The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-17 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 15.

BURDETT V. JOHNSON.
Mr. Platt and Mr. Ogle appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. J. Jervis and ➢Zr. Martin for the defendant.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the
sum of V. odd, for necessaries furnished to the wife of
the defendant. The defendant pleaded that he was not
liable, inasmuch as his wife, from whom he had long
been separated, had been living in adultery.
It appeared in the course of the trial, which lasted
several hours, that Mrs. Locke, a widow, who had for
some years carried on a somewhat flourishing trade as a
staymaker, in Brook-street and 13°nd-street, had married
the defendant, who was a coal-meter, or coal-weigher;
but that shortly after, in consequence of his habits of
life, and of his cruelty to her, they lived apart. This
was in 1834. By and bye the stay business proved to be
extremely unprofitable, and she became greatly distressed
in her circumstances; during which period a correspond-
ence, which had occasionally existed between her and
husband, was continued. Subsequently to this, Mrs.
Johnson, having lived at other places, took lodgings in
the Waterloo-road, where for upwards of nine months
she supported herself by keeping a school. It was at this
residence that the adultery was more particularly alleged
to have been carried on, with a man of the name of Hoo-
man. The evidence on the part of the defendant to sup-
port this allegation, however, failed in satisfying the
Jury upon the point, and they therefore returned a ver-
diet
for the plaintiff for the amount sought to be recovered.
It appears that the total number of new cases which
have been entered during and after the Term just ended,
is as follows :—Queen's Bench 255, Common Pleas 115,
Exchequer 247.

CENTRAL CRIMENAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

Thomas Hattersbury was indicted for feloniously
breaking into the house of Charles Spencer March
I'hillips, and stealing two coats, two waistcoats, one pen-
cil-case, and other articles his property, valued at 41. ;
and he was also further indicted for stealing two coats,
valued at 12s. the property of Edmund Beals.
The prisoner, having pleaded guilty, was sentenced to
be transported for ten years, with an intimation that he
would be imprisoned in the Penitentiary, for a shorter
term of years, the prosecutors having expressed a desire
that such might be the case.
Several other cases were tried during the day, but they
possessed no features of public interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET,
John Stephen Pardy, a person living in Whetstone-
park, Lincoln's-inn-fields, appeared to a summons, charg-
ing him with detaining a valuable Newfoundland dog,
the property of Messrs. Williams and Co., of Friday-
street, Cheapside.
A clerk to the complainants stated that the dog in
question was lost about a fortnight ago, and that a day
or two since, in consequence of some information he re-
ceived, he went to the house of the defendant, of whom
he made some inquiries respecting it.
The defendant at once gave him a most correct descrip-
tion of the animal, and admitted that he knew where it
was, but refused to produce it until he was paid his fee of
one guinea. When the dog was lost it had a collar on,

with the name and address of its owners upon it. The
defendaut, when questioned as to the collar, said he knew
nothing about it ; and that if his fee was not paid be-
fore two o'clock, the dog would be sold. Witness, not
choosing to pay the defendant's demand,. applied to this
office, and obtained a summons against him for detaining
the dog.

An attorney, who attended on the part of the de-
fendant, said his client, since he saw the witness, disco-
vered that he had not got the complainant's dog, but
another Newfoundland dog, that was very much like it.
Even if he had got it, he would not part with it until he
was paid his fee.

Mr. JARDINE inquired on what pretence the defen-
dant demanded a fee of one guinea ?
The attorney said his client was at great expense in
advertising dogs that had been lost, and afterwards came
into his posses4ion.

Mr.lifilliam Best—But my dog has not been adver•
tised at all.

The attorney said he would admit that particular dog
had never been advertised, but his client had inserted a
general advertisement in several of. the . newspapers,
stating that persons having lost dogs, might probably
hear -of them on applying at his depot. A few days
since he was the means of restoring a dog that had been
lost by Lord Palmerston, and his Lordship paid the fee
immediately, and without any hesitation.
Mr. JARDINE said he did not think the complainant
was bound to pay the expense of a general advertise-
ment _like that mentioned, but he would certainly be
liable for the expense of the dog's keep ; and the de-
fendant (supposing he had the complainant's dog) would
be justified in detaining it until that expense was paid.
The attorney said the defendant had not got the com-
plainant's dog. He was willing to show the complainant
the dog supposed to be his ; and if he (complainant)
could prove it was his, he might have it on paying the
expense of its keep.
Witness said the defendant told him distinctly that he
knew very well where the dog was, and could produce it
in five minutes, but insisted on his fee of one guinea
being paid first. As to going to see a dog that was like
it, he had no doubt that defendant could produce one
like it, or the dog itself, if he chose.
The attorney repeated that his client knew nothing of
complainant's dog.
After some discussion, it was arranged that complain-
ant should see the dog the defendant had, and if he
identified it as his, it should be given up to him on pay-
ing the expenses of his keep.
In about an hour after the above case had been dis-
posed of, the witness came to the office in a state of great
excitement, and stated that in pursuance of the above
arrangement, he went to the defendant's house for the
purpose of seeing the dog. The defendant immediately
said to him, " I've been civil to you before, but I shall
act very differently now," and immediately struck him a
violent blow on the ribs, and afterwards laid hold of him,
and a scuffle ensued, in which witness's coat was torn
in several places. He at length ran into a sawyer's
yard adjoining, and applied to the workmen for protec-
tion, and a policeman came up and prevented further vio-
lence on the part of the defendant.
Mr. JARDINE immediately granted a warrant, and the,
defendant was brought in custody to the office, when
complainant repeated the above statement.
Defendant, in answer to the charge, said the witness
had irritated him by calling him a dog-stealer, and col-
lecting a mob about his house. He refused to let him see
the dog, and on his insisting, quietly put him out of his
house.

Mr. JARDINE said it was expressly arranged that
complainant should see the dog.
The defendant called two witnesses, who roundly swore
that the defendant did not assault complainant.
Mr. JARDINE said the assault had been clearly
proved, and the conduct of the defendant had been most
digraceful • he would say nothing more about the dog
case, but for the assault he should fine him forty shil-
lings, and in default of payment commit him for eight
days to the House of Correction. The defendant paid
the fine.

LAMBETH-STREET.
A BRUTE OF A HUSBAND.—On Saturday David Rees,
an itinerant musician, was charged before Mr. Norton
with brutally ill-treating and frequently attempting to
take way the life of his wife.

The wife, a decent, but apparently broken-hearted
woman, stated that between three and four o'clock on
that morning the prisoner came home, and without the
slightest provocation on her part, commenced beating
her with the case of one of his musical instruments, and
had it not been for the interference of the police she be-
lieved he would have murdered her. The complainant
then entered into a lengthened history of the sufferings
she endurid by the brutal treatment of her husband, and
conclud' i!by saying, that if he only kept from ill-using
her sh,
.would keep him like a gentleman, and without
doing anything, as she had an excellent business which
she carried on on her own account.

The husband, in reply to the charge, said he strongly
suspected, nay,. he could, if necessary, prove it, that his
wife had been inconstant to him, and he would not deny
striking her occasionally.
The wife, whose eyes were black and much swollen,
denied the accusation, and said she was the mother of ten
children to the prisoner, six of whom had been still-born
owing to his brutal usage.
Mr. NORTON observed, that even if what the prisoner
stated were true, it only proved him to be a most unmanly
fellow to live with a wife after being satisfied, as he stated,
he was of her guilt. He then, after some further com-
ments on his conduct, convicted the prisoner in the
highest penalty the law permitted, of 51., or two months'
imprisonment, and also ordered him to find bail to be of
good behaviour for six months.