The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-01 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-THIS DAY.)

WAREHAM V. PRANCE, NASH, AND OTHERS.-THE GREAT
WESTERN ROBBERIES.
This was an acti-n of tr,spass, brought by Thomas
Wareham against Mr. Vaughan Prance, Mr. Nash, and
Mr. Collard, who had ben connected with conducting
the prosecutions of Maynard, Garratt, and others last
year, for the robberies committed on the Great Western
Railway, to recover damages for an alleged false impri-
sonment.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Foster appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Sergeant
Murphy, Mr. Sergeant Channel, and Mr. Hoggins were
for the defendants.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS having gone over the particu-
lars which he intended to prove in evidence, proceeded
to call his witnesses.
George Garda, r Dun, a waiter at the public-house in
Foley-street where Thomas Wareham lodged, deposed
that on the 20th of August, last year, three persons,
answering to the description of the defendants, came to
the house, and took Mr. and Mrs. Wareham in a cab.
Hannah O'Connell evidenced to the same apprehension
on the day in question.
Mr. Seymour Clarke, superintendent of. the Great
Western Company at the Paddington station, said he
remembered the plaintiff, Thomas Wareham, calling at
the station about the Ist of August last year. Maynard
was then in custody in reference to the property lost
on the railway. When he called he said he was ac-
quainted with Garrett, and that he could give some in-
formation about him. Witness sent him with a
messenger to the solicitor of the company. A man
called Chilman was sent with the plaintiff to Mr. Nash.
Nash was then clerk to Messrs. Maples and Co.
Cross-examined by Sergeant TALEOURD—He could
not state precisely the day referred to, but it was soon
after Maynard was taken into custody. He could not
state how long after. Mr. Nash had the charge of the
railway department of Messrs. Maples and Co. There
had, previous to this time, been many depredations com-
mitted on the Great Western Railway. Mr. Vaughan
Prance had complained of the loss of his property.
When that gentleman first lost his writing case the in-
quiry came to witness, and be communicated the fact to
the solicitor of the company.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant MURPHY—Ware-
ham did not say he was mixed up with Maynard. He
only said he had some information respecting Garratt
and Maynard in connexion with these robberies. He did
not say he lived in Maynard's house, or that he was in-
timate with that party or Garratt.
Davy, an officer of the police at the Pad-
dington station, was here called to prove the fact
of the plaintiff on the day of his apprehension being
taken to the station, and kept all right, but on being
called three times in Court, he did not appear.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOUItD wished to explain that he
understood the witness was ill, and could not attend.

He wished this to be known, that it might not be sup-
posed the company had anything whatever to do with
his absence.

This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD addressed the jury on the
behalf of Mr. Prance and Mr. Collard. His defence, as
far as Prance was concerned, was, that on the day May-
nard was taken up, he was at Nether Stoney, in Sonaer-
setshire, and could not have been one of the three in the
public-house. He was prepared to prove that, and also
to prove that the one of the three, supposed to be him,
was another person. Mr. Prance had nothing whatever
to do with the conducting of the prosecution against
Maynard and Garratt, out of which the apprehension of
Wareham had arisen. Those prosecutions were con-
ducted on behalf of the Great Western Company. The
only position in which Mr. Prance stood in the matter,
was the fact that he had lost property worth 2,0001., and
that he originally entered into negotiations with May
[lard to recover his writing desk, which ended in the
apprehension of the latter, and the matter being taken
up by the Great Western Company. After that
he had nothing whatever to do with the proceedings.
With reference to the general defence of the two defen-
dants for which he appeared, the Learned Gentleman
called the attention of the jury to the robberies perpe-
trated by Maynard and Garratt. It had been clearly
proved that Garratt was the principal thief; that May-
nard, though ostensibly a house agent, was extensively
engaged in these felonious transactions, and had been
convicted for the same. When this was known, and
they found Wareham living in the same house with
Maynard, mixed up with his transactions, and actually,
offering to give information respecting the felonious pro-
ceedings of Garratt and Maynard, did it not furnish a
strong presumption that the plaintiff was also connected
with them. This view of the question was further sup-
ported by the fact of Wareham endeavouring to act for
Maynard in several suspicious particulars. The Learned
gentleman recapitulated the principal facts of the whole
proceedings taken preliminary to the apprehension of
Maynard and Garratt. He considered it would have
been wiser to have taken the plaintiff and his wife at
once before a magistrate, so as to be relieved from all
responsibility on account of the apprehension; still,
under the circumstances, there were strong reasons for
justifying the course taken by the defendants. If
damages were at all to be given lie submitted they should
not 13, more than a farthing.
(The case was proceeding when our report left.)

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
CLOSING THE COURT—IN RE WRAY—THE TORBAY
RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was a case of insolvency. The insolvent had been
a director of the Torbay Railway Company, and to-day
was appointed for the examination of the secretary and
others connected with the company, and the production
of books, &c. on behalf of Mr. Whitmore, the official
assignee, to investigate the liability of the insolvent as
such director.
It appeared, that the railway company had been
formed in 1838, but subsequently, the money raised not
being sufficient for the proposed scheme, some of the
directors allotted other shares, and the question now was
how far the insolvent, or his estate, was bound by the
acts of the other directors. It was alleged that insolent
was not present at the meetings, and that, in fact,v no
such meetings took place as those entered in the minute

books.
Mr. JAMES took an objection, in limine, to the exa-
mination of the company's officers or books in this case.
The acts of the directors were the acts of the company,
and Mr. Wray was one of the directors ; indeed the
proposition was " suicidal," for if Mr. Wray, through Dlr.
Whitmore, the official assignee, sy.cceeded in proving that
the allotment of the shares was fraudulent, he made
his own estate liable, for it had been held in a recent
case, that if any allotment was made in fraud, the di-
rectors were liable. It had been urged that the proceedings
had been voided through the non-attendance of some of
the directors, otherwise the whole object of the Act
might be thwarted by the deliberate non-attendance of
some of the parties. He had to contend that the act of
some of the directors sitting as a board was binding

on all.
Mr. CooKE denied that the insolvent had ever sanc-
tioned the allotment.
The Learned CODIDIISSIONER said, if a co-director, co-
partner, or co-trustee assented to proceedings, directly
or indirectly, he must be hound; but if there had been
any fraud committed, he was not, and in equity was
entitled to an inquiry. It was now at issue whether
there had or had not been fraud, as d he was of opinion
the examination should go on. As it was to take Flace
in the Court, every one was at liberty to take notes as
far as they went, and in any way they wished, but it must
be understood no publication of the examination should
take place until after the proceedings had concluded, or
he would close the doors, which he had the power of
doing in that Court.
This discussion arose on the question whether the
notes should be taken as .evidence if perjury was im-
puted.
The examination was proceeding, but, under the cir-
cumstances, cannot of course• be given.

MARLBMY-STREET.-(THIS DAY•)
Sarah Brook, and her two sons, Alfred and Samuel,
who were remanded last week on a charge of robbing
Mr. Deare, a tailor, 1, Leicester-square (the boy Alfred's
master), were brought up. to-day for re-examination.
Several pawnbrokers attended and produced articles
which were identified by the prosecutor. None of the
pawnbrokers could identify the prisoners except Mr.
Syers, Drury-lane, who identified the boy Samuel Brook
as having pledged a piece of satin with him.
Mr. LONG said there was no case against the mother
or the prisoner Samuel Brook. He therefore discharged
them, and remanded Alfred Brook till this day week.

WORSHIP S'i REET.—(T HIS DAY.)
George Galloway, a youth, about 17 years of age, an
apprentice to a Mr. Wells, was charged with refusing to
work, &T.
Mr. Herbert Wells, ivory turner, No. 8, Britannia-
terrace, deposed that the defendant, who was apprenticed
to him übaut two years since, had out of that time ab-
sented himself for the space of five months, and on one
occasion witness was obliged to bring him to this Court
for his bad conduct, and he was sent to the treadmill for
a month. Latterly, when any work had been given to
him, he merely laughed wad jeered at witness, and said
that witness and the magistrate had done what they
could with him, but he cared neither for magistrate nor
master ; and rather than work, he would spend the
whole of his time in prison. It would be a charity if the
magistrat' would cancel his indentures.
Mr. BINGHAM—Yes, to you it would be a charity no
doubt, but not to the rate-payers. You are under a bond
to keep him. However, I'll take --
Here the defendant's courage entirely forsook him,
and he blubbered out, " I will, indeed I will, do the best
I can in future.
Mr. BINGHAM—Very well; I will give you one chance
more. If at the expiration of ten days you shall not
have given perfect satisfaction to your master, I'll try if
I can't bring you to a proper sense of your duty.

Our Liverpool letters report that "no intelligence
of the Britannia steamer has been received up to four
o'clock P.M., yesterday."

- -
FURTHER REDUCTION IN THE PRICE OF BREAD.—
Yesterday, nearly all the bakers at the west end of the
metropolis reduced the price of their bread from Bd. and
-
neighbourhood of St. Giles's are charging as low as O.
Country bread, which is not weighed to the customer, is
old at Sid, the We.