The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-01 00:00:00

Sl9 DECEMBER 1, 1847.

. .
' Dublin public. While in Dublin, one morning during
' the summer of 1818, his friend called at Rooke's
lodgings, and on entering the room found him full
of dejection. He addressed him with his usual salute,
" IloW are you, Billy ? ' "As well," was the moody
answer, "as a man can be at this hour, without his
breakfast, and without a farthing in his pocket to pro-
cure one." The hour was eleven. At the moment
of this reply, and as his friend was about to utter
some expression of condolence, their eyes were
attracted by a light piece of paper, which, fur a few
moments, floated over their heads, performing sundry
eccentric gyrations in its descent, and finally settling
upon the floor. But what was their astonishment at
beholding a bank note ! They gazed intently, scarcely
believing it a reality, although they could clearly per-
ceive that its value was thirty shillings. For some
minutes they remained motionless, save that their
eyes wandered successively from the object of their
surprise to various parts of the room, seeking a
cause for the coming of so unexpected and welcome
a visitor. The apparent mystery, however, was soon
cleared up. Some months back Rooke had missed a
note of that amount, and supposed it had been stolen.
On.the morning of his friend's call,q)aving been seek-
ing for some manuscript music stowed away in a press
near the window (the upper sash of which happened
to be down), the note, which it would seem had got
amongst his papers, became exposed to a strong cur-
rent of air, that dislodged it from its place of conceal-
ment at this critical moment. It may be questioned
whether in all its travels, before or since, the said
thirty-shilling note ever came to hand more ac-
ceptably.
His career in England is well known. Who has
not heard of Amelie, Henrique, andNagliostro ? some
of the choicest pieces in which are to be performed at
the Hanover-square Rooms to-morrow night, for the
benefit of poor Rooke's widow and orphans. Let us
hope that the public will second the efforts of Rooke's
professional brethren, and that the rooms will be
crowded.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. SO.

JACKSON V. REECE.

The plaintiff in this action, who is an architect and
surveyor at Leamington, sought to recover from the de-
fendant, as a promoter of the Avon and Severn Valley
Railway Company, the sum of 1631. 11s., for werk and
labour done. The defendant is a solicitor, residing at
Birmingham.
The plaintiffs evidence was simply to the effect that
Mr. Russell, of Leamington, who is also a solicitor, re-
ceived a communication from the defendant, requesting
him to become the local agent for the line, which he con-
sented to do, and acting in that capacity, he, at the request
of the defendant, engaged a number of hands to carry on
the survey, and among others the plaintiff, whose ap-
pointment was approved of by the defendant.
Mr. HUMPHREY submitted that this was sufficient
proof of the defendant's liability to pay the amount due.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES and Mr. CHADWICK JONES sub-
mitted, on the other hand, that there was no evidence to
show that the defendant had acted otherwise than as the
solicitor and agent of the company; and that he could
not in that capacity be sued for the amount alleged to be
due to the plaintiff.
The CHIEF JUSTICE was of the same opinion, and
ordered a nonsuit to be entered.
Plaintiff accordingly nonsuited.
BEECHER V. ANDERSON.
This was an action for an assault. The plaintiff, it ap-
pear,d, was a steeple-chase rider, and the defendant a
horse-dealer in Piccadilly, and happening to meet at
Tattersall's in May last, the defendant asked the plain-
tiff to follow him aside, as he wished to say something
to him (the plaintiff ). They were then seen by a little
boy, who appeared as a witness, to come with a third
person round a corner in the lane leading into Tatter-
sall's. The third person soon after left, and the boy
then saw some conversation going on, in the course of
which he heard the defendant say " Youcannotsay that I
am indebted to any one," and.then saw him knock the plain-
tiff down, and, whilst down, kick him under the eye and
cause much bin xl to flow. The defendant afterwards
drove the plaintiff to another part of the lane, and again
knocked him down. They were subsequently separated
by the person who came out of the yard with them in the
first instance and had by that ',time returned. For the
plaintiff another witness (a reporter for Bell's Life)
was examined. He described the plaintiff as a well
known steeple-chase rider, who had contrived at different
periods to break most of his limbs, a►:d further proved
that on the Ist of July last he had some talk with the de-
fendant about the plaintiff and some articles in the publi-
cation called the Saiiri,t, which the defendant thought
the plaintiff had written, and the defendant then told him
that he (the defendant) had met the plaintiff at Tatter-
ball's and had given him a - thrashing.
For the defendant a Mr. Mason, the foreman to a
horse dealer, was called, and it appeared that he was the
third person alluded to by the boy examined for the
plaintiff. This witness said that he was present all the
time ; that the matter commenced by the defendant's
threatening, if he were sure of the plaintiff's having been
the cause of his (defendant's) name appearing in the
Satirist, to give the plaintiff a good " licking ;" that the
plaintiff thereupon said (at the same time putting him-
self in a fighting attitude, and striking at the defendant),
"If that be what you mean, come on;" upon which a
fight ensued, and the plaintiff was knocked down. The
witness then added that he did not see the defendant
kick the plaintiff when down, nor could he tell whether
or not the plaintiff struck the defendant in the first in-
stance. Ile, however, saw the plaintiff bleeding when
he got up.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the whole case
to the jury, telling them that if they thought the plain-
tiff had committed the first assault the detendant would
be entitled to their verdict; but if otherwise, then they
would consider what reasonable amount of damages the
plaintiff was entitled to.

The jury almost immediately returned a ♦erdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, 50/.
&Ir. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Phipson conducted the
plaintiff's case, and Mr. James that of the defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the RECORDER and Mr. Alderman Gums.)
Anne Simons, who was on Monday convicted of stealing
goods of the value of 2501., the property of her masters,
Marshall and Stinton, of Vere-street, Oxford-street, was
yesterday again put upon her trial for stealing 100
handkerchiefs, 12 scarfs, 15 shawls, 34 pairs of gloves,
140 yards of ribbon, 400 yards of silks and satins, 120
yards of lace, and other articles, value 5002, the property
of the same firm.

Benjamin Simons, aged 56, victualler, father of Anne,
was indicted for feloniously receiving the same, knowing
them to be stolen.

The Attorney-General, Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Bodkin
conducted the prosecution ; and the prisoner was de-
fended.by Mr. Hurlstone.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case, 'and called
Mr. Marshall, who stated that after the discovery of the
stolen property in Lincoln's Inn-fields, the subject of the
trial yesterday, he received information from Ellen
Simons, daughter of the male and sister of the female pri-
soner,in consequence of which he went down to Benjamin's
house, the Harp and Hand, near Market Harborough.
Ms told him that his name was Marshall, and that he had
come down about a hair trunk. Simons replied that he
knew no one of that name. Upon which witness ob-
served, he must know that his daughter was in custody
for robbing Mr. Marshall, her employer. Prisoner said
he knew nothing about it. Witness asked him to pro-
duce a hair trunk tliat was left in his back bed.
room by his daughter Ellen, and of which the
key had been sent down to prisoner by her since
the sister was in custody. He persisted in saying
he knew nothing about it. Witness procured a
constable and a warrant to search the house. They
found several articles of female apparel and some new
linen, which he recognised as the property of his firm.
Upon the most diligent search, the hair trunk could not
be found, and in the meantime the prisoner continued
taunting and jeering witness. Witness said he had
enough against Simons to transport hint, and then
ordered the men who drove him over from Market
Harborough to put up the horse, as he would
stop all night. He desired the constable to take
the prisoner into custody. But Simons then offered
to give him up the trunk if no further pro-
ceedings would be taken against him, and ultimately he
took the constable to the barn, in the roof of which,
eight feet from the ground, was the trunk. The pri-
soner produced the key, which he said had been sent
down by his daughter Ellen—that he had never opened
the trunk, and that it had not been opened since
January last, when his daughter was there. When the
trunk was examined, however, London newspapers, only
a few days old, were found in it, as well as property which
had but recently been stolen. Next day witness applied to
the magistrates, who sent for Simons, when the latter
said he would give up another largo trunk, containing
so much of Mr. Marshall's property " as would satisfy
him to let him, the prisoner, oft." The magistrates said
they would allow no such thing, and ordered Simons to
produce the other trunk. It proved to be a very large
oak chest, and with its contents was as much as two
strong men could carry.
In answer to the RECORDER, the witness said the
articles were all of great value. The contents of the oak
chest had been examined, and were estimated at 4001:
The witness here became much agitated and burst into
tears. The Judge requested him to retire for a while to
recover himself.
The cross-examination by Mr. Prendergast (for the
male prisoner) elicited nothing particular.
Thomas Jessop, constable, of Cumley, near Market
Harborough, confirmed Mr. Marshall's evidence. The
prisoner had always borne a good character.
Evans, porter to the prosecutors, had taken the hair
trunk in question from their house, by direction of Ann
Simons, about the middle of July. He delivered it to
Ellen Simons, prisoner's sister.
Ellen Simons confirmed that evidence, and said that
she took the trunk down to her father's at her sister's
rewst. She never knew what it contained. On the
Thursday after Anne's being taken into custody, her
brother Nicholas was in town, and witness gave him the

key of the oak chest, with instructions from her sister
Anne to give it to her father. This statement was con-
firmed by Nicholas bimons. In the remainder of the
evidence for the prosecution there was nothing material.
Mr. HURLSTONE briefly addressed the jury for the
pris,iner Ann ; and

Mr. PRENDERGAST, at some length, defended the
father, contending that there was no evidence whatever
to show that when he took charge of the trunk and box
for his daughter he knew that they contained stolen pro-
perty; and that the second charge of being an accessory
after the fact was not legally supported by the evidence.
That charge could not stand in law, unless it was
proeed that be had done something to harbour and
comfort the principal criminal. He had no opportunity
of doing these things, as she was one hundred miles
away from him when he learned that she was guilty—
that is, when he was said to become an accessory. The
Learned Gentleman called several witnesses who gave the
wale prisoner a good character.
The RECORDER summed up, and the jury, at half-past
Eve o'c!ock, returned a verdict of Guilty against both
)risoners, but recommended the father to mercy on ac-
count of his previous good character.
Mr. BODKIN, for the prosecution, joined in the re-
commendation.

The RECORDER sentenced Ann Simons to be trans-
ported for fourteen years, that sentence not to be in ad-
dition to that passed on her last
,night, but to commence
and terminate at the same time. He sentenced the
father to imprisonment for eighteen months with hard
labour.

FORGERY OF RAILWAY SCRIP.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE said his Lordship would no doubt
recollect that at the last January sessions a person
named West was convicted of forging 300 railway scrip
receipts. On that trial the prisoner's counsel took a
legal objection to the indictment, viz , that scrip certifi-
cates were not instruments of a nature on which a charge
of forgery could be sustained, and the judges had now
decided in favour of that objectirn.
Shortly after the trial of West. another person, named
William Farmery, vi as indicted for being an accomplice
in the offence, and placed at the bar for trial. He
pleaded not guilty. The trial, however, was postponed,
and the party, after four months' imprisonment, ad-
mitted to bail. He (Farmery) now appeared in court,
and wished to retract his plea of not guilty, and plead
guilty. The Learned Counsel said he was instructed to
inform his Lordship that since the transaction occurred
in which the defendant had been engaged, he had done
all in his power to repair the injury that he had in-
flicted ; he sold his freehold and other property, and
paid every claimant 12s. in the pound.
Mr. CLARKSON, who, with Mr. Bodkin, appeared for
the railway company, did not object to the defendant
withdrawing his, plea; they bad ascertained he had paid
12s. in the pound on all the forged scrip.
The plea of Not Guilty having been withdrawn, and
a plea of Guilty entered,
The RECORDER inquired if the defendant was in a
condition to pay a fine?
Mr. HUDDLESTONE—NO, my Lord; he has sold all
his property.
The RECORDER told the defendant that he had
pleaded guilty of a gross offence, for which, if the
judges had not held an opinion that railway scrip was
an instrument on which forgery could not be assigned,
he should have felt it his duty to have passed a severe
sentence of transportation. There were, however, some
extenuating circumstances in this case, and therefore
the sentence of the Court was imprisonment for fifteen
months in the Compter.
The defendant said he was no scholar and ignorant o
the transaction at the time he submitted to it. He evi.
dently appeared much surprised at the sentence.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Jane Fuirfull, a woman of about thirty years of age.
residing in Widegate alley, Bishopsgate, was charged
with having attempted to throw halt a pint of vitriol
in the face of Mr. Lewis, the landlord of the Cathe-
rine Wheel public house, in Catherine Wheel-alley,
Bishopsgate.
Mr. Lewis stated that she came to his bar yesterday
and asked to see Mrs. Lewis; and being told she was ill
in bed, she asked to see his daughter, Mrs. Samuels.
She also could not be seen; and the prisoner then came
into the kitchen where he was sitting, and threw the
contents of a mng at him, saying, •' Now you have got
it—it's vitriol!" The liquid went over his clothes and
splashed in his face. Hearing it was vitriol, he instantly
wiped the spots off his face with his handkerchief, which
was burnt i❑ holes by the poison. He had a child by
her twelvo years ago, and ho did not wish to be hard
with her. lie lost sight of her for nine years, and in
the interim she had been living with somebody, and
had had another child. He had not renewed the ac-
quaintance, and she wished to extort money from him.
Her last application was for 21., and an annuity for life,
which he would not listen to, as he had a wife and five
children.

The prisoner replied, that th.y first met at Margate,
eleven years ago, and he visited her at her father's, as a
single man, and seduced her. She had a son by him,
10 y ears of age, and her friends turned their backs upon
her. He endeavoured to induce her, but without suc-
cess, to take medicine to procure a miscarriage, and a
Dr. Myers was to have 104 for the medicine. After

lying-in she received 535. from him, and saw no more of
him till she met him by accident last Saturday. She
supported herself by needle work for three years, and
then married, but her husband died four years ago,
and she was now in great distress. When she met
him he said ho was sorry to see her in such distress,
and promised to pay for the education of his son, and
to do a little for her. She could not see him again,
and she was provoked by the manner in which his
daughters had treated her.
Sir P. LltiniE asked why she had purchased the vi-
triol? She replied, she intended to take it herself, but
she was so provoked by the treatment she received
at the complainant's house, that she altered her pur-
pose.

The complainant said, it was false that he had seduced
her, or attempted to procure a miscarriage. He met
with her at Margate, and she knew he had his wife and
children there. Nothing took place between them
there, but he told her he was going to Brighton, and
she followed him there, came to his lodging and asked
for him, and the unfortunate connexion took place. He
never lived with her, and he had great reason to doubt
whether he was really the father of the child. He be-
lieved he was not.

Sir PETER asked if the boy had not a Jew's face ?
Mr. Lewis said it had not the countenance of a Jew's
child. It was a serious attack that she had now made,
but he did not wish her to be committed for trial. He
wished her to keep the peace.
. _

The defendant said she also required protection. He
had declared that day that she should not be alive 24
hours hence.

Mr. Lewis said he had made no such threat.
Sir P. LAURIE did not believe he had used such a
threat. People who meant to do mischief did not first
put their victims on their guard. As the matter stood
between the parties the woman appeared to be the most
injured. Her character and prospects had been ruined.
When seduction was the beginning mischief was almost
sure to overtake the seducer in the end.

Mr. Lewis emphatically denied that he had seduced
her. He was willing to help her when she was in dis-
tress. He would give her 4s. now, and he would give
her a little silver again if she needed it, and sent to him
instead of coming herself.
She accepted this offer, and she was discharged on her
promise to keep the peace.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Carl Esmann, a foreigner, wearing moustaches, was
charged with having obtained goods and money by
falsely representing himself to be one of the librarians of
the British Museum.

Mr. Horsley attended for Mr. Smith, of Holloway,
and Mr. Lewis for Mr. Poncey, of 47, Great Russell-
street.

Mr. Smith said he became acquainted with the pri-
soner some time ago, and he had at various times lent
the prisoner money, to the extent of 581. He had been
induced to lend this money on the representation of Es-
mann that he held a situation as librarian in the British
Museum. About a fortnight ago Esmann called on
him at Holloway, and asked him for a loan of 101.
He felt reluctant to advance any more money, and de-
termined at first to refuse the request. The following
day he called at 47, Groat Russell-street, and
found the prisoner in a room with Poncey. Prosecutor
had with him one volume of Chambers' Cyclopeedia, of
which work he had just purchased the whole sot. Es-
mann looked at the book, and remarked to Poncey that
it would do for the museum. Esmann said that two of
the volumes of " Chambers' Cyclopcedia " in the library
of the Museum had been destroyed by rats, and he of-
fered to buy prosecutor's copy for the Museum. A bar-
gain was struck and the volume given over to ESMIton,
in the belief that Esmann was librarian at the British
Museum. Prosecutor also
gave the prisoner Esmann
71. 10s. in money, on receiving Esniann's assurance
was
present confirmed.n
that
e
he was librarian, a statement which Poncey, who
in
Witness afterwards made a minute
of the conversation that lied occurred at this interview,
the
sEmsmonaenyn
and books.
a day or two after receiving
Mr. HORSLEY—Was it on the faith of the joint re-
presentation of Esmann and Poncey that you let Esmann
have the money and the books ?
Mr. Smith—lt was. I told Poncey I could not let
Esmann have any more money unless I was first assured
that Esmann really filled the post of one of the librarians
of the British Museum. Poncey said that Esmann held
that situation. Previously, I had left twelve book of
"Beauty's Costume" until I had leisure to call for them.
I never got all the books back again. Esmann said he
had taken them, but he did not say what he had done
with them.
Air.Bn,
GRAM asked if the librarian
that
Esmann
of the British
Museum was present, to prove
sann had never
held the appointment he said he enjoyed?
Abraham Poncey, watchmaker, of No. 47, Great
was then placed at the bar.
Russell
street, Rss
Mr. BrticuAlst said he was prepared to remand both
lowA
el rd.
al-
to Lewis,say a
few cords
prisoners.
the solicitor for Poncey, hoped to be
ords on the unexpected proceeding.
His client,
Alir. Poncey, was a respectable tradesman
who had
on business for many years in Great
Russell-
earred
at reet, who had been robbed of property to the