The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 8, 1546

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. J.

The Lord Chancellor sat in the Old Hall, Lincoln's
Inn, this day, at ten o'clock.

ANDREWS O. WALTON.
The LORD CHANCEL ' on taking his seat to-day,
stated that he had dire cd 'every inquiry that could be
made to take place in t e case, and from the result of
those inquiries he had ascertained that the grounds on
which Mr. Andrews had made his application did not
exist, the ground-work, therefore, of the application
failed, and it must be dismissed with costs.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE MASTERS, &C., OF THE

CITY OF BRISTOL.
This case, it was stated, had been put on the paper by
mistake, and was ordered to stand over generally, for the
purpose of enabling the Attorney-General to fix a day
when he could come into Court and argue the case.

TRAILL v. BALL. ' •
This case was also on the paper by mistake, and or.
dered to stand over.

DAVIS V. CHANTER.
• The Court was occupied the remainder of the morn-
ing with the arguments in this appeal from the judgment
of the Vice-Chancellor of England, deciding that limited
letters of administration were sufficient to pass property.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Dee. 2.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

SPOTTISWODE V. CLARK.—THE PICTORIAL ALMANACK.
Mr. BETHELL applied this morning to his Honour,
upon notice ex parte, for a special injunction to restrain
the defendants from publishing a work which they had
denominated " Old Moor's Pictorial Almanack." The
plaintiff, as it is well known, is the proprietor of the
Pictorial Times, and had published also an almanack,
which he called "The Pictorial Almanack." The alma-
nack published by the defendant was a piracy of that
published by the plaintiff, and to restrain that publica-
tion was the object of the present motion. The great
evil to the plaintiff was, that the defendant's vulgar imi-
tation of his almanack was hawked about the Strand as
the plaintiff's publication.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said it was a clear case of a
vulgar fraud, and immediately granted the injunction.
TERRY V. WACHER.

Mr. BETHELL replied to-day in this case, the argu-
ments in which have occupied the Court several days.
The suit was instituted for the purpose of obtaining
an account from the defendant of certain moneys said to
have been received by him for the maintenance and sup-
port of a young man of the name of Edward Edendon.
The bill, which was filed by the personal representa-
tives of Edendon, stated that he was a married man;
that he had been separated from his wife, and had been
in the receipt of 1,000/. a year; that he was addicted
to habits of excessive intemperance, the long continua-
tion of which had greatly impaired his intellect; that
his father, being aware of his son's disposition, had
placed him under the care and control of the defendant,
John Wacher, who was a connexion of the family, and the
defendant was to receive 21. a-week for his board and
lodging, and as a remuneration for taking care of him.
Edenden continued to live with the defendent till about
four months before his death, when he went to reside
with Thomas Fleet, at Harbleden, in Kent. It appeared
that after the death of the father of Edenden, an ar-
rangement was made by his executors, that the annuity
of 1,0001. should be paid to the defendant on behalf of
Edenden, as his guardian, trustee, and agent; that the
defendant received the annuity, and paid Edenden's
bills out of it, but did not allow him to have more than
a few shillings in his pocket at a time ; that the annuity
was never spent for Edendon, but that the defendant
took the surplus for himself. It appeared that Edenden
died in 1842, having, by his will, bequeathed all bis per-
sonal estate up n trust, for his wife absolutely.
Under these circumstances the bill was filed by the per-
sonal representatives of Edenden, praying that the de-
fendant might be decreed to account for all sums of
money received by him for :the use and on behalf of
Edenden. The evidence on behalf the defendant went
to show that he had in every respect acted as a friend to
Edward Edenden; that he had received his annuity, but
had regularly handed over the money to him, except
when he was requested to pay any bills on his acceunt ;
that Edenden had at all times exercised complete control
over his own money. and the defendant could not be
said to have acted in a fiduciary character towards him,
or to be liable to account for the money received on his
behalf.
Mr. Bethel! and Mr. Boyle were in support of the bi"

and Mr. Stuart and Mr. Lloyd were counsel for the
defendants.
The VICE CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of Mr.

Bethell's reply to-day, gave judgment, deciding that
the defendant held a fiduciary character, and must there-
fore account for the money that he had received. The
Court, therefore. ordered the decree for the account, as
prayed by the bill.
(Before Vice- Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
PRESTON V. WILSON.

His HONOUR delivered judgment in this cause this
morning. In this case a bill had been filed, an answer
put in, and the bill re-amended, and the plaintiff at
present had two petitions before the Court of Bank
ruptcy. Several other proceedings also took place,
and the cause came before him last May, and
a final order was made for the protection of the
plaintiff. The case was ordered to be argued on the
17th, 18th, and 19th of November last. On that occa-
sion he had to consider the laws of bankruptcy as
affected by that Court, and what would be the more ad
visable system to be adopted in all matters relating to
and arising out of bankrupty cases, and he was of
opinion that it would be better if the Court of Bank-
ruptcy had plenary powers to deal with all such cases.
But it did not possess such powers, and it did
not possess tho general jurisdiction to enable
them to deal with particular cases when they arose. The
power of the Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy
was possessed under particular statutes, and was neces-
sarily limited. A power was certainly vested in them
on some occasions to dismiss petitions, but he did not
find that they had any power to deal with cases like the
present, and the Courts of Bankruptcy did not
give a power to appeal. The plaintiff had
made an application, and what the decision
on a demurrer might be it would not be necessary for
him to say. In the caste before him, having regard to
the difficulties of the case and the arguments that had
been used on both sides, he could not make up his mind
upon some points, because he could not find any statutes
applicable to the case. He would not dismiss
the case on the ground of want of jurisdiction
in the Court. Ala would not grant the plaintiff
any decree NI ithout he adopted a course different
to what he had already pursued. The evidence
on the part of the plaintiff was not sufficiently satisfac-
tory, resting chiefly on the testimony of a person named
Hodges, who received instructions to draw up the agree-
ment only three days before he became possessed of the
property. He did not find that there was a
satisfactory account of what had taken place
between the parties. It was clear that after
the plaintiff had put the defendant in possession he
told the tenants not to pay him any rent. The only
course he thought it would be right to adopt, under the
circumstances, would be to direct two issues. The first
to inquire whether before the 17th of December, 1842,
itlhad been agreed by the plaintiff to sell defendant the
equity of the redemption of the property; and secondly,
whether at the time of signing the paper of the 17th of
December, 1842, the contents and true purport of that
paper were known to the plaintiff.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dee. 2.
;sittings at Nisi Prins, at Westminster, before Mr
Justice ERLE and Common Juries.)
TINGLEY V. DALTON.

Mr. Addison appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ser-
geant Shea and Mr. A. A. Fry for the defendants.
Mr. ADDISON said, this was an action brought by the
plaintiff, a servant, named Sarah Pingley, in forma
pauperis, to recover damages from the defendant, who
is a butcher at Westmoreland, near Long Eaton, under
the following circumstances :—The plaintiff was engaged
by the defendant as a cook, at 9/. a year, and she entered
into his service on the 3d of March last. Shortly after,
she found that the situation would not suit her, and on
the 3d of April she intimated that she should leave on
the following 3d of May. She sent for her uncle, to
whom she had intimated on the 2d of March that she
intended on the following day to give her master
warning, to come for her, and to bring a cart to convey
her things to his home at Long Eaton. He found,
however, that the defendant would not allow her

to leave, on the ground that she had not given
warning. She left, however ; but the defendant
refused to allow her to take her clothes and boxes
with her, and they were left in a wash-house.
Before she left her uncle told the defendant that if she
had not given him a month's notice that he might deduct
a month's wages; adding to the plaintiff that so long as
her clothes remained in the defendant's possession, she
would be entitled to wages. In addition to her clothes,
which were superior to one in her Oass of life, there
was a mahogany tea-chest, and a rosewood work-box.
She had been unable to obtain her clothes up to the pre-
sent time, arid had in consequence been prevented from
earning her livelihood as a servant, owing to the wantof
proper garments. The hiring was for one year, and a
month's notice or a moath's wages was necessary for
both sides to terminate the contract before- that time.
The action, therefore, was brought to recover the value
of her clothes, and damages for the injury she had sus-
tained in consequence of their detention' by the de-
fendant.

George Hoare, the uncle, proved going for his niece
and that her clothes, &c., were worth about 171/. los. He
admitted, in cross-examination, that he had ni)t applied
to the defendant for the things, and that she left at half-
past six o'clock on Saturday night.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA submitted that there wits no case
for the consideration of the jury. No evidence had been
adduced to show that the plaintiff gave the defendant a
month's notice, and that he had not acted in a. perfectly
legal manner.
Dy. Justice, 744 considered that the case,. notwith-
standing the he evidence, ouglxt to go to
he jury, btit in the' • heir returning a verdict for
e plaintiff, he wouti—a ow him to enter a nonsuit.
The accepted law on the subject was that a master might
either give his servant a month's notice or a. month's
wages, but he could recollect no authority where it was
held that a servant had a right to say to her employer,
" Take a month's wages, and let me leave instantly."
Mr. Sergeant SHEA said the action Has nal:I:111g more
than the speculation of the attorney for the plaintiff, as
it was commenced only two days after the girl left the
defendant's house, and before any demand had been made
for the goods. Not only Was no demand made, but
no evidence had been adduced to slow that
the plaintiff gave any noticeti her intention to leave,-
or that he had prevented her using her clothes. No
doubt it was her intention to leave on the day she did
without the consent of the defendant, and with out having
given any previous notice. A servant was n of entitled
to leave her situation just when she thought p.rcoper, but
more especially a time when her absence naught cause
confusion in the family, when perhaps he expieqed com--

pang, or when his wife was ill and his children required
her care.

Mr. Justice ERLE having explained the law to
the jury, they, after a few minutes' consideration, found
a verdict for the plaintiff for 371. 10s., 201. for damages
and 171. 10s. the value of the clothes.

BAIL COURT, Dec. 2.
FLANDERS V. SIR 11. DUNBURY.
The arguments in this part•heard case were continued
this morning, and were not concluded at the rising of
the Court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 2.
EDRINS V. WILSON.—ASSAULT UPON A PROCESS SERVER.
In this case the plaintiff sought to recover compensa-
tion in damages for an alleged assault committed by the
defendant upon him. The plaintiff (formerly an omnibus
conductor) was employed by attorneys to serve writs,
and about the Bth of May had occasion to serve a copy
of a writ upon the defendant, who carried on business as
a publican, in Old-street, St. Luke's. Accordingly
about eleven o'clock of the above day he proceeded to
the house of the defendant, and left the copy of the writ
upon the counter of his' shop, and having done so he
left the house. Upon his doing so the defendant fol-
lowed, and while crossing the road knocked the plaintiff
down with his fist, by which he was severely injured.
Several witnesses were called by Mr. Sergeant JONES
(who appeared for the plaintiff) in support of these
statements.

Mr. M. CHAMBERS, on the part of the defendant, cln-
tended that his client was not guilty of the charge. The
action on which the writ had been issued was settled
some days prior to the time of the attempted service of
it by the plaintiff, and that he insisted upon serving
the writ notwithstanding his having been informed that
the action was settled.

One of the witnesses called on the part of the defence'
said that the plaintiff had offered to give the writ up to
any person on payment of 55., that being the sum he
was to have for the service of it upon the plaintiff.
A policeman who was present at the time of the
alleged assault, said that the plaintiff was not sober at
the time, and that he took off his coat and wanted to
fight ; upon which he was told by the witness that unless
he went away quietly he must take him to the station-
house and lock him up. No blow was struck by the de-
fendant while he was there.

The LORD CHIEF BARON having summed up, the jury
returned a verdict for the defendant.
PIDDOCH V. FITZGERALD, RART.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attor-
ney, to recover from the defendant, Sir John Fitzgerald,
Bart., the sum of 601. 9s. 4d., due to him for professional
services rendered by him on bahalf of the London and
Manchester Direct Railway. The defendant was a
member of the acting committee of management of the
railway in question.

The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
601. 9s. 4d.

CROCKFORD V. LORD MAIDSTONE.
This was an action brought by Sarah Frances Crock-
ford, the executrix of the late well-known Mr. Crock-
ford, to recover the sum of 961., due by the defendant for
subscriptions and entrance money, and also for dinners
and wines supplied to his use by the plaintiff, at
Crockford's Club House, Pall-mall. The defendant had
paid into Court the sum of 371. 17s. 6d., and pleaded as
to the residue that he was not indebted, and as to the
remainder that the house in question was a common
gaming-house, and that therefore he was not entitled
to pay.
Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Reevo appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. James for the defendant.
Mr. HUMPHREY, in opening the case, said that the club
in question was projected in the year 1824, that it
consisted of fonr or five hundred persons, including
some of the highest and most respected portions of the
nobility. Lord Maidstone was elected a member of the
club in the year 1840, the subscription money was
ten guineas a year, and the entrance fee was ten guineas.
A large sum was also due for dinners and wine supplied
to his Lordship at the club, and also to a house in Bol-
ton-street, at the residence of a lady with whom his
Lordship was upon the most intimate terms. With re-
ference to the plea of the defendant that the club was
a common gaming-house, he thought that scme of the
members of the club would be rather surprised to hear
that Lord Maidstone had placed upon record
that the club kept by Crockford was a
common gaming-house, and that in this said gaming-
house Mr. Crockford " did unlawfully cause and pro-
cure certain idle and evil disposed persons to congregate
together and come to play." Among these idle and evil-
disposed persons were the Dukes of Wellington, Rich-
mond, Buccleuch, Argyle, Cleveland, Rutland, and Lords
Saltoun, Scarborough, Stuart De Rothesay, and
numerous others. With -reference to the payment
into Court of the sum of 371, that would not even
pay for his dinners and wines at_ the club, setting
aside the subscription-money and the entrance fee,
and he was quite at a loss to account for the present
conduct of the defendant, connected as he was with one
of the noblest families in the peerage (the Earl of Win-
chilsea), and wondered how he could have been so mis-
led as to place upon the record such a plea as a defence
for not paying for his dinners and wines. His Lordship had
attended the club repeatedly, and had during his visits
done everything but paid. In fact, during the whole
period of his connexion with the club he had never paid
a . farthing for anything that he had either eaten or
drank.

Several witnesses were then called, who proved
his Lordship's attendance at the club, and the several
occasions of his dining there, from the books of the club.
The case was not concluded when the Court rose.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 2.
WAREHAM v. PEARCE, NASH, AND ANOTHER.
THE GREAT WESTERN ROBBERIES.

The evidence on behalf of the defendants having
finished last night, on the opening of the Court this
morning
Mr. Sergeant NumNs replied.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then proceeded to sum up
the case. The action was brought by the plaintiff,
Thomas Wareham, against the defendants, to recover
damages for an alleged illegal imprisonment from four
o'clock in one day till the morning of the following. The
imprisonment must be admitted as proved. To the
declaration of the plaintiff there were several pleas,
bat the material ones were four, six, or seven.
The fourth plea was, that previous to the trespass com-
plained of, Garratt had feloniously stolen a certain
writing case, and that the plaintiff well knowing its
, having been feloniously obtained and received, comforted
and harboured the said Daniel,Garratt. The sixth plea
was, that previous to the alleged trespass, Maynard had
committed felony in receiving stolen property from
Garratt, and acting as his accessory after the fact, and
that tha plaintiff, knowing this to be the case, received,
harboured, and comforted the former. The seventh plea
was compounded of the two former, with the addition that
he aided and assisted Garratt and Maynard is
negotiating for the return of stolen property.
Such was the justification set up on the record. The
Learned Judge proceeded to sum up the evidence very
minutely. From the whole evidence adduced, he left it
to the jury to decide whether Wareham could have
acted in the manner he had done without a knowledge
of the felonious transactions of Garratt and Maynard.
If they were of opinion that the plaintiff had such a
knowledge, then a verdict must be given for the defend-
ants on the pleas stated; but, if they thought he had not
such knowledge, then they must consider the amount of
injury inflicted by the imprisonment, and the circum-
stances under which it had taken place, and award the
damages accordingly.
The jury, after consulting a short time together in the
box without agreeing, retired to consider their verdict.
After an absence of about two hours they returned a
verdict for the plaintiff against the two defendants, Col-
lard and Nash, damages, one farthing; for the defendant
Prance, Not Guilty.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dee. 2.
LIABILITY OF PARENTS.—IX RE 5. GARROD.
To-day was appointed for choice of assignees under
the estate of this bankrupt, who is a grazier at Hackney.
The bankruptcy was founded on an assignment for the
benefit of creditors. The debts were not considerable.
A proof was tendered by Mr. Green, a tailor, for 45/,
for goods sold to bankrupts son. The bill commenced
in 1841, when Mr. Garrod, jun., was a minor, but he
had been in the habit of paying money an account from
time to time. Mr. Green rested his claim on the fact
that the bankrupt was cognisant of the orders, and fre-
quently asked whether his son had paid the money, from
which it was to be inferred that he held himself respon-
sible if his son did not pay.
The bankrupt said he never countenanced any de-
mand on him on this account.

The COMMISS/ONER asked what the son was ?
The Bankrupt said a clerk in the Stock Exchange,
had supported himself, although he slept at home ; he,
the bankrupt, never directly or indirectly authorized
the claimant to supply on his responsibility.
The COMMISSIONER—I do not consider you have any
right to prove under this estate, to the prejudice of cre-
ditors. You let the account run five or six years. and
take all you can from the son, never charging the father
till now. I cannot allow tho proof.
Mr. Green—Then I will only claim for the time he
was a minor.
Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.—I can't help you—
you have not made out your case. You have, through-
out, been dealing with the son, and I cannot interfere.
In the case in bankruptcy reported yesterday, " Re
Wray," it should have been the Taw Vale Railway
Company, not the " Torbay." The error was inad-
vertent, and in consequence of the difficulty of getting
at the proceedings, the Company was variously described
in other papers. The Taw Vale Railway and Dock
Company is correct.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Dec. 2.
There was only one ease set down for hearing this
day, and that was withdrawn.

- -
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
SENTENCES AND SESSIONAL RESULTS.
thSubjoinedeendofarte
ehthseatpersienscsiipoaulss.entences, as finally settled
a
The following were sentenced to be transported beyond.
tLseas

For Life—J. Jones, for forgery.
For Twenty Years—George
Smith.
Years—Geor Pearson and William

For Fifteen Years—J. Anderson, E. Sullivan, F.
Smith, and J. Peters.
For Fourteen Years—Eliaa Wright.
For Ten Years—J. Evans, F. Smith, R. Woodgat, R.
Wood, J. Graves, F. Thorp, W. Baker, J. Burrell, C.
Collins, and J. Evans.
For Seven Years—J, Jackson, F. Thorpe, J. Watkins,
J. Mitchell, W. Esworthy, R. Hutchins, T. Downs,
J. Brown, J. Brooks, Mary Ann Sanders, Mary Ann
Franklin, Margaret Dixon, Mary Boyd, J. Brown, J.
Brooks, W. J. Brown, W. Edwards, J. Crimmens, G.
King, J. Scott, J. Lister, R. Ford, J. Smith, Henry
Ragan, F. Batman, W. Emmonton.

•
Imprisonment and hard labour in the House of Cor-
rection:—

For Two Years—Mary Judson.
For Eighteen Months—George Reynolds, Henry
Gibbs, W. W. Byron, J. Irelant, G. Baynes.
For Fifteen Months—J. Martin, J. Smith, G. Brown.
For One Year—Mary A. Smith, Esther Elizabeth
White, Mary Sanders, F. W. Izant, J. Hardcastle, J.
Simpson alias Davis, H. Jones, J. Hitchcock, W. D.
Keen, J. Ryder, Thomas Swindle, J. Wright, H. Grant,
W. Biggs, J. Bradley, H. Dance, if. Arnold, C. Goring.
For Nine Months—George Clarke, George Crome,
H. Eames, J. Burns.

, .
For Eight Months—J. Martin, J. Jones, and T.
White.

For Six Months—Margaret Newton, Isabella Martin,
Ellen Williams, Jane Kilney, Mary Cahill, S. Cook, alias
Smith, M. Watts, W. Lacy, William Sullivan, W. Hone,
J. Middleton, J. M'Donald, Edward Denham, J. Wig-
gins, J. Cooper, W. Hantony, J. Thomas, W. Aynes, J.
Jackson, H. Hogan, F. Brooker, J. Hill, J. Dodd, D.
Whitoff, J. Eiisor, J. Gear, R. Zeal, H. Philips, H.
Kelly, J. Homer, C. Freeman, A. Harlow.
For Four Months—J. Smith, J. Brown, 11. Frond, J.
Symons, D. Bright, 11. Shergold.
For Three Months—J. Neale, J. Fanning, Sarah
Firth, Emma Smith, Eliza Wood, Eliza Jackson, J.
Hitchcock, H. Fenton, Ann Thomas, M. Flaherty, Geo.
Jervant, J. Hanbury, E. Harper, J. Droyer, J. Wilkin-
son, E. Hooper, W. Fogharty, J. Cairn, T. Neal, C.
Dear, J. Carr, J. Ward, C. Fox, C. Childs, Alexander
Ogilby, James Barker.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,
MANSION-HOUSE.
A very serious system of plunder was a few days ago
detected by mere accident. A policeman, observed a
drunken man in King-street, Cheapside, on Wednesday
evening last, with a parcel under each arm ; and, find-
ing that he was unable to take care of himself, took him
into custody, and from that circumstance arose an inves-
tigation which led to the apprehension of two persons
in the employment of extensive tradesmen in the city.
Yesterday Hugh Roberts and William Marshall were
placed at the bar, the former charged with having robbed
his employer, Mr. Evans, of No. 131, Cheapside, of
bandanas and other handkerchiefs, to a very con-
siderable amount, and the latter charged with having
received the goods, well knowing that they had been
stolen.

Mr. Humphrey appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Hobler attended for the prisoner Marshall.
George Todd (City policeman 709) stated that on
Wednesday evening he took a man named Upson, whom
he found drunk in the street, to the station-house, in
Bow-lane, and found the black handkerchief with white
spots produced upon him. Upson was subsequently ad-
mitted as evidence against the two prisoners at the bar.
Mr. Evans, of No. 131, Cheapside, warehouseman,
stated that the prisoner, Roberts, was in his service.
On Thursday last, Everett, a policeman, called upon
him, and, in consequence of a communication which took
place between them, he went to speak to Roberts, who
was then in the warehouse. Having shown to Roberts
the handkerchief alluded to, he said that a man, was in
custody about it, that prisoner said " I may as well con-
fess to you that I have taken a piece of handkerchiefs.
You may as well prosecute me, for I am tired of my life.
I have not had a moment's peace for some years." Wit-
ness asked him if he was sure that he had not taken auy
thing else, to which he replied, that he had taken nothing
else.

John Upson, of No. 88, Queen-street, Cheapside,
stated that he had been in the warehouse of Messrs.
Swan and Pearce of St. Paul's
.Church-yard, as porter
for thirteen or fourteen years. He had known Roberts
for several years. The handkerehief produced had been
taken from him by a policeman. (The three other
handkerchiefs were produced.) He bought the whole of
these handkerchiefs from Roberts, about two months
ago, for 3s. 9d. each. (A shawl handkerchief produced
had been also bought by him from the same person
about twelve months ago.)
Everett, policeman (63) deposed as to the admissions
made by Roberts, and stated that he afterwards went
to Messrs. Swan and Pearce's, where he received from
Mr. Swan three handkerchiefs, which corresponded with
that found upon Upson.
Sophia Smith, housemaid at Messrs. Swan and
Pearce's, stated that she had given to Mr. Swan the
three handkerchiefs produced, which she had taken from
a drawer in the kitchen, and which she had deposited
there at the request of Upson.
Mr. John Marston, clerk to the prosecutor, stated
that after Roberts was in custody he went to the Bull's
Head Inn, Wood-street, ._.wlkereJtoberts lodged, and
having heard the name of Mitr*hall, the other prisoner,
mentioned, he went to the house of Mr. Slater, in whose
service Marshall was. He there saw Marshall, who, in
answer to questions, said that he knew Hugh Roberts,
and had purchased goods of him, for which he had bills
of parcels and receipts. Upon being told to produce the
papers, he appeared to be going to do so, but he halted,
and said he had not got them. He stated that he had
purchased of Roberts to the amount of about 1001. in
black silk handkerchiefs and printed bandana handker-
chiefs. Witness took Marshall to the station-house, but
before he went away he said he considered it a privilege
he had to buy or sell goods. At the station-house
Marshall was searched, and, amongst other papers
found upon him, was a small label, with the
names of " James and Ferdinand Jackson" upon it,
who were persons for whom Mr. Evans sold in com-
mission. Witness did not exactly know what Marshall
said, but he seemed to justify himself as if possessed of
the privilege of buying or selling for himself. In Mar-
shall's lodgings were found some handkerchiefs of the de-
scription sold by Mr. Evans, and which witness believed
to be his property.
Mr. Hobler—ls it not usual for persons in the situa-
tion of the prisoner Marshall to buy to sell again? Wit.
ness—l should say not.
Mr. Nobler—Do not other houses permit their ser-
vants to do so? Witness—Other houses may allow it,
for what I know, but it is not to my knowledge by any
means the practice.
Mr. Hobler said Mr. Slater, in whose employment
Marshall had been for some time, was present, and ready
to give him an excellent character.
Mr. Slater having entered the witness. box,
The LORD MAYOR said to him—Do you, Mr. Slater,
allow Marshall to buy or sells goods on his own ac-
count? Mr. Slater—No, but when I engaged him he
said he had been selling goods on his own account.
The LORD MAYOR—Did you forbid him to do so?
Mr. Slater—Certainly; but seeing that he appeared to
live above his means I intended to get rid of him. The
proceedings here account for that.
The LORD MAYOR observed that Mr. Slater's testi-
mony told against Marshall.
Inspector
.Woodruffe, who searched Marshall in the
station. house, produced the label of the house alluded
to for which Mr. Evans sold on commission, and con-
firmed the evidence of Mr. Marston, as to the acknow-
ledgment of Marshall that he had bought goods to the
amount of 1001. from Roberts. The inspector also
stated that Marshall said he sometimes met Roberts in
the street, and sometimes at the Bull's Head pnblic-
house, and sometimes he gave orders and received the
goods in the street, sometimes in one place and some-
times in another.

Roberts, who was undefended, said he had nothing to
say.

The LORD MAYOR said the evidence disclosed a sys-
tem of robbery, by servants, of a most atrocious kind.
It was evident that the plunder had been going on for
a considerable time, and by a sort of contrivance which
was calculated to enable those engaged to enrich
themselves at the ruinous expense of their greatest
benefactors.

Mr. Marston stated that considerable deficiencies had
occurred upon taking stock within the last two or three
years. _ _ _

Mr. Hobler submitted that there was no identity as
to the goods, and that Marshall's conduct had been open
and undisguised, and betrayed no consciousness of
guilt.

Mr. Humphreys said it was for a jury to decide, whe-
ther there was not quite enough to satisfy them that
Marshall was a receiver in the foul stratagem for plun-
dering the prosecutor.
The LORD MAYOR.—I am quite satisfied that the case
of Marshall, as well as of Roberts, must go to a jury,
and I commit both prisoners for trial.

he had received money, and to state what sums he had
received without accounting for them, sg, -if he did so, it
would prevent him (witness) from applying for monies
which had already been paid. The prisoner said he
could not do so ; and witness then said, " Well, then,
there's the door, you may go."
Inspector Logan, F division, took the prisoner into
custody on the 20th November.

Theprisonf r (who neither cross-examined any of the
witnesses, nor made any defence, was committed for trial.
John Mason, who described himself as a marble po-
lisher, was charged before Mr. Jardine with keeping a
private still at No. 9, Princes street, Drury-lane.
John Lewins, an Excise-officer, said that, acting on
information he had received, he went that morning at
eleven o'clock to the house No. 9, Princes-street, where
the prisoner keeps a tobacco shop, and finding nobody
in the shop went down to the cellar, where he found the
prisoner working a still, which was in full exercise.
The prisoner, who made no defence, was fined 301.,
and in default of payment was committed to prison for
three months.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
William Job Liddington, a pianoforte tuner, was
charged with committing an assault on his son,
William Augustus Liddington, the son of the prisoner,
stated that the defendant had deserted his mother
twenty-three years ago, leaving her with three children;
and he ascertained some time since that he had returns-d
to London, had entrapped anotin r woman into mar-
riage, and was living with her. The complainant had
written several times to his father, with the view of ob-
taining a maintenance for his mother, but on Tuesday
night about half-past six o'clock, he took his mother to the
defendant's house. When his father came in, he asked
complainant what he had to do there. Upon telling him
his object, the prisoner struck him a severe blow with
his fist, walked into another room, and, having returned,
struck him again with a tuning fork a blow on the head,
which cut it open with a deep gash.
Hannah Liddington, the complainant's mother, corro-
borated ins evidence. •

Police-sergeant, 10 D, handed in copies of two mar-
riage certificates attesting that Job Liddington had been
married to Hannah Malpus in the parish of Cirencester,
on the 19th of December, 1816, and that on the 28th
of March, 1831, in the parish of St. Giles, William
Liddington had been married to Jane Howland.
Mr. HARDwreic sentenced him to a fine of 51., or two
months' imprisonment, for the assault, and ordered the
police-sergeant to retain the certificates, in case any
future steps should be taken against the defendant for
bigamy.

Patrick Flannagan, for creating a disturbance at an
eating-house in Cleveland-street, after eating a dinner,
which he had no money to pay for, was sentenced to a
fine of 405., or one month's imprisonment in the House
of Correction.