The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-07 00:00:00

WECITECHAPEX.

For each kind of prime meat we had a very steady demand,
at full rates of currency. In other qualities, comparatively
little was doing. Beef, from 2s 10d to 3s 8d; Mutton, 3s 6d
to 4s 6d ; Veal, 4s 4d to 5s 4d ; and Pork, 3s 10d to 5s 2d
per Sibs. by the carcase.

SECONDARIES.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
There were only three causes set down for trial, one
of which was Richards v. Hargraves.
A new jury was sworn for the ensuing six weeks, and
several excuses were made of temporary and occasional
illness.

The SECONDARY said that he did not consider such
excuses sufficient, and the parties would be called on to
attend at the Criminal Court, and make their excuses
there.

WILLIAMS V. SYS.E.

The plaintiff in this action is a wine-merchant at
Edmonton. The defendant is a carman at Whitechapel.
The action was on a bill of exchange for 15L 10s., and
interest 21. 10s., the bill having been drawn so long ago
as November, 1842.

The defendant pleaded that he did not accept the bill.
A witness was ealled, who deposed to the defendant's
h and-writing.
He was cross-examined, and said that he had known
the defendant since May, 1842. The last time he saw
defendant write was in August of that year, when he
accepted a bill for witness, which he produced.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.

Before Mr. Justice POLLOCK, and Mr. Justice EARLE
THE ALLEGED MURDERS ON BOARD THE

TORY.

As soon as the Learned Judges took their seats this
morning on the bench,
Mr. BODKIN said, that a person of the name of John-
stone, who was charged with a series of murders on the
high seas, was in the calendar to be tried the present
sessions. His Learned Friend, Mr. Jervis, had been re-
tained on behalf of tho prisoner; but he (Mr. Bodkin)
had been informed by that Learned Gentleman, that the
case for the defence had not yet been fully prepared,
and, considering the serious and important nature of the
charges preferred—some of them of a very complicated
nature—it was the desire of the prisoner that the trial
should be postponed until the next session. To this
arrangement, the Attorney-General whom he (Mr. Bod-
kin) had consulted had no objection.

'The LORD CHIEF BARON—Does any one appear for
the prisoner?
Mr. BODKIN replied, that Mr. Jervis was retained for
the prisoner, but he (Mr. Bodkin) had received a letter
from the Learned Gentleman, saying that he could not
be present to-day.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that he understood Mr.
Jervis's absence was only confined to that day, and that
the application for a postponement of the trial had
nothing whatever to do with it. _

Mr. BODKIN observed that such was the fact.

The LORD CHIEF BARON said that that should clearly
appear, as it was important. Mr. Jervis, but for his
absence, would have made the application himself.
Mr. BoDias remarked that he would have done so.
The application bad been sanctioned by the Attorney-
RD Cams. Eisnox—Theapplication is made
Attorney-
General.
to
on the ground that the prisoner is not ready with his
defence.
Mr. BODKIN—That is the only ground.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—AS the Attorney-General
has considered fit to sanction this application, I will,
therefore, remand the prisoner until the next sessions,
to be kept in custody until then. The recognizances of
the witnesses to be also respited till that time.
THREATENING LETTERS.--Henry Joseph Kitterley, a
youth, aged 15, was placed at the bar on various indict-
ments, charged with sending threatening letters to
several persons in Southwark, threatening to murder
them and set fire to their houses. The letters in ques-
tion created great alarm at the time, the particulars of
which appeared in the daily papers. Great exertions
were made by the parish authorities to discover the
offender, and they succeeded in tracing the prisoner to
be the party.
Mr. Bodkin with Mr. Clarke appeared for the prosecu-
tion.

The first case taken was that indicting the prisoner
for sending a threatening letter to Mr. Humble, hop-
factor, 82, High-street, Borough, threatening him, that
unless he (the prosecutor) took back into his service
John Kitterley, a brother of the prisoner, he should be
murdered, and have his premises burned.
Mr. Humble was examined, and deposed as to receiv-
ing the letter in question, which at the time he received
it, he put into the letter-box for preservation. Witness
had a person in his employment in May last, named
John Kitterley, whom he discharged.
Edward John Tyler, printer; Finch-lane, deposed that
the prisoner was an apprentice with himself and sons.
He knew the hand-writing of the prisoner. The letter
produced, he had no doubt, was written by the prisoner.
This was all the evidence offered in support of this
case, on which the Lord Chief Baron remarked, that
a charge so important ought not to be disposed of on
such slender evidence. More might have been expected,
or certainly he should require more to satisfy his mind.
His Lordship then addressed the jury to the effect,
that such a grave offence, proceeding either from a de-
sire to extort certain conditions from the prosecutor, or
from a wanton wickedness, ought to have been better
supported; such a charge, involving such consequences,
ought to have been proved in a satisfactory manlier.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.
The prisoner was then remanded until next sessions
on the other charges.

NEW COURT.
'Before the RECORDER.)
Philip Wetzner, a German, aged 33, was indicted for
stealing an oil painting and frame, value 31., the pro-
perty of J. Annis, a pawnbroker residing in the City.
An interpreter was employed to explain the evidence
to the prisoner.
The shopman of the prosecutor stated that in the early
part of November last, the prisoner came into his mas-
ter's shop to pledge something. The picture was quite
safe before he entered, but after he had left a short time
it was missed.

A pawnbroker, residing at No. 105, High-street,
Whitechapel, proved that the prisoner had pledged the
picture for 10s. He afterwards came and offered to sell
the ticket, but in consequence of some information that
had been received he was given into custody.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
It was then proved that on the Sth of April 1844, the
prisoner had been tried and convicted for a burglary,