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

_EVENING, NOVEMBER 11, 1847.

PSI URSDA V

Mr. CRONVDER wished to know whether the Court
would receive this as evidence.

Mr. Baron PLATT said that he thought it was evi-
dence to prove that the plaintiff in the action was a
mere puppet.

Mr: iSowley was next called, who corroborated
the account of the circumstance deposed to by the
last witness.

Mr. Lewis was then called, and cross-examined by
Mr. CRowDER—Mr. Gadelerer brought the bill to
him requesting him to discount it. The plaintiff had
upon several oceamons advanced money upon bills
which he had taken to him. Plaintiff gave witness
231. 10s. for the bill, which sum he handed over to
Mr. Gadderer. It was about three weeks after the
date of the bill that he got the money for it. At
the request of Mr. W. Coyle, he consented to wait
for three or four days after the bill was due before
he took any proceedings upon the bill, upon the re-
presentation of W. Coyle that the bill was given to
him by the defendant as an accommodation bill, he
having previously assisted him with money, in con-
sequence of his being in some way or other mixed up
with the frauds in the Custom-house.
Mr. Baron PLATT thought that this last evidence
if received by the jury was decisive of the case, as it
clearly proved that consideration had passed for the
bill from the plaintiff. With respect to what had
taken place previously to the bill coming into his
possession, he had-of course nothing to do, and there
was no proof that he had any notice of the parties
having become improperly possessed of it. The
simple question for the Jury to decide therefore was,
whether they considered the evidence of Mr. Lewis,
the attorney, correct or not. With respect to the de-
fendant not having received any consideration for his
acceptance, he must look to the parties by whom he
had been defrauded for restitution.
The jury, after consulting together for a short time,
gave it as their opinion that the whole of the evi-
dence was of such a conflicting character, that they
could not believe any of it, with the exception of that I
of Mr. Lewis.

A verdict was accordingly returned for the plaintiff
for the amount claimed.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 10.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr.
Justice CRESWELL and a Common Jury.)
CATTLIN V. DARKER.
Mr. E. James and Mr. Lush were counsel for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., and Mr. Willes for
the defendant.
This was an action brought by Mr. Thomas M.
Cattlin, an attorney, residing in Ely-place, Holborn,
to recover from Mr. Charles Barker, an advertising
agent carrying on business in Birchin-lane,
2691. 18s. sd. for work and labour done under
the following circumstances :—During the period
while so many railway speculations were so rife, the
defendant appears to have been very extensively en-
gaged in his business in inserting the prospectuses
of many of those speculations in the different news-
papers. Among other companies for whom he acted
in this capacity was the Northern and Eastern
Counties Junction Railway, by the provisional com-
mitteemen of which he was employed to procure the
advertisement of their prospectus. In this way he
expended, on behalf of the company, 7971. odd.
Like many other kindred bubbles, the Northern
and Eastern Counties Junction Railway project
died away, the provisional committeemen, one by one
departed, leaving the creditors to fix on whom they
might for the liquidation of their claims against the
company. It having been ascertained that the liabi-
lities of the company might be discharged if each of
the provisional committeemen contributed the sum of
251., several of them contributed each that sum, but
others of them refusing to do so, Mr. Condell, an
attorney residing in Copthall-court, the solicitor to
the company, prevailed upon the defendant Barker,
in consideration of his large demand upon the provi-
sional directors, and with the view the more certainly
and speedily to insure its liquidation, to sue the de-
faulters for the payment of their respective contribu-
tions. Accordingly, in 1846, actions at the suit of
the present defendant were brought, and tried at the
Maidstone Assizes. severally against Messrs. Thomp-
son and Stead, two of the provisional committeemen.
In the action against Thompson the present defendant
obtained a verdict, which, however, has not yet
brought any meney into his pocket, whilst he was
nonsuited, and had costs to pay in that against
Stead. The plaintiff Cattlin was employed as the
attorney to conduct those actions, and it was for the
recovery of his bill that the present action was
brought.
For the plaintiff, it was proved by his managing
clerk, to whom the management of the business had
been intrusted, that while the actions were pending
the defendant called and conferred with him several
times thereupon, and instructed him from time to time
in the business ; that the defendant paid to the plain-
tiff's clerk the cost of the nonsuit in the action
against Stead, and that on being applied to subse-
quently for payment of the present demand, the de-
fendant called at the plaintiff's office, and said he could
not give the latter any money then, owing to so large
a sum of money standing unpaid by the different
railway companies who were indebted to him. On
the 22d of June last, the day before the present action
was brought, a further application was made to the
defendant for payment of the plaintiff's bill, when he
shrugged his shoulders and told the plaintiff that he
must not apply to him again, but must look to the
company for payment.
For the defendant, on cross-examination, it was
elicited from the plaintiff's clerk, that Mr. Condell,
the solicitor to the company, in the first instance,
gave the plaintiff, who was an old friend of his, in-
structions for bringing the actions, and not the defen-
dant, though they were carried on in the defendant's
name, and though the latter afterwards went to CO3-
suit with and instruct the plaintiff in the business re-
lating to them.
Mr. HUMFREY, for the defendant, stated, that he
w h
(the defendant) had intrusted the company to the
i for advertisementschwasmoneyactuailnly-
serted in the daily and the other different newspapers.
The defendant had been led by Mr. Condell, the
apmaidount out of
of7h9i7stoWl of
pocket
solicitor to the company, to believe that if he would
only allow the company to sue the defaulting coin-
mittemen in his (the defendant's) name, employing
Mr. Cattlin, the plaintiff, as their attorney, that
they would get more than enough to pay all the
creditors, and the defendant among the rest. The
defendant was in this situation :---His own bill
against the company, amounting to 7971. 17s. 6d.,
remained unpaid ; he had been compelled to pay the
costs in Mr. Stead's action ; the present action for
2691. was suspended over his head; and he was
suing Lord Beauclerk and Mr. Harrison, two of the
provisional committeemen, at the same time. He
(Mr. Humfrey) submitted that Mr. Condell was the
real defendant to the action ; that it was he, and
not the defendant, who employed the plaintiff in the
business for which payment was now sought from the
defendant. The question was, whether the work had
been done by the plaintiff for the defendant in the
ordinary course of business, looking to the defendant
as his client, and expecting him to pay. If that were
so, then the defendant must pay, however hard it
might be upon him. But if, on the other hand, the
plaintiff never did look to the defendant, but, on the
contrary, had his instructions from Mr. Condell, as
the solicitor of the company, in that case the de-
fendant was not liable,_ and the plaintiff ought to look
to his " old friend," Mr. Condell, who employed him,
for payment.
Mr. JAMES briefly replied; and
His LORDSHIP proceeded to sum up the case. The
question, he said, was simply whether Mr. Cattlin,
the plaintiff, brought the actions in question upon the
authority of Mr. Barker, the defendant, or whether Mr.
Barker, after they were brought, had, by sanctioning
what had been commenced in his name, undertaken
to be responsible for them, so that they proceeded as
his actions. In the first instance, the first instructions
for the actions had been given, not by the defendant,
but by Mr. Condell, the attorney to the company.
His Lordship was proceeding to recapitulate the
evidence, when
The jury, by their foreman, intimated that their
minds were made up, and gave a verdict for the de-
fendant.
EDMONDS AND OTHERS V. CHALLIS AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Baines Q.C., and Mr. Massy Dawson were
counsel for the plaintiff's, and Mr. Bramwell for the
defendants.
This action was brought against Messrs. Thomas
Challis and R. W. Kennard, Sheriffs of Middlesex,
for a breach of duty on their part, in taking an in-
sufficient replevin bond. The plaintiffs are owners
of the house No. 24, Assembly-row, Mile-end Old-
, town, which was in the occupation, and had been for
some years, of a person named Roe, at a rent of 401.
a year. Roe had got into arrear with his landlords,
who, on the 29th of March last, put a distress into
his house for the rent. One Kitty Gladman, a sister
of Roe's, claimed the furniture in the house as her
property, and on the Ist of April last she replevied
the goods. Under those circumstances, the sheriffs
took a replevin bond, and then the goods were given
up to Kitty Gladman ; thus the plaintiffs parted with
the possession of the goods on the faith of the sheriffs
taking a sufficient replevin bond. It turned out, how-
ever, as was alleged by the plaintiffs' counsel, that the
replevin bond which they had taken was worth nothing,
by reason of the operation of the law constituting the new
County Courts, which takes away from the old County
Courts the jurisdiction which they had over replevin
suits, and vests it in the new tribunals established by
the Act for the Recovery of Small Debts. Regard-
less of this change in the law, the sheriffs in this case
had taken their replevin bond in the old County
Court of Middlesex, whereby it was alleged, on the
part of the plaintiffs, that they had altogether lost
the distress and the fruits which they expected to de-
rive from it. The distress was made on the 29th of
March, and the replevin bond on the Ist of April.
Before that the district County Court of WhitechaPel

had been constituted, within the jurisdiction of which
the premises in question lie ; and it was contended
that the replevin suit ought to have been brought in
the Whitechapel District Court, and not in the old
County Court of Middlesex.
His LORDSHIP suggested that, as the question
whether the jurisdiction as to replevin suits had
been transferred by the recent Act from the old to
the new county courts was a difficult one, and af-
fected not Middlesex alone, but every other county
in England, it had better be discussed before th© full
Court.

This suggestion was agreed to by the counsel on
both sides, and eventually
The jury found for the plaintiff for 371. 165.,
damages and expenses, with leave to the defendant
to move to enter a nonsuit on the sufficiency of the
bond.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
Yesterday an unusual number of pickpockets were
brought before Alderman Lucas, charged with
committing, or attempting to commit, depredations
in the crowd assembled to see the Lord Mayor's show.
George Morden, Thomas Sheers, and Thomas
Cummings, were charged with stealing a silver watch
and silver watch-guard in King-street, Cheapside,
about half-past 11 in the forenoon.
Mr. Hibbs, of Bere Regis, Dorsetshire, butter-
factor and draper, stated that, being in London on
business, he went to see the procession, and having
walked down King-street, nearly to the Guildhall
Coffee-house, his hat was knocked over his eyes by
the prisoner Morden, and he was jostled by some of
his comrades. He kept them off with his walking-
stick, but they renewed the attack with greater
strength, and Sheers led the attack by butting at
him with his head. The rest followed, and he was
buffetted down. He got up again, and was
driven back and pinned against the wall.
He felt his watch go immediately after
Sheers had butted at him. He was dragged into a
house to protect him from further violence. He had
purchased a new butter-tasting knife, and used it in
defending himself , by which he slightly wounded
Sheers in the face and on the back. Sheers came in
with a constable to the house where he had taken
refuge, and complainant immediately gave him in
charge. They went to the station-house in Moor-
lane, and in the crowd that followed them he noticed
another of his assailants, and gave him into custody.
This was the prisoner Cummings. On reaching the
station-house he found Morden, who had committed
the attack, already in custody for another robbery.
He identified him immediately. The watch was not
found.
Several witnesses identified the prisoners as being
the persons who were engaged in the attack. They
had previously knocked off and destroyed the hats of
many respectable persons, as if by way of diversion
only. There was a gang of about twenty young
fellows.
Mr. Bestow, an artist, residing in Vernon-place,
Pentonville, stated that he was standing near Mr.
Hibbs when the rush was made by Sheers. Witness
was knocked down as well as Mr. Hibbs, and Morden
tore witness s coat-pocket out, and carried it off with
the contents. He saw the pocket in Morden's hand,
and kept his eye on him till he had an opportunity of
giving him into custody. Witness lost his purse,
containing 4s. gti. a knife, and handkerchief.
The prisoners all protested they had nothing to do
with robbing the two complainants.
Mr. Alderman LucAs said the evidence to the con-
trary was so strong that he should send them all to
trial.

They were committed to Newgate.
John Stevens, the ringleader of a gang of fifty
young desperadoes, who were insulting or assaulting
every respectable person who passed near them, was
committed for three months as a rogue and vagabond.
About twenty of the gang were know to be thieves,
and they amused themselves with " bonnetting" men
and women, that is knocking off or spoiling their hats
or bonnets. Their numbers nude it difficult for the
police to cope with them, but Haydon, the officer,
secured Stevens as as the ringleader.
The prisoner stated himself to be a labourer at the
docks.

Some handkerchief stealers were committed to
Newgate for trial.

MARYLEBONE.

Ann Simons, Mr. Hickman, a merchant in the City,
and occupying chambers at 18, Lincoln's Inn-fields
and Benjamin Simons, the father of the female pri-
soner, were placed at the bar before Mr. Broughton ;
the woman charged as being the thief, and the other
two as being receivers of the stolen property. The
particulars of what transpired upon the former exa-
minations have already appeared in this paper.
The only additional facts adduced in the coarse of
the inquiry were, that Elizabeth, the sister of Ann
Simons, had pawned some shawls and other valuable
articles at the shop of Mr. Smith, a pawnbroker, in
South- street, Manchester-square. These things were
produced, and two of the shawls were valued by Mr.
Marshall at twelve and a half guineas each. Several
letters were produced which were found in the boxes
of the prisoner Ann, which, on perusal by the magi-
strate, although not put in as evidence of the case,
established beyond a shadow of a doubt the fact that
a close intimacy had subsisted between her and Mr.
Hickman.

The Learned Counsel engaged on either side ad-
dressed the worthy magistrate at some length upon
the whole bearing of the case; Mr. Ballantine con-
tending that Mr. Hickman, his client, could not be
looked upon as having a guilty knowledge of the
property alleged to be stolen from Messrs. Marshall
and Co. being in his possession ; and in proof of his
innocence he (the Learned Counsel) impressed upon
the magistrate the fact that, immediately upon his
client, who, he must admit, had formed an immoral
intimacy with Ann Simons, learning that she was in
custody for robbing her employers, he had afforded
every facility to the police while searching for the
property. He (Mr. Ballantine) therefore submitted
to the magistrate that there was no evidence what.

ever showing guilty participation with respect to the
plunder. The Learned Gentleman dwelt at some
length upon the high character of his client, and left
the case with the worthy magistrate, in full confidence
that he would consider that Mr. llickman was not a
guilty party in the transaction.
Mr. BROUGHTON came to the conclusion that, in the
absence of some parties who were required to complete
the case, a remand must take place.
The whole of the prisoners were accordingly re-
manded until Tuesday next.
Mr. BROUGHTON signified his willingness to ac-
cept bail, as heretofore, in the case of Mr. Hickman,
himself in 4001. and two sureties in 2001. each, for
his being forthcoming at the next examination.
The court was crowded during the inquiry by
many of the noblity, amongst whom was the Swedish
Ambassador.

WORSHIP-STREET.

William Newton Allnutt, a boy twelve years of age.
was charged with having stolen a gold watch and ap-
pendages, a gold eye-glass, and other articles of
jewellery, of the value of seventy guineas, the pro-
perty of his grandmother, Mrs. Sarah Nelme, widow
of the late Mr. Nelme, of Grove-place, Hackney, re-
specting whose mysterious death, by poison, a pro-
tracted investigation is still proceeding before Mr.
Baker, the coroner, and in the different stages of
which the name of the prisoner has been more than
once mentioned under circumstances of some sus-
picion.
The Rev. Mr. Goodchild, Rector of St. John's,
Hackney, attended with the solicitor of the deceased
to watch the proceedings.
Inspector Waller, of the N division, stated that in
consequence of having ascertained that the valuables
before mentioned had disappeared from the residence
of the deceased gentleman shortly after or about the
time of his death, be had been engaged for several
days past in superintending a search of the various
cesspools about the premises for the missing property,
but could get no trace of it until the preceding after-
noon, when he received a message from Mrs. Allnutt,
the prisoner's mother, and who is also a daughter of
the deceased, requesting his immediate attendance
at the house, as her son had just made a confes-
sion of some importance. Upon reaching the house
the prisoner, who appeared to have expected him,
at once acknowledged that he had stolen the watch
and other articles from one of the drawers in his
grandmother's bedroom, and that he had afterwards
thrown them from the parapet of an upper room
into the gutter of an adjoining house, in which they
had ever since remained. He accordingly took the
boy up to the roof of the house in question and there,
in a recess which the prisoner pointed out, found
the whole of the property wrapped up in a piece
of bedticking. He thereupon told him that he must
take him into custody, when the prisoner begged for
forgiveness, and said that he had been tempted to
commit the act, and did not expect that it would be
ever found out. The inspector added, that the pro-
perty had since been identified by the widow of the
deceased and the prisoner's mother, but that neither
of them was in attendance, as they had not suffi-
ciently recovered from the effects of the poison they
had taken (which it was stated was arsenic mixed up
with pounded loaf-sugar), and the mental distress
consequent upon the occurrence, to allow of their ap-
pearance, and he therefore wished the accused to be
remanded to afford an opportunity of completing the
evidence in the robbery.
A constable of the same division corroborated the
inspector'stestimony, and the prisoner, upon being
asked if he wished to offer anythingp in answer, burst
out crying,
and said, "It s all true: but I was
tempted to do it, and will never do so again."
Mr. HAMMILL (addressing the solicitor) inquired
whether he was instructed to offer bail for the future
appearance of the prisoner, as he thought he might
accept it, and, considering the extreme youth of the
accused, that appeared the most advisable course to
pursue.

The solicitor, however, in reply, stated, that both
the family and friends of the boy were averse to his
liberation at present, for reasons which it was ob.
viously unadvisable then to state, and would prefer
his being detained in safe custody until the whole
matter had been finally disposed of.
The Rev. Mr. Goodchild was understood to sug-
gest the same course, and
Mr. HammiLL having immediately assented, the
prisoner was removed in the van.
SOUTHWARK.
Mary Ann Rogers, a brothel housekeeper, in Her-
bert's-buildings, Waterloe-road, and .Eliza Wiggins,
a woman of the town, were charged with stealing 101.
from Mr. Robert Thompson, who described himself as
collector in a mercantile house in the City.
The complainant stated, that having been at a party
the preceding night he indulged in too much wine,
and on the way home had the misfortune to meet with
the prisoner Wiggins, by whom he was induced to
take more, which rendered him incapable of knowing
what he was doing, and in that condition she accom-
panied him to the house of the other prisoner in the
above locality. That in the morning when he awoke,
on finding himself in such a place, he immediately
examined his trouser's pocket and missed a consider-
able sum of money, and accused Wiggins of stealing
it. She however denied the charge, and he called a
policeman into the house, where be had not been long
before Rogers, the other prisoner, handed him a 10/.
note, which she said she had picked up in the room
where the parties had slept. At this stage of the
examination the complainant fell down in the witness
box in a fit, and was obliged to be carried out into the
open air, where he soon recovered, but on again
entering the court he had another attack, and it was
found necessary to send for the police surgeon, who
pronounced that the symptoms under which he la-
boured were produced either by the immoderate
quantity or bad quality of the drink he bad taken
the previous night. The complainant, however, re-
covered from the second attack, but he appeared to
be in a state of great nervous excitement.
The policeman, Coombs, who was called into the
house, was next examined, and he stated that on
hearing the complainant give the alarm that he had
been robbed he entered the house where he had not
been long before the prisoner Rogers said she had
found a 10/. note in the room where the complainant
and the other prisoner slept, and gave it into his
hands. That he (the policeman) made a further
search himself, and in the yard, covered over with
loose gravel, he found four sovereigns and some silver,
which had all the appearance of having been recently
concealed there. The policeman added, that he then
took both the prisoners into custody.
The complainant said that he missed six sovereigns
more, and that he could not state with accuracy what
sum he had when he first went into the house, but
he knew that it was considerable. In answer to some
questions by the magistrate, the complainant said he
was collector in a mercantile house in the City, and
that a portion of the money of which he had been
robbed belonged to his employer. He added, that he
was a married man, but that he declined to give his
address or to disclose the name of the firm by which
he was employed. He again became so exceedingly
ill that it was found necessary to have him taken into
the yard at the rear of the court for fresh air, and as
he continued in the same condition,
Mr. COTTINHAM considered it the most advisable
step to have him taken home by a policeman in plain
clothes, in order that his family might not be alarmed
When this was proposed, the complainant at once
assented, and they had scarcely quitted the Court
before the complainant attempted to run away from
the policeman ; but being overtaken, he was brought
back again, and on the way frequently exclaimed that
he was determined on destroying himself. The ma-
gistrate having been made acquainted with what had
transpired, questioned the complainant, and his
answers were of such a nature as to induce the sup-
position that he was labouring under mental delusion,
for he expressed a determination to put an end to his
life the first moment he had an opportunity, and ad-
mitted that he had given both a wrong name and ad-
dress, adding that nothing on earth should induce him
to disclose either.

Mr. COTTINGHAM said, in that case he must be
under the painful necessity of committing him to
prison.

The complainant doubted the magistrate's autho-
rity, and slapping his own forehead uttered several
incoherent expressions ; on hearing which,
Mr. COTTINGIIAM directed that, for the com-
plainant's safety, after the threats he had made
against his own life, he should be committed to the
county gaol in default of bail.
The two prisoners were ordered to be remanded
until Friday.