The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-28 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

RICHARDSON v. BARCLAY.
This was rather a novel action. It was brought by
the plaintiff, Mrs. Mary Richardson, a widow lady, to
recover compensation for the destruction of from twelve
to thirteen dozen of wine, by the negligence of the de-
fendant. The defendant is the proprietor of several
houses, called Tufton•place, Holloway, and the plaintiff
I.;ecame the tenant of one of them on the 30th of June,
the defendant agreeing to make certain repairs, and to
put the wine cellar in a condition to receive wine. Mrs.
Richardson was dissatisfied with the way in which the
cellar was left, and the defendant, after some hesitation,
directed a person in his employ to erect three additional
slabs. They were little mure than an inch thick, of bad
stone, and were so badly fitted that one of them shortly
after split and fell, completely smashing the bottles,
and causing them to discharge the generous grape
within. The defendant pleaded that he had not been
guilty of negligence, as he had had the cellar fitted up
in a proper manner before the additions were made.
A great number of witnesses were examined.
Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Boville were
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Knowles, Q.C., for defendant.
After considerable discussion between the parties as
to the liability of the defendant,
Mr. KNOWLES consented to a verdict for the plaintiff
for 25/., with the leave of the Learned Judge to enter a
nonsuit on the question of liability under the circum-
stances.

CORDAN V. MERRICK.

This was an action to recover compensation in
damages from the defendant for building a high wall
immediately at the back of the plaintiffs house in
Church-street, Bloomsbury, and thereby closing up
three windows, which were absolutely necessary for
light and ventilating his dwelling, and which were
"ancient lights." The defendant is a paper manufac-
turer, and the wall was part of his manufactory. The
case was undefended, and the jury, after a short consul-
tation, found a verdict for the plaintiff for 2001.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

HAIGH AND ANOTHER V. JARNAC AND ANOTHER.

In this case, which was an action brought to recover
a certain amount of money alleged to be due to the
plaintiff; as "differences" upon the purchase and sale of
shares. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
A rule was subs( quently obtained, calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not be set
aside.

Mr. MARTIN now appeared to show cause against the
rule then obtained.

After hearing counsel at great length on both sides,
The COURT discharged the rule, on the ground that
the plaintiff was not a sworn broker for the purpose of
transacting business connected with the purchase and
sale of shares.

CRIMINAL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
John Charles Young, who was convicted last session of
stealing money from a letter, but upon whom sentence
was not passed in consequence of a point put by his
counsel, was placed at the bar, and the point having
been decided against the prisoner, he was sentenced to
be transported for fourteen years.
Mr. Richard Martin, a barrister, was indicted for an
assault on a sheriff's officer while in the discharge of
his duty.

Mr. hallantine was retained for the prosecution, and
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Clarkson appeared for
the defence.

Dolby, a sheriff's officer, stated that he was sent to
apprehend the prisoner, who endeavoured to escape, and
while witness put forth his hand to detain him (in so
doing tearing the-skirt of prisoner's coat) he was struck
on the head with a heavy stick, and the prisoner
escaped.

Mr. Bartlett, a surgeon, residing in Chancery-lane,
deposed to the severity of the wound, which had con-
fined the prosecutor for a fortnight in great danger, and
stated that he was not yet quite recovered from its
effects.

Mr. Sergeant WILEINS addressed the iury for the
prisoner, and called Mr. Sergeant Murphy, who had
been his fellow collegian for three years, Mr. Ellis, a
barrister, and late M.P. for Newry, and Mr. Murdo
Young, the proprietor of The Sun, both of whom gave
him the highest character for humanity and mildness of
disposition.
The Learned JUDGE recapitulated the facts as stated
in evidence, and the jury returned a verdict that the
prisoner was Not Guilty of a felony, but Guilty of an
assualt.—Sentence was deferred.
DISCHARGE OF BAIL.-Mr. HUDDLESTONE applied to
the Court for the discharge of the bail of Bentham
Fabian, who, with a person of the name of Faulkner,
had been indicted at the June sessions for the forgery of
railway scrip. The trial was postponed from time to
time until at last, in September, Faulkner took his trial,
and was acquitted. Fabian, on that occasion, did not
app?ar, nor was he called upon, and these circumstances
Counsel thought cc nstituted a sufficient ground for the
ttherdischargeiawas
ea
ognolfzatnhceesb.ail,Oanntdheforserveefrraailmo'negeafsricolmns ewsthreeantitnhge
l
Court, and to these arrangements the sureties were no
postponed the bail had been enlarged by the
party. They, in fact, had only engaged to produce the
prisnoonte.
eicrin June, and of the trial in September they had
no
The JUDGE thought that the only power which he
possessed was to respite the recognisances until the man
arasproduced,for if he did not appear they would be
clearly estreated.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE cited several cases to show that
bail had been discharged by the Judges of Assize after
the trial had been passed over.
The JUDGE could not see that his power extended to
the entire relief of the bail ; at any rate, he could not
interfere without reference. Indeed, he believed that it
was rather a matter for the consideration of the Ex-
chequer, and he should certainly decline now to dis-
charge the bail.
Thomas Evans, a porter, aged 26, was indicted for
Nistspthhho'fro.eiereTUrs.eocphinßinoNrdealvimieodisvnrbiopmit:gilnhrenligboefLsststursoaheoithntocifu,hesouniaralastplpadonroipiuifdwuxCders,ateep‘hvbhdrtoaiwheneeslsrndwhdeeammsnodesof,risiori;hdeewrgahendean,ietdtrinthidheehnih(at.eeigoaatffihp.dtgnosl her.
Mr. Prendergast was retained for the prosecution, and
struggled
wsvango,
wnnn,gds,
hdttghltoeahaoeetdnwstrronedeslitdbdtteahouertthat
t
we
hheorusseh(t)oulwdehrichansdhhee
away frnttohnitcohouhevgiehn arge,r,
,doaiunt
v‘hnd,
without
with
hmst
hmpbealeoidfnoei
felt something
t eus loty:s ahefwett
heafirsnowguadnrige
isd
cos
ohfveeerl
rlseeddl
acrossfo wti
hhnnea
art;
m throatowhilemeno,
there were two wounds in her throat, one above the other.
Mr. Michael Warren, a surgeon of Guy's Hospital,
described the nature of the wounds.

Henry Harding, a policeman, deposed that, on the
day stated, he had apprehended the prisoner in
street, immediately after the offence had been committed.
He said, " I did do it, policeman, and I'll die for it. I
will go with you quietly."
Mr. ROBINSON cross-examined the witness to elicit a
declaratio❑ from -him that the prisoner was intoxicated,
but was unsuccessful in his object. He then addressed
the jury on behalf of his client.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury re-
turned a verdict of Guilty on the count charging him
with inflicting the wound, but not with intent to murder.
The Learned JUDGE, in passing sentence, said that it
was his invariable custom when a criminal was charged
before him with any offence in which a knife was used,