The Sun.
London, England, 1847-09-28 00:00:00

TEE --

•
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Sept. 27.

(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD )
HENRY FISHER'S BANKRUFTCY.
The banker was a colonial broker in Great Tower-
street. This was the certificate meeting.
Mr. Coosa opposed, and Mr. Lawrence supported.
The debts and liabilities were 6,3331. and the as-
sets will do little more than pay the expenses of
the fiat.
The bankrupt commenced business on his own ac-
count in October, 1842, having been previously in
partnership with a man named Clarke, since a bank-
rupt. When Fisher so commenced he was insolvent.
It appeared by the evidence, that he did not confine
himself to brokerage, but traded on his own account
very largely, and inserted such transactions under
fictitious heads in the ledger. The Commissioner
asked him why he made such fictitious entries
The bankrupt replied, after much hesitation, that
he did not wish to let his clerks know he traded
upon his own account. One of the main charges
preferred against him was extravagant expen-
diture. This charge was proved. The bankrupt
admitted that he spent 11. ss. a week on wine and
spirits alone, and that an establishment at Hackney,
which he was in the habit of visiting, and in which a
single lady lived, cost him more than 1001. a year.
Another charge was, obtaining money by false re-
presentations from a creditor. This charge too was
completely proved. Mr. Charles Barry, of Fen-
church-street, lent him upwards of 2,000/., the
bankrupt, with whom he had long been on terms of
friendship, assuring him that he was then in solvent
circumstances, and that he wanted to invest the
money in a Government contract for cocoa. The
bankrupt admitted that at the period he obtained this
loan he was insolvent, and that he had stated he
wished to invest it in a Government contract, but he
denied that he said he was solvent. At the time of
the loan he fully expected a large bequest from his
father, who was aged and wealthy—a hope which was
not realised. He invested the money so borrowed in
cocoa, and lost 3001. by the transaction. It appeared
that Mr. Charles Barry charged the bankrupt fifteen
per cent. on the loan. In addition to these charges,
there was another in reference to a certain bill dis-
counting transaction, in which the bankrupt did not
act with perfect fairness towards his bankers, who,
however, did not oppose.
Mr. LAWRENCE: and Mr. COOKE having severally
addressed the Court,
The COMMISSIONER said that he considered the
charges urged against the bankrupt as proved. He
roust say that he quite disapproved of the bankrupt's
conduct in reference to those fictitious entries in his
books. As far as he could learn, the bankrupt's con-
duct, in dealing upon his own account whilst a
broker, was in direct violation of the bye-laws of the
city of London—laws which were made to preserve
the purity of trade, and which ought to be strictly
upheld. The Lankrupt's conduct in reference to his
bankers wa s blameable, and his treatment of Mr.
Barry was atrocious. He borrowed more than
2,0001. from that person, none of which was paid,
and made representations to him which were wholly
untrue. He considered that he would not be acting
in accordance with his duty if he did not suspend the
certificate for one year from the present date.
No protection.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Sept.
IN RE GEORGE BETTS.

This insolvent, a medical student, was opposed by
a creditor named Dent, who complained that he had
contracted a debt with him to the amount of 65/. fur
lodging and refreshments, without any means of
payment.
It appeared that Mr. Dent was the landlord of the
Printers Arms, New Church-ccurt, Strand, where
the insolvent had lodged from October to March,
during which period the debt now complained of was
contracted. _ _ _

The insolvent, on being examined, stated that he
had slept, on an average, four or five nights a week
at Mr. Dent's, and very seldom at his own residence,
Edward-street, Hampstead-road.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS upon this decided
that Mr. Dent's house was a residence within the
meaning of the Art, and adjourned the case for the
insolvent to amend his description.
The insolvent's bail was enlarged.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT, Sept. 27.
(Before MOTLAN, Esq )
LORD BURY V. CLARK.

In this case, which was tried without a jury, a
verdict with 201. damages, had passed against the de
fendant. The action was for an assault, committed
under the following circumstances :—The plaintiff
having posted a letter at the house of the defendant,
who keeps a stationer's shop and post-office in Jer-
myn-street, entered the shop and asked for some
pencil-cases. A dispute about the quality of the
pencil-cases ensued ; it became an angry one, and the
def,ndant ordered the plaintiff to quit his shop. The
plaintiff refused to leave, and defendant sent for a
policeman. While the defendant's messenger was in
search of a policeman the plaintiff saw one passing.
He went out to him, and returned with him. The
defendant then, after in vain requesting the plaintiff
to withdraw, as he said—but without such a request,
as plaintiff contended—ran from behind his counter
and pushed the plaintiff with considerable force into
the street. Mr. Keane subsequently moved for a
new trial on the grounds-1. That the defendant
having revoked the licence for entering his
shop, which as a tradesman he had given
to the plaintiff as one of the public, had a right
to turn him out of it if he did not go on request ; and
that, supposing there had not been in this case a
second request, the first was sufficient to justify the
defendant, as the plaintiff's ccnduct rendered a se-
cond request unnecessary. 2. That the verdict was
against evidence. 3. That the damages were exces-
sive. Mr. Dod having shown cause in the first in-
stance, the Learned Judge took time to consider his
opinion; and, at the sitting of the Court yesterday
morning, said he saw no ground for disturbing the
verdict. There was most distinct evidence of the
assault. Lord Bury swore that the defendant pushed
him with gross violence, and the policeman said that
he saw the defendant push his Lordship violently.
If the statement of those two witnesses was believed,
there was not in the case any motive of a " molliter
manus imposuit. The defendant had himself ad-
mitted the animus with which he had committed the
assault. Admitting, for argument's sake, that a
tradesman could revoke his general license to the
public—but only admitting it for argument's sake,
as it was unquestionably bad law—was this defend-
ant, who kept a post-office, who was, therefore, a
public servant, to clear the post-office at his plea-
sure ? Much stress had been laid on that part of the
application which related to the supposed excessive-
ness of the damages. They were not excessive ; and
the application, therefore, must be refused, with
costs.—Rule refused.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wieerams.)
Francis Thomas Griffiths, who was yesterday in-
dicted for forgery and acquitted, was afterwards
arraigned upon another indictment, charging him
with stealing a gold watch, some diamond studs, and
other articles of jewellery, the property of Mr West.
The same counsel were engaged for the prosecu-
tion and the defence.
Haydon, a City policeman, deposed, that when he
apprehended the prisoner upon in
the former charge he
found in his possession the articles mentionedthe
indictment, and he now produced them.
Mr. West repeated his former evidence, with re-
gard to the prisoner having been in his service for
nine months in the year 1845, and said that during
that period he missed the articles mentioned in thein-
dictment, and which had been produced by the offi-
cer ; and he identified them as his property.
In cross-examination he said, that at the time the
prisoner was in his service his wife was alive. She
died at the latter end of the same year, after the pri-
soner left. He had reason to be dissatisfied with her
conduct, but he never had the slightest suspicion of
any improper intimacy existing between her and the
prisoner ; and his wife, on the contrary, always ap-
peared to entertain a hostile feeling towards him.
Mr. BALLANTINE7 on addressing the jury for the
prisoner, said, he regretted that his instructions com-
pelled him to do so, but he had no alternative but to
lay before them the defence which he was instructed
to make to the charge, and his explanation of the
mode in which the property came into his possession.
The prisoner told him—and he was bound to lay his
statement before the jury—that the articles now pro-
duced had been given to him by the wife of the pro-
secutor, and he was also instructed that there had
been very great intimacy between them; and if the
jury should believe this to have been the case, what-
ever their opinion might be of the moral conduct of
the prisoner, they ought not to convict him of' stealing
the property. It was of course utterly impossible to
i produce evidence to show positively that such an n-
timacy as he had described existed between the pro-
secutor's wife and the prisoner, but he should prove,
by the evidence of a clerk who was in the prosecutor's
service at the same time as the prisoner, that Mr.
West was quite deceived in supposing that his wife
really entertained any hostile feeling towards the
prisoner, for he should prove that she behaved with
great kindness to him, particularly when her husband
was absent ; and the jury would infer from all the
circumstances whether it was not very probable that
the story told by the prisoner was correct.
George Rees Rich was then examined. He said
that he was ;n the service of Mr. West when the pri-
soner was eemployedoyed
by him.. Mr. West frequently
went out of town on the Sunday afternoon, leaving
his wire at home, and did not return till the Monday,
and sometimes Tuesday following. While he was do
absent his wife would come into the shop, and „me_
times remained there two hours, and he had seen her

go to the prisoner's desk and talk to him for half-an-
hour, and he had seen him make her a present of
flowers, and once he gave her a flower in a pot. She
used also to send him down bread and cheese and ale,
and also invited him up stairs to dine with her ; and
this was never the case when her husband was at
hand.
By Mr. RYLAND—The other persona engaged in
the shop were also invited to dine with Mrs. West as
well as the prisoner.
Mr. RYLAND, in replying upon the base set up by
the prisoner, said that there had been no answer to
the evidence for the prosecution, for even if it had
gone to the length of asserting that a criminal inti-
macy existed between the prisoner and the prose-
cutor's wife, it was no proof that she would rob her
husband and give the property to the prisoner. He
had heard a great many far-fetched defences in his
time, but this exceeded them all, and he looked upon
it as a mere base and infamous attempt on the part of
the prisoner to destroy the reputation of the unfortu-
nate woman, and that it was only a desperate en-
deavour to escape from the consequences of guilt,
which would never have been made if the lady had
been alive and in a position to repel the accusation
made against her.
Mr. Justice Wumanis having briefly addressed the
jury, they immediately found the prisoner Guilty.
In answer to a question from the Court, the pro-
secutor said that during the year the prisoner was in
his service he lost property from his shop to the
amount of 3001.
The prisoner was sentenced to be imprisoned and
kept to hard labour for eighteen months.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
John Coggs, alias O'Connor, 23, servant, was in-
dicted for demanding money with menaces from
Robert Brailey.
Mr. Baldwin prosecuted, and Mr. O'Brien de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prosecutor was a waiter, and
while walking at the west end of the town be met
the prisoner, who entered into conversation with him,
and they went to several public-houses and drank to-
gether. About ten o'clock at night they went into
the City, and upon the prosecutor going up a passage
for a certain purpose, the prisoner laid hold of his
shirt and demanded I Os. or transportation for life, his
object evidently being to insinuate that he would
make a charge of an unnatural crime, and, under the
terror inspired by the prisoner's conduct, the pro-
secutor gave him a scarf and a handkerchief and a
small sum of money.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty ; and
The COMMON SERGEANT sentenced him to be trans-
ported for ten years.
Thomas Howard, 26, carpenter, was indicted for
wounding Sarah Howard, his wife, with intent to do
her grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Ballantine conducted the prosecution, which
was instituted.by the parochial authorities of Kensing-
ton • Mr. O'Brien defended the prisoner.
From the evidence adduced, it appeared that the
prisoner, who is an Irishman, and his wife, resided at
Kensington, and he was in the constant habit of ill-
using her most brutally. On the 25th of July the
prisoner was in a most excited state from drink, and
he made a savage attack upon his unfortunate wife
and broke two of the bones of her nose, and struck
her on the head until she was insensible ; and it was
suggested by the prosecution that those injuries had
been inflicted by a hammer.
The poor woman, however, who, notwithstanding
the dreadful injuries she had received, appeared
actuated by a desire to give her evidence as leniently
as possible towards the prisoner, said that no instru-
ment was made use of. The surgeon who was called
in found the poor creature in a state of entire uncon-
sciousness, and she remained in that condition, with
slight intervals, two days. She was far advanced in
pregnancy at the time, and she was delivered shortly
afterwards of a dead child.
Mr. O'BuiEs, at the close of the case, submitted
that the count imputing a felonious intent could not
be supported, as there was no proof of any weapon or
instrument having been made use of.
The COMMON SERGEANT said, that this had no
doubt been ruled by the Judges, and if the jury
thought there was no evidence of any instrument
having been made use of, the prisoner could only be
convicted of a common assault.

The jury found the prisoner guilty of an assault.
The prisoner was then charged with assaulting
Thomas M'Cormick with a poker, with intent to do
him grievous bodily harm.
In this case it appeared, that after committing the
assault upon his wife the prisoner absconded from
Kensington and took up his abode in the house of the
prosecutor, in Orchard-place, Marylebone. On the
night of the Ist of August he was very drunk, and
upon some dispute taking place he attacked M'Cor-
mick with a poker, and struck him a violent blow
across the face, and would have inflicted more serious
injury upon him if a police-constable, whom the cry
of " Murder" had attracted to the spot, had not in-
terfered, and, with great difficulty, secured him. The
conduct of the prisoner appeared to have been of the
most outrageous character, and when he made the
blow at the prosecutor he was heard to say that he
would do for him, and that he was not the first he
had done for. The poker with which the injury was
inflicted was produced, and it appeared to be consi-
derably bent by the force of the blow.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was
sentenced to be kept to hard labour for 18 months.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MAASIOA-HOUSE.

Thomas Holliday, Henry Gardner, Herman Casa,
and James Loup, underwent a final examination upon
the charge of having conspired to defraud. The in-
quiry excited the greatest interest.
Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Hillory appeared for the
prosecution ; Mr. Vansandau for Loup ; Mr. Char-
nock and Mr. Sidney for Cusell ; and a solicitor for
Gardner.

Mr. Huddleston commenced by introducing the
following new case against Gardner and Holliday :
Frederick Joseph Routledge, of the firm of Rout-
ledge and Felix, of Addle-street, Cheapside, said—l
know Gardner and Holliday ; the latter called on me
on the sth of August to look at gloves which we had
for sale. lie said he wished to ship some, and he
selected some from our stock to the amount of 421.85.
at 1-4- per cent. discount, at eighteen days. He gave
us a further order for 501. or 60/. worth, but I did not
execute that order, for I saw the gloves I had sold
in tlie, house of a Mr. Barnet, who I heard offered
them at a large discount. I applied several times
for payment for the goods, and I occasionally saw
both Gardner and Holliday, but they both put me
off. They always told me that the goods were for
shipping, but I do not know that I should have re-
fused them if they had told me otherwise.
David Wcodrovv, porter to Messrs. Routledge and
Co., said he was employed to take the goods from Ilia
employers' premises to Messrs. Gardner and Holliday,
at No. 4, Pancras -lane. He gave them to the house-
k. eper, and had no communication with Gardner and
Holliday, and he believed, but could not swear, the
boxes contained French gloves.
Alfred Barnet, buyer to the firm of Barnet, Leaf,
and Co., of Wood-street, warehousemen, said—l
know Mr. Cusell well indeed, and I know Mr.
Routledge, who is frequently at our premises. I
showed Mr. Routledge some gloves on, I think, the
6th or 7th of August, which I got from Mr. Cusell.
I purchased them of Cusell, who, I think, called
upon me on the 9th of August. He told me he had
some gloves for sale, end I said I would go and look
at them, and I did so, and told him I was quite full
of the article. He said he would make them cheap.
I examined and made him an offer, which he ac-
cepted. It was 25 per cent. off the prices on the
paper. They were such as I have been in the habit
of buying at 1-4 per cent. discount. There was an
invoice obtained upon the occasion. He did not tell
me of whom he had purchased the goods. I told
him to call again for payment, and I sent to Messrs.
Routledge and Felix, for I knew from the boxes and
the marks that they came from that house. I knew
the goods, but I did not mention from whom they
came.
Mr. HILLORY—Iwish to know why, upon the for-
mer occasion, vou refused to
give your deposition in
this case ? Witness—l had my employer s interest
at heart, and I knew it would be very inconvenient
if I were to be detained from their business for two
or three days, which the inquiry might occupy.
Cross-examined by Mr. Charnock, for Cusell—l
have done business with Mr. Cusell these ten years.
I have given him orders fbr German goods, and they
were properly executed. They were nothing under
the mark. I never found anything out of the way in
his dealing. Ours is a very extensive and respectable
house. I never saw Loup before this day that I
know of. Cusell came with the goods in the middle
of the day.
Mr. Hillory said he should show, by a variety of
cases dovetailing with each other, the existence of a
general combination and conspiracy amongst the four
defendants, and in doing so it would be necessary to
revert to the case relating to the tools obtained by
n a Gardnerme ando r
thello 1 l doaryd,
awhichor
wasw er were
mentioned
e du
the pas thewhen
individual to be applied to. The same parties who
were mixed up in that transaction were concerned in
the fraud of Mr. Gray, and the details of the parti-
culars, showing the connection to he quite undeni
able, were requisite in fairly representing the system
to the publie.
James Brown, clerk of the Custom-house wharf,
by Messrs. Hall and Co., stated that on the 30th
July he received a receiving note from Mr. Williams,
of the export warehouse, for three packages of goods,
marked "F" in a diamond. On the 3d or August he
received a delivery order for the same packages. He
knew Cusell, but not Loup. The delivery order
was signed " Gardner and Co."
Mr. G. Williams, clerk in the export warehouse of
the Custom-house wharf, stated that he received
from Mr. Brown some goods, which he subsequently