The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-27 00:00:00

MARCH 27, 1846.

re.w.ww.
The LORD CH M' JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and
the jury, after deliberating about half an hour, returned a
verdict of Guilty against both the prisoners.
Thompson, having been previously convicted of felony,
was sentenced to transportation for life, and Wilson for fifteen
years.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.— Stafford, March 24.
CROWN COURT.
At nine o'clock this mornine. the Learned Chief Baron
took his vat in the Nisi Prius'Court, and after the disposal
of a few unimportant cases of felony, the Learned Judge
rose, and his Court was adjourned, the remaining business of
the assizes, being of a trivial character.
(Before Mr. Baron PLATT.)
Three very respectably-dresse I men, Thomas George Jones,
aged 24, Samuel Jmes, aged 22, and John Hines, aged 25,
were indictt d for assaulting James M‘Dertnott on the 12th of
September last, at Norton Canes, putting him in bodily fear,
and stealing from his person two sovereigns, a tobacco-box,
and a small quantity of tobacco, his property.
Mr. Iludaleston conducted the prosecution ; Mr. 'Yardley
defended the prisoners.
It appeal-ea that the prosecutor, with a party of other la-
bourers, all natives of the sister isle, had been working for a
farmer of the name of Roberts, and assisting him to get in
his harvest. On the day in question he paid two sovereigns
and eight shillings to one of their number for division
amongst the rest, and his wife sold half an ounce of tobacco
to the prosecutor. Almost immediately after he and two
or three of his companions, as was alleged by M'Dermott,
were dragged or pushed into the cellar of a beer-shop
kept iby the prisoners. What thereupon took place
it was difficult to ascertain, in consequence of the confused
manner of the witness. Screams and cries of murder were,
however, heard issuing from the premises of the prisoners,
and upon one point the prosecutor seemed perfectly clear—
namely, the loss of his money, his tobacco-box, and its con..
tents. Immediately after the occurrence he made a loud
lament, bitterly deploring the cruelty of his aggressors, re-
peating that he was now ruined entirely, and unable ever to
return to his Irish home. A considerable amount of evidence
was adduced in corroboration, but there seemed to be some
variance respecting the material facts to which we have
alluded, and from the time which had elapsed since the
event, some trilling discrepancy was also elicited upon minor
points.
By the cross-examination of the prisoner's counsel, one
witness, who appeared to entertain an undue bias against
the men at the bar, arising from transactions irrelevant
to the one under consideration, was checked by the Learned
Judge for the alacrity which ho displayed in, relating cir-
cumstances adverse to them, which had no connexion with
this case.
The trial occupied the Court nearly five hours, and termi-
nated in a verdict of Acquittal.
A second indictment against the same men for robbing
Michael M'Dermott, under similar circumstances, was then
read by the officer of the court, but no evidence was offered,
and the jury having, pro forma, pronounced a verdict of Not
Guilty, the prisoners were discharged.
The few cases which still remain are wholly unimportant
in their details, and at their termination the two Learned
Judges will proceed to open the commission at Shrewsbury,
where the business of the assizes commences on Thusday
morning at twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, March 24.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
ROSS V. HIGNETT.
This was an action in which the plaintiff declared that he
was employed by the defendant to purchase railway shares
for him on his (the plaintiff's) personal responsibility, and
the defendant, in consequence, undertook to provide the
money to complete the purchase, which he failed to do.
Mr. Martigiand Mr. Atherton for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Baines and 11100 Cowling for the defendant.
It appeared that ou the 3d of October the defendant had
given direction.) the plaintiff to purchase on his account
twelve shares in the Sheffield, Ashton- under-Lyne, and Man-
chester Railwaind the same day, having completed the
purchase at 127. ~ Mr. Ross, the plaintiff's clerk, made out
an advice note of the purchase of these shares, and sent a
duplicate of it to the defendant.
On the duplicate sent being called for and not produced,
that retained in Mr. Baines's office was tendered in evidence;
neither copy it appeared was stamped.
Mr. BAINES objected that it required a stamp, on the
ground that it was evidence of an agreement relating to a
matter above the value of 20/.
On the other side it was contended that it was not evi-
dence of an agreement, but was merely notice to the de-
fendant that an agreement had been entered into on his
behalf.
His LORDSHIP overruled the objection.
It appeared that the shares in question had been pur-
chased by the plaintiff from other brokers—Dinwoodie and
Co.' They were bought on the 3d of October for the account
of the 15th of October, and subsequently paid for by the
plaintiff. It is the practice in the share-market to hold the
broker responsible for these bargains, neither selling nor
buying broker usually disclosing his principal. The scrip
was not handed over for some time after the sale ; in point
of fact, on the 3d of October and for some time after there
was no scrip or certificate representing these shares in ex-
istence.
It appeared that about the 16th of October the defendant
desired another firm of brokers in Manchester to sell on his
account 30 shares in the same railway, and a note was re-
ceived by the plaintiff from a person of the name of Thorpe,
who assisted the defendant in the conducting of these trans-
actions, advising the plaintiff of this sale, telling him that
the 12 shares in question formed part of the lot, and direct-
ing him to apply to the brokers for the amount at the rate
of 101. 17s. 6d. per share. The plaintiff, however, declined
to do so, as he was entitled to receive the full purchase
money he had paid, and his commission amouating altogether
to 12/. 7s. 6d., awl the shares consequently remained in his
hands.
On the conclusion of the plaintiff's case Mr. BAINES ob-
jected that the contract alleged in the declaration was not
made out, inasmuch, as at the time of the alleged employ-
ment of the plaintiff to purchase, and the purchase of the
alleged shares, there really were no shares or scrip certificates
to represent them in existence.
HIS LORDSHIP reserved the point.
Mr. BAINES admitted that on the facts he had no case to
go to the jury, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff.
MARSDEN V. NEWMARSII AND ANOTNER.
This was an action cu alleged retainer of the defendants to
buy and sell shares for him, in consideration of which the
defendants engaged to use due diligence and to obey the due
and lawful orders of the plaintiff. The declaration then
alleged that the defendants bad in their possession and charge
divers shares and scrip certificates, subject to the order and
disposition of the bankrupt, and that they disobeyed the
orders of the plaintiff respecting them, by which he sustained
a loss.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Atherton for the plaintiff ; Mr. Wat-
son and Mr. Cowling for the defence.
The substance of the case, as set up for the plaintiff, was
that he had directed the defendants to purchase for him a
number of shares in the Leeds and York, Leeds and Thirsk,
and Shrewsbury and Herefordshire Railways, and had after-
wards directed them to be sold out. The defendants sold the
Leeds and York at the time directed, but did not sell the
Leeds and Thirsk until a considerable time after, when the
market had fallen considerably. The Shrewsbury and
Herefordshire remained unsold.
It appeared that the order in question was given on the
30th of September last, and on the same day the contract
was completed, and the advice notes forwarded to the plain-
tiff. It appeared, according to the evidence of a Mr. Duck-
worth, a broker, that he had introduced the plaintiff to Mr.
Newmarsh on the3oth September, at the time the order was
given. Witness saw Mr. Marsden on the Ist October. On
the 2d October saw Mr. Newmarsh on the subject of those
shares ; and on the behalf of Mr. Marsden, directed him to
sell the Leeds and Thirsk and Leeds and York. He told
witness he had had a written order from Mr. Marsden to that
effect. The Leeds and York were that day sold. After the
Exchange closed, witness saw Mr. Newmarsh again, and
asked if he had sold. He said he had not sold the Leeds
and Thirsk, as they were sure to go up and reach 301. or 401.
Witness said he should have sold. Newmarsh said as this
was the first transaction he had had for Mr. Marsden he
would wish it to be a good one, and would take the respon-
sibility upon himself. The shares were then at 21i or 21t
They were actually sold on the 13th at 18/., and the defen-
dants in advising the plaintiff of that fact said, they would
not charge commission, as the business bad been an unfor •
tunate one. Witness had a conversation with Mr. New-
marsh on the 6th or 7th about the Shrewsbury and Here-
fordshire, and directed him expressly to sell. He then also
said, he had received a written order from Mr. Marsden to
the same effect. These shares still remain unsold.
In the cross-examination some papers were put into the
witness's band, which he identified as the handwriting of the
plaintiff. One of these was an order to sell the Leeds and
York, dated the 2d October. In that no mention was made
of the Leeds and Thirsk. There was another, of the Bth of
October, directing a sale of the Leeds and Thirsk, but
nothing was therein said of the Shrewsbury and Hereford-
shire.
At the close of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Wasrsos submitted
there was no case to go to the jury. He said there was no
evidence of any such general contract as that alleged in the
declaration. The contract, if any, was on each particular
parcel which the plaintiff directed to be bought or sold.
There was, further, no evidence that after the making of
the contract they had in their possession and charge any
shares or scrip certificates of the plaintiff. The shares were
purchased for the account day, and the mode of settling was
for the brokers to set off with each other the amounts of the
several shares they had bought or sold, receiving or paying
only the balance. No shares or scrip had been delivered at
the time of the sale.
His LORDSHIP overruled the objection, and said there was
evidence to go to the jury.
For the defence witnesses were called to show that the
plaintiff, after sending the order for the sale of the Leeds and
Thirsk shares, was quite satisfied with the delay which had
taken place, and admitted it had been for the best, con-
sidering the flat state of the market, and that a balance-
sheet being furnished to him shortly after the sale, he made
no objection or complaint. The present action was not com-
menced until Messrs. Newmarsh and Withington had com-
menced one against him, for an alleged claim they had on
him, arising out of these transactions. It was urged that
the statements of Mr. Duckworth also were inconsistent
wi h the written orders, which were admitted to be the
genuine orders of the plaintiff.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury returned a verdict
for the defendants, on account of the Leeds and Thirsk
shares, and for the plaintiff on account of the Shrewsbury
and Herefordshire. Some difficulty was felt in settling the
measure of damages, but it was finally agreed that a verdict
should be taken for 1281., the difference between the value of
the shares on the Bth of October and the present day; it
being left to the Court above to say whether any other date,
and what, should be fixed on as the point of comparison.
e,

DESERTERS FROM TEE ARMY.—From a return yes-
terday issued by order of Parliament, it appears that in
1840-41, the expense of the apprehension, subsistence, and
escort of deserters was 2,6341.; the expense of the subsistence
of other soldiers in confinement, 10,364/. In the year
1841-42,and the hitter,
the former expense was 4,385/.,
10,779/. ; in 1842-43, the respective expenses were 3,9591
and 10,165/. ; 1843-44, 2.874/. and 11,213/. ; and in 1844-45
2,168/. and 11,975/. The information cannot be afforded
beyond the 31st of March, 1845.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.—The poor Duke of Norfolk
has been nearly choked to death, but we offer the fbllowing as the
last of the jokes upon the curry-powder. According to Gibbon, in
his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (vol. .J: sh 6), " The in-
vention of a sauce was liberally rewarded, but if It was not relished
tie inventor was compelled to eat of nothiagese 1111 he had disco-
vered something more palatable to the imperial palate." We wonder
how the Duke of Norfolk would like being condemned to a diet of
Toviours Curry :—Punch.