The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-19 00:00:00

1110,P.NING, J.A.NUARY 19,. 1846.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 16.
CHRIST'S HOSPITAL V. GRAINGER AND OTIIERS.

The arguments in this part-heard—aileal;;;;esumed
and concluded to-day.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the argu-
ments, said he would give judgment on Wednesday next.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 17.
His Lordship sat at ten o'clock, and proceeded with the
hearing of the remaining petitions.

SICIPWORTII V. SKIPWORTII.
This was a petition praying that an order which bad been
obtained in this cause, on the ground of informality and initif-
ficiency of evidence, might be discharged. The case occu-
pied the greater portion of the day, and was quite devoid of
public interest,

COUR7' OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 17.
• (Sittings in Banco at Westminster Hall.)
ROBERT C.C.IIII3ELL, V. TiIIi'QUEEN IN ERROR.
In this case it appeared that the traverser was tried and
convicted at the Chester Assizes of petty larceny, and steal.
ing above five pounds, and was sentenced to ten years' trans-
portationi, motion in arrest of judgment having bean
made, thfcase was now argued in error, and Counsel con-
tended that if any portion of the ten years' sentence applied
to the petty larceny, the sentence could not be carried into
effect ; and there was nothing in the record to show that the
sentence applied to the felony only. The jury had made no
distinction between the two offences, and, tkerefore, it was to
be presumed that both offences were included in the convic-
tion ; and if so, the sentence of transportation could not
apply to the larceny. The case is one which is likely to
occupy the attention of the Court fur the greater part of
the day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 17.
(Sittings in Banco.)
FARRINGTON v. FARRINGTON.
This was an action of assumpsit for money due on an ac-
count stated. The plaintiff and defendant were brothers, and
co-sureties t• a promissory note, dated the 10th of April,
1844, which was given to. a Mrs. Stow, as a s.ecur;ty for 4001.
which she had advanced to the father of the plaintiff and de-
fendant. The father died in the September following, and
Mrs. How compelled the plaintiff, who was the sole
executor of his father, to pay the whole of
the 4001. as the _ surety, and the present action
was brought to induce to defendant to refund to the plaintiff
a clear half of that amount, the father having died insolvent.
On the trial the jury could. come to no decision, and a verdict
was taken for the plaintiff, with ;leave to move the Court
above to confirm it. Mr. Hill accordingly obtained a rule
❑isi to confirm it, and Mr. Humfrey now appeared to show
cause against it. The Learned Counsel urged that the
money was advanced for the use of the plaintiff; and that in
fact the father never received a penny of the 4001. This was
proved by Mrs. Stow herself, and he contended that instead
of the plaintiff having a verdict he ought to be non-
suit ed. .

HILL, on the other side, submitted that the verdict
ought not to be disturbed, because the spirit of the evidence
went to show that the father received the money, and after-
wards presented it to his eldest son, who was the plaintiff.
This gift did not alter the nature of the legal contract be-
tween the parties, and hence the case involved no matter of
equity but a dry point of law. Now, according to the cases
bearing upon the question,. tho defendant was bound to pay
his moiety of the 4001., and he trusted their Lordships would
confirm the verdict.

(The case had not closed when our report left.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 17.
SIMMONS V. MILLINGEN.

Mr. Sergeant Byles appeared this morning against a rule
to sLew cause why a verdict for damages obtained by the
plaintiff against the defendant should not be set aside. The
defendant, Mr. Millingen, is a gentleman residing in White
Lion-street, within the limits of the metropolitan police, and
the plaintiff, Mrs. Simmons, is a parasol maker. The de-
fendant it was alleged, owed the plaintiff a sum of money,
who went one Sunday morning, at church tine, and asked
for it, declaring that she would not leave till she was paid.
She rang the bell violently at the time, besides knocking at
the door loudly. The defendant said he was about to put on
his boots to go out, and that if she did not leave by the time
he had put them on, he would give her in charge. She did
not leave, and a policemon was called and she was taken into
custody, and kept at the station for three hours, when she
was liberated on bail. On Monday she appeared be-
fore the magistrate, and was discharged. She then
brotight an action against Mr Millingen for false
imprisoment which was tried last term, and she received 40s.
damages. Mr. Chadwick, on the part of defendant,
afterwards moved for a rule to set aside the verdict, on the
plea of excessive damages, and that the defendant was doing
nothing more than he was justified in doing, according to
the provisions of the Metropolitan Police Act. The Learned
Sergeant in behalf of the plaintiff, and against the rule,
went at considerable length into the provisions of the Police
Act, to show that its conditions had not been complied with,
as sections 54 and 63 provided that no constable could take
any person into custody without a warrant, for any of the
offences enumerated in these sections, the violently ringing
of a bell, or loud knocking at door, so as to cause annoy-
ance, being among them, unless the offence was committed
within view of the constable. This had not been the cast
in the present instance. According to section 66, it is further
provided that the owner of a house or his servant may give a
person into custody for such offence, if the party be found
committing the offenee. Now, there had been no evidence
advanced of this having been te case. On these grounds he
maintained the rule should be discharged.
Mr. CHADWICK replied at some length, endeavouring to
show that the sections referred to had been substantially com-
plied with, as the person had comtnitted the trespass within
the hearing of the master of the house, who, on immediately
opening the door, found the plaintiff there. That, coupled
with the manner of the plaintiff, could lead to no doubt that
she had been found committing the offence for which she
was taken into custody.
Their LORDSHIPS decided that on reviewing the whole
arguments with the evidence adduced on the trial, they did
tot think the pleas of the defendant had been sustained, and
that the rule should be discharged.
Rule discharged accordingly.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 17.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
TILE QUEEN V. THE REV. JOSIAH BARTLETT.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not be filed against
the Rev. Josiah Bartlett, the officiating minister of
Ivington, 'in Leominster, the chaplain of Leomin-
ster Union, &c., fur a scandalous libel he had cans: d
to be published against a lady—his sister-in-law.
The details of the case were of a private
and somewhat disagreeable nature, and they would never
have been made public, but for the fact that a paragraph had
appeared in a newspaper, which rendered this application
necessary.
The Learned Gentleman then read a very voluminous
correspondence which had taken place between the parties,
and in which the alleged libel or libels were contained.—
Rule granted.

CONS ISTO RY COURT, Jan. 17.
LADY WALSCoTT V. LORD WALSCOTT.
This is a suit brought by Lady Walscott against her
husband, for a divorce, on the alleged ground of adultery
and cruelties. The parties were married in 1822, and
cohabited until June, 1845, several children being the
issue of the marriage. During the cohabitation in Eng-
land, in Ireland, and on the Continent, a variety of acts
of cruelty, of adultery, of solicitations of virtue, &c., are
pleaded. In short, from_ the commencement of the coha-
bitation down to the separation, acts of the nature stated
were of constant occurrence as pleaded, and further-
more, as asserted, that the husband had contracted a
certain disease, so long back as 1825. It was also pleaded
that the Noble Lcrd aeted.with cruelty to t';e children,
in order the more to annoy the wife. The question now
t,,e admissibility of the libel offered on the part of
Lady Walscott.
On the part of the Noble Lord a general c'enial was
4iven, and condonation pleaded of those errors that may
have been committed.

The LEARNED JUDGE (Dr. Lushington), after hear-
ing counsel on both sides, held the libel to be admissible
after reformation. The Court was bound to protect a
wife in all cases like this, but it could not go the length
of admitting evidence of acts of cruelty to the children
to prove cruelty to the wife. Nor could the Court hold
that the Noble Lord having compelled his daughters to
perform menial duties in the house as material, although
it might ke corroborative proof. The libel must be re-
formed, and then admitted to proof.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
TIIE ALLEGED ROBBERY OF LENDERS OF ALLOTMENT.—
Robert Thompson, charged with having stolen a letter of
allotment of forty shares in the British and Irish Union Rail-
way Company, and a banker's receipt for 1201., paid as a
deposit on the shares, which were at the time in the market
at 3/. premium, was brought before the Lord Mayor for
further examination.
It was obvious that Capel-court, and the neighbouring
places of resort for casual speculators, had poured its masses
into the Mansion-house to witness the exhibition.
on
edro stoleum e
int t.
tehaoxada(wiemahh enceriani
ti
worth
anosr
of
fha shares26‘o‘ "outside,"
ot
himi d e,e a t whothe thesttiamteedthtehaptris
Mr. Humphreys appeared for Mr. Hitchin, the prosecutor,
ttthaee
hperdi sotnheer, the
ki
edre,ns t irceacleliepttt efroor fla2l
120/.,allotment ott,male
and
Mr. Humphreys said he had received, since the last
which had been stolen from Mr. Hitchin.
The priso'ner's solicitor objected to the production of the
receipt without the production of all the witnesses to it. The
production of the receipt was calculated to prove the validity
of the defence rather than strengthen the case for the pro-
secution.
Mr. Hitchin, examined by Mr. Humphreys, said that the
letter of allotment and receipt produced were those which lie
had given to the prisoner when the prisoner called upon him
with a pretended authority from Mr. Gibbons, also a share-
dealer, to apply for the documents. Witness had applied to
Messrs. Dean and Dunlop. the London agents of the railway
establishment, to send to Scotland for them, and immediate
attention was paid to the request.
The prisoner's solicitor (having examined the papers pro-
duced) said the letter was no letter of allotment at all.
Mr. Humphreys—We don't tare anything about any
letter of allotment. The banker's receipt, which there cannot
be the least doubt was a valuable paper, is everything.
The prisoner's solicitor—That is not your client's property
at all. The shares were allotted to the Rev. Mr. Fletcher. I
have to request that the Lord Mayor will postpone the case
for a week, in consequence of some heavy engagements which
press upon my time and prevent me from giving at present
the attention to this case which it requires.
The Lottn MAYOR consented to postpone the final exami-
nation till Friday next, but intimated that he should then
com mit the prisoner fur trial at the Central Criminal Court.
Vicrisusmo TAVERNS.— William Thompson, alias Burgess,
was charged with having feasted expensively in several
taverns and eating-houses at the cost of the waiters.
The prisoner is a very notorious fellow about town for
bilking public-houses of all kinds. It was stated by several
policemen, that he had been thirty or forty times before the
Magistrates, upon charges of running scores, and that mul-
titudes of complainants had declined to take the trouble to
appear against him on account of the ridicule to which they
supposed they would have been subjected.
The prisoner having been put to the bar, desired, in an
authoritative voice, that all the witnesses against him should
go out of Court, so that one should not be able to guide him-
self by the evidence of another.
The first charge was that the prisoner had dined heartily
upon turkeys, tarts, and stout, and was sneaking out when
the waiter, suspecting that he had stolen a silver spoon or
fork, seized him and searched him. No property of any
kind was found upon him. Another case presented him
sitting down at the Baltic Coffee-house, at six o'clock, to
mock-turtle, rump-steak, arid a jorum of stout, and brandy
and water. He had entered independently enough, but as
his appetite became appeased he exhibited a certain kind of
uneasiness which did not escape the keen eye of the waiter,
who collared him as he was sliding towards the door, but

was obliged to submit to the plunder, as the police refused
to take the charge. In a third case the prisoner made the
landlord of a tavern in the Old Jewry a victim, having de-
posited a large quantity of rump-steaks, stout, bread and
cheese, and brandy and water, without paying a farthing for
the accommodation.

The LORD MAYOR expressed his astonishment that land-
lords and waiters did not keep good strong whips in " their
houses, and whip such fellows as the prisoner, until they made
them dance to their own roaring.—(Laughter.)
The prisoner—l insist upon it that I have been illegally
detained, and that the waiter who made the first charge had
no right to accuse me of stealing. Every one knows that,
after all, the thing is nothing but a mere small amount of
debt, and I am willing to pay.
The LORD Kivoit—When ? -The prisoner—Oh, as soon
as possible, of course.—( Laughter.) I must say, however,
that I deny the Old Jewry debt altogether. I acknowledge
the two other debts, and I shall pay due attention to them;
but your Lordship knows as well as myself that these in-
dividuals have all along been acting illegally. Nobody is
justified in detaining me here or elsewhere. There seems
to be no respect for the laws in this place at all.—( Laughter.)
The LOAD MAYOR—I shall see whether we can't find some
law to meet you. If we cannot, then we must endeavour to
procure one for you. In the mean time I shall remand you
for a week.

The prisoner--I protest against any remand. It is against
the spirit and the letter of the law.

The Loin MAYOR—Take him away. I hope the tavern
keepers will get a likeness of this fellow to hang up in their
houses, and 1 hope, too, they will keep each a good whip in
the bar to lay across his shoulders, to enable him to digest
his dinner, or to prepare him for one if he should be previously
detected.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS.
MANCHESTER, JAN. 16.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Blackburn, Darwen,
and Bolton, New, % p.—Chester and Manchester Direct,
12s. dis.—Dudley, Ironbridge, and Sheffield, %
Doncaster, Sheffield, &c., 214 p.—Grand Union, 14 p.—Hud-
derstield and Sheffield Junction, 15 p.—Leicester and Bir-
mingham, 14 p.—Manchester, Buxton, and Matlock, 2 p.—
Manchester and Southampton, 1% p..--North Eastern, 14
dis.—North Staffordshire, 314 p.—Ncittingliam and Boston,
dis.—Nottingham, Erewash, and Ambergate, 1/2 p.-7Shef
field and Manchester, Quarters, No; 1, 61/2. p.—Shrewsbury
and I3irminghani, 1 p.—Shropshire Union, 3s. 6d. p.—Trent
Valley Continuation and Holyhead, % dis.—Trent
Midland, and Grand Junction, 14- p.—West Lancashire
Coast, par—West Riding Union, 43/4 p.
LEEDS, JAN.. 16.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—East Lancashire, No.,
2 (late Accrington), 41/i p.—Great Grimsby and Sheffield,
10,4—Huddersfield and Sheffield, 21%—Leeds and Brad-
ford, 6214—Liverpool and Bury, New, 234 p.—Newcastle
and Berwick, 2314—North British, New Carlisle Branch,
31. 18,—North Wales, 1414—Liverpool, Ormskirk, and Pres-
ton, 4 %—West Riding Union, 63/4—Chelmsford and Bury, 31.
Is.—Grand Union, 2s. 6d. p.—Lancashire and North York-
shire, 20s. p.—Lancashire, Yorkshire, and North Eastern,
9s. dis.—Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland, 225. 6d. p.—Man-
cheater, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland, 214 p.—Northum-
berland and Lancashire Junction, 10s. dis.—North Western,
3—Nottingham and Boston, ss. p.—Nottingham. Erewash,
and Ambergate, 55. 6d. p.—Nottingham and Grantham, ss. p.
—Shropshire Union, 5a p.—Wakefield and Bradford, 6s. dis.