The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-21 00:00:00

THE SUN,
__LONDON, MONDAY MORNING, JUNE 21, 1847.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 18.
GAMEY V. ESTHALL.
This was an action to recover damages for criminal
conversation with the plaintiff's wife.
Sir F. THESIGER (with whom were Mr. Cockburn,
Q.C.,-and Mr. Mellor) said, the action was brought to
recover compensation in damages for one of the most
severe injuries which it was possible for a man to sustain.
The plaintiff was a commercial traveller to a respectable
souse in St. Paul's Churchyard; and the defendant was
a builder, in an extensive way of business. Though this
was not an action which was frequently brought by per-
sons in that class of life, the injury of which the plaintiff
complained was, nevertheless, calculated to wound his
feelings as deeply, and entirely to destroy his happiness
and peace of mind. Indeed, to a person in the plaintiff's
station of life, the society and assistance of a wife was,
perhaps, even more essential than to persons who moved
in a more exalted station. He was obliged, from the
very nature of his business, to be frequently away from
home, and thus required, more than most men, the
watchful care of a wife for the protection of his home
and children. But all this he had been deprived of by
the unrestrained conduct of the defendant The plaintiff
and his wife were nearly about the same age, and since
their marriage they had lived together in a state of
the greatest happiness and affection, and had three
children born of the marriage. In April, 1846, the de-
fendant, who, he regretted to say, wax a married man,
and the father of two children, came to reside in Beath--
field-house, adjoining the plaintiff's r. sideece in Elk-
ham-terrace, Islington. The plaintiff and defendant
were entire strangers, but while the defendant was ab-
sent from his home on business, the defendant, in some
way or another, introduced himself to the plaintiff's
house on several occasions, when circumstances occurred
which would leave no doubt whatever on the minds of
the jury that a guilty connexion had taken place between
them. The Learned Counsel then stated the evidence as
it was afterwards given by the witnesses; and called
upon the jury to award such an amount of damages
as would give to the plaintiff some satisfaction, however
insufficient, for the irreparable injury which he had sus-
tained.
Edward Gadsby examined—l am the brother of the
plaintiff. My brother is 31 years of age; his wife is 26
They have three children. I always found them living
comfortably and affectionately together. My brother is
a commercial traveller, which called him away from
home from time to time. I told him my suspicions in
February last. He would not believe it. I and my
brother married two sisters. He saw my wife about it,
but even then he would not believe it. He was in great
distress of mind. My brother has three young children,
the youngest nine months old. The father of Mrs.
Gadsby is a publican and a man of substance.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ssrgeant SHEE—I live not far
from my brother's. My father keeps the North Pole.
The defendant's house is next door. I was there three
or four nights in the week. I saw the defendant at the
N..mth, Pole. Mrs. Gadsby kept my father-in-law's
accounts. Mr. Esthall has lived there about a twelve-
menth. He works for my father in-law' Mr. Elkham.
I never visited the Esthalls. Never saw Mrs. Esthall at
me brother's. I don't know that the children of the two
families play together. I applied to the witnesses when
my brother was obliged to go into the country, in Fe-
bruary. I have looked after my brother's interest, as I
had a right to do.
Ite-examined by Sir F. THESIGE/t—Elkham-terrace is
called after my father-in-law. Defendant is about 32.
lie carries on business in the New North- road, at Fins-
b ill, and at Peckham Rye.
Mrs. Edward Gadsby—l am sister of the plaintiff's
wife. I mentioned my suspicions to my husband. I
never saw any dissension between the plaintiff and his
wife.

•
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant SUEE—My sister's
husband is not intemperate, and he is of a very good
temper. He is intoxicated sometimes, the same as other
gentlemen are.
Re-examined by Sir F. THESIGER—He is especially
good tempered when he is intoxicated.
Margaret Davison—l formerly lived at Mr. William
Cadsby's, the plaintiff. When I went he had two chil-
dren. I don't know that the plaintiff knew the defend-
ant. I saw the defendant at my master's house twice
before the sth of September, when Mrs. Gadsby was
c mfined. I did not let him in. Mrs. Gadsby took him
to the parlour. He remained two or three minutes.
Mr. Gadsby was absent then. Mrs. Gadsby let him in
both times. Mr. Esthall went into Mrs. Gadsby's bed-
room a few days after she was confined. Ido not know
how long he remained. Eight or ten days after Mrs.
Gadshy was confined she sent me to fetch the defendant
to come and see her. I showed him up to my mistress's
b.-droem. Mrs. Gadsby was lying outside the bed,
dressed. The nurse was in the room with the baby aed
Caroline. Mrs. Gadsby told me to put Caroline to bed.
Tice nursa put the baby on the bad and came out of the
room. He was left there alone. I don't know how
long he remained. Charles, Mr. Elkham's servant, once
carried Mrs. Gadsby down stairs to the parlour. The
defendant came, as he said, by Mrs. Elkham's orders,
and carried Mrs. Gadsby up to her bedroom. Next
morning Mrs. Gedshy sent me to fetch Mr. Esthall to
carry her down stairs. I gave the message to his sister,
and he came at one o'clock and carried her down stairs.
Mrs. Gadsby sat in the parlour, which has Venetian
Vinds and shutters. Mrs. Gadsby used to sit in the par-
lour, and would tap at the window, and then Mr. Esthall
came to the door, and Mrs. Gadshy let him in. That
happened half-a-dozen times. When Mr. Esthall went
• into the parlour, the shutters were closed, so that no
non could see into the parlour. The defendant remained
about a quarter of an hour. Mrs. Gadsby wore a minia-
ture likeness in her bosom. Frequently it would drop
out, when she would pick it up and kiss it. This is the
Ji!teness. It is very much like the defendant. Six weeks
atrer Mrs. Gadsby was confined I went into the country
to Cuckfield with her. The defendant was at the plain-
tiff's about a week before that. He came at seven in the
evening. and left at half-past one in the morning. I
heard him come in. He remained in the parlour all the
time. They hal no tea. Mr. Elkham came over at
about twelve o'clock. He called out to fasten the gate.
S on after twelve o'clock he came again, and spoke about
the light in the parlour. Mrs Gadsby:told him she was
g dm; to bed directly. He came a third time, when Mrs.
Gadsby said, the children were ill, and she could not go
to bed yet. The candle in the parlour was put out
about one o'clock. They remained half-an-hour in the
dark. Mrs. Gadsby sent me to see if Mr. Elkham was
at 'riding about. I went to the side-door and looked over
the gate. I thought I saw Mr. Elkham. Mrs. Gadsby
to'd me to see Mr. Esthall safe over the back wall. I
saw him get over the wall. I twice took notes to the
pent to Mr. Esthall. Mr. Esthall took me and Mrs.
O elsby in his cart to the station at London-bridg4.
When he asked if there was any more luggage, she re-
plied. " No, dear." At Cuckfield Mrs. Gadsby went to
th 3 post office and got a letter, which she opened imme-
diately. The letter was on half a sheet of piper; it was
very thick writing. This is like the letter. When we
returned from the country Mr. Esthall's visits continued.
They were in Mr. Gadsby's absence. On one occasion
I heard them kiss. I left on my own accord. Mrs.
Garisby's dress was much disordered after Mr. Esthalt's
vi -its. That was after her return from the country.
Sometimes it would sound as if they were romping.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant SHEIK—.I knew Mrs.
Esthall. She came sometimes once or twice a week.
Mrs. Gadsby went to Mrs. Eathali's two or three times
a, week. Mrs. Esthall's little hoy came sometimes'. Ile
is about two tears of age. Mr. Gadsby did not go to
Mr. Esthali's. Mr. and Mrs. Elkhan were at Mr.
avisby's two or three times a week. Mrs. Esthall came
on to to see Mrs. Gadsby, when she was ill, not mere.
Tire ptrlour is nine feet above the area. I can't swear
how many times I have seen Mrs. k3adsby tap at the win-
dow. lam sure of once. Mr. Esthall would pass the
house in going to his business. Mrs. Gadsby had a
miniature of her husband, bat larger than that. It is
the same colour. When Mr. Esthall got over the wall,
I wont round the garden to see if any one was at the
windows. I was in the front kitchen by the dresser
when I heard them kiss. The other servant's name is
Smith. I told the attorney about the tapping at the
window, but to no one else.
Re-examined by Sir F. THESIGER—I never saw Mrs.
Gadsby kiss her husband's miniature.
By a jaror-3lr. Esthall never visited when my master
was at home.
Mary Smith examined—l was servant of all work at
Mr. Gadsby's. t was there only two months. I left on
account of seeing Mr. Esthall there. I heard him fre-
quently kiss Mrs. Gadsby, when she let him in and when
he went away. He came frequently in the afternoon.
When Mr. Esthall was there I had to take care. of the
baby. I told Mrs. Gadshy that I would tell Mr. Gadsby
about it. One day as Mrs. Gadsby was letting Mr.
Esthall out of the door, the child said, "Kiss me, Mr.
Esthall, as you kissed mamma." The child was never
allowed to come up after that.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—I am a
servant of all-work. I frail been at Mr. Gedsby's two
months when I began to differ with Mrs. Gadsby. Our
difference was, Mr. Esthall. Mr. Gadshy complained of
me to Mrs. Elkham. Mrs. Elkham told me so. Mrs.

Gadsby told me if I was not comfortable I was to leave. I
My bates were searched by desire of Mrs. Gadsby. I
Nral out of place a fortnight, Mrs. Gadsby was sorry
I made so short a stay; she wanted me to stop.
w. Re-exarninecl by Sir F. THESIG E It— My mistress
ts.bed me not to tell my master that Mr. Esthall came
every day, but only now and then.
Elizabeth Harper —I am a mon. thly nurse. I nursed I
Mrs. Gadsby. Sbo was
Esthallwaa at the house before Mrs.
olrs Wednesday
ertiinim.aY in MrA. Gadsby's bed-
room on the Tuesday
evening after she
was confined. Ile had some hrainss2 tison, and Caro-
line in
water. On the
Thursday after I saw him, Margar)e.-atp
the room. I think I left the room
tand went down
int the parlour, hut did not remain any
The second time he came Mrs. ASthall was w'ithohfimti.mlet.
sp-,ared as if he had not seen Mrs. Gadsby before since
her confinement.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant S TIEE-11rs. Esthall
came twice. Mrs. Edward Gadshy came four times.
p
Mr. Joseph Robson —I wasartner with Mr. Esthall,
Mr belief is that this iA not his handwriting.
-Cross-examined by Mr. Serg::,atat SfiliE—Mr. Esthall
he. work to do for Mr. Elkhan, and at the plaintirs
horse. They were little jobs at intervals.
Joseph Drain—l am a house painter. I know the de-
feniant's handwriting. Ido not believe this to be his
handwriting. I saw Mr. Esrhall a fortnight ago, and in
court to-day, but not in the Ring's Arm;.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILKIN'S —He
knocked me down ; I have an action against him.
Sir. F. THESIGER—Then he certainly knows his
band.

Charles John Freeday examined—I am a surp;eon. I
have attended Mr. Garlsby and his family for some
years. He has always been very fond of his children
and his wife.
air. Sergeant SHEE then addressed the jury for the
defendant, and
.said that the entire case was supported
by Ilur6emaul, for he was sure that the evidence of

- -
the maid-of all-work had been completely demolished by
the cross-examination of Mr. Sergeant Wilkins. The
Learned Counsel then commented upon the evidence of
Margaret Davison, the nursemaid, and urged upon the
jury not to pronounce a verdict against the defendant
upon such slight evidence as that.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up the evidence,
the jury gave a verdict for the defendant.
Jane 19.
COBBETT V. HUDSON.
The plaintiff in this case is the son of the celebrated
William Cobbott, and the defendant is the keeper of the
Queen's Bench Prison, in which the plaintiff has been
confined ever since 1842. The action was brought to
recover damages for an alleged false return made by the
defendant to a writ of habeas corpus, requiring the de-
fendant to bring up the body of Mr. Cobbett at the
Court at Westminster, for the purpose of showing upon
what grounds he was detained in custody.
After hearing counsel on either side at some length,
Lord DENMAN was of opinion that a false return had
not been proved, and that as there was no case made out
for the jury, a nonsuit ought to be entered.—Nonsuit
entered accordingly.
Mr. Knowl,s, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Watson, Q.C., !or the defendant. Mr. Cobbett (the
plaintiff) was pre,ent during the trial of the case.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, June 18.
BRETIN V. BUNN.

This case, which appeared in The Sun on Wednesday
last, was again brought before Mr. Justice Coleridge on
Tnursday, after the hearing of the summons in " Bunn
v. Lind." The application was on the part Of the de-
fendant, for commissions to examine witnesses in Italy
and France, and further, for a postponement of the trial.
The matter was now discussed at some length.
Mr. Lewis appeared as solicitor for the defendant, in
support of the application; and Mr. Ogle attended as
counsel for the plaintiff.
The defendant had made an affidavit, setting forth that
he could not proceed to trial without the evidence of
Mademoiselle Taglioni, M. Adrian, and M. Petipa, and
that they were resident abroad. On the other hand, the
plaintiff made an affidavit, in which he stated that Made-
moiselle Taglioni, who had a residence at Como, in
Italy, had been announced to appear at her Majesty's
Theatre, and was at the present period fulfilling an
engagement in Germany. The cause had been en-
tered for trial some time back, and had been made
a special jury case by the defendant, and bad now
been entered for the present sittings. The plaintiff
further stated that the application was made to delay
the cause by the detendant, from whom he claimed
nearly $OOl. for salary; that he had, being a foreigner,
to pay 2001. into court as costs by way of security ; and
if the trial was postponed, it would entail great hard.
ship and expense on him; and that the witnesses whose
attendance he required were connected with her Ma-
jesty's Theatre and the Italian Opera, Covent garden,
and as soon as the season was closed, they would quit
England for some time.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE inquired, in the course of the
case, whether the action could be referred ?
Mr. LEWIS thought not, remarking that there were
other engagements which would probably depend on
the present action.
His LornosinP made an order for the commissions to

issue, and for a postponement of the trial and, on
his suggestion, the 2001. paid into Court by way of se-
curity was directed to be paid to the plaintiff.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Chief Justice WILDE and Mr. Baron RoLPE.)
Ann Cleveland, aged 26. and John Hill, alias Dolly,
who stand charged jointly with the murder of the
illegitimate child of the female prisoner, were placed at
the bar on Friday.
Sergeant ALLEN, who was instructed to defend the fe-
male prisoner, applied to the Court to postpone her
trial. He said, she was only committed for trial on the
Bth inst., and he was informed by her attorney that he
had not had sufficient time to prepare her defence, and
if the trial was pos-poned, he expected to be able to ob-
tain the testimony of some witnesses which would be
very material for her defence.
Mr. BALLANTINE said he had been instructed by the
parish to prosecute the prisoners, and of course the only
object of those who instructed him was, that the truth
should be ascertained. He had listened with anxiety to
hear whether his Learned Friend stated any facts as
grounds for his application, as in that case he should
have immediately acceded t) it. No such facts, how
ever, appeared to be stated, and he would merely call
the attention of the Court to the very lengthened in-
quiry that took place both before the coroner and the
magistrate, at which the professional advisers of the pri-
soners were present. His Learned Friend Mr. Ser-
geant Allen had also been specially retained for the
defence of the female prisoner, and he understood that
all parties were in readiness to have the case disposed of
that day.
Mr. CiAnxsos said, that on the part of the male
prisoner he should certainly object to have the trial
postponed to the next session He was discharged by the
magistrate. and was only implicated in the transaction
by the verdict of the coroner's jury.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN said his application at present
was, not to postpone the trial to the next session, but
merely to a later period of the present one.
Chief Justice WILDE, after conferring with Mr. Baron
Rolfe, said that the Court was always ready to listen to
the application of a prisoner to postpone his trial upon
tat representation that he had not had sufficient time to
prepare his defence, and would be particularly anxious
to do so in a serious case like this ; but at the sama
time they must take care not to establish the bad prece-
dent of postponing trials without any fair or reasonable
ground Ening urged for their doing so. All they had to
act upon at present was the statement of the attorney
that lie might possibly, it delay were granted, obtain
some evidence which might be useful to his client, which
might be said in the case of every prisoner ; and under
these circumstances they felt that all they could do was
to let the trial stand over till Monday.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN said he believed this delay would
be all that was required, and the female prisoner would
be ready to take her trial on that day.
John Gorman, 26; Denis Gorman, 20; James Coffee,
27, John Gilbert. 23, and Catherine Gorman, 50, the
mother of the first-mentioned prisoners, were indicted
for feloniously cutting and wounding James Hubbard
and Thomas Carmody, police-constables, in the execu-
tion of their duty, with intent to do them grievous
bodily harm; and in other counts the intent of the pri-
soners was laid to 1).?, to prevent their lawful appre-

hension.
Mr. Bodkin (with Mr. Clark) crnducted the prosecu-
tion for the Treasury ; Mr. Clarkson defended Coffee
and Gilbert, and Mr. O'Brien defended the other pri-
sonors.

From the testimony of numerous witnesses who were
called in support of the prosecution, it appeared that on
the evening of the 24th of May, the prisoners, all of
whom ~re Irish, were in a public house at Pimlico, called
the Flak, an I a man, named Minter, who had formerly
been pot-boy in the house, was alai) present. According
to his statement, when he was about to leave the room,
he was attacked, without any provocation, by two of the
male defendants, and severely beaten, and when he got
out of the house he obtained the assistance of the two
constables named in the indictment, who accompanied
him back to the Flask for the purpose of taking the per-
sons who had committed the assault into custody. The
moment, however, the constables went into the room
they were attacked by the prisoners, who beat then;
violently, and eventually turned them out, and thin
barricaded the door. A reinircement of police was sent
fir, and the doer was burst open, and a most desperate
affray then took place, during which the prisoners mule
use of a poker, ispart-pots, and other dangerous instru-
ments, and the constables received very severe injury.
and were prevented from doing any duty for a consider-
able time. The conduct of the male prisoners appeared
to have been most ferocious, and there did not seem to
have been the slightestprovocation for what they did from
tie beginning to the end of the transaction.
The Counsel for the prisoners made the only defence
for them that the facts of the case would allow, and urged
that although their c niduct had certainly been most vio-
lent and unjustifiable, yet the jury might conscientiously
beliere that they were not actuated by the felonious in-
tention ascribed to them by the indictment, and merely
convict them of an assault.
Lord Chief Justice WILDE having left the case to the
jury, they returned a verdict, finding the prisoners Guilty
up ,n the third count of assaulting the constables with the
intent to prevent their lawful apprehension.
His LORDSHIP, in passing sentence, told the prisoners
that he was of opinion the jury had come to a most hu-
mane decision with regard to their conduct. The male
prisoners appeared to have acted in the most savage and
ferocious manner, and the woman who stood in the posi-
tion of mother to two of them, instead of endeavouring
to appease them, appeared to have rather excited them
to per:evere in their violence. It was almost a provi-
dential occurrence that death had not ensued, and if that
had been the case, he did not see how they could have
escape .l a conviction for murder. Persons in their con-
dition must be taught that such violent resistance to the
officers of justice would always entail severe punishment,
and it was absolutely necessary for the protection of sa-
ciety that this should be the case. He then sentenced
James Coffee, who appeared to have been the ringleader
in the affray, :o be kept to hard labour for eighteen
months, John Gorman for fifteen, John Gilbert and
Denis Gorman, twelve months each, and the mother
Catherine German, three months".imprisomment and hard
labour.

FORGERY.—A young man, named Horatio Nelson
TV eq, was charged with uttering forged railway scrip.
Mr. Clarkson conducted th.. case for the prosecution.
The facts are contained in the following evidences—
The handwriting of the prisoner being identified,
Mr. Bodkin was sworn—Vas a member of the Stock
Exchange, and on the 22d of March last received a letter
from the prisoner, who requested him to dispose of some
scrip which he enclosed, and which purported to be scrip
of the London and South-Western Railway Company.
He received another letter on the 27th, in which the
prisoner stated that, in consequence of his former letter
not having been promptly answered, he had opened an
account
Nvith another broker for the sale of a large num-
ber of
shares, shares , v t
i. e
. , but that he enclosed twenty certificates of
i i la witness disposed of, and sent the proceeds,
!shares, and remiiteci
931., to the prisoner.
„I-17 subsequently disposed of forty
Moor-e, o. to the prisoner. The prisoner
dated his letter
•street,li Birmingham, and signed
himself Thomas Perryios
,etahfterwards remitted the pri-
soner a sum of 1051
for
rrhnFeeds of additional
scrip which he had disposed ofe
forged
the. employment of
George Brinke, Esq., clerk in
Messrs. Sterne and Pitman, stock-brokers, proved
scrip in 'question
having received 80 of the
from the preceding witness.
Mr. Simpson, clerk in the employment of Messrs
Chalmers, stock-brokers, stated that he had received.
them from Mr. Grey.
Mr. Alfred Morgan, treasurer of the London and
South-Western Railway Company, stated that that cow.
pay, in Junnary last, issued 1,01.'1 new bhares, and the

80 shares now produced were forgeries. There was a
decided difference between the watermark on the coun-
terfeit and that on the genuine scrip. The mark on the

spurious scrip was straight, and on that of the genuine
scrip it was slightly turned at the- top. This witness
was cross-examined by Mr. Ballantine, who appeared for
the prisoner, but nothing was elicited to shake his direct
testimony.
Mr. Emms, of the firm of Emms and Smith, printers
to the London and South-Western Railway Company,
stated that the forged scrip was not on the same paper
as that used at his office. The watermark also was dif-
ferent. The word " proportionable" in the forged scrip
was spelt incorrectly, the o being omitted.
Mrs. Mary Ann Dingle proved that the prisoner
lodged at her house in Birmingham at the date of the
above transactions. He went under the name of Perry.
She could not prove his handwriting.
Mr. Francis Woral Stevens, of the firm of Stevens,
Hansard, and Co., sharebrokers, proved to having sold
50 of the forged scrip, at the desire of the prisoner ;
and that he remitted him a cheque for 259/., which the
prisoner acknowledged. The prisoner called upon him
subsequently, in reference to a mistake which had been
made by the banker upon whom the cheque was drawn,
who had over-paid 401. The notes had been trace Ito
the prisoner, who said his name was West.
Henry Reichter, clerk to the preceding witness, de-
posed to having entered the scrip in question in a book
at his office kept for that purpose.
Mr. Fitzgerald, of the firm of Stevens, Hansard, and
Co., stated that he took the scrip to the station at Lila
Nine Elms, and was informed by one of the clerks there
that they were genuine, and with that information he
was quire satisfied.
Mr. Charles Rogers, cashier to Messrs. Bruce and Co.,
proved having paid the 2591. for the cheque for the scrip.
Mr. Morgan, the secretary to the company, proved
that these instruments were all forgeries, and that they
appeared to have been struck from the same die or plate
as the others that had been sold by Mr. Berkley. There
was the same mistake in the word " proportionate" at
the back of the instrument, and the numbers were higher
than any that had been issued by the company.
Daniel Forrester, the officer, proved the apprehension
of the prisoner, and also that he said he had not been in
Birmingham for two years and a half, and denied having
applied for any letters at the post-office in Moorgate-
street, addressed to Mr. Perry.
Mr. Morgan was recalled, and in answer to a question
put by Mr. Ballantine, he said he did not believe the
name of the prisoner was among those who had signed
the subscribers' agreement, and the Parliamentary con-
tract.
By Mr. CLARKSON—It was intended to distribute the
new shares among the old proprietors of the company
who chose to have them, and none had yet been issued to
the public.
The forged instruments were put in, and one was read.
' It was to the usual effect, certifying that the holder hay-
' ing paid 5/. as deposit, and subscribed the necessary do-
cuments, was entitled to one so/. new share in the capital
of the company, &c.
Mr. CLARKSON said this was the case for the prose-
cution.

Mr. BALLANTINE then addressed the Court, and said
he should submit to their Lordships that there was no
ease to go to the jury, because the instrument which was
the subject of the alleged forgery was not in truth
such an instrument as came within the contemplation
of the statute. The prisoner was charged in a variety
of forms with forgery, in uttering a forged receipt, a
warrant, 'an undertaking, &c., and the whole of the
charges were supported by the production of a docu-
ment which had been described as railway scrip, and the
question was, whether this instrument was properly
described in any of these counts. First, as to its being
a receipt—he should contend that it was perfectly clear
it was never intended to be treated as a receipt, or con-
sidered as such by the company, and it was no more
thun a receipt that a statement in a bond, that a certain
sum had been paid, could be called a receipt. A receipt
was the discharge of the party making the payment; but
in this document there was no discharge—it was entirely
conditional. The Learned Counsel cited in support of
his argument the case of Harvey, in Russell and Ryan,
227, in which the prisoner was accused of forging a re-
ceipt, and the instrument was in these terms, " William
Chenery, Esq., paid to Thompson the sum of 81." It
was written on a proper stamp, but no name was signed..
The prisoner was convicted, but the point was reserved
for the consideration of the judges whether such an in-
strument was properly described as a receipt; and the
judges held that it was not a receipt, and that the instru-
ment merely admitted that Chenery had paid the money,
but was no acknowledgment of the receipt of it. After
the decision that had been come to in the recent case
to which he had alluded, he did not think it was neces-
sary to trouble their Lordships much further with regard
to the question as to the instrument being a receipt.
Baron ROLFE —You are entitled to this, certainly;
that it was the opinion of the Court that it was not a
receipt for money.
Mr. BALLANTINE considered this quite sufficient, and
he was of opinion the same argument would apply to
those counts charging the instrument as an accountable
receipt. Then, as to its being a warrant for the pay-
ment of money. A warrant, he contended, was an in-
strument which authorised a person to pay or receive
money, but by this instrument authority was given to
no one to do either. The result was merely mentioned
upon the parliamentary contract and subscriber's agree-
ment being signed, but the prisoner had been proved not
to have signed either ; and, therefore, in his case he
could have no claim upon the company, and the docu-
ment was so much waste paper. With regard to those
counts which treated the instrument as a warrant for the
delivery of a valuable security—what were the facts?
That the party holding the scrip was entitled to a 501.
share in the undertaking, both as regarded profit and
loss, and so far from this share representing money or
property, it was possible that by incurring a share of
liability, it might actually represent a loss instead of a
profit. He considered that the same objections would
apply to the counts describing the instrument as an un-
dertaking for the payment of money. There were two
questions involved on the point; first, was the instrument
in itself a warrant for any purpose whatever? and, se-
cond, if it were a warrant, could it be considered in any
other light than conditional upon the signing the parlia-
mentary contract and subscriber's agreement? and as the
prisoner had been proved not to have performed this ope-
ration, he submitted that he could not be liable. There
was also no evidence that the South-Western Railway
Company had any right or authority to issue such in-
struments ; and he said that if they had no such autho-
rity. of course the forging them would not be felony.
The Learned Counsel then cited a case in which the
Master of the Rolls had decided that canal shares did
not come within the description of securities, inasmuch
as they could be bought and sold ; and he argued that
railway shares were of precisely the same character as
canal shares. He also reminded the Court that the
statute referring to the offence of forgery, and which
defined the instruments capable of proving the subject of
that charge, had been passed at a period when such an
instrument as railway scrip was entirely unknown, and
that, therefore, it would hardly be just to suppose that
such was contemplated by its provisions. The Leaned I
Counsel concluded by calling upon the Court to with-
draw the case from the jury, and to direct the prisoner
to be acquitted of the charge of felony, upon the grounds
he had stated.
Chief-Justice WILDE having conferred with his
Laarned Brother, said it was impossible not to see that
this was a question of very great importance and interest
to the public, on account of the enormous amount of
property invested in securities of this description. He
was of opinion that there was very great doubt as to the
real character of these instruments, and as the counsel
for the prosecution was desirous that the question should
be gravely considered by the whole of the judges, he
considered that the case ought to go to the jury, and the
point raised would then probably be considered by the
judges.
Mr. CLARKSON said that the company whom he re-
presented would be perfectly satisfied with a decision so
obtained, and would not take any further steps.
Mr. BALLANTINE then said that he rested entirely
upon the question of law, and as he had no answer upon
the facts of the case, he should not address the jury.
Chief Justice WILDE then briefly summed up, and the
Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, judgment being
respitcd to await the decision of the fifteen Judges in
November next upon the points of law.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
LAMBETEi

On Friday Mr. James Dell Ewen, who called himself a
publican out of business, was charged before Mr. Norton
with riding in a second-class carriage with a third-class
ticket, and refusing to pay the extra charge of fourpence,
from Barnes to London, on the Richmond Railway.
A gentleman from the office of the solicitors to the
South-Western Railway Company, after briefly stating
the circumstances under which the prisoner had been
given into custody on the night before, read from the
company's Act a clause which empowered their officers
to give persons into custody for wilfully and knowingly
riding in carriages for which they had not paid the
proper fare, end also enabled a magistrate to convict
such persons in any sum not exceeding 40s. and ex-
penses. Practices such as those of which the prisoner
had been guilty were of frequent occurrence ; but still
the object of the company was not so much to press for
a penalty as to vindicate the power which the law had
given them.
Mr. Ewen—And my object was to vindicate the public;
I disclaim selfish feeling altogether.
Andrew Smith, a checktaker on the South-Western
Railway, was then called, and deposed that on collecting
the tickets of the train that leaves Richmond at half-
past nine on the night before, he found the prisoner, a
lady, and a child in a second-class carriage, while the
two tickets, which had been issued at Barnes, were for
the third-class. He (witness) in consequence demanded
Bd.; namely, 4d. each for the two tickets, which was the
difference of fare; but the defendant refused to pay a
farthing, and witness ultimately gave him in charge to
the guard of the train.
Mr. NORTON—Did he state the reason why he ob-
jected to pay the difference of fare? Witness—Yes, Sir.
He said he had been put into the second-class carriage by
One of the company's officers at the Barnes station,
though he (the officer) was perfectly well aware at the
time that his ticket was for the third-class; but I knew
this was impossible, and I told him I could not take his
assertion as an excuse.
Mr. Ewen—How can you say it is impossible, when I
asserted, and am prepared to verify the fact on oath,
that they have frequently—ay, times out of number, as
well as on the present occasion—done so to me? I now
wish you would explain t• his Worship the difference be-
tween the second and third class carriages.
Witness--On the third-class carriages the words,
Third-class carriages," are written in large yellow let-
ters, while there is no writing on the second-class.
Mr. E‘ven—Has it ever, or rather has it not fre-
quently, occurred, that third-class passengers are put
!nto the second-class? Witness—Yes, it has, but that
' is only when the tbird-Class are full, and an intimation

is given to the guard of the fact when such a circum-
stance takes place.
Mr. Ewen---4 low was Ito know whether the third-
class carriags were full or:not? I only told you what
was the fact, that the company's officers had shown my-
self and Mrs. raven into the second-class, knowing at the
time that we had only third-class tickets.
James Lewis said he was guard to the train by which
the prisoner had bees a passenger on the night before,
and heard the collebtor of the tickets tell him that he
would be at liberty to go on the payment of 81, the dif-
ference of fare, but he refused to pay anything, upon
which the collector gave him into his charge.
In reply to a question from Mr. NORTON, the witness
said there were two third-class carriages belonging to
the train, each capable of holding twenty- four passengers,
while the passengers in them amounted only to twelve
in number,-so that there was plenty of room left for the
other passengers.
Richard Rose deposed that he was on duty at the
Barnes station on the night before, and recollected
giving out one first and two third-class tickets. The latter
two were issued to the prisoner for himself, a lady, and
child. Witness recollected opening a second-class cir-
riage to let some passengers out, but could not say that
he observed what class carriage the prisoner got into.
He would swear, however, that he did not show him into
the second -elas4, and the only person on duty there at
the time besides himself was Clerk, one of the railway
police.
George C'erk, the policeman alluded to, depos -d to
having seen a gen leman get into a first-class car iage,
and a gentleman and lady, the latter with a child, get
into a second-class. He (witness) did not let the par-
ties in, nor was he aware at the time of the sort of tickers

if this case is not proved against
me, will Mr.
) Ewen—Nom',
your situation for carelessness or
Witness—No; I don't think I shall.
neglectovf.f :dunu—nt ) oNt?
Mr. Ewen—Well, that is all I shall ask you.
Mr. Ewen, in reply to the charge, said that he had
been in the habit of frequently travelling by the Rich-
mond Railway as far as Barnes, since it had been opened,
and his invariable practice was to go in the third-class
carriages, as there was not in his opinion a shade of
difference between them and those of the second-
class; but, as he had before stated, he had frequently,
as on the night before, been shown into the second
instead of the third without his ever observing
it. Having heard many of his friends—indeed his
own mother had been played the same trick—complain
of being shown into the second-class carriages instead
of the third, and then compelled to pay the highest rate
for the journey, he had made up his mind that the very
first time such a trick was attempted to be practised on
him he should, upon public grounds, resist it. This
attempt was made on the night before, and he had, as it
was his determination, resisted it, and refused the addi-
tional charge. He had no desire to make use of fine
phrases, but he must say that the power possessed by
this and o' her companies of giving persons into custody,

locking them up, and depriving them of their liberiy,
for the negligence, or it might be wilful misconduct of
their servants, or for a few paltry pence, was quite un-
constitutional, and such as should- not be permitted.
His Worship heard the gentleman who attended against
him say that this sort of practice was of frequent oc-
currence on the company's line of road. This he (Mr.
Ewen) thought an awkward admission, as it was calcu-
lated to lead to the inference that the company's servants
or officers acted wilfully in showing the passengers into
a second-class instead of a third-class carriage, so that
they should have to pay the difference of fare, and a
great many fourpences might be an object to the com-
pany, which, like all others, was not very partial to
third-class passengers. In conclusion, he had only to
express a hope that his Worship, taking the whole of
the circumstances into consideration, would not consider
this a case in which he had wifully, knowingly and in-
tentionally travelled by a different class carriage than
that for which he had paid, for the purpose of cheating
the company.
Mr. NORTON observed, that from Mr. Ewen's own ad-
mission of his determination to try the question with the
company, he had intentionally gone into a second-cla, s
train for that purpose. The defendant's own excuse
was, that he had been let into a second-class carriage by
a servant of the company, the latter being perfectly cog•
niarant of the tact that his ticket was for the third class.

Ilad he shown this, he (Mi; Norton) certainly should
have dismissed the case; but he was, he confessed, some-
what surprised at finding, that while the two witnesses,
who alone could be guilty of such an act, were under ex
atnination, he did not venture to put a single question to
them likely to bring out the fact.
Mr. Ewen—l could not expect that they would crimi-
nate thernsAves or risk their-situations, and therefore I
did not see the use of questioning them on the subject.
The solicitor on the other side here said, that so averse
were the officers of the company to detaining the pri-
soner, that they offered, upon his paying the Bd., to let
him at large, and have the question settled by his
Worship.
Mr. Nowrox ultimately convicted Mr. Ewen in the
penalty of 10s., but subsequently reduced that sum to
is., which the defendant paid and was discharged.
WORSHIP-STREET.

William Brown was charged with stealing a copper
boiler, the worm of a still, and the furnace thereof com-
plete, and 200 cwt. of treacle, said to be the property of
Thomas Chubb, a currier, and George Hayward, a but-
oher, formerly a police-constable of the H division.
Sergeant Coleman, of "the H division of police, stated
that when the prisoner was brought to the station-house,
ke (the sergeant) on the instant sent to the supervisor of
Excise, who, however, sent back word that be did not
think it worth his while to attend to the case, and the
prosecutors had not thought proper to attend.
The prisoner said that he was merely an employee of
the complainants, who had furnished him with the appa-
ratus, which he had by their direction fixed in his own
domicile, and which, with the 200 cwt. of treacle, also
sent to him by them, was to be worked,
and the latter manufactured into gin oa his
own account, he being answerable for all conse-
quences which might possibly arise therefrom. A dis-
agreement had taken place between himself and his em-
ployers, and ho thought he could account for their ab-
sence from the court, by stating that he had told them
that he would divulge to the magistrate a concern they
had, which was in a most flourishing condition.
Mr. COMBE, who set for Mr. Broughton, advised the
defendant to give the necessary information to the Ex-
cise, and be would most probably obtain some pecuniary
recompense, and added that as there were no prosecu-
tors he was discharged.
The defendant thanked the magistrate and withdrew.

BANK RETURNS•

(From the London Gazette of Tuesday.)
Au Account, pursuant to the Act seventh and eighth
Victoria, zap. 32, of the Average Amount of Bank
Notes, of the several Banks of Issue in England and
Wales, in Circulation daring the Week ending Satur-
day, the sth day of June, 1847: Average
PRIVATE BANKS. Amount.
Abingdon Bank, Abingdon—Knapp and Co 24,493
Andover Bank, Andover—Heath and C 0.... 15,579
Ashford Bank, Ashford—Jemmitt and Pomfret 10,445
Aylshatn Bank, Aylsham—R. and E. Copeman 5,551
Aylesbury Old Bank, Aylesbury—Rickford
and llont
Baldoek Bank and Baldoek and Biggleswade
.ialdock—Wells, Hogg, and Lindsell... 33,181
Barn3tai,le Bank, Barnstaple--Drake and Co 13,491
Basingstoke and Odihafflt Bank, Basingstoke—
Cole, Seymour, antJ Co.
Be.ltot d Bank, Bedford—T. Barnard • 33,025
;3edford and Bedfordshire Bank, Bedford—
Trapp, Halfhead, and Co.
Bead ley Bank, Bewdley—Nichols, Baker, and
( ;rule
Clicester and Oxfordshire Bank and Oxford
Bank, Bicester—Tubb, Wootten, and Co.
ilivirongham Bank, Birmingham—Attwoods,
Spooner, and Co 23,729
Rim-tit:olam and Warwickshire Bank, Binning-
hank Lewis, Moilliett, and Co 17,730
Bland ford Bank, Blandford—Bastard and Oak 8,773
Boston Bank, Boston—Garfit and Co 70,092
Boston Bank, Boston—Gee and Co
Bridg ,viter Bank, Bridgwater—E. &J. Sealey 9.690
Bristol Bank, Bristol—Miles, Harford, and Co. 34,786
Brosele.,, and Bridgnorth, and Bridgnorth and
13roseley Bank, Broseley—Messrs. Pritchard 22,877
Buck ing ham Bank, Buckingham Bartlett,
Parrott, and Co.
Bury and Suffolk Bank, Sudbury Bank, Market
Bank, Bury—Oakes, Bevan, and Co.
Reel ury Bank, Banbury—Gillett and Tawney. 39,763
EIR Ty Old Bank, Banbury—Messrs. Cobb... 55,455
Oct,. City Bank, Bath—Meger and Son . 2,592
Bedfordshire Leighton Buzzard Bank, Leighton
Buzzard—Bassett and Grant 36,520
Birmingham Bank, Birmingham—Taylor and
Lloyds
Bradford Old Bank, Bradford, Yorkshire—H
and A. Harris
Brecon Old Bank, Brecon—Wilkins and Co 64,725
Bridport Bank, Bridport—S. and W. E. Gundry 22,747
Brighton Union Bank, Brighton—Hall, West,
and Borrer

8,325

28,090

Burlington and Driffield Bank, Burlington—
Harding, Smith, and Co
Bury St. Edmunds Bank, Bury St. Edmunds—
.). Worlledge and Co.
Bromsgrove Bank and Stourbridge and Broms-
grove Bank, Bromsgrove—Rufford, Biggs,
and Co. 15,818
Cambridge Bank, Cambridge—Mortlock and
Sons
Cambridge and Cambridgeshire Bank, Cam-
bridge—Messrs. Forsters
Canterbury Bank, Canterbury—Hammond and
Co • 28,463
Carmarthen Bank, Carmarthen—Morris and
Sons

3,089

20,094

22,056

Chertsey Bank, Chcrtsey—Messrs. La Coste
Colchester Bank, Colchester—Round, Green,
and Co. 19*7211
Colchester and Essex Bank, Witham and Essex
Bank, and Had Leigh Bank, Suffolk, Colchester
—Mills, Bawtree, and Co 39,717
Cornish Bank, Truro—Tweedy and Co
Coventry Bank, Coventry—Little and Wood-
cock

3 480

9,926

City Bank, Exeter—Milford and Co
Craven Bank, Settle—Birkbecks and Co.
Christchurch Bank, Christchurch—Tice, Welsh,
and Co 2,330
Cardiff Bank, Cardlff—Towgood and Co 6,566
Chepstow Old Bank, Chepstow Bank, Mon-
mouth Old Bank, Monmc uth Bank, Brecon
Bank, and Ross and Herefordshire Bank,
Chepstow—Bromage, Snead, and Co.
Derby Bank, Derby—Messrs. Evans
Derby Bank, Derby—Smith and Co.
Derby Old Bank and Scarsdale and High Peak
Bank, Derby—Crompton, Newton, and Co.— 26,018
Devizes and Wiltshire Bank, Devizes—Hughes,
Locke, and Co
Diss Bank, Diss—Oakes, Fincham, and Co
Doncaster Bank, Doncaster—Leatham, Tew,
and Co.
Doncaster Bank and Retford Bank, Doncaster—
Cook and Co.
Dover Union Bank, Dover—Latham, and C 0....
Darlington Bank, Durham Bank, and Stockton-
on-Tees Bank, Darlington—Backhouse, and

18,043
10,517

11,779

57,154

Co
Devonport Bank, Devonport—Hodge and Nor-
man
k Dorsetshire Bank

Dorchester Old Ban. an_ Jorm...
Dorchester—Williams and Co.
East Cornwall Bank, Liskeard—Robins, Foster,

and Co.
East Hiding Bank, Beverley—Bower, Hutton,
and Co.
Essex Bank and Bishops Stortford Bank,
Chelmsford—Walford. and Co
Exeter Bank, Exeter—Sanders and Co
Fakenham Bank, Fakenham—Gurneys, Birk-
beck, and Co.
Farringdon Bank and Bank of \Vantage, Far-
ringdon—Barnes and Medley
Farnham Bank, Farnham—Messrs. Knight
Faversham Bank, Faversham—Hilton and Co
Goilalming Bank, Godalming—Mellersh and

83,908

10,410

42,126

Keen
Grantham Bank, Grantham—Kewney and King
Guildford Bank, Guildford—Messrs. Haydon...
Grantham Bank, Grantham—Hardy and C 0....
Hastings Old Bank, Hastings—Smith, Hader,
and Co.
floretln-d City and County Bank, Hereford—
Matthews and Co.
Hertfordshire Bank and Ware Bank, Ware—
s. Adams and Co.

:03,283

48,590

50,598
30,340

21,606

8,583
13,412
5,070

5,549
18,991
13.466
26,949

28,652

17,293

hull Bank and Kingston-upon-Hull Bank, Hull
—Smith, Brothers, and Co.
Huntingdon Town and County Bank, Hunting-
don—Rust and Veasey
Harwich Bank, Harwich—Cox, Cobbold, and Co
Hemel Hempstead Bank, Hemel Hempstead—
Smith, and. Whi tti ngs tall
Iloniton Bank, Honiton—Flood and Co.
I ler t fo rd s hire, Hitchen Bank, Hitchen—Sharples
and Co.
Ilerdord, Ross, and Archenfield Bank, and Ross
and Archenfield Bank, Hereford—Dorgan,
Hoskins, and Co
Ipswich Bank, Ipswich—Bacon and Co.
Ipswich and Needham Market Bank, Suffolk,
Iladleigh Bank, Manningtree and Mistley
Bank, and Woodbridge Bank, Ipswich—
Alexat:ders an 3 Co.
iCelitish Bank, Maidstone—Mercer, Randall,
and Mercer
Kiligton and Radnorshire Bank, Kington—J.

16,755

18,474

54,090
5,838

23,083
13,980

36,786

1 ravies and Co
Knighton Bank Knighton—J. Davies and Co.
Knaresborough Old Bank and Ripon Old Bank,
Knaresborough—Terry and Co
Kendal Bank, Kendal—Wakefield, Crewdson,
and Co.
Kettering Bank, Kettering—Goteh and Sons...
Lane Ead Staffordshire Bank, Lane End—C.

22,760
21,265

74,334

12,65

23.777
7,392

21,239

44,413
8,832

5,246
50,977

llarvcy and Son
Leeds Bank. Leeds—Beckett and Co
Leeds Union Bank, Leeds—W.Williams, Brown,
3.
and 0
Leek and Staffordshire Bank, and Leek and
Congleton Bank,Leek—Fowler,Gaunt,andCo. 423
Leioester Bank, Leicester—Pagets and Kirby 26,608
Lewes Old Bank, Lewes—Molineux and Co 37,846
L;AF.eld Bank, Lichfield—Palmer and Green 17,512
Lincoln Bank, Lincoln—Smith land Co 91,419
Lkodovery Bank and Llandilo Bank, Llando-
very—David Jones and Co.
: oughborough Bank, Loughborough—Middle-
ms and Cradock

7,24