The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-07 00:00:00

THE SUN,. LONDON,

KNICHIT V. THORNTON.

This was an action on a policy of insurance effected
on the freight of a vessel called the Puseyhall, of which
the plaintiffs were the owners. The policy in this case
was to the amount of 1,000/.; the voyage, on which the
freight was to be insured, was a voyage to the coast of
Patagonia for guano, and the vessel had been wrecked
in July, 1846. The defendant pleaded that the policy on
freight had never attached, that the ship was not in a
sea-going state at the time of the commencement of the
risk, there not being a sufficient quantity of provisions
on board, that the captain had gone out of his course,
and that the vessel had been employed for other purposes
than those contemplated by the policy. The cause was
tried at the last sittings la:lore Lord Denman, when, on
the ground that the captain had ben guilty of deviation,
the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE now moved fJr a rule to show
cause why this verdict should not be set aside on the
ground that it was against the evidence. He went
into a full statement of the facts to establish his objet.
tion, but
_ _

The COURT thought the jury warranted in drawing
such a conclusion, and on that point refused the rule.

BAIL COURT, ;Vol,. 6.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
THE QUEEN V. ADAMS.

Mr. 11. HILL, on behalf of Mr. Adams, an attorney,
of the borough of Totnes, applied for a certiorari to
remove into this court an indictment preferred against
him for stealing a poor-rate book. It appeared that a
Mr. Buckland had instructed Mr. Adams to appeal
against a certain poor-rate. Fur the purpose of pre•
paring the necessary documents it became necessary for
him to inspect the rate book. With this view he called
at the house of the overseer, who happened at that time
to be from home. His wife informed him that he had
gone to Torquay, and had taken the rate-book with him;
but she showed him one f,r the year 1847, which Mr.
Adams said was of no u-e for his purpose. On a subse-
quent day he called again at the house of the overseer,
when the latter charged him with having taken away the
rate book. Mr. Adams stated in his affidavit that he
had really never seen the rate-book in quistion. Pro-
' ceedings were taken against him tefore the magistrates,
who being equally divided in opinion upon the subject,
no decision was come to by them. At the last quarter-
sessions, however, an indictment had been preferred
against him for stealing the rate•boek, and the bill had
been found. The matter had been much discussed in
the public newspapers of that part of the country, and
much party feeling had been excite I in consequence,
which was calculated to produce a most unrair prejudice
against him. Mr. Adams, therefore, wished t,) have
the case removed into a superior court, where he could
have the assistance of eminent counsel who would be at
the asiizes.—Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 6.
(Siftings in Banco.)
CORY V. THE NORFOLK RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an anion for money had and received to
recover the deposits which the plaintiff hid paid to the
defendants, in consideration of his (the plaintiff's) having
secured to him certain railway shares, bearing a guaran7
teed yearly interest of 51. per cent. out of the net profit
of the railway company.
It appeared at the trial at the last Surrey Assizes,
before Chief Baron Pollock, that the Norfolk Railway
Company and the Waveney Valley and Great Yarmouth
Railway Company, on the 21st of October, 1846, agreed
together to apply to Parliament for an Act to make a
line of railway from Reedham to Diss, the two com-
panies having previously been unsuccessful in separate
applications for the same purpose. The arrangements
forarrying
On
the
joint intention were left to the dis-
cretion
of the Norfolk Company directors; and, in
order to raise the necessary capital, they were to create
new stock or
subscriptions for snunr
shares,a bearing a guaranteed interest of
51. per cent. per
proper powers and to commence from the day of the
provisions
It was also agreed that all
re enitiiatlniedentto,
Bill to applied for°tovit's should be inserted in the
ing the eargeraeuta agreed upon into effect. The
necessarysubfieribe
for
rr
20,000
shares
Company
Waveney Company we
13, and
ebsubject by the
shares of 201. each in the said capital.
October, 1846, the secretary thenf
, ityLenthve order of
On the 27th of
having been previously written to
secretary to the Norfolk Company,
his directors, wrote to each shareholder,
arrangement, and statinr, expressly that the capital
the
to be raised by Norfolk Extension slew share uaW"
.teed at 5.. per cent. per annum in perpetuity, tog breal.
is-
sued to the holders of shares in both companies, &c. Th
plaintiffs, as one of the Waveney shareholders, adopted
the arrangement as to the raising of the capital, and in
1 a few days after replied that he would accept 500 shares
in the new line upon the terms proposed; and subse-
quently the plaintiff paid 8171. 6s. upon these shares,
being a doosit of 30s. per share, and executed the par-
liamentary contract, Toe parliamentary contract recitc-cl
the objects of the union of the two companies, and,
amongst other matters, contained a stipulation to the
effect that the members of the Waveney Company
were to be shareholders in the said joint undertaking,
upon condition of a fixed guaranteed rate of in-
terest of 51. per cent. out of the net profits of the
Norfolk Company if the same were sufficient, and
gubjeCt to such provisions, regulations, and restrictions,

as Parliament might think proper to enact or impose
with reference to the chute or clauses agreed to be in-
serted in the Bill for guaranteeing the 5/. per cent. in-
terest to the shareholders of the Waveney Company.
At the time of entering into this contract the Norfolk
Company's own Act, by its 20th section, provided that
after the first of July, 1845, all profits of the Norfolk
line should be divided amongst the shareholders of that
line rateably, thus having the effect of rendering the
above contract impracticable on the part of that com-
pany. Subsequently, the Act of Parliament for carry-
ing out the joint undertaking was obtained ; but in that
Act there was a clause providing that the new shares
should be subject to all the provisions in the before-men-
tioned Act incorporating the Norfolk Company, except
in so far as those provisions might be modified by the
provisions next therein contained, which latter provi-
sions only applied to the apportioning of the new shares
to such shareholders only as had executed the subscrip-
tion contract according to the number of shares sub-
scribed for. But it appeared that in the Bill before
Parliament there was a clause providing for the gua-
rantee of 5/. per cent., but only until the completion of
the new line, and not in perpetuity. That clause,
however, was rejected before the Bill passed into an
Act.

Under these circumstances the plaintiff contended that
there had been a total failure of the consideration on
which he had paid his deposits, and, therefore, that he
was entitled to recover the amount back, in an action for
money had and received. The Lord Chief Baron, at the
trial, however, nonsuited the plaintiff, on the ground,
first, that as under the new Act of Parliament for carry-
ing out the joint scheme, the plaintiff became entitled to
be a shareholder in the joint undertaking, the considera-
tion had not wholly faile.l. And, secondly, that the
Parliamentary contract had been entered into subject to
any regulations, &c., that Parliament might make; and
as Parliament had chosen not to sanction the guarantee
arrangement, the plaintiff could not complain.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE to-day moved for a rule nisi, to
set aside the nonsuit entered, contending that under the
circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the
present action for money had and received.—The Court
granted the rule.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 6.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE DUTY ON BRICKS. - THE ATTORNEY• GENERAL V.

WALKER.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to show
cause why a new trial should not be had in this case,
which is one of considerable importance to builders,
agriculturists, and others, who use bricks for draining
and other purposes, on the ground of misdirection.
An information had been exhibited against the de-
fendant to recover certain penalties for infringing
the Acts of the 2d and 3d Victoria, which,
for the purpose of promoting drainage, exempted
bricks so used from the payment of the usual duty.
The defendant had built several small bridges, or cul-
verts, over some drains he had constructed at Bard-
❑ey, in Lincolnshire, and it was contended, on the part
of the Crown, that this was a violation of the Act. The
action was brought not for the purpose of putting the
defendant to great expense, nor to recover exorbitant
penalties from him, but in order to obtain a clear ex-
position of the meaning of the Act. The Learnt d Judge
who tried the case laid it down that the bridges were
part of the drain, and that the bricks used were exempt
from the payment of the duty. To this the jury as-
sented, and found for the defendant. The Attorney-
General held that the ruling of the Judge and decision
of the jury were wrong.
The COURT granted a rule.
LAMPORT V. THISTLETHWAITE.
_ _ _

Mr. CROWDER moved in this case fora new trial, on
the ground of excessive damages. The action was
brought for the plaintiff's services in mapping a large
estate belonging to the defendant, situated in Hamp-
shire. It appeared at the trial, that the plaintiff was a
young man in the service of the defendant's bailiff, a
Mr. Hodder, at a salary of eighteen shillings a week;
and in his leisure hours he employed himself during a
period of two years in surveying and mapping an estate
of the defendant's, consisting of about 8,000 acres. The
defendant denied that he had employed the plaintiff at
all, but the finding of the jury determined that ques-
tion, and the only point was, whether the allowance
awarded by the jury was not excessive. It appeared
that one shilling per acre was the charge of the first rate
surveyor for mapping an estate, and out of that sum the
surveyor found chainmen and other assistants, and paid
all expenses, so that his profit did not exceed in any
case ninepence per mile. In this instance the plaintiff
was at no expense, for he was assisted by the de-
fendant's workmen, and the jury awarded him 4001.,
which was as nearly as possible a shilling per mile. If
this verdict stood, the plaintiff would receive more than
any other surveyor, and in point of fact he was no sur-
veyor at all.
The CHIEF BARON suggested that as the defendant
denied his liability altogether, that circumstance may
have influenced the jury in awarding so large a sum for
the plaintiff's services.

Mr. CROWDER believed it was so.
The CHIEF BeuoN—Take a rule to show cause.
GOYMOUR V. BUSSELL.

This was an action against a magistrate for assault
and false imprisonment, tried before Mr. Justice,Maule
at the last assizes for Suffolk, when a verdict was taken
for the plaintiff, with 201. damages. _ _

Mr. (MALLEy now moved for a rule to show cause
why there should not be a new trial. According to the
Learned Counsel's statement, the plaintiff had been in
the defendant's service as bailiff, and was discharged
under circumstances which caused some litigation be-
tween the parties. After his discharge, however, the
plaintiff persisted in coming to the defendant's premises,
and it was suspected by the defendant's servants that
on some of these occasions he had taken some articles
which were removed from the defendant's yard, and
thrown into en adjoining sink. The plaintiff was
give❑ into the custody of a constable on this charge,
but it was shortly afterwards withdrawn, and he
was discharged, and for this imprisonment the present
action was brought. The defendant pleaded " not guilty
by statute," and it was contended on the trial that he
acted bona fide in his character of a justice of the peace,
and was entitled to notice of action. The plaintiff's
counsel, on the other hand, submitted that there was no
pretence for saying the defendant acted is his magisterial
capacity. The Learned Judge left the question of bona
fides to the jury, saying "that if they thought the defend-
ant acted in his character of magistrate, the verdict
should be for him; but as he was not certain whether he
ought to leave that question to the jury on the evidence,
he directed them to assess their damages, to prevent the
cause coming down again for trial." The jury retired and
the next cause was proceeded with, and during its pro-
gress the jury in this case returned, and were asked as
usual if they found for plaintiff or defendant, and the
foreman answered " for the plaintiff, 201. damages," and
the verdict was so entered. In the course ot a few mi-
nutes the jury again returned into court, and stated that
there had been some mistake, that they had only stated
the sum at which they assessed the damage, and ex-
pected to have been asked if they found the defendant
had acted bona fide as a magistrate, which question they
had resolved to answer in the affirmative. This intima-
tion was conveyed to the Learned Judge, who declined
to interfere, and the verdict stocd for the plaintiff. There
was now an affidavit made by nine of the jurymen, de-
posing to the facts, and the, Learned Counsel submitted
that these facts showed there had been a miscarriage of
justice, which the court should interpose to prevent by
granting a new trial.
The CHIEF BARON said the Court would inquire from
Mr. Justice Maule if he thought there had been any
miscarriage of justice.
Mr. O'MALLEY did not anticipate that a reference to
the Learned Judge would much assist the Court, but the
affidavits he now tendered clearly proved that the verdict
was contrary to the intentions ot the jury.
Mr. Baron PARSE—Upon your own statement it does
not appear there was any pretence for saying the de-
fendant acted in his magisterial character.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON—The jury seemed to have
given a right verdict by mistake.—(A laugh.)
The CHIEF BARON—We shall consult the Learned
Judge who tried the cause before we determine whether
we sh.ll grant a rule.—Judgment postponed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-ST.REET.
COMMITTAL OF RECEIVER AND THIEF. - Joseph
Edward Buck, porter t:) Mr. Leach, printer, Greek-
street, Soho, and John Huddart, grocer, Owen-street,
Soho, were brought before Mr. Bingham, the first
charged with having stolen a ream of music paper, the
property of Charles James Jeffreys, music publisher,
21, Soho-square, and the latter with having received the
paper, well knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. Jeffreys said the prisoner was porter to his music
printer, and had been in the habit of f tching the paper
on which the music was printed from his shop for the last
two years. The prisoner came the previous day for
some p• per, and prosecutor noticed as he was going out
of the shop that he had two reams on his shoulder.
Having a suspicion that something was wrong, he went
out after the prisoner, and crossed over the square out of
the prisoner's view. The prisoner turned round and
looked back at the shop several times, as if to see
whether he was watched. He then went down a street
not in the direction of Greek-street, and prosecutor lost
sight of him. Prosecutor immediately went to Mr. Leach's
shop in Greek street, and waited in the passage for
the arrival of the prisoner.. After a short delay the
prisoner made his appearance, but as he had only one
iss snahoeaunld?e,r,
,pfrhoesepcuritsoornecralplerdomouptt—ly
a,r,enwasmwhearotefdd,pose,p,seciarlhlo,
nythohtu mean about the other ream of
paper; I have just dropped a ream in the street, and I
knowing taken into
where
hae
r s tradesman'sthepaper
sahmopg.o”i
ng
was, and the prisoner then begged for mercy on account
Prosecutorh aek fo
r insisted as
it w
on as
of his family. The prisoner admitted that he had sold
the paper to Huddart. Prosecutor accompanied the
prisoner to Huddart's shop, and there found Huddart
serving a customer. On telling him what he came there
for, and asking him if he knew the prisoner Buck, the
prisoner Huddart said he knew the prisoner, and then
pushing away a tub, he produced the ream of paper,
which, he said, had just been left at his shop. Prosecu-
tor asked him how ho could encourage such a system of
theft. The prisoner begged he would walk into a back
said as they were coamtillg
room and talk over the matter. Prosecutor refused, and
called in a constable, and gave both prisoners into cus-
tody.
mess. Huddartyfurthertostwaaterddstthhaet
_e The paper was worth about 15s.
The police-constable who t Huddart into custody,
tool:
Another constableuck
dart swore bitter]
in Huddart's shop,
pack pounds of sugar in. for bringing him into. such
police-courth he
had in Hd
ud-
dart
per lb. for the paper.
producedwhic a quantity of paper found
h he had principally used to
Mr. Jeffreys said he had not the least doubt that this
paper had also been stolen from his warehouse.
Huddart denied any guilty knowledge of the paper
baying been stolen,

Buck was fully committed, as was IluVa7t; but bail
to be taken in thr_ latter case.

WORSHIP-STREET.

ELOPEMENT AND ROBBERY.—A young man, named
'J/wmas Hall, was placed a: the bar before Mr. II
charged with having stolen a quantity of wcarilv
apparel and other articles, the pronerty of Mr. Charlei
E'ox, an ear:hcnwttre-dealer, in Red Lion-street, Kings-
land.

The prosecutor, who gave his evidence with consider-
able
emotion, stated that upon returning home on Satur-
day evening, he found no one there but his two children,
who were crying bitterly, and ascertained from them
that their mother had packed up a quantity of property
in two or three bundles, and gone off with it. Oa search-
ing the place he found that, in addition to the whole of
her own wearing apparel, numerous article's belonging
to himself had also been taken ; and feeling satisfied
that she had abandoned her home with the prisoner, who
had been teen in communication with her upon numerous
occasions during the prosecutor's absence, he proceeded
at once to his lodgings, where he found them together,
with the whole of the missing property, and having re-
proached his wife with her unnatural conduct in aban-
doninz her children in that manner without producing
any effect upon her feelings, he called in a policeman and
gave the prisoner into custody.
Upon being called upon for his defence, the prisoner,
with the most imperturbable coolness, replied that in the
course of his conversation with the wife before she left
her home, he particularly warned her of the conse-
quences that must ensue if she abstracted any property
belonging to her husband; but she positively assured
him. when he questioned her as to the contents of the
bundles she had brought with her, that they solely con
sisted of her own personal clothing, and he remained
under that impression until the abrupt entrance of her
husband, who claimed them as his property.
The prisoner was ordered to be remanded, but the
magistrate consented to accept substantial bail for his
future appearance.
ATTEMPTED SUICIDE IN THE CELLS.—In the course
of the morning a determined attempt at self-destruc-
tion was made by a lad, named George Jervis, seven-
teen years of age, whom the magistrate had re-
manded to afford time for inquiries to be made re-
specting the ownership of a quantity of horsehair which
had been discovered in his possession. He had only,
however, been locked up a few minutes in one of the
cells when Alderman, the gaoler, opened the door for the
admission of another prisoner, and found him suspended
in the agonies of strangulation by his handkerchief, one
end of which he had twisted tightly round his neck, and
secured the other to a portion of the ironwork in the
upper part of the cell. He was instantly cut down by the
gaoler, and a surgeon was promptly sent for, who suc-
ceeded after the lapse of some time in partially restoring
him to consciousness, and having directed his imme-
diate removal to an hospital, he was forthwith conveyed,
under the care of two officers, in a cab to the Home of
Detention, with a request that he should be placed in the
infirmary.
SOUTHWARK.

Yesterday Alfred Moor, alias Johnson, alias Matthews,
Thomas Birch, Charles Downing, Ambrose Jacobs,
Thomas Bates, and Henry Hodgson, alias Captain Hodg-
son, of the East India Company's service, were brought
before Mr. Cottinghana for re-examination, charged with
conspiring to defraud a great number of tradesmen of
their goods. The court was thronged during the exa-
mination, which excited more than ordinary interest,
particularly that portion of the proceedings which re-
ferred to Hodgson, who, it now appears, had carried on
a system of fraud for a length of time, by pretending
that he was a man of property, and possessed of influ-
ence with the Government. Mr. Charnock attended for
Hodgson; the other prisoners were defended by their
respective solicitors.
In addition to the charges already preferred against
the accused parties, who appear to have been all acting
in concert for the purpose of obtaining various descrip
tions of goods of tradesmen in the metropolis, and which
have obtained publicity,
A Mr. Moon, a watchmaker, of Holborn, was exa-
mined.—He stated that Moor called upon him, and
representing his name to be Matthews, obtained two
valuable watches of him, after having given a reference
as to his respectability to a Mr. James Barclay, of No.
50, St. Alban's-terrace, Kennington. The latter person
did give a most favourable character of the prisoner,
who, it was since proved, sold the watches immediately
he got them for less than their value, and both he and
his referee absconded, and were not heard of again until
Moor was recently taken into custody. Witness had
never been paid for his watches.
Mr. COTTINGTIAM said that it was his intention to
commit all the prisoners for trial, and that two of the
charges against Moor assumed that of felony, while that
of his companions at present was for conspiring together
to defraud tradesmen of their goods. The magistrate
added, that since the last examination a communication
had been received from Messrs. Walker and Co., cabinet
makers and upholsterers, of Holborn, describing that
Hodgson gave an order to the firm for 1501. worth of
furniture, part of which was delivered at a house in the
Southwark-bridge-road. The remainder would have
been delivered the following day had not a letter been
received by the firm from a female whom he had victim-
ised and ruined, which had the effect of preventing them
from completing the order.
A Mr. Jenkins stepped forward and stated that he
had been induced to take Hodgson's acceptance to a bill
which remained dishonoured to that day. He had since
ascertained that Hodgson was connected with a gang of
swindlers, and that they took houses to which they had
the property sent, and were in the habit of referring to
their associates, in order to obtain their goods.
Mr. COTTINGII,II4I said that he had letters and papers
placed in his hands with reference to the prisoner Hodg-
son, one of which related to his having made a promise
of marriage to a Mrs. Fitzjames, a widow, and promising
to settle 500/. a year upon her. Now it appeared that
he was a man of straw, and not at all in a condition to
keep his promise ; indeed, it had been ascertained that
having stripped the widow of all she possessed, he then
cruelly deserted her.
The following is a copy of the epistle to which the
worthy Magistrate alluded:—
" My dear Mrs. Fitzjames,— Since I have had the
pleasure of your acquaintance I have been much pleased
with your person, manners, and accomplishments in
every way, so that I have made up my mind to marry
you, and at the same time I promise to be a good father
to your dear little ones, and also to settle 500/. a year
on you and yours, and if you prove an affectionate wife,
at my death you shall have a proportion of my pro-
perty. I further agree, should I not marry you, to give
up for your own use one-third of all my effects here and
in the United States of America,
" Witness my hand this 19th day of June, 1848.
"HENRY HODGSON."
Sergeant Berry, A division, stated that he had seen
the female alluded to in the above letter since the last
examination, and that she gave a heartrending descrip-
tion of the manner in which she had been treated by
Hodgson. That when first she met him he
introduced himself as Captain Hodgson, of the
East India Company's service, at which period she
was in possession of considerable property. That he
had induced her to part with everything under the pro-
mise that he would marry her and be a father to her
children, and that when he had reduced her to a state
of beggary he then abandoned her, and left her and her
children in a state of the utmost destitution. The Ser-
geant added, that from inquiries he had since made, he
discovered that the "captain," at the very time he was
in communication with Mrs. Fitzjames, inhabited a
miserable lodging in Gun-alley, Tower hill, for which
he paid a weekly rent of ls. 61, and that he (the Ser-
geant) also ascertained that he had never been in the
East India Company's service.
Mr. COTTINGEIA.N said that he was also in possession
of letters from Downing-street, addressed to the pri-
soner, and that it appeared he was in the habit of ex-
hibiting them in order to induce a belief that he was a
person of consequence, and in communication with the
First Minister of the Crown.
Sergeant Berry stated that Hodgson upon all oc-
casions represented himself as being in the posses-
sion of largo landed estates, and having by his
interest secured the return of Lord John Russell
as Member for the city of London. The Sergeant
also produced another letter which was found in Hodg-
son's possession, and from the contents of which it
would appear that he had formed an acquaintance with
another female to whom he was about to act in a si-
milar wavier as he had previously done in Mrs. Fitz•
James's case. Sergeant Barry said that he had made
inquiry, and discovered that the female who had
written the letter was served in a similar manner by
Hodgson to that which he had previously done to Mrs.
Fitzj ames.
Mr. CoTTINOHAM observed that the documents and
papers before him showed that Hodgson was more deeply
engaged in fraudulent transactions than was at first sup.
posed. It was quite manifest that he had been for a
length of time carrying on a system of fraud on trades-
people, aided by his fellow-prisoners, to a very great ex-
tent; added to which it now appeared, by the letters
produced, that he had practised the most gross decep-
tion upon women for the purpose of depriving them of
the little property they were possessed of, and rendering
them by his baseness completely destitute. He (the
magistrate) deemed it indispeniably necessary, for the
sake of public justice, to sift the charges against all the
prisoners to the bottom, with a view that such an organ-
ized gang of swindlers as that to which they all belonged
should be broken up, and that they should be punished
according to their deserts. He should, therefore, re-
mand all the prisoners until next Monday, when the
depositions should be taken, and they be committed
for trial.