The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-04 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Sept. 2

GERARD, BART. V. CROSSFIELD AND OTHERS.
This was another action by Sir John Gerard agains,
the defendants, who are alkali manufacturers, near St.
Helens, to recover compensation for the injury sustained
by the plaintiff's estate in consequence of the vapours
arising in the course of the manufacture. The case was
similar to that tried yesterday, of " Gerard v. Muspratt,"
and the evidence almost precisely the same. A verdict
was finally returned for the plaintiff—Damages, 4001.
The amount of damage which, on the plaintiff's case, it
was calculated. the woods had sustained from the de-
fendants' works was upwards of 3,0001.
Mr. Martin, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Cowling, for the
plaintiff; Mr. Baines, Mr. Brandt, and Mr. Atherton, for
the defendants.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

Thomas James, a letter-carrier, was charged with
stealing half a sovereign from a post-office letter.
The letter in question had been posted at the Bishops-
gate-street receiving-house by a clerk of the London
Docks, and a constable at the General Post-office de-
tected the prisoner in the act of destroying it, and found
half a sovereign in his waistcoat pocket.
The prisoner, who denied all knowledge of the letter,
was remanded.
Mr. HENRY expressed his surprise that the public did
not now prefer the safer method of transmitting money
by post-office orders; upon which
Mr. Peacock (the Post-office solicitor) observed that,
by a recent regulation, post-office orders may be had at
nearly every receiving-house in London.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Joseph Dodge, a young man of rather smart appear-
ance, recently employed as assistant-secretary to a loan
society at Kingsland, was placed at the bar before Mr.
Broughton, charged with creating a disturbance, and
using violent and threatening language at the house of
Mr. Charles Durham, a gentleman residing in Pleasant-
place, Hackney.
It appeared from the statement of the prosecutor, who
gave his evidence with visible emotion, that in the early
part of the present year an unfortunate intimacy had been
clandestinely commenced between the prisoner, who was
a married man, and the witness'edaughter, a young lady,
only eighteen years of age, which resulted in her elope-
ment from home in June last. After a few weeks she
was left in a boarding-house in the Rue de Coigny, at
Boulogne. The prisoner, after effecting her ruin, had
remained with her at that house, where they assumed
the name of De la Porte, until all their means were ex-
hausted, and a heavy bill contracted, when he suddenly
abandoned her. Since her restoration to her family
every means had been adopted to prevent a renewal of
the intercourse, which witness believed to have been
fully effected, until the preceding evening, when, on re-
turning home, he was informed by his daughter that the
prisoner had just left the house, after using the most
alarming threats to induce her to renew the intimacy.
The poor girl was dreadfully distressed and agitated,
and while endeavouring to tranquillise her mind, he was
disturbed by a violent knocking at the door, at which he
fiaind the prisoner, who demanded admittance, which
witness refused and closed the door, upon which he made
his way round to the rear of the premises, and having
scaled the garden wall, kept up a constant knocking at
the back door until the arrival of a policeman, when he
was given into custody.
Mrs. Ann Stockweller, a married lady, residing next
door to the prosecutor, stated that in the early part of
the evening she saw the prisoner at the street door in
conversation with that gentleman's daughter, and heard
her exclaim, " For God's sake go away, or I shall go
mad." To which the prisoner vehemently replied, that
unless she consented to accompany him he was deter-
mined to fire the house.
On being asked by the Magistrate if he wished to
give any answer to the charge of molesting the prose-
cutor's family, the prisoner, with groat effrontery, re-
plied that his visit was quite justifiable, as he had gone
by appointment, and that the previous statement of the
father was much exaggerated, as he owed no debts at
Boulogne when he left the young lady and returned to
this country.
Mr. BROUCTITON severely reprehended the prisoner's
conduct, which displayed as great a degree of heartless
depravity as had ever come under his notice ; and said
that as he considered it necessary to take the most ef-
fectual means to secure the future protection of his un-
happy victim and her father, he should require the
prisoner to enter into his own recognizance in ROL, and
find two sureties in 50/., to be of good behaviour for the
next six months, and 24 hours' notice must be given to
ascertain the sufficiency of the hail.
LAMBETH.
_

W. Carter Willoughby Hellier, a fish salesman at Bil-
lingsgate, appeared before Mr. Elliott, to answer to a
summons taken out against him by Hanningham, an
inspector on the South-Eastern Railway, which charged
him with attempting to defraud the company of 125., and
for which offence he was liable, under the company's
Act, to a penalty of 40s.
John Trewriu, a ticket collector at the Bricklayers'
Arms station, deposed that on the night of Sunday
week, in collecting the tickets of the ten o'clock train,
he found the defendant and two other persons seated in
a second-class carriage, though they had but third-class
tickets. On their refusing to pay witness the difference
of fare, he took them before the superintendent of the
station.
Mr. George Weekly, a clerk in the company's em-
ployment, stated that the defendant was at first very
abusive, but ultimately offered to pay 125., the difference
of his own and that of the two other persons' fares,
provided be were allowed till the following morning, as
he had no money about him. On leaving his card, and
promising to call the following morning and pay the
money, witness allowed him to go. He did call on
Tuesday, but only offered to pay half the money.
Mr. Hellier, in reply to the charge, said, that on the
evening of Sunday week he procured a third-class ticket
at Ramsgate for town, and having done so got into what
he at the time considered an excellent carriage. On
arriving at Ashford, however, he and others were
peremptorily ordered out and desired to get into another
train. The crowd was here so pressing and the con-
fusion so great, that there was the greatest possible dif-
ficulty in obtaining any seat at all. While the bell was
being rung, and a number of passengers unprovided
with places, a policeman belonging to the company
opened the door of one of the carriages, and called out
that there was room there for three, and he (defendant),
an old man and his daughter, who had accompanied him
from Ramsgate, got into the vacant places. In fact, so
great was the confusion, that he had no choice whatever
between getting into the carriage opened for him or
being left behind, and therefore what he had done was

from necessity, not choice. The change, he begged to
assure his worship, from a third to a second-class car-
riage was by no means an improvement; on the con-
trary, that which he bad left was vastly more comfort-
able than the one he had got into, and altogether he
considered the attempt to get from him more money
nothing less than an imposition. If, however, the magis-
trate should order him to pay the additional fare, he
should do so both for himself and the poor man and his
daughter.

gr. Weekly here read from the Company's printed
time-table a caution to be observed in changing from the
branch carriages to those on the regular line, and said it
was quite impossible the defendant could mistake the
difference between the second and third-class carriages,
as the latter were open and uncovered, while the former
were perfectly enclosed.
The defendant declared that this was not the fact. The
carriage he got into at Ramsgate was a "Parliamentary"
carriage, roofed in, and infinitely more agreeable and
comfortable, as he had before stated, than what was now
called the second class vehicle on the regular line.
Mr. ELLIOTT inquired if there were compartments
railed off on the line at the stations, as on the Great
Western, for the different class passengers ; for if so he
did not see how a passenger could make the mistake of
going to a second instead of a third-class carriage?
Mr. Weekly replied that there was no such regulation
at Ashford, as the number of branch trains and passengers
meeting there precluded the possibility of adopting it.
Mr. ELLIOTT observed that under the circumstances,
and the carriages of the second and third-class being
somewhat similar, such a mistake as that mentioned by
the defendant might be made. It was, however, quite
clear that, by his own undertaking, he had rendered
himself liable to pay the difference of the fares, amount-
ing to 12s. The company did not wish to press for a
penalty ; and if, therefore, the defendant paid the 125., as
he promised to do, there was an end of the case.
The defendant declared that from first to last the
difference in the fare was not the object that actuated him
in refusing to pay. He would now bow to the magis-
trates decision by paying 12s, and costs.