The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-22 00:00:00

pleaded first, infancy ; next, payment ; and next, never
indebted. He, therefore,- supposed that he should be
met by a defence of infancy, but how such a defence could
be sustained he was at a loss to imagine, for the person
who had given the order was an old man with a long
beard. The learned Gentleman then called the follow-
ing witnesses :

Henry Watman—l live at No. 2, Osborne-place, Brick-
lane, and am a journeyman furrier, in plaintiff's employ.
I know the defendant, Moses Rentall. He is an old man,
with a long beard. He is between 60 and 70 years of
age. In 1839 defendant and his wife came to plaintiff's
shop, and gave an order for brown mock sables. I
cannot say the quantity. I cannot tell exactly what.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE—What was the quantity ?
Mr. PRICE—He has already said twice he cannot
tell you.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE—What was the number of mock
sables?

Mr. PRICE—lie has said several times he cannot
tell you,

Mr. HUDDLESTONE—I must insist on my right to re-
peat the question.
Mr. Secondary JAMES—You cannot insist on what is
irregular, and it is decidedly irregular to put the same
question three times over.

•
Mr. lIIIDDLESTONE—I must insist on my right to con-
duct my examination in my own way, and if my witness
does not understand the question, I must repeat it, and
with due submission to the Court, I shall do so. I never
act irregularly or improperly.
Mr. Secondary JAMES—You are acting irregularly and
improperly now. It is a great waste of time.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE would, notwithstanding, with due
submission to the Court, insist on repeating his question.
The witness, in answer to the question, again stated
he could not tell. He then proved the delivery of cer-
tain quantities of lamb-skins and mock sables at the de-
fendant's residence, 22, Belolane and a subsequent ap-
plication .to the defendant's wife for payment, who pro-
mised to pay as soon as defendant should return.
Cross-eAamined by Mr. PlucE—Saw young Mr.
Moses Rentall on these occasions with his mother. Young
Mr. Rentall had frequently been in plaintiff's shop with
his mother. He appeared about eighteen. Ho lived in
Bell-lane. The mother and son lived together there.
Has seen the old -gentleman there once ; that was in
1840. Has never seen him anywhere except at plain-
tiff's and in Bell-lane. Cannot rightly say if the old
gentleman was living there ; the young gentleman was
living there. _ _

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. PRICE said, undoubtedly there was alit'. Alyers
Rentall, an old man with a long beard, but .he,had never
anything to do with these transactions. The.defendant in
this record was Moses Rentall, the young man ; he had
been served with the process ; he was a fur-dealer; he
was the defendant in this record, and he (Mr. Price)
should prove he was an infant.

Dr. fouls Ashenheim was present when the ceremony
of circumcision was performed on Moses Rentall in the
year 1824. It was performed in due time, and by the
Jewish religion it must be performed within eight days
of the birth of the child. Witness knows old Mr. Rental!.
He is a teacher of :Hebrew, and a Rabbi of the Syna-
gogue; and has never been in trade to witness's knowledge.
Mr. PRICE then called Mr. Myers Rentall, and a vene
rable patriarchal looking individual, with a long white
beard reaching to his waist, entered the box.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE objected to the examination of the
person tendered as a witness, inasmuch as he was the
defendant on the record.

The witness Watman, on being recalled, and having
Mr. Myers Rentall pointed out to him, said, that is the
man that gave the order.

Mr. PRICE contended that the old man was a compe-
tent witness ; he was not the defendant, he had never
been served with the process. Mr. Moses Rental' had
been served, had appeared to the service, and was, there-
fore, the defendant.

Mr. Secondary JAMES must refuse to examine Myers
Rentall, as it appeared from Watman's evidence that he
was the defendant. He would, however, make a note on
the subject, and give Mr. Price leave to move.
Mr. Cohen was called to prove that old Mr. Rentall
had never dealt in furs.

Mr. Secondary JAMES—That has nothing to do with
the question. I have already decided that the old gentle-
man is the defendant.

Mrs. Rentall, the mother of Mr. Moses Rentall, jun.,
was then tendered as a witness, objected to, and rejected
on the same grounds.
Mr. lIIIDDLESTONE, in reply, expressed his regret at
having been, during the progress of the case, led away
by his feelings to give utterance to expressions for
which he was exceedingly sorry, and for which he
begged to apologise to the Court.

The Learned SECONDARY acknowledged the apology of
Mr. tiuddleston, when

Mr. PRICE tendered young Moses Rentall (a beardless
youth) as a witness.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE objected.
Mr. Secondary JAMES would admit the witness, but
would make a note of the objection.
The witness then said that Mr. Myers Rentall did not
live with him, and had never dealt in fur in his life. That
he (witness) was a fur-dealer, that he had ordered the
goods in question of plaintiff; and that he had sometimes
sent his mother to give his orders to plaintiff The bill
produced in plaintiff's hand-writing had been sent to wit-
ness from plaintiff's shop. Witness had purchased lamb-
skins and mock sables of plaintiff, and had paid plaintiff
money on account of these transactions. had sent the
money by his mother while he was travelling about the
country wills furs. Had agreed to pay plaintiff 2s. 6d.
a week for the debt. Had stopped because he had no
money, and thus this action had been brought against him.
Cross-examined—l am l7i years of age. I cannot
ay how many times •I went to plaintiff alone. My
Mother did nct always accompany me.
Mr. Secondary JAMES —Were you served with a copy
of a writ in this action ?—I was. It was left at my
father's house and given to me because it was in my
name.—The copy of the writ was then produced.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE in reply, said—He would put it
to the Jury whether they had ever heard of a mbre im-
pudent attempt to cheat a plaintiff out 'of his money than
the defence set up to this action.
' '‘i
Mr. Secondary JAMES having summed up,
The Jury returned a verdict for the plain tiff---Da4ages
121. 10s. 6d.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 21.
JACKSON V. ASH.

This was an action to recover the sum of W. 15s. Bd.
for money advanced by a Loan Society.
Mr. C. JONES appeared for the plaintiff, and said that
the defendant had some time ago borrowed a sum of money
from the North London Loan Society, which sum had
been reduced to that named in the declaration, and
which was to have been wholly
.liquidated by weekly
instalments. The plaintiff had been surety for the de-
fendant, and had paid the remainder of the debt due to
the Society for him.

The defendant stated in his defence that he.had paid
4L 16s. for costs, &c. for the plaintiff, and other payments,
which reduced the debt to 2/. 16s. 6d.. which being proved
a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for that amount.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 21.
IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER LEVI NEWTON.

The examination of the bankrupt, which had been
adjourned from yesterday, was again resumed to-day at
two (Mock, at which time the Court was crowded by
persons anxious to hear the result.
Upon being sworn, he underwent a long examination
by Mr. Clarkson with respect to an item which appeared
in his books, to the following effect :—" Paid to J. L.
the sum of 437/." This sum was the exact amount ne-
cessary to close an account, but the bankrupt swore that
he never saw that item before, neither did he order it to
be written.

Mr. Edward Herbert deposed that he was in the em-
ployment of the bankrupt, who distinctly ordered him to
write down that particular item ; and upon asking who
J. L. was, he replied,." Never mind, write what I tell
you."
Mr. CLARKSON then-proceeded to examine the bank-
rupt with respect to certain erasures which were in the
cheque-book and ledger, and which the Learned Counsel
contended were done to defraud his creditors. It ap-
peared that he had consigned goods to the value of
1.6001. to his nephew Lewis Arie, who was residing in
Kingston, Jamaica ; and although the account, as entered
in his books; showed a balance of 8941. remaining due,
yet the bankrtipt wrote:the word closed at the foot of the
account. In explanation he said he was not yet aware
whether the goods had b;en sold at a profit or a loss, as
he had received no.advice from his nephew yet.
A conversation then took place between the Court and
the Counsel, and, finally, the case was ordered to stand
over till to-morrow.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
On Monday Inspector Marchant, of the City Police,
waited upon Sir Peter Laurie, by order of the Police
Commissioner, to give some explanation respecting two
offences committed in the Alderman's ward.
Sir PETER LAURIE stated that he had received a letter
from a respectable inhabitant of Noble-street, complain-
ing that his house had been twice burglariously entered
in a fortnight with impunity, and that the police were so
inattentive that property was not half so well watched
now as under the old watch system. Sir Peter wished to
know what information the Inspector had respecting these
robberies.

The Inspector stated that he had been informed of the
circumstances. The premises were not broken, open, but
entered by a false key, there being no person in the
house to take care of it.

Sir PETER asked how the parties had got away unde-
tected with their booty?—lnspector Marchant said that
on one occasion all that was taken was 30s. in cash, and
in the other a suit of clothes and some cotton balls. The
key enabled the thief to enter in a moment. He believed
he had a clue to the thief. At these very premises the
person in charge of them left one end of a bar unfastened
on Saturday night.
Sir PETER observed that these robberies were each
committed on the Sunday. More houses were broken
into on that day than any other in the week.—The In-
spector said that was because so many houses were left
unprotected then.
Sir PETER said, he understood the feelinc, of insecu-
rity was such, that in many places the inhabitants em-
ployed private watchmen.—The Inspector replied, that
was the ease in the very street of which Sir Peter was
speaking. There was a private watchman, who was never
out of the street during the whole night.
UNION-HALL.
_

Monday Jeremiah Flinn and Michael Mannich were
brought before Mr. Trail!, charged with violently as-
saulting Mr. Henry Hawkins, of Elm-court, Temple, and
two other gentlemen,
en
accompanied, wtleinitherntennatmtoedro ibiathwekme,. by
whom he was
Mr. Hawkins, whose face was disfigured owing to the
violence of the attack made upon him, stated that on
Saturday night, about half-past twelve o'clock, in return-
ing from a friend's house a, Camberwell, accompc a Al
by 241r.,liawk.e, and his brother, they were attacked by
four men. He (Mr. Hawkins) was walking arm-in. arm