company
was convicted, and a fine of 40s. inflicted.
Against this conviction the company appealed to the
sessions as above, the chief point in dispute being as to
the construction or meaning of the word " stop," which
it was contended, on the part of the company, only meant
a slackening of speed, and not coming to a complete and
perfect standstill.

For the respondents it was contended that the mean•
ing of the Act was that the stoppage should be '• actual
and entire," and which might be presumed from the 4th
and sth Victoria (the company's original Act), when a
" maximum speed" was prescrioed as contradistinguished
from " actual stoppage."
The Bench considered that " actual and entire stop-
page" was meant by the Act, and accordingly confirmed
the previous conviction.

THE LAKES.—The delightful village of Bowness
has of late been a scene of bustle. At present it is un-
usually full of visitors. Although it is much extended,
the accommodation is inadequate to the demand. The
steamer on Windermere Lake is a great inducement, and
of late has been, very gay with parties in pursuitof
pleasure and varied and romantic scenery. The facilities
for visiting the queen of lakes by the " rail," and other
means, are su'great, that numbers are induce] to take a
peep in the morning at the beautiful scenery of the lake
district, and return to their homes in the evening.—
Carlisle Patriot.

Mr. Stuart and Mr. Green appeared against the
motion.

Both motions were adjourned at the rising of the
Court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
Joseph Boak, a warehouseman at Mr. Lloyd's, printer,
Salisbury-square, was eharged with robbing his em-
ployer of a quantity of cheap publications, and Thomas
Harman; a shopman at Mr. Berger's, -a bookseller, in
Holywell-street, was charged with receiving them, know-
ing them to be stolen.
The prosecution was conducted by counsel. The
Learned Gentleman (whose name we did not catch)
stated that his client issued a number of cheap pe-
riodicals, and the prisoner was employed in delivering
them to the trade when they came to purchase at the
premises, another person taking the cash, to facilitate
business and to prevent embezzlement. The evidence
would show that, on several occasions, Alr.Berger's man
had come "with a list of periodicals, and had been served
with them, it was supposed, by the prisoner Boak, who
then called out to the cashier to take a sum less than the
actual value of the books. It was presumed that the
two prisoners subsequently shared between them the
difference between the real value of the goods and the
price actually paid, though this could not be shown.
Mr. J. G. Berger, of 19, Holywell -street, Strand,
stated that, as clerk to his father, it was his duty to
make out the lists of periodicals wanted, and to send fur
them. On the 9th instant he sent the prisoner to Mr.
Lloyd's for publications of various kinds, to the amount
of 11. 11s., and he brought them home correctly. On
the 16th he sent him for goods is the amount of 11. 4s.
Bd. ; on the 23d to the amount of 175.8 d. ; and on the
24th to the amount of 10s. I Id. He brought them home
correctly.
To prove that by the direction of the prisoner Boak,
smaller sums had been paid, the cashier, Anthony Ber-
ridge, an aged deaf man, said on the 16:h he received
11. 2s. from the person who paid in the name of Berger.
Mr. Alderman WooD asked him if it was the prisoner
Harman who paid him that money? The witness said he
could not recollect. He knew the prisoner, as he did a great
many more, by sight, but without knowing in whose
employ they were. The prisoner was not the only per-
son who delivered goods.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said there would be a legal dif-
ficulty in prosecuting, in such a state of things. It
might not be the prisoner Harman that received the
goods, nor Boak that delivered them. It was not shown
that Boak received any money.
The counsel said he could go farther.
Charles Wilson, in the service of Mr. Lloyd, deposed
that on the 9th and 16th he watched Harman from
Holywell•street to Mr. Lloyd's, and back to Holvwell-
street, and saw that he neither bought nor sold any
books on the way.
Mr. Lloyd stated that he was watching the prisoners
on the 9th. As soon asHarman left the premises with
the publications, Boak followed him, and they went
together into a public-house round tne corner. He did
not know what passed between them there, for he re-
turned to see what sum Harman had paid to Berridge,
knowing he could ascertain as precisely the sum he
ought to have paid.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said the evidence was incon-
clusive. The difficulties had not been removed, and he
must discharge the prisoners.
Anna Sophia Lonyfoot, a woman about 40 years of
age, was charged with begging in St. Paul's Churchyard,
she having at the time a savings' bank book in her
pocket, with deposits to her account to the extent of 361.
Mr. Alderman WOOD committed her to Bridewell for
a month, and ordered her maintenance to be defrayed
out of her deposits.
MARLBOROUGH-STRBET.

lhuaergoefds with
hhea vpirnog-
ps teorGlteyeno efae
Mr.nDk zn.cFok teeenrss;
iannaadnedghoel md,isotitArundel.hea sv
ac
The prisoner and prosecutor lodged in the same house
in Great Titehfield-street. The prosecutor received a
sum of money from Bristol, which he placed in a carpet
bag, in his apartment. During his absence the apart-
ment was entered, the lock of the bag forced open, and
the money taken away. The prisoner left his lodgings
suddenly, and at the time was in arrear for rent. The
prisoner was traced to have left a sum of money, in notes
and gold, at the house of a publican, in High-street,
which sum he afterwards drew out of the publican's
bands. It was presumed that this money formed a
portion of the property stolen from the prosecutor's
carpet-bag.
The explanation of the prisoner was that his father-
in-law had sent him recently a sum of upwards of 301.,
and that this was the money which had been left in the
hands of the publican.
The prisoner's father-in-law was called, and he said
he had sent some bank notes and other money to the
prisoner.
This witness prevaricated in his statement on cross-
examination, and gave such contradictory accounts of
the circumstances under which the alleged remittances
took place, that Mr. Bingham said he should not place
the least dependence on what the witness stated. He
did not believe a word of the evidence of the witness
about his having sent money to the prisoner, and there-
fore the defence fell to the ground.
A police-constable, who had been to Derby, where
the prisoner's mother lived, said that the prisoner and
his father-in-law had been at variance for some time.
The prisoner's mother had remitted him a pound or two
only,

Par. Robinson, who attended for the prisoner, said he
should call witnesses to prove that the prosecutor was
never in possession of the sum of money which he stated
he had lost. In that case he presumed the Magistrate
would not detain the prisoner.
Mr. BINGHAM said he should certainly commit the
prisoner for trial. If it were shown that the prosecutor
could not have lost the money, he should still commit
the prisoner for having property supposed to be stolen in
his possession.

Mr. Robinson then proceeded to question Mr. Arundel
with respect to the money he said he had lost.
Mr. Arundel stated that he had formerly been in
business at Bristol, and had been obliged to compound
with his creditors. A young man named Beard, formerly
in his service, had been in the habit of sending him sums
of money from time to time, to satisfy the creditors. 11-
had received upwards of 601. recently in this way, and
the money lost formed part of the money remitted.
Mr. Robinson said he wished for further time to make
inquiry into the truth of this statement.
Mr. BuquilAm consented to give the prisoner till
Thursday next to make the requisite inquiries.
A second charge was then brought forward.
Mr. Edward Taylor, surgeon, Cheltenharn•common,
said the prisoner was in his employ at the commence
went of the present year. Seeing in the newspapers the
particulars of his apprehension, he recollected that in
January last he- missed a cheque out of a letter, for
11/. 18s. This cheque had been remitted by a gentleman
named Brereton, and witness had subsequently ascer-
tained that the prisoner had changed the cheque at a
tralesman's shop in Clapham.
Mr. William Brewington, b3ot maker, High-street,
said the prisoner brought a cheque to his shop, which
cheque was cashed by Mrs. Brewington, in his absence.
The prisoner called some tins() afterwards and asked if
the cheque was all right.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, June 29.
(Before Sir L. SHADWELL.)
HANSARD V. HANSARD.
Mr. J. Parker, with Mr. Rolt and Mr. Southgate,
applied for an injunction to restrain the defendant,
James Hansard, late partner in the firm of Hansard
and Co., printers to the House of Commons, from direct-
ing the sheriff of Middlesex to sell the household fur-
niture and stock-in-trade, now upon the premises in
Great Turnstile, Lincoln's-inn-fields, in pursuance of a
writ of execution issued on the 19th of May, 1847.
The defendant, who was lately at the head of the firm,
and is the father of the plaintiff, about the year 1844,
being desirous of retiring from business, agreed with
his son Luke James, the present plaintiff, who was also
his partner, that the stock should be valued, and his
(the father's) proportion awarded him. Upon a
valuation of the stock being taken, it was ascer-
tained that the defendant was entitled to a sum
of 22,261/. 19s. sd. It was then agreed by deed,
dated the same year, that this sum should be paid
to the defendant in half-yearly instalments of 1,5001.,
with interest up to the day of payment. There was also
a second agreement, by which the plaintiff undertook to
pay to the defendant an annuity of 400 l by quarterly
payments. The due payment of the whole was secured
by a warrant of attorney, with judgment signed, on
which the defendant, in case of default being made in
payment of one instalment, or of one quarterly payment
of the annuity, was empowered to issue execution for the
whole sums respectively. In March last the quarterly
payment being in arrear, the defendant issued execution
immediately, upon which being done the plaintiff paid
the 1001. into Messrs. Hoare's bank. Under these cir-
cumstances, it was contended by the son, Luke James
Hansard, that the defendant had no power to issue exe-
cution, and the present application for an injunction was
accordingly made to the Court.
It was contended by the defendant that he was entitled
at all events to issue execution for the rent due on the
premises, which still belonged to him; and also that
the defendant's object was to preserve the property. It
was stated that the son had been recently neglecting the
business, and had incurred considerable expenses in
starting and conducting a weekly newspaper, called the
Spirit of the Times, of which he was the sole editor.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Busk appeared for the de
fendant.

The counsel for the defendant has not been heard,
but it was arranged that the second motion should
come on at the same time.
HANSARD v. HANSARD.
This was a motion to dissolve an injunction granted
by his Honour on the 3d of June, restraining the defen-
dant, Luke James, who was plaintiff in the suit above
mentioned, from interfering in the affairs of the part-
nership, except under the direction of the Court, or ne-
gotiating bills in the name of the firm. The plaintiff
in this suit is Henry Hansard, the cousin of the de-
fendant, with whom he has been in partnership, as
the plaintiff contended, for several years. A deed
had been executed by which Henry Hansard con-
sented to advance a sum of 2,0001. as a contribu-
tion to the stock in trade, in consideration of which he was
to be admitted as a partner, with one-twelfth share in
the profits. The defendant, in consequence, as it was
stated, of certain eccentricities, was dismissed from his
situation as printer of the House of Commons, and his
cousin, the plaintiff and partner, was appointed in his
stead; shortly after which event the plaintiff caused to
be inserted in the daily journals an advertisement an-
nouncing a dissolution of the partnership. In reply to
this statement the defendant immediately caused to be
inserted in the Morning Herald, of the 21st of May, an
advertisement denying that any dissolution of the
partnership had taken place, and threatening to take
legal proceedings against the plaintiff for having made
such a statement.

The prisoner was ordered to be brought up again on
Thursday on this charge also.

W OR SHIP- S TR EE T.
Thomas Smith, a hawker of earthenware, was charged
with having attempted to strangle a young woman,
named Mary Montgomery, and also with feloniously
cutting and wounding her mother, whereby her life wal
seriously endangered.
The younger complainant, who exhibited a livid and
extensive discolouration of the throat, stated that she
had been living with the prisoner as his wife for the last
eight mouths, and had suffered the most brutal ill-treat-
ment at his hands, during nearly the whole of that
period. On the preceding afternoon he came home, and
after beating her in an unmerciful manner, and declaring
that he would murder her outright, he forced her down
upon the bed, and passing a thick cord round her
compressed it till she was on the point of strangulation.
On hearing her cries, her mother ran in to her assist-
ance,. but the moment she entered the prisoner exclaimed
with an oath, " that he would do for her also, and
snatching a knife from the table, rushed towards her and
made a desperate blow at her head. She instantly stag-
gered back into the yard bleeding profusely from a frg.ht-
inl gash above the temple, but was saved from failing
by some of the neighbours, who conveyed her to the
house of Mr. Wildbore, a surgeon, in Shoreditch, where
the wound was dressed, and she was afterwards removed
to the hospital.