The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-06 00:00:00

' SU N,

placed in a cab ; he went to stop the cab, but found it
was not one belonging to the company, but a night
cab. Mr. Jones directed the porter to inquire about
the cabman, and asked them to return next day, ad-
vising them to give information of the loss at Chaplin
and Horne's, and also at the Hackney Carriages-
office, in Broad-street. They got no nformation at
either place. Next morning they went again. Mr.
Jones sent for the porter to see whether he could find
the man. He said, " Not at present." A note was
then written to Mr. Creed, who referred them to Mr.
Brookes. Mr. Brookes sent for Mr. Jones and the
porter. The particulars as to the bag and desk were
then repeated. Mr. Brookes said, if they are placed
in our custody we are liable; if they are not, we
are not liable." He then asked if the cabman had
been found. He then said something about it, such
as that he could not be bothered ; he treated them
very coolly indeed, and they left.
Mr. RUSSELL, for the defendants, contended that
as the evidence stood the company were not liable.
There was, in the first place, no bailment, the plain-
tiff from the beginning having taken the exclusive
control of his luggage; secondly, if the goods were
bailed they were safely carried according to the con-
tract of the company to the Euston-square station,
and there safely delivered to the owner. Whatever
might have happened after that could not render the
company liable as carriers, though they might be so
as warehousemen. But the complaint against them
here was for a breach of contract to carry certain
goods from Northampton. The defence under the
Carriers Act' was, that the luggage contained ex-
empted articles above the value of 10/. If there was
that amount of exempted articles among goods worth
1,0001., and the package were lost, the carrier was
not liable for a farthing. Lastly, the luggage car-
ried by the plaintiff was 571 b., and he paid no addi-
tional charge. The Act incorporating the company
provided that passengers travelling in the third class
might take their luggage not exceeding 401 b. ; but
the plaintiff had carried 571 b., and, therefore, the
company incurred no liability.
No evidence was heard for the defence.

Mr. HEATH inquired whether, considering the im-
portance of the case, the parties wished the case
postponed, in order to allow of an application to a
superior court ?
Mr. RUSSELL stated that such was the course his
clients would prefer.
Mr. LEWIS objected to a postponement. The case
had been heard, and his client could not bear to enter
into an expensive contest with a wealthy company.
He doubted whether the Court could postpone the
case for such a purpose.
Mr. HEATH then addressed the jury. The plaintiff
had to prove a contract on the part of the defendants
to carry the goods, and that there had been a breach
of eontract. The jury would have to consider whe-
ther the contract of the parties was to carry from
Northampton to the end of their stations, or only to
the place where the carriage happened to stop when
the break was put on. If the jury were of opinion
that the company were bound to carry further than
the latter point, then they had to consider whether the
plaintiff released them from that liability by taking the
luggage into his own charge. If they believed it was
true, as mentioned by Elsdon, that the luggage was
lost when the porter was engaged in looking for
the plaintiff's box, the goods might then be con-
sidered as not being in their custody ; but if they be-
lieved that the goods were left in charge of the porter,
the question would be whether, when the plaintiff
left the goods with the porter, these were still in the
company's custody—whether the fact of their passing
through the plaintiff's hands in their transit to the
platform ended the company's custody. The com-
pany contracted to carry only the passenger and
401 b., and the jury would have to consider whether
the goods were over or under that weight. The
plaintiff valued them at 19/. 10s. The amount of
the cost of the watch, &c., was stated by the plain-
tiff at about 121. 135., but he reckoned the watch as
now worth much less. If the jury considered the
value of those articles as above 101., they must deduct
it from the value of the goods.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, esti-
mating the compensation at 101.
Mr. LEWIS remarked that the company's time-
table mentioned 561 b. as the quantity of luggage al-
lowed.

It was explained to the jury, in reply to Mr.
Heath, that they thought it most probable the lug-
gage was under 401 b.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
George Phipps, who was some days ago charged
with having committed a forgery upon the Bank of
England by signing the name of Thomas Rance" to
a dividend warrant for the payment of the half-yearly
interest upon the sum of 2,9181. 4s. 9d., was brought
before the Lord Mayor for final examination. A
gentleman from the office of Messrs. Freshfield, the
solicitors to the Bank of England, attended for the
prosecution. The prisoner had been apprehended at
Enfield, by Daniel Forrester.
Mr. Thomas Rance, of Hatfield Beverell, in the
county of Essex, said-2I have been an innkeeper, but
have retired from business. lam the surviving exe-
cutor under the will of my late sister, Elizabeth
Griffith, of Chelmsford, and have been in the habit of
coming to town twice a year to receive the dividend
upon 2,918/. 4s. 9d. Three per Cents., standing in
her name. I know the prisoner George Phipps,
and his wife ' • she is my niece. The dividends
were received by me for her benefit. The interest
upon that sum was left to her by will. By the
direction of the prisoner and my niece I turned
over the interest since the year 1838, when he
was a bankrupt, to a gentleman named Addington.
I was authorised so to do in writing, and Messrs.
Freshfield have the authority upon which I acted.
The principal is to be divided amongst the children
upon the death of my niece. I called at the Bank on
the 26th of October to receive the dividend, as usual,
but I found that somebody else had received it. The
name of Thomas Rance, written upon the dividend
r,,ce;pt, is not my writing—neither is that name in
the dividend-book, of that date, my writing. I mayor
authorised anybody to receive the dividend or to sign
for me.
Mr. James Emery, of Hemingford• cottages Rich-
mond-road, Islington, said —I resided at Enfield for 22
years, and was a schoolmaster there. I know the
prisoner, who was a saddler there. His children were
at my school,:and I know him merely as a tradesman.
I have been in the habit of lending him small sums
of money, but never lent him mare than five shillings
at a time in my life. I remember that, in last Oc-
tober, he asked me if I would lend him thirty shil-
lings. I did not accede to his request, and have not
seen him since that time until he came to my house
in company with Forrester. I never lent him any
bank-note. (Here the Bank of England note for
51., which it will be recollected the prisoner stated to
Forrester he had received frost the witness as a loan,
was produced.) I never lent or gave him this or any
other bank-note.
The prisoner said he was very anxious for the
assistance of a solicitor, and that, with good legal aid,
he had no doubt of getting out of the apparent dif•
ficulty.
The clerk to the Bank solicitor did not object to a
remand ; but the depositions were ordered to be made
out for Saturday, the Lord Mayor being of opinion
that the arguments of a solicitor would not weigh
down the evidence by which the case was supported.
Edward Probert, the secretary to the Silk Hatters'
Trade Society, held at the Black Bull public-house,
was brought up for final examination, upon a charge
of having broken open and plundered their box of
20/. is. Old.
For the greater security of the society's money it
was determined by the members that all cash should
be kept in a box, to which three different locks were
attached, one of which was unlocked by the presi-
dent, another by the vice-president, and the third by
the secretary. In the absence of the two principal
officers the secretary contrived to get two of the
members unconsciously to assist him in his plan of
robbery, they not being at all aware of his object. A
blacksmith was provided, who, upon the representa-
tion of the secretary, of whose integrity the slightest
suspicion was not entertained by anybody, broke
open the box, the contents of which thus fell into the
possession of the prisoner, who had pretended that the
keys were lost, and that he should be obliged to pro-
vide new ones. The two members who witnessed the
breaking open of the box stated what took 'place in
their presence, from which it was quite evident that
they and the landlord, in whose custody the box had
been left, were altogether blameless.
The prisoner had spent 15/. of the money in smok-
ing and drinking at Bristol, where he was appre-
hended in the midst of his enjoyment.
He was committed for trial.
CLERKENIVELL.
Henry Martin Ilannigan was placed at the bar
before Mr. Tyrwhitt, charged by Jane Denny a poor
woman, residing at No. 17, Lumley-court, Strand,
with having obtained from her 10s. under false pre-
tences.
The prosecutrix deposed that her son was charged
with an assault, and committed for trial at the Mid-
dlesex Sessions on Wednesday week last. Before the
trial came on she was waiting in th hall of the
Sessions-house, Clerkenwell-green, when prisoner
entered into conversation withwhwe'rhwoitii nthe nature of
she
er bwuaseitenedsse,eounnsa.eslc.ertaishneinefp
ressiechdaihfe.re
wasil;hedtehheravief
ua:gttinn ea. He
counsel, and said she only had
said " We wish to do these things as
possi-
ble." He agreed to take the half-guinea quietly
intro-
duce her to a counsellor, when he took her into a room,
and a gentleman in a counsellor's wig and gown'
was introduced to her whom she understood to be Mr.
lorry, the barrister, and she paid to the prisoner four
half-crowns. The prisoner had previously told her
that a guinea was the usual fee, and that half-a-guinea
would not do, and she signed a written paper, pro-
mising to pay the prisoner 12s. 6d. by instalments of