The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-29 00:00:00

"Wo sail in a few days on a most extensive cruise,
entirely round the great island of Madagascar on a sort
of political mission, the grand object being to communi-
cate with the chiefs along the coast, and open trade
with them, and so get a supply of provisions for Mau-
ritius, quite independent of the Queen of Madagascar."

. .
. .
" The French ships of war on this station are half
starving ; they have no money, and they will not cash
the Republican Government bills here, nor even at Bour-
bon, a French colony."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 28.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice ERLE and
Common Juries.)
KEANE V. JANES.

This was an action to recover the amount of a promis-
sory note for 4851., with 51. per cent. interest. The
defendant pleaded that he did not make the note.
Witnesses proved that the defendant signed the note
on the 9th of April, 1845, at Garner's brewery, Gray's
Inn-lane, the transaction having reference to the trans-
fer of a public-house ; whilst, on the other hand, two
witnesses, one of whom had taught the defendant to
write, stated that they did not believe the defendant's
name to be in his handwriting.
The jury, however, found for the plaintiff for the sum
of 5701., principal and interest.

PALMER V. CASTALLANI.

This IN as an action to recover the amount of a bill of
exchange for 361., purporting to have been accepted by
the defendant. The defendant pleaded that he did not
accept the bill, and that he did not authorise any ono to
accept it. It appeared that the defendant's wife was in
the habit of transacting her husband's business, in the
course of which she had often to sign her husband's
This, it appeared, was one of those transac-

name.

,
--. ,
tions. Two of the defendant's brothers swore that the
signature was in the handwriting of the brother, whilst
other witnesses swore as positively that the defendant
wrote a free, bold hand, and that the signature was

not his.
Mr. Prentice conducted the case of the plaintiff, and
Mr. Miller that of the defendant.

Mr. PRENTICE addressed the jury, and urged that
they could not for a moment believe that the defendant
did not give his wise his full and entire consent
to accept the bill in his name. They could not affirm
his plea without imputing perjury to the brothers of the
defendant, and stamping the defendant's wife, with whom
he was living in the ordinary relations of married life,
as a forger.
Mr. Justice ERLE said, if the jury believed the de-
fendant accepted the bill, or that his wife accepted it by
his consent, they must find for the plaintiff. If they
thought he did not accept it, nor authorised any one to
do so, then they must find for the defendant.
The jury found for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed.

November 25.
NEWTON V.BELCHER.
Lord DENMAN said that this was an action by a news-
paper agent for the cost of inserting advertisements for
a railway company, between September, 1845, and
January, 1846. There was a particular, specifying
dates. The items on and after the 7th of October con-
stituted the principal subject of contention. The parti-
culars did not specify the order of the 15th of October,
nor was any given between the 10th and 17th of, Oc-
tober. The defendant paid the sum of 1,000/. into court,
and the question was whether he was liable for anything
beyond that sum. The names of certain persons were
published in a prospectus as those of the provisional
committee. Joined with these names were those of a
firm of attorneys in London. The orders for these ad-
vertisements were given partly in the names
of these attorneys and partly in those of the
members of the provisional committee. The order
of the greatest importance was that which was
given on the 7th of October, purporting to come
' from these attorneys, directing the prospectus to
be inserted in the newspapers ; and under this order the
advertisements of the 15th of October were inserted.
There was some difficulty about the proof of the order of
the 7th of October, and one of these attorneys disclaimed
all knowledge of the writing ; nevertheless this order
was read in evidence by consent. As. to the insertion of
the 15th of October, there was no evidence of a validat-
ing of the order of the 7th by any direct act of the de-
fendant. But the defendant took part in the business of
the committee upon the 15th of October, and from that
time forward. When the project failed, the defendant
joined with other persons to effect a settlement of
the concerns of the company, and they employed an
attorney to draw up a statement of its affairs. This
was treated by the plaintiff as equivalent to an ad-
mission that the defendant was liable for all the
orders on and after the 15th of October. The
Judge was of opinion that that admission must be applied
to the bill of particulars which had been looked at
throughout the trial, and he restricted the amount of
damages by that document. The verdict was taken ac-
cordingly. A rule had since been obtained to set aside
that verdict, and for entering a verdict with increased
damages, on the ground that the defendant was liable
for all the advertisements inserted after the 15th of
October, under any orders given before that day. There
was no principle shown which authorised the doctrine
thus attempted to be established, that persons were to
be held liable on existing contracts, merely because they
joined a company after such contract had been made,
and the jurors by their finding had negatived that
liability, and the judge had negatived it by the way in
which he had used the bill of particulars. In the judg-
ment of the Court that doctrine could not be supported.
Upon these as well as upon other grounds, peculiar to
the case itself, the Court directed that the rule for in-
creasing the damages should be discharged.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
John Scott was charged with having in his posses-
sion two gallons of spirits which had bee►► made in an
illicit still.
The prisoner had been seen on Saturday night going
along the streets, and taking particular care to avoid the
policemen, one of whom, however (No. 584), observing
the caution with which he skimmed along with his load,
suspected that he had some peculiar reasons for meeting
with no impediment, and took the liberty of stopping
him. lie tried to get away several times, but was con-
veyed to the station-house, when the bag was found to
contain two bladders, each of which had in it a gallon of
spirits produced from molasses, about 25 or 30 above
proof, and which he refused to account for.
Mr. Rice, of the Customs, said he was sent for on
Saturday night to seize the bladders of spirits. The
prisoner had no permit or certificate of any kind to

produce.
The LORD MAYOR inflicted the penalty of 101, or im-
prisonment for one calendar month, upon the prisoner,
who preferred the latter alternative.
MARY LEBOAE.
Ebenezer Jones, who has undergone two previous ex-
aminations at this court, was again placed at the bar be-
fore Mr. Broughton. It will be remembered that the
prisoner, under a promise of marriage to a young wo-
man named Mary Anne Marshall, visited her :or some
time at the residence of her parents in Lisson•street,
Mar3lebone, and alleged that he had taken a public-
house in Caroden-town, and should no doubt do an ex-
cellent business there, as it was an old-established con-
cern. He all of a sudden ceased paying his visits, and
it was then ascertained that he had stolen from drawers,
&c., a considerable portion of wearing apparel and other
property belonging to the woman alluded to, a portion of
which he had pledged, and tickets for some of the arti-
ticks were found in his possession when he was captured
by Callahan, 134 I). It, was further shown that he had
stolen a gold watch, the property of Mrs. Bell, Milton-
st reet, Dorset-square, w here he had called and represented
that he was a house-agent, having premises to let at
I3ayswater; and had also, after sleeping at Mr. Dormer's,
Seymour-street, Euston• square, stolen a sheet, from the
bed.
Some additional evidence was now given, and the pri-
soner, who said he should reserve his defence for an-
other occasion, was fully committed for trial. He was
also recognised by an innkeeper of Leicester as having
some time ago slept at his house, setting forth that ho
was a commercial traveller, and then going off in the
morning with a suit of clothes which he had stolen from
one of the rooms.

WORSHIP-STREET.
James Smith and Joseph Goodbody, privates in the 2d
battalion of the Coldstream Guards, were charged, the
former with having knowingly uttered three counterfeit
half-crowns, and the latter with having had three similar
pieces of spurious money in his possession.
Joseph Boggis, barman at the George public-house,
High-street, Shoreditch, stated, that between six and
seven o'clock on the preceding evening the prisoners
entered the house in company with another soldier,
and called for a pot of porter at the bar,
in payment for which Smith threw down a half-
crown piece, and witness handed him the change for it,
amounting to 2s. ld. The whole party then proceeded
into the parlour, where they were served with a pot of
ale, which Smith also paid for with a second half-crown,
and again received the difference. After drinking the
ale, the prisoner Smith ordered another pot, and tendered
in payment a third half-crown to the witness, but which
he immediately perceived was a bad one, and returned it
to the prisoner, who put it into his pocket, with the ob•
servation that he had received it from the paymaster of
the regiment. Witness then examined the two pieces
he had previously received from the prisoner, and which
he had placed upon the counter, apart from any other
money, and at once discovered that both of those were
also spurious. On mentioning the circumstance to Smith,
the latter refunded the full change for one of the half-
crowns, but refused to take back the other, and denied
that he had passed it. Witness thereupon sent for a
policeman and gave the prisoners into custody.
Mr. John Dixon, a tradesman in the Hackney-road,.
and who happened to be in the parlour at the time in
question, stated, that immediately after the altercation
with the barman the prisoner Smith attempted to leave
the room, but, having been prevented by the witness, he
stealthily drew soma money from his pocket and se-
creted it under one of the benches, where three base
half-crowns were subsequently picked up. Witness at
the same moment saw something glittering the hand
of the other prisoner, and upon taking it from him
found it to be another base coin of the same description.
Police-constable Grant, G 52, stated, that upon en-
tering the room and questioning Goodbody, he pusitively
denied that ho had any more spurious coin about him,
but that upon searching his pockets he found two more
bad half-crowns, making altogether seven counterfeit
pieces in their joint pounession. Ile also found upon
Goodbody a sum of 1/. 6s. 9d., and 19s. 6d., all in good
money upon the other prisoner. The prisoner Good-
body accounted for his possession of the base coin, in
the first instance, by stating that he had received it
trom the paymaster, but afterwards alleged that he had
' taken it in exchange for good money from the other pri-
.

soner. .
Upon being called on for their defence, the prisoner