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

IN RE JOHN BENTON.

This insolvent, a " gentleman," was remanded for
three months from the date of the vesting order for
incurring a debt by means of false representations.

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT, Nov. 5.
(Before Mr. H. B. HEATH.)
COLLINGRIDGE v. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was a case in which compensation was claimed
for an alleged breach of contract to carry certain
goods from Northampton to Euston-square.
Mr Lewis, attorney, appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. J. A. Russell for the railway company.
Mr. LEWIS stated that the plaintiff, Dionysius
Col-
lingridge, who was a journeyman currier, had taken
his passage by the train which left Northampton for
London at twenty minutes pas seven o'clock P.m.,
on the 6th of October last. He had three
packages, a box nearly empty, a carpet bag, and
a writing desk. The two latter he had in the car-
riage with him ; on his arrival at Euston-square
station he requested the porter in attendance to
take care of them while he went in search of
the box, which had been put into the luggage
van. On his return the carpet bag and writing-desk
were gone. The action was brought against the
company for compensation in their capacity as com-
mon carriers, whose duty it was to carry goods
safely, unless loss occurred through the act of fro-
vidence or the king's enemies. The Act 1 William
IV., chap. 68, commonly called the Carriers' Act,
limited their responsibility in respect of gold and
silver coin, jewellery, &c., when the value of the
packet exceeded 10/., unless at the time of the de-
livery the value and nature of the article were de-
clared, and a higher charge was paid for convey-
ance ; but otherwise the Act did not affect the
liability, any public notice professing to limit such
liability notwithstanding. The contract to carry the
luggage safe was as clear as the contract to carry the
passenger. The goods were lost on the platform, to
which the company would not admit any porters
except their own. If the liability at common law
were found to have ceased at the time the goods
were lost, the company's liability for the negligence
of their servant still remained. The amount claimed
was 191. 10s., and in consequence of the loss of his
luggage the plaintiff had been detained from proceed-
ing on his usual journeys since the 6th of October.
Mr. Collingridge was then examined—He paid
53.3 d. third class fare from Northampton. On reach-
ing Euston-square he sent the porter to look for his
box. The porter could not find it, and wanted him
to see whether he could not recognise it among some
parcels. Witness said he could not leave the carpet
bag and desk for fear they should be stolen. The
porter told him that they were perfectly safe under
Ins
MteL'tiOn and that the company were responsible
for them. When he had found the box, he returned,
Lut the carpet-bag and desk were gone. and the porter
was gon moe lie saw the porter afterwards, and
next rnin._g went with a friend to the office of Mr.
Jones who asked the porter rte r why he did not take care
of the luggage ? porterc said, witness had
given the luggage into his charge, but denied next
day that he had taken charge
of the things. The
carpet bag contained one dozen ,
‘o suits of
sre. rvh
clothes, eight silk handkerchiefs, e desk, a
plain wooden one, contained half-a-dozen books,
2s. 6d. worth of postage stamps, a
six pocket-knives,
watch, shirt studs, three shirt pins, &c.
On cross-examination by Mr. RussELL, the witness
stated that the bag and desk were in the carriage
with him ;
he had put them in himself ; he took thew
out himself and put them on the platform ; be
the box after he had lost his luggage. The carpet
bag and desk
_he
mighti weigh 501bs. together ; the box
1
albs. or Gibs.
watch cost 71. 105.; the guard
id. ss. ; the three gold pins 7s. 6d. each. The gold
shirt studs were worth thirteen shillings. There were
six silver pencil-cases worth thirty shillings, and eight
silk handkerchiefs worth three shillings apiece. These
were what the articles had cost ; he valued the watch
at 31. 10s. examined—Had
Henry Horace Elsdon was next
accompanied plaintiff to Mr. Jones'skodffi, ce.
ow Plaintiff
" H came
identified the porter. Mr. Jones as e
the luggage to be lost ?" The porter saiid. he had
turned his back to go to look for Mr. Coi ingridge's
box, though only for a moment, when the bag and desk
aisaPPeared. Mr. Jones asked him what he did ? The
porter said he ran to the gate directly, and an om•
0145 DM or poster said he had seen the luggage

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

Mr. HEATH inquired whether, considering the im-
portance of the case, the parties wished the case
postponed, in order to allow of an application to a
superior court ?
Mr. RUSSELL stated that such was the course his
clients would prefer.
Mr. LEWIS objected to a postponement. The case
had been heard, and his client could not bear to enter
into an expensive contest with a wealthy company.
He doubted whether the Court could postpone the
case for such a purpose.
Mr. HEATH then addressed the jury. The plaintiff
had to prove a contract on the part of the defendants
to carry the goods, and that there had been a breach
of contract. The jury would have to consider whe-
ther the contract of the parties was to carry from
Northampton to the end of their stations, or only to
the place where the carriage happened to stop when
the break was put on. If the jury were of opinion
that the company were bound to carry further than
the latter point, then they had to consider whether the
plaintiff released them from that liability by taking the
luggage into his own charge. If they believed it was
true, as mentioned by Elsdon, that the luggage was
lost when the porter was engaged in looking for
the plaintiff's box, the goods might then be con-
sidered as not being in their custody ; but if they be-
lieved that the goods were left in charge of the porter,
the question would be whether, when the plaintiff
left the goods with the porter, these were still in the
company's custody—whether the fact of their passing
through the plaintiff's hands in their transit to the
platform ended the Rompany's custody. The com-
pany contracted to carry only the passenger and
401 b., and the jury would have to consider whether
the goods were over or under that weight. The
plaintiff' valued them at 191. 10s. The amount of
the cost of the watch, &c., was stated by the plain-
tiff at about 12/. 133., but he reckoned the watch as
now worth much less. If the jury considered the
value of those articles as above 101., they must deduct
it from the value of the goods.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, esti.
mating the compensation at 10/.
Mr. LEWIS remarked that the company's time.
table mentioned 561 b. as the quantity of luggage al•
lowed.

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

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
George Phipps, who was some days ago charged
with having committed a forgery upon the Bank of
England by signing the name of " Thomas Rance" to
a dividend warrant for the payment of the half-yearly
interest upon the sum of 2,918/. 43. 9d., was brought
before the Lord Mayor for final examination. A
gentleman from the office of Messrs. Freshfield, the
solicitors to the Bank of England, attended for the
prosecution. The prisoner had been apprehended at
Enfield, by Daniel Forrester.
Mr. Thomas Rance, of Hatfield Beverell, in the
county of Essex, said—l have been an innkeeper, but
have retired from business. lam the surviving exe-
cutor under the will of my late sister, Elizabeth
Griffith, of Chelmsford, and have been in the habit of
coming to town twice a year to receive the dividend
upon 2,9181. 4s. 9:1. Three per Cents., standing in
her name. I know the prisoner George Phipps,
and his wife ; she is my niece. The dividends
were received by me for her benefit. The interest
upon that su n was left to her by will. By the
direction of the prisoner and my niece I turned
over the interest since the year 1838, when he
was a bankrupt, to a gentleman named Addington.
I was authorised so to do in writing, and Messrs.
Freshfield have the authority upon which I acted.
The principal is to be divided amongst the children
upon the death of my niece. I called at the Bank on
the 26th of October to receive the dividend, as usual,
but I found that somebody else had received it. The
name of Thomas Rance, written upon the dividend
receipt, is not my writing—neither is that name in
the dividend-book, of that date, my writir.g. I never
authorised anybody to receive the dividend or to sign
for me.

Mr. James Emery, of Herningford• cottages Rich-
mond-road, Islington, said --I resided at Enfield for 22
years, and was a schoolmaster there. I know the
prisoner, who was a saddler there. His children were
at my school,'and I know him merely as a tradesman.
I have been in. the habit of lending him small sums
of money, but never lent him mire than five shillings
at a time in my life. I remember that, in last Oc-
tober, he asked me if I would lend him thirty shil-
lings. I did not accede to his request, and have not
seen him since that time until he came to my house
in company with Forrester. I never lent him any
bank-note. (Here the Bank of England note for
51., which it will be recollected the prisoner stated to
Forrester he had received from the witness as a loan,
was produced.) I never lent or gave him this or any
other bank-note.
The prisoner said he was very anxious for the
assistance of a solicitor, and that, with good legal aid,
he had no doubt of getting out of the apparent dif-
ficulty.
The clerk to the Bank solicitor did not object to a
remand ; but the depositions were ordered to be made
out for Saturday, the Lord Mayor being of opinion
that the arguments of a solicitor would not weigh
down the evidence by which the case was supported.
Edward Probert, the secretary to the Silk Hatters'
Trade Society, held at the Black Bull public-house,
was brought up for final examination, upon a charge
of having broken open and plundered their box of
201. ls.
For the greater security of the society's money it
was determined by the members that all cash should
be kept in a box, to which three different locks were
attached, one of which was unlocked by the presi-
dent, another by the vice-president, and the third by
the secretary. In the absence of the two principal
officers the secretary contrived to get two of the
members unconsciously to assist him in his plan of
robbery, they not being at all aware of his object. A
blacksmith was provided, who, upon the representa-
tion of the secretary, of whose integrity the slightest
suspicion was not entertained by anybody, broke
open the box, the contents of which thus fell into the
possession of the prisoner, who had pretended that the
keys were lost, and that he should be obliged to pro-
vide new ones. The two members who witnessed the
breaking open of the box stated what took place in
their presence, from which it was quite evident that
they and the landlord, in whose custody the box had
been left, were altogether blameless.
The prisoner had spent 151. of the money in smok-
ing and drinking at Bristol, where he was appre-
hended in the midst of his enjoyment.
He was committed for trial.
CLERKENWELL.
Henry Martin Ilannigan was placed at the bar
before Mr. Tyrwhitt, charged by Jane Denny a poor
woman, residing at No. 17, Lumley-court, Strand,
with having obtained from her 10s. under false pre-
tences.
The prosecutrix deposed that her son was charged
with an assault, and committed for
dlesex Sessions on Wednesday
trial came on she was waiting eeikn I
the.a st
ha
foerfe
tt
hh
ee
ll Sessions house, Clerkenweilayw
w-itghreen, when the prisoner
entered into conversation
her on the nature of
her business, on sinr e tei
n
she wanted counsel. sitieng which he asked her if
counsel, and said she onlyelressed her wish to have
said " We wish to do thesethia4 half-a-guinea. He
ble." He agreed to take the zisfas quietly as Rossi-
duce her to a counsellor, when he tookilileera. and intro-
and a gentleman in a counsellor's wig and a rpro
was introduced to her whom she understood to b;-111
Horry, the barrister, and she paid to the prisoner four.
half-crowns. The prisoner had previously told her
that a guinea was the usual fee, and that half-a-guinea
would not do, and she signed a written paper, pro-
mising to pay the prisoner 125, 61 by instalments of

2s. 6d. per week. Her son was tried and convicted,
and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, but no
counsel appeared to defend him. The facts she com-
municated to the judge of the court, and she saw no
more of the prisoner until she traced him and gave
him into the custody of 95 F division, who took him
to Bow-street, where he was ordered to be brought
before the magistrate of this court for examination.
Mr. Mould, the clerk, said there were a set of
scoundrels lurking about at the sessions to take advan-
tage of poor ignorant persons in their misery, from
whom they obtained money under pretence of feeing
counsel, &c.
Mr. TYRWHITT said that any person might give
counsel a brief, but the proper course was for it to be
done by an attorney. He asked the prisoner if he
would put any questions to the prosecutrix ?
The Prisoner—l will put no questions to her. He
referred the Bench to the Times newspaper, in which
allusion had been made to the affair, and said that Mr.
Horry was to meet Mr. Sergeant Adams on Monday
next, by appointment, to have the matter explained
by that gentleman.
Mr. TTRWHITT—Pray, what are you ? The Pri-
soner—l am clerk to Mr. Arthur Joseph Head.

Mr. Mould—Of course he is on the law list ?

The prisoner replied in the affirmative, and said
that on the day in question he was with Mr. Wooler,
who had some briefs, when a man came up to him and
introduced the prosecutrix to him, saying her son was
to be tried for an askult ; she was a poor woman, and
would he employ counsel for her ? He agreed to do
so, and in consideration of her poverty he explained
to her that counsel's fee was one guinea, but he re-
ceived a half-guinea from her, and took her I 0 U
for the remainder at 2s. 6d. per week, and he intro-
duced her to Mr. Horry. The constable had the
I 0 U in his possession.
Mr. TYRWIIITT said he must discharge the prisoner,
and leave the prosecutrix to her remedy in the county
court for the recovery of her 10s. He regretted that
such practices were adopted in the metropolis ; and
after some remarks on the impropriety of such pro-
ceedings, he told the prisoner he was discharged, and
to go away.
Prisoner—l have two brothers who are barristers,
and I am well acquainted with the practice.
Mr. TYRWHITT—I am very sorry for it, and that
such practices should take place.
The prisoner then left the court, followed by the
prosecutrix.