The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-11 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

CONSPIRACY.—THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. JAMES
BUTTON AND OTHERS.
This case was resumed at the sitting of the Court this
morning. It was SR indictment for conspiracy, at the
instance of Mr. Lewis, an extensive dyer of Oxendon-
street, Haymarket. The defendants are James Button,
George Button. his son, Thomas Corduroy, and William
Wellesford. They were all in the prosecutor's employ-
ment. Some of them, especially James Button, had
been for a number of years. The prosecutor allowed
those in his employment to dye articles for themselves
and their immediate relatives free of expense. Instead
of simply availing themselves of this privilege, they took
advantage of it to carry on " jobbing " for their indivi-
dual profit, to the serious injury of the prosecutor.
A considerable number of witnesses were called in
support of the case for the prosecution. Some of them
are at present employed iu the works of the prosecutor,
and some of them had been discharged on account of the
"jobbing" in question. The evidence adduced went to
show that the practice had been carried on to some
extent, and that "jobs" were done through the per-
mission of the first-named defendant, who was the
foreman, and who, it was stated, must have been per-
fectly aware that the articles which the defendants and
others in the establishment brought to dye could not
belong to them or to any of their relatives. Most of the wit-
nesses called to prove fraud on the part of the defendants
admitted that they had dyed articles at the prosecutor's
works for profit, and that they had treated James Button
to drink in consequence. The two Buttons,,it appeared,
had carried on this kind of "jobbing" to a much greater
extent than the other defendants, in consequence of the
facilities which they possessed. An understanding, it
appeared, subsisted between the whole of the defendants,
and that all caryied on business on their own account, at
the expense of Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN addressed the jury on behalf of
Button, and contended that the evidence adduced did
net justify the charge brought against James Button.
He could not, however, justify the acts of the son.
There could be no doubt, notwithstanding many asser-
tions to the contrary, that the business of the prosecutor
was conducted in a very irregular manner, and that ad-
vantage had been taken of this by those he employed.
Nothing had been adduced to show that James
Button had done more than he was permitted to do by
Mr. Lewis. If George Button and the other defendants
had taken advantage of the defendant, and used him
as an instrument through whom they might defraud Mr.
Lewis, they ought not to inflict punishment upon him,
but, considering that he was an old man, and that he had
been 34 years in the service of the firm, to give him the
benefit of the evidence in his favour.
The Learned JUDGE summed up the evidence, and ex-
plained the law to the jury.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

CLERK V. EAGLE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a
surveyor, against the defendant, who was one of the pro-
jector, of the London and Bury Railway, to recover the
sum of 6001. for work and labour in making surveys.
After considerable discussion, the matter in dispute
was referred to arbitration, the main question in dispute
being whether the work done was worth the amount, and
ought to be recovered or not.