The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-31 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. Whitle and S. A. Dawson, land surveyors, Lancashire--
J. J. Nicholas, sen , and J. J. Nicholas, jnn., plumbers,
Newport, Monmouthshire—H. J. W. Bowyer and W. Free-
man, attorneys, Cheltenham—S. Strong, H. Larchin, and H.
Smith, brewers, Ratcliffe (so far as regards S. Strong)—W.
J. Pendleton and I. llodgson, machine makers, Manchester
—J. Lightfoot and R. Hayes, cotton dealers, Nottingham—
J. and H. Roberts, tailors, East Retford, Nottinghamshire—
W. Eady and J. Brown, jewellers, Red Lion-street, Clerken-
well—J. Dove, J. Dove, jun., and W. Cramer, commission
agents, Bishop's-road, Paddington—N. Barnsdall and T.
Wakefield, linseed crushers, Nottingham—E. and D. Thomas,
drapers, Southampton—J. Batchelor and J. Edge, carpet
manufacturers, Kidderminster—W. H. Colyer and H. Mid-
dleton, tobacconists, Bedford-street, Strand—J. Shaw, C.
Shaw, and T. Wilkinson platers, Birmingham—R. M‘Leod,
J. M. M‘Leod. K. Macaulay, G. Barnett, and M. Rackham,
.11ipowners—T. and T. B. Upfill, iron merchants, Binning-
8. W. Roberts and 0. Williams, painters, Liverpool—
H. C. Williams and S. Trotter, brewers, Abergavenny—G.
Price and A. P. Shaw, printers, Newport, Slircish"

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, October 30.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FormaNquE.)
AUSTIN V. CLARKE.

This was a summons under the small debts, and quite
a novel question was raised as to the power of recommit-
.

meat.

Mr. STURGEON (for the plaintiff) said that a summons
had been previously issued against the defendant, to
show cause why he did not pay the sum of Si. 155., and
131. 7s. costs. The defendant, however, did not appear,
and a commitment was issued fur forty days, and de-
fendant was taken into custody. He then filed a peti-
tiqn in this Court under the Insolvency Act, and
obtained protection, but his final order having been
refused, he endeavoured to get a fictitious debt of 1001.
put on his schedule, and by increasing the debts to take
it out of the jurisdiction of this Court, but failed to do
so. The case was adjourned sine die. He (the Learned
Counsel) understood that the question would now be
raised that as the defendant had once been committed,
the jurisdiction of the Court terminated. It was pos
sible that it might be held that a commitment
for non-payment might be held to be a stay of
proceedings under the summons, but in this case there
was no order for payment. but the commitment was ex-
press for the contempt of Court. He should, therefore,
press for the case to be now heard on its merits.
Mr. HARDING, the defendant's solicitor, claimed to
be heard on the question raised before the merits were
gone into, and contended that the Act gave power to
the Court to commit for any period, not exceeding forty
days, which must be taken as the maximum of impri-
sonment contemplated by the Act, whether for contempt
or for non pament of their instalments.

The Learned COMMISSIONER said that the contempt
was quite a different matter to the claim itself, which
had not been heard on the merits.

The case was then gone into, and it appeared that the
defendant was greatly involved, and several orders were
now outstanding against him, which he was quite unable
to pay.
The Learned COMMISSIONER considered that he ought
not to make an order at present, but would do so when
the other orders run out.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON and Mr. Justice ERLE.)
FORGERY ON THE DOWAGER MARCHIONESS OF
QUEENSBERRY.—ViIIiers Pearce, described in the Cal-
lender as a reporter, and Bridget Sullivan, were indicted
with feloniously forging and tittering an order for the
payment of Ilrl., to defraud Messrs. Coutts and Co.
Upon the prisoners being placed at the bar, an application
was made on their behalf by
Mr. BALLANTYNE, for the postponement of the trial,
on the ground that the prisoners had been only com-
mitted last Tuesday, and that the copy of certain letters
which had been written by the male prisoner had not
been furnished him till late last night.
Mr. DOANE, on the part of the prosecution, objected
to the postponement of the trial. The Marchioness of
Queensberry had come from Scotland expressly to attend
the prosecution, added to which it must be presumed
that the prisoner was well acquianted with the contents
of the letters he had written.
The LORD CHIEF BARON thought there was no ground
for the application.
The prisoner Pearce implored the Court to postpone
the trial, but
The LORD CHIEF BARON ordered the case to proceed.
Mr. DOANE then addressed the jury for the prosecu-
tion, stating in detail the facts, which hare so lately
been fully before the public, after which he called the
following witnesses :
John Blenkinsopp—Was cashier in the house of
Coutts and Co., of which Mr. Edward Majoribanks was
a partner. The female prisoner came into the bank on
the 27th of August, and presented a cheque, purporting
to be signed by the Marchioness of Queensberry,
who had an account with Coutts and Co.
On the cheque being presented, witness asked
what she wanted for it. She said very quickly, " gold."
Witness then asked her to step into the back-room.
Witness asked if it was for herself. She said, " No, she
received it from a man that she did not know." Wit-
ness then called a messenger, and desired him to go for
a policeman. Witness produced eight cheques; one on
the 11th of May, for 41. 10s.; one on the 18th, for 61.;
one on the 21st, for 71.; one on the 23d, for Bi.; one on
the same day, for 101. 10s.; one on the 26th of June for
the same amount; and two on the 27th, for 151, each.
These cheques were all in the same handwriting.
James Goodwin, a porter in Coutts's bank, accom-
panied the prisoner on the 27th of August to Charing-
cross. She said the man that had sent her was a tall
man, sandy hair and whiskers, with hair on the upper
hp, and a large black coat. She told him if she did not
see the man at Charing-cross, she was to wait for him
at the fountains in Trafalgar-square.
Wm. Sinnott, a policeman, in consequence of the
direction of last witness, watched the female prisoner, and
took her into custody. Witness read a letter that was
found on the female prisoner, who stated that her name
was Bridget Sullivan, and that she had come by a
steamer from Ireland on the week previous. That she
had a husband working somewhere about Chelsea, and
that she had come to search after him ; that she could
not find him ; had walkod about all night, and was
going to Whitechapel ; that she had never been before
in London in her life.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTYNE—The conver
sation took place in the banking- house. Mr. Bush was
present, and asked the female prisoner some questions.
Re-examined by Mr. DOANE-Did not recollect
whether Mr. Bush cautioned the prisoner before he asked
her questions.
Mr. Blenkinsopp recalled—Mr. Bush came into Coutt's
accidentally.
Elizabeth Pike, the searcher at Bow-street, found a
letter on the person of the female prisoner.
Thompson, a policeman, apprehended the male pri-
soner on the 20th of October, at No. 1, Millman-place,
Theobald's-road. Witness told him he apprehended him
as being an accomplice with his wife, Bridget, in a
forgery; he said it must be all a mistake, as his wife had
been dead six years. Witness said he knew he was the
man he wanted, that his name was Villiers Pearce. He
told witness he lived at No. 58, Eagle-street, Red Lion-
square, on searching which several letters were fours 1,
which he produced.
The Marchioness of Queensberry was then examined
—She resided at Coton House, near Rugby. She had
corresponded with the male prisoner, and sent him
checques on Coutts's. Several cheques and letters were
here shown to heir Ladyship, which she said were not
in her handwriting. She had received several letters
from the prisoner, and she believed the letters and cheques
were in his handwriting. The signature was a bad imi-
tation of her handwriting. The letters produced were
written to her by a person who called himself Pearce,
but she had never seen him.
Mr. Barnaby, the chief clerk at Bow-street, took down
in writing the statement made by the female prisoner at
that office, which was to the effect that she met a gentle-
man in the Strand, of whom she asked the way to White-
chapel, when he asked her to take a paper to Coutts's,
which she did, when she was taken into custody. Wit-
ness also took down the statements made by the male
prisoner, in which he denied ever forging the signature
of the Marchioness of Queensbury, and stated that his
wife had made the statement she did in order to save his
name coming before the public.
John Winter proved that the two prisoners lived
together as man and wife, and came to him in July last,
and took a house from him. They both went by the
name of Pearce.
James Young, a solicitor, of Bloomsbury, had known
the male prisoner for eighteen years. Had been in the
habit of corresponding with him, and had seen him sign
his name. He believed the body of the cheque now
produced, and the letters, to be in the male prisoner's
hand-writing
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTYNE—It was only
till within the last year or two that he had had any
correspondence with the prisoner. He had latterly seen
him write his name frequently.
Mr. John Bell, a reporter, was acquainted with the
prisoner, and had frequently seen him write. He be-
lieved the cheque produced was in the prisoner's hand-
writing. The letters produced witness thought, to the
best of his belief were in the prisoner's handwriting.
Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTYNE—Tae prisoner
and witness had never had any quarrels. Witness had
not volunteered to give evidence.
Thomas John Green, another reporter, knew the pri-
soner, and stated his belief that the cheque and letters
were in the male prisoner's handwriting.
Mr. Watson, who had known the male prisoner
eighteen years, gave similar evidence.
The letters and cheques were then put in, and this
closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. BALLANTYNE addressed the jury for the prisoners.
The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up at some length,
and

The jury, after a short consultation, found both pri-
soners Guilty.
Pearce implored the Court to suspend passing sen-
tence, in order that he might adduce evidence and pro-
duce testimonials as to his conduct through life. He
had filled several most respectable situations, both at
home and abroad, and had reared eight children by his
own exertions.

The LORD CHIEF BARON said he would postpone
passing sentence until to-morrow morning, when the
prisoner could produce testimonials as to his former
course of life.

The prisoner trusted that the Court would also allow
his wife to produce evidence of her character.
The LORD CHIEF BARON thought that was unneces-
sary. The moral guilt being with the male prisoner.
The male prisoner asserted his innocence of the crime,
but stated that with respect to himself it was immaterial
to him, what was done with him, all that he was anxious
about was his Wife and children.
The Lonn CHIEF BARON said he would postpone
raising sentence till to-morrow morning, when the pri-
soner could produce his testimonials and witnesses.
RAPE.—The Court then proceeded with the case of
Clarke, who was indicted for a rape on one of his own
children, and an attempt on another.
The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to be
transported for life.
John Franklin, 25, William Wilkinson, 26, and John
Walker, 40, who were committed on Thursday, the two
former of stealing a quantity of cloth, the property of
Thomas Gorden, draper, in the Blackfriars•road, and
the latter for feloniously receiving the same knowing it
to have been stolen, were placed at the bar to receive
sentence.

The evidence adduced in support of the charge showed
clearly that the prisoners Wilkinson and Franklin were
adepts in the commission of felony, and that the other
prisoner was a wholesale receiver of stolen goods. The
proceedings ho,d been watched by Mount, Gray, and
Whall, three 'if the metropolitan police belonging to the
C division, rand they appeared to have acted with great
zeal, discretion, and intelligence in the proceedings they
adopted to detect the guilty parties.
Mr. Cr.l4lw, who, with Mr. BoDEDr2 conducted th 9