The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 8.
PEPPERCORN V. PEACOCK.
This case came before the Court upon the certificate of
the Court of Common Pleas. The bill was filed by the
plaintiff, Mr. Peacock, together with a person named
Harrod, who were the trustees for sale of the property
in question, for the specific performance of a contract
entered into by the defendant Peacock, for the purchase
of, certain estates from the plaintiff. By a conveyance
dated in March, 1838, the estate in question was con-
veyed to the plaintiffs as trustees to sell; in that charac-
ter they caused the estates to be put up by auction,
stating that the subject-matter of the sale was the rever-
sion expectant upon the death of a lady who was then
forty-four years of age. The conditions of sale were,
that the purchase should be completed before the 23th of
March, but in case it was not, the purchaser was to pay
interest on the purchase money at the rate of five
per cent. At that sale the defendant purchased a
part of the property, but on inquiry he objected to
the title which the plaintiffs derived under the will.
Upon this objection being raised, considerable corres-
pondence passed between the solicitors of both parties,
and ultimately the plaintiffs filed their bill to enforce the
specific performance of the contract. Upon the case
coming on for argument before the Vice-Chancellor of
England he directed a specific performance of the con-
tract, and from this decision the defendant appealed, and
upon that appeal being argued before Lord Cottenham
he directed a special case for the opinion of the Court of
Review as to whether, the plaintiffs under the will had a
good title to the estates in question. That special case
having been argued before the Court of Common Pleas,
that Court certified , that a good title had been shown,
and in that state of things the case now came before the
Court. The Court of. Common Pleas having, decided in
favour of the title, the principal questions now for ceusi-
deration were as to the payment of the interest by the,
de_ ft and thecosts.
Mr. TINNEY and Mr. TENNANT appeared for the
plaintiffs, and contended that the defendant ought to pay
interrlt,, at the rate of five per cent., and all the costs.
Mr. GIRDLESTONE and Mr. WRAY, on the part of the
tlet'cedaat," submitted that, in consequence of the circum-
stp.ucc3 that had taken place, the defendant was not
bound to pay interest, and that the costs ought to be
borne by the plaintiffs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the ar-
guments, gave judgment, decreeing a specific perform-
ance of the contract of the purchase, ordering the de-
fendant to pay three per cent. interest upon the purchase
money, and directing each party to pay his own costs.

LOLLS' ';O(.1:1; 14.), 8.-
FAN :=LAcia v. 17 ANEL3GII.
Mr. PZItIBEETON, with whom was Mr. EOM ILLY,
moved for an order to the Accountant-CA.anetal to
transfer to the petitioners, Ann Marston, the repre-
sentative of Sarah Antonia Jones, a cet;,ain fiord be-
queathed to her by the will of her late father, and which
WAS now in custody of the Court.
The testator, Thomas Lord Viscount Ranelagh, made
is will on the 20th August, 1814, and a codicil thereto
on the 18th December, 1818. By this codicil he be-
quearhed to his daughter, Marianne Jones, 2001. to be
paid forthwith; to his daughters Sarah Antonia Jones,
and Louisa Jones, the sum of 4,0001. sterling each; and
to his two sons, Thomas Cowley Jones, and Thomas
Edward Jones, 2,0001. each during their natural
lives, wiat legal interest at 5 per cent., to be paid to all
of them in equal quarterly payments, commencing from
the day of his decease, till his son, the Hon. Thomas
Jones, or his heir in entail, attained his or her 21st
year of age, and in case of the demise of any of the
above parties without legitimate issue, then his or her
proportions to be divided equally amongst the sur-
vivors; and the testator's son, the present Lord Rene-
lagh, was appointed residuary legatee. A bill having
been filed, it was contended on behalf of the two daugh-
ters and two youngest sous, that they took an absolute
interest in their respective legacies, on the ground that
the gift over in cas of the demise of any of them
without issue was to be referred to an indefinite failure of
issue. The case came before the Master of the Rolls in
1832, and his Honour decided that the presumption was
that the testator had not in contemplation an indefinite
failure of issue, and his Lordship directed the sums to be
secured in Court, and the dividends paid to the legatees
for their respective lives, liberty to any person to
apply on the death of each legatee, and on appeal the
Lord Chancellor (Lord Brougham) confirmed the judg-
ment of the Master of the Rolls.
Ono of the legatees, Sarah Antonia Jones, being dead
without issue, Mr. PEbIDERTON applied on behalf of her
~xecuror to transfer to her her portion of the
.funds in
Court, and contended that if any of the legatees died
issue, the testator intended the gift over should.
take effect. •

1".1r. TINNEY and Mr. Bice on be'ialf of Thomas Cow-
ley Junes, and Mr. KINoneSLEY on behalf of the other
surviving children, contended that the death of the
le,;:;atee could not determine that she took an absolute
interest. The Court having said that she was not en-
titled to it when the case came before it on a former
occasion, it lay upon them to show that though not
entitled to it when the decree was pronounced, subse-
quent circumstancesgave it to her, but the circumstances
that had occurred, prevented the possibility of her
having a better interest.
Mr. TURNER argued that the fund should be divded,
and one-third be given to each sin river.
Mr. PE3tnEaToN rose to reply, when
His LORDSIIIP observed, 'that he feared the decision
of the Court was binding upon him, and requested to
hear the Learned Gentleman on that point.
:Ir. PE3II3I&II,TON said they must altogether t'iscard
the report, except as a legal authority. This legacy
having been carried to the .separate account of this legs
tee, that legatee was entitled to present a petition for
the purpose of ohtain.kng ~:payment. . And lest his
Lordship 'should say,. that to make this order don-,
elusive against the right of , the party, it must be
so clear as to prevent doubt, the only proposition
in support of this argument was to suppose the parties
entitled now were entitled at the time when the case
came before the Court. It that could be maintained, he
admitted they were tont:laded, but otherwise not. The
simple order being 'to carry the fund over to the se-
parate account, and the dividends to be paid to the
legatee for life, with liberty'for ether persons to apply
at her death, what he was asking was not inconsistent
with an absolute interest. He would, therefore, submit
to his Lordship that in conformity with the practice of
I the Court, whatever weight might be given to the
authority of this case, there was nothing in the
order produced to exclude the right of the repre-
sentative of this lady from saying that, in the
event which had happened, no person could claim in
competition with him, and therefore he hoped the Court
would make the transfer to him.
Lord LANGDALE said the case came on under circum-
stances of extreme difficulty. He must assume, in the ab-
sence of any statement to the contrary, that the very point
in the case contended for to-day was made in the pleading;
beyond all doubt it was discussed at the hearing of the cause
and a claim then being made that Sarah Antonia Jones
was entitled absolutely to this legacy, the Court deter-
mined that she was entitled only to an order to place
tkis money to her account, and ordered the dividend to
be paid to her with liberty to any person to apply at her
death. He could not help concluding from that that
that claim of this lady was absolutely negatived by the
Court, because notwithstanding the probability of
a claim to be afterwards raised on behalf of
children, there being then an interest, alleged
to be vested, it seemed to him incumbent on the
Court to decree specifically that the right existed, or to
do that which would amount to a negative of that right,
and he thought the Court had done the latter. It, there-
fore, appeared to him that, under the form of the order,
he was precluded from decision. If it were not so, then
came the question, whether, there being no decision in
the case, there would be authority binding him to act ; but
all preceding authorities being in favour of such a con-
clusion the question.was, whether he was not bound to
adhere to.those authorities, and whether it would be con-
sistent with his duty to make a decision to that effect
directly contrary to that of preceding Judges. If
both these difficulties were got rid of, he should
still have exceeding difficulty. The words appeared
to him extremely doubtful, and he must have taken
considerable time to consider them, but under the
circumstances, he thought himself precluded. He
thought it, however, better not to say further, be-
cause, if the parties had a right, they had a right to bring
it before a tribunal, not fettered, by the decision in the
case. The costs must be costa in the cause.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 8.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WicruA3l.)
- - - . CLAYTON V. MEADOWS.
coltntint:hm
this cause the bill was filed by the plaintiff, the
R
ev. Thomas Clayton, who is the Rector of the parish of
otherwise Cottingham-cum-Middleton, in
the county of Northampton, for the tithes of certain
lands__ alleged to be within the parish.
TEMPLEpla2ilnrtitf;A
r opened the case, at great-length, for the
COLERIDGE followed on the same side.-
r hearing of the cause was adjourned till
whiell
TAEt O-Tn to-morrow.
.r,kfouvarr-tih e.
This
cause, which
COMPANY V. THE COOPER'S COMPANY.
on the application theof';:rs'tchoeo;eigr,liNtle_aesntloirdoenred t
to stand
The
(Ciloeuir.otreroseicact threeCi Chancellor
coe'lelloorckK.
over generally. '
NIGHT BRUCE.)
13ROADHURST v. nALGuy
This cause, which had been part AND ANOTHER.
was resumed at the sitting of theheard on Saturday,
instituted by the plaintiff for a breachourt. It was a suit
have been committed by the def:mdan Loaf trilst alleged to
It appeared that the defendant, Mr. Bryan •
Balguy, who was a solicitor of considerable Thomasepl
Derby, and Mr. Francis Hert, a gentleman of large es-
tate inP
in the same county, and brother of the la
first wife, had been app?inted trustees under a settlement
ntiff
'3
executed upon the marriage of the plaintiff with his
sit
f
1 wife. It was charged againSt Mr. Hert that he hld,rbsy
great Imprudence and neglect, permitted his co-trustee
Mr. Balguy, to obtain the entire and sole dominion of a
sum exceeding 3,000/., 4 prtion of the trust-fund, which
sum the latter appropriated to his own pprp'Qns.
The
snit was of course instituted agaiiist Until Mr. Rdglit'".
and Mr. llert, but inasmuch" as the former bad becuji,
reduced to a state of grant pecuniary embarrassment,
amounting to almost total insolir-erwy, Mr. Heft, wile) w
liable for the acts of his co-trustee,was the only Ferii"
looked to to have the fond replaced. The bill, in addi-
tion to claiming re payment of the 3,000'1, alio prayed a
change of trustees. The plaiotiff totally disclaimed any
imputation against Mr. Hot& having wan wilfully or
fraudulently a party to the application of the money to
his own use by Mr. Balguy, and the consequent loss of I
it ; but. counspj on his behalf submitted that he (the i
plaintiff) had an equitable rirrlit to sue him as being
trustee, and to .obtain fro in tioa the -er,-vment of the
. -, I, t,,,
suns claimed. • - ,to ,ty t TIT:
Mn, COOPER, (4.0. cw:th yyjy):ll WAS Mr. IJoet-

gram), contended that the plaintiff must have been aware
of the manner in which the trust-fund was disposed of.
Certain accounts had been rendered to the plaintiff by
the defendant, whereby such a knowledge, namely, that
of the mode of disposal of the fund, must have been at-
tained by the plaintiff, and this circumstance, joined with
his acquiescence in the disposal of the money, which
consisted in placing the fund solely under the control
of Balguy, counsel submitted deprived the plaintiff of any
right to succeed in the claim now put forward.
The arguments in the cause were of great length, oc-
cupying the Court the whole of Saturday and to-day, to
within a short time of its rising.
His HoNoun stated that he would give judgment on
Monday next, and rose at half-past three o'clock.
Mr. Wilcock and Mr. James Russell appeared for the
•

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 8.

SM.I.TH V. CLINCH.

This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff,
a widow, residing at Witney, in Oxfordshire, against the
defendant, a banker and brewer of that place, for break-
ing and entering the plaintiff's premises and taking
away certain goods. The defendant pleaded not guilty,
and that the goods and chattels were not the property
of the plaintiff. The case was tried before Mr. Justice
Williams at the last Oxford Assizes, and a verdict had
for the plaintiff subject to a motion for leave to set aside
the verdict and enter a nonsuit. A rule to that effect
having been subsequently obtained,
Mr. WAKELY now appeared to show cause against the
rule, which had been obtained on the ground that there
was no evidence to fix the defendant with the proceed-
ings had under the writ. The facts of the case were as
follow :—ln November, 1835, the plaintiff, Smith (since
dead) executed a power of attorney to Clinch, for a sum
of 1,0001. money lent. In February, 1837, a mortgage
was made for a further security. In December, 1839,
judgment was entered up upon the warrant of attorney,
and on the morning of the 16th Dec., three days after-
wards, Smith died. On the same evening the writ issued,
clearly, and, as it was admitted on all hands, after Smith
died, and on the following day the goods were seized
for a sum of 9071. 10s. The case afterwards came be-
fore Mr. Justice Coleridge, and on the 31st January,
1840, the writ was set aside on the ground of its having
issued after the death of Smith, and on the 13th Febru-
ary the order issued, on which the present action was
brought, the proceeds of the sale having been paid into
Court, and the action was brought to ascertain what
damages the plaintiff was entitled to for the seizure of
her goods, it having been proved that the goods
which were sold for 1751. were worth 501.
more. The Lear:Jed Counsel said the writ in this case
having been set aside, was the same as if no writ had
issued, and the question for theconsideration of the Court
now was, whether there was evidence to fix the defendant
in the writ of fi. fa. The principal evidence on that point
was the similarity of the name, and the production of the
office copy of the affidavit, on which the execution
issued, from the rule office. Now, he apprehended,
that it would not; be denied that that was a
document which might be received in evidence.
It appeared that the defendant had attended the sale
of the plaintiff's goods, and had given directions respect-
ing some of the articles, and it was quite clear, under all
the circumstances, that the defendant had acted in the
case, and had rendered himself liable.
Mr. ALEXANDER was heard in support of the rule.
The question was whether the defendant had done any-
thing by which he had made himself liable to an action
of damages to Mrs. Smith.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE wished to know how the
Learned Counsel could get over the difficulty of the de-
fendant having interfered at the sale, and directecl.some
of his men to go and measure the potatoes ?
Mr. ALEXANDER submitted that was merely heai3ay
evidence, and that the defendant might have been a
purchaser. Besides, the evidence of the defendant's
attorney went distinctly to negative any interference
on his part, because, when the Sheriff's officer came
to him with the writ, the defendant's attorney
said "go and do your duty on your own responsibility.
I will give you no authority." Now, the evidence on
the subject of the defendant's signature to the affidavit on
which the writ issued, appeared to him extremely incon-
clusive. The original document was not produced in
Court, and there was no means of testing the witness's
knowledge of the defendant's signature.
Lord DE:smax said it had been decided by Lord El-
lenborough that the original document ought to be
produced, and that opinion was concurred in by the
Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Justice Garrow, in com-
menting upon the opinion of Lord El lenborough in
a subsequent case, thought the production of
an office copy sufficient where the affidavit it-
self was the only question, but where there
was an allegation that the affidavit was made by a parti-
cular party, then that the original document ought to be
produced, and he (Lord Denham) confessed that where
die object was to prove the identity of the party, he
thought the Cosa ought to have the original document.

ALEXANDER submitted that the.;:l'idence of iden-
tity upon that point being so extremely inconclusive,
there was nothing on which the other party could rely
but the alleged interference of the defendant at the sale,
and that he had already explained as being by
no means sufficient to bind the defendant, and
render him liable. The Learned Counsel, after referriug
to several authorities on the subject, concluded by sub-
mitting that the defendant was entitled to a nonsuit, and
that the rule ought to be made absolute.

The COURT thought there ought to be a new trial.
Rule for a new trial absolute.

INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S COURT, Nov. 8.
IN RE CHRISTOPHER SMITH.

' The insolvent in this case had been a commission
agent, a money-lender, and lastly, by means of accom-
modation bills, succeeded in getting from Mr.Edmonds,
an extensive wholesale button-manufacturer, a large
quantity of goods with which he set up business in St.
Mary-at-Hil I.
In the many eases which come before this Court,
arising from what is vulgarly called " kite flying"
few equalled, and certainly none exceeded the facts in
relation to this one, as detailed in evidence.
It appeared from the testimony of Mr. Edmonds, the
opposing creditor, and several other witnesses, that the
insolvent had been at first a bankrupt, afterwards in
1832, he passed through this Court as an insolvent, and
thirdly had been tried at the Old Bailey, on a
charge of forging the name of a person purporting
to be the acceptor cf a bill of exchange within four
months previous to his arrest, at the slut of the oppos-
ing creditor. He managed get 40C1. worth of goods
from him, for which he gave him bills drawn by him-
self, and accepted, or purporting to be accepted by per-
sons without a kcal habitation or a name.
The Learned COEIMISSIONER said this was a case
which required the attention of the, court in no ordi-
r-xy degree, and he should therefore -order it to stand
eve,: till to-morrow.

POLICE INTELLIGE—NCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Three wretched girls were brought before Alderman
Iloopmt, charged with having broken windows for the
purpose of being sent to Brideweli.
A policeman stated,that having, between one and two
o'clock in the morning, heard a smashing of glass, he
went to ascertain the cause, and saw the three girls,who
told him that they had committed the offence, and that
they wished to be locked up out of the cold. He took
them to the station-house, and from thence, by order of
the Inspector, to the union in Cannon-street, where Mr.
Thwaites, the relieving officer, immediately attended to
the case, and offered them orders of admission to- the
house at Peckham, but they refused to go that establish-
ment, and witness conveyed them to the station-house.
Mr. Tnwaites said that, as was frequently the case, he
was k-aocked up at an unseasonable hour, after the regular
labours of the day, and he offered the orders to the girls,
all of whom had been at Peckham before, but they re-
jected the orders, and he had no alternative but to send
them back to the station-house.
11:r. Hobler intimated to the Alderman that the rejec-
tion of the offer was by no means to be wondered at, as
it-was no tkitle to walk four or five miles between one and
two in the morning, after the exhaustion of the day.
Aldermen Hoo2Ea—indeed, it is a hard sentence upon
poor fatigued persons to send them at such an hour to
such a distance. lem sure that is not what ought to be
caned relief.
Thwaites raid that he had it not in his power to
do any;:hing more for those who were brought to him.
The multitctdes received at Peckham were beyond all
cr,,tlibi!itv. They hal 2-1.0 persons in the house a couple
6 '
of weeks ago, and a si eons sprit of insubordination had
exhibited itself of late there.
The g;rls stated that they had broken the windows in
orkler to be sent to prison, as plison, bad as it was, was
better than the Putout house, of which they knew
quite enough; All:that they could expect at Peckham-,
house was to be turned out in the morning with,rt little
bresd. They had been all round London Unions, and
they must say that prison was greatly preferable, what-
ever people might state.
-Mr. Booker, the overseer of Bishopsgate parish, stated,
that the Guardians of the East London Union were to.
hold a meeting next day on the suhject of purchasing
premises in town, for the reception of destitute persons
iike the defendants. All the Guardians of the Unions in
the City would, he believed, attend on so important an
occasion.. The East London Union Guardians had seen
one of the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners on the
subject, and it was believed that premises would be pur-
chased. The conduct of the younger prisoners iu the
workhouse was so bad, that the old people, who were en-
titled to some little comfort, had the most miserable lives
in that asylum. Girls like those at the bar were in the
habit of pelting each other with bread and pudding, and
the house was really a hell upon earth.
Alderman Hoot Fa perceiving that one of the girls was
sent her to Dal ,holetnew Hospital, and ordered that
the other two should pay the sum of 20s. each for the mis-
chief they had done, or sower imprisonment for a month
in Bridewell.
One of tlle girls-1 'sank you, Sir, for sending us to
13! idervell. Any plc ce is t.) be preferred to Peckham,
and no rastal:e, We shall never go there again, at
any rate.
Alderman HOOPER—I do not attribute any blame to
the relieving officer, for he cannot remedy the evil ; but
it is quite a mockery of relief to give poor destitute crea-
tures orders to go to Peckham between one and two in
the morning. I- hope ;inch 4, mode of rcHer will 40 as
quielily as possible -.substitnied by Attr isPPrP aPcowng
with ordinary humanity,
Mr. Morkiew, the proprietor of the Ship tavern, in
Talbot-court, (aracecherefr -street, applied to Alderman
Hooper fur advice in what manner to act in aC"ase of
very remarkable kind. •
nv
watt:4. Iplpuli
oblert,he dertut
ju.4n.
iby\h,
stated the clrcnilisiancF3
°se advice the applicant
briefly :—Edward Markiew, the son the
AilarliFew;
and another young man, whose name was John' Williams,
became acquainted with a Mr. Snow, who had lately ar-
rived from Australia, and was induced by the represen-
Isil:ons of that person to make prep3rations to go to Port
is the expectation of a prosperous result. Mr. Murk-
'

THE SUN, LONDON. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 841.

low went to very, considerable expense to fit out his son for
toe voyage, and Mr. Snow, who was a very plausible
person, and appeared to be qualified to at-ivise young
people upon such an adventive, undertook to superin-
tend the arrangements, and was unfortunately entrusted
with the greater part of the Money which was to be paid
for the voyage. What gave a singular complexion of
villany to the affair was the fact that Mr. Snow not only
decamped with the money of the two young men, but
actually took off the property of his own sister, who was
also going out to Australia, and whom be had prevailed
upon to marry John Williams for the purpose, as now
was manifest, of stripping her of all the property she
had in the world. Having undertaken to manage the
affairs of the voyage for the young people, Mr. Snow
sent on board some heavy trunks which he said
contained much valuable property, and the
ship, which was called the Pathfinder, sailed from Lon-
don about theee weeks ago. As soon, however, as she
arrived in the Downs, Mr. Snow and his wife left her,
and appointed to meet her at Plymouth, but upon the
arrival of the Pathfinder at that port, no such individuals
were to be found. Edward Macklew, John rnd
Mrs. Williams, a poor young creature of not more than
fifteen years of age, then ascertained, to. their surprise
and grief, that no settlement had been made for their
passage by Mr. Snow, and they were obliged to leave the
vessel, and make the best of their way to London. Be-
fore, however, they quitted the ship, they, by the advice
of the Captain, broke open Mr. Snow's trunks, and on
their opening, his baseness was confirmed by what they
saw in them, for the valuable property was mere rubbish.
Alderman HOOPER said that the case was really the
most heartless he had ever heard of.

Mr. Marklew stated that the condition of the poor
young girl, Mrs. Williams, was calculated to excite
the deepest compassion, and the conduct of her
brother betrayed, without doubt, the greatest possible
enormity. Mr. Snow had actually persuaded her
to give up 331. a year, which she had to
live upon, in order to supply her with the money of
which he subsequently deprived her. The poor girl
had 181. a-year, as the daughter of' a deceased Lieute-
nant, and die was allowed 151. a-year by the second
husband of her mother, and her matrimonial adventure
destroyed those means completely. She was now at his
(Mr. Marklew's house possessed of no more clothes
han elsd

Alderman HOOPEE—How much money had he of his
sister's ? Mr. Marklew said that Mr. Snow had got
86/. of hers, every farthing of which she was possessed.
Mr. Edward Ma :klew said that Mr. Snow had under-
taken to see that everything was right, and took him
and Mr. Williams and his wife under his protection, as
they were all so young. When the vessel got to the
Downs, Mr. Snow said that he had to leave her for four
days, and would meet her. at Plymouth. He (Mr. E.
Marklew) proposed to him to leave his wife on beard,
but, after a good deal of whispering between husband
and wife, Mrs. Snow positively refused to stay in the
vessel, and off they both went. Mr. Snow had pre-
viously called attention to one of his trunks particularly,
and said, putting his hand upon it, " Mind this, for all
my hopes are upon it," and when it was broken open it
was found staffed with old paper, old iron, and bones.
Alderman HOOPER—Yes, it was quite evident that it
was premeditated. What did he say to induce you to
go to Australia.
Mr. Edward Marklew—He told us that he kept a
tavern in Melbourne, in Port Philip, called the YaiLmv
Steam Packet Hotel; in which he was making a vast
deal of money; and that our chances were very great.
We had the utmost reliance upon him, particularly as
his own sister was with us. He was to have met us at
the Royal Hotel in Plymouth; and Captain Metcalf of
the Pathfinder kept us on board, waiting for him, till the
vessel was obliged to sail. Mr. Mears, the broker, had
come on board on the fifth day after Mr. Snow left us,
end informed us that we could not go in the vessel, as
Mr. Snow had made no settlement.
HATTON-GARDEN.

Yesterday George Chay alias George Brown, an elderly
man, of reduced appearance, was charged by Charlotte
Watson, a widow, residing at No. 2, Abbey-place,
Coram-street, Brunswick-square, with having stolen an
umbrella.

The prosecutrix stated that about a fortnight ago the
prisoner called at her house to inquire after some apart-
ments, when he proposed that he should board and lodge
in the house. She agreed to receive him on these terms,
and he entered the apartment ; and, after being there a
week, one morning when it was raining, he requested
her to lend him an umbrella, which hung in the passage,
but she declined doing so. She subsequently missed the
umbrella, and she saw no more of the prisoner until yes-
terday morning, when she accidentally met him in Judd-
street, Brunswick-square, and gave him into custody.
Police constable 187 S stated that at the station-
house the prisoner admitted that he had pledged the um-
brella for 2s.

The prisoner, it may be recollected, a few weeks ago
was charged at this Court with having stolen some wer.r-
ing apparel, &c., from a house in Bell-yard, Fltet-street,
where he had taken lodgings, and on that occasion he
gave his name George Brown; that he was a Bachelor
of Arts, and had been educated at Caius College,
Cambridge. His answers to questions relative to that
College convinced Mr. Greenwood that he had told the
truth, and the prosecutor not pressing the charge against
him he was discharged, when he was relieved. out
of the poor-box. The prisoner now said that he
could not justify his conduct, but he was driven by ur-
gent distress to pledge the umbrella. The prisoner
begged for mercy, saying that he was in great distress,
and he must have starved had it not been for some tem-
porary relief which he had received from a clergyman,
whom he knew at college. It was his intention to have
paid the prosecutrix and returned the umbrella: ""1
Mr. COMIIE said that such tricks must be put a stop to,
and he would convict him in the penalty of 205., and 25.,
the value of the umbrella, for illegally pawning, and, in
default of payment, three weeks' imprisonment, with
hard labour, in the House of Correction.

Prisoner (clasping his hands entreatingly)oh ! I
beg of you not to send me to prison. Pray, reconsider.
Do allow me to speak to You.,
Mr. COMBE refused, and informed the prisoner that he
would be liberated if the penalty was paid any time within
three weeks.

He was eventually conveyed to prison.
THAMES-OFFICE.

ROBBERY BY A POLICEMAN.--yesterday William James
Chandler, a metropolitan police constable of the Thames
division, was charged with stealing a watch and other pro-
perty belonging to a sailor boy named John Lingworthy.
The prosecutor stated that he had lately been paid off
from a ship, and on Wednesday last he went into a pawn
shop opposite the St. Katharine's Dock to sell his watch,
and while a man at the door was looking at it, the prisoner
came up, took the witch out of his hand, and asked him
where he had got it. He told the prisoner his father had
bought the watch and given it him, which was true. The
prisoner said he hoped that was correct, and inquired of him
where he had procured two bundles of clothes he had with
him. He informed the prisoner that the clothes wore his
own, and that he bought them of a Jew slopseller. The
prisoner said he must show him the shop where the
clothes were purchased, and he did so. After that the
policeman said he must go to his house, and stop there,
and he would try and get him a ship, and get him off to
sea. He had just before told the prisoner he wanted a
ship. He went home with the prisoner, who kept the
watch in his possession, and dined with him. After
dinner he went out with the prisoner, who said he would
get him a ship. They went to a great many places
together, and the prisoner gave him the slip and left
him. He sought for the policeman's dwelling, but he
was unable to find out the place again, and he did
not know where to find the prisoner, who retained
possession of his watch, as well as his two bundles of
clothes. On Sunday morning he met the prisoner in
High-street, Wapping ; and he asked witness what he
had been doing and where he had been to. He told
him that he hai been looking after him, on which the
prisoner asked him what he was going to do. He said
that he should go to the police-office, and the prisoner
begged of him not to do that, and took him honie, where
he delivered up the clothes to him, and promised to re-
store his watch at some future time, and leave it at the
Three Crowns, where he was lodging.
A silver watch, chain, and seals were here produced,
and the boy identified them as his property.
Some corrobative evidence was then produced, and it
was also proved that the prisoner had pawned the pro-
perty.

The prisoner, on being called on for his defence, said
his legal adviser had directed him to reserve it ; and he
should do so, for he was innocent of the charge.
Mr. BRoDEnIP committed him to Newgate to take his
trial for the felony.

where the mutton came from, and said that some of it
was brought to the house by her son and the rest by Iher
lodger. The prisoner was then removed to the station-
house, and Cooper afterwards made a further search in
the drawers, and he found a knife ground very sharp at
the point, calculated for killing sheep, and also 31. more
money, and a large bag that, from its appearance, had
evidently been used to carry hot fat in. The meat that
had been found was afterwards carefully examined by a
butcher, who stated that none of the joints had been
severed by a butcher, and also spoke confidently to the
f',,ct of the joints found in the house of the prisoner,
co,..esponding with the skin of the prosecutor's sheep
that was discovered in the field.

In answer to a question from the Magistrate, Inspector
Collier said that active search had been made after ti►e
parties mentioned by the prisoner, but they had ab-
scended and the police had not been able to take Them.
The prisoner, who, by the advice of her attorney,
declined to make any answer to the charge, was then
committed for trial, but upon a communication being
made to the bench by the Inspector it was arranged
+hat she should be brought up again if the other parties
were apprehended.