The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-09 00:00:00

SIIERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BuncriELL.)
WAKEFIELD AND BINGLEY V. BROWN.
This was an action to recover damages for dilapidations.
The actual plaintiff was a Mr. Bingley, a licensed victualler,
at the King's Arms, Shoreditch. The defendant is a livery-
stable keeper.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Corrie appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Maynard for the defendant.
Mr. CROWDER stated the case. It appeared that in 1826,
Mr. Bingley erected extensive stabling, &c., which he leased
in 1830 to a Mrs. Brown, and on her decease in 1840 the
premises fell into the possession of the defendant till 1843,
when the defendant, who considered that if he got rid of the
lease, he also got rid of his liability under the covenants of
' the lease; and he therefore assigned it to a person named
Hardwick, who was a mere pauper, and could neither pay
rent or put the place in repair. The action was therefore
brought to recover for the damage done during the time the
defendant held the lease, and for which be was clearly liable.
Witnesses were then called for the plaintiffs, who esti-
mated the damage at about 1201. ; but after a consultation
between the Learned Counsel, it was agreed that a verdict
should be taken for 401.
ROBERTS V. FOULKES.
This was an action to recover the sum of 111.155. 4d. on an'
attorney 's bill.
Mr. 'l'. B. HuGurs stated the care for the plaintiff. It
appeared that, in 1844, the plaintiff spoke to a Mr. Wood,
who had acted as his attorney, to bring an action on a bill of
exchan?,•e, but as the parties were friends he declined, but, at
the request of defendant, retained the plaintiff to bring an
action in the name of Trapp, as plaintiff did not wish his
own name to appear.
Wood was ailed, and swore positively to this fact, At
the present time he was not in practice, as he had not taken
out his certificate. He admitted that Trapp was a client of
his own.
Mr. THOMAS contended that Wood had employed Roberts
himself, and was paid as the cause went on—that in this case
Roberts did not see Foulkes, and Trapp was his own client,
and set up by him against the defendant in that suit, who
was also his client. He considered this was most dishonour-
able in itself, and ought to throw great doubt on the whole of
the witnesses' evidence.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.

M ARLBROI-STREET.-(T HIS DAY.;
Eliza Cross, a remarkably good- looking well-dressed female,
about twenty-five years of age, was charged with feloniously
stealing a silver watch, a gold watch-chain, and three gold
watch seals, the property of Mr. P. Beambine, of No. 29,
Windmill- street, Haymarket. It appeared from the statement
of the prosecutor, that a month or five weeks ago, between
nine and ten o'clock in the evening, he met with the prisoner,
who was a perfect stranger to him, in the neighbourhood of
the Haymarket, he got into conversation with her, and she
accepted his arm for a walk. Ultimately they repaired to
some oyster-rooms in the Haymarket, to partake of supper;
they drank rather freely, and on leaving there walked about
for some time, and then had some more wine. Eventually
the prisoner consented to accompany him to his lodg-
ings, and pass the night with him. He let her in
with his latch key unknown to the inmates of the
house. He awoke about five o'clock in the
morning, and found the prisoner had left the house; he also
missed his watch and appendages from off the dressing-table,
where he had placed it over-night. He gave information of
the robbery at the police-station in Vine-street, Piccadilly,
but no trace of the prisoner could be obtained. Between six
and seven o'clock last evening he met her at the end of Great
Windmill-street, and gave her into custody.
The constable stated, that on taking the prisoner into cus-
tody she at once asserted that the prosecutor had given the
watch to her. She also stated that she was a married woman,
and gave the address of her husband, who is butler in a gen-
tleman's family in the neighbourhood of Covent-garden.
Witness called on him, and on his being made acquainted
with the nature of the accusation against his wife, he pro-
duced two pawnbrokers' duplicates, which he said his wife
had given him, alleging that she had found them. He denied
most strongly any knowledge of the watch affair, and seemed
most painfully shocked at the untoward discovery that had
taken place. One of the duplicates was of the watch pawned
for 1/. 18s. and the other of the chain and three seals for 18s.
on the same day, at the shop of Mr. Ravener, of No. 18,
Queen's- build-mgs, Chelsea, pawnbroker, by the prisoner, who
was then living in the neighbourhood, and gave her right
name and address.
HARDwicic asked the prisoner if she wished to say
anything ?
The Prisoner, with much firmness—lt is true I met that
gentleman as he had stated, and he persuaded me to take
supper with bins ; after which he produced the watch, and
asked me if I did not think it very pretty. I said I greatly
admired it. He said he would give it me if I would pass the
night with him. I was tempted by the watch, to my shame
I consented. At his lodgings he wound up the watch, and,
putting it in my hands, paid, "There, it is now your own."
He knew when I left in the morning. His money and things
were lying on the table. I did not pawn the watch until
four or five days after.
Mr. HAnnwrcK asked the prosecutor if there was any
truth in the prisoner's statement about his giving her the
watch. The prosecutor said—Certainly not."
The prisoner was fully committed for trial.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

(THIS DAY).

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.:
NEW MEMBER.

Mr. MACCLINTOCK took the oaths and his seat for Carlow,
The following Bills were read a third time and passed :
Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railway.
Brighouse Sewerage, Drainage, and Lighting.

Bri'Aol and Birmi;"gliam and Midland

Clonmel and Thurles Railway.
Cockermouth and Workington Extension Railway.
Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway.
Creagh's Divorce Bill.
Croniford Canal.

Edinburgh and Glasgow and Scottish Central Railways

Junctiou.
Forth and Clyde Navigatien and Bowling Bay Improverneif
Furness Railway Extensions.

Great Southern and Western Railway (Cork Extension

Huddersfield and Manchester RailwaY(Ohihamßranch,

Huddersfield and Sheffield and Manchester and Leeds itai

ways Amalgamation.
Killarney Junction Railway.
Limerick, Ennis, and Killaloe Railway.

Mallow and Fermoy Railway.

Manchester and Leeds ltailv;ay Extensions.

Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Liffey Branc'
and Longford Deviation).
Monmouthshire Railways.
Mountmellick Junction Railway.

Newport, Abergavenny, and ifereford Railway.
Norfolk Estuary.
Oldham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Birkenhead Junction
Railway.
Plymouth Great Western Docks.
Severn Navigation.
Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway, &c.,
Amalgamation.
Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway
(Peak Forest, and Macclesfield Canal Purchases).
Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton, and South Staffordshire Junc-
tion Railway.
Shrophire Union Railways and Canal (Chester and Wolver-
hampton line).
Shropshire Union Railways and Canal (Shrewsbury to
Stafford).
Strathtay and Breadalbane Railway.
Taw Vale Railway Extension.
Trent Valley, Midlands, and Grand Junction Railway.
Vale of Neath Railway.
Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin Railway.
West Riding Union Railway (No. 2).
Wexford Harbour Improvement.
Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway.
LIVERPOOL AND BURY, AND MANCHESTER AND

LEEDS RAILWAY AMALGAMATION-BILL. ---
WILLIAMS objected to the consideration of this
report, on the ground that the property and interests of one
large Company was transferred to another Company against
the wishes and consent of the owners, and moved that it be
re-committed.

After a short discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
NEW WRIT.

Mr.l TUFNELL moved for a new writ for the borough
of Lichfield, in the room of Lord Alfred Paget, who had
accepted the office of Clerk Marshal and Chief Equerry in
lier_Majesty's Household.
Mr. MUNTZ moved that the Committee on the Birming-
ham and Oxford Junction Railway Bill, and Birmingham
and Oxford Junction Railway (Birmingham Extension) Bill,
have leave to report forthwith, and that the reports be taken
into consideration,

kr. E. DENISON objected to the toll clause as it now
stood in the Bill, and: thought it ought to be revised. The
first part of the clause might remain, but the latter, he con-
sidered, ought to be altered.
Mr. T. BARING said the object sought by the re-corn-
mittal of the Bill was the revision of the toll charges. He
thought the clause as it now stood gave the Great Western
Company practically a complete control of the line. He
would ask the Chairman of the Committee what the members
of it meant by the introduction of the altered words in the
clause?

Sir R. FERGUSON said bethre the alteration was made
the Committee consulted both companies interested, and the
result was the clause which was now submitted to the
House. He thought the clause fair towards the interests of
all the parties concerned.
Sir G. CLERK did not think the clause to be such as some
Hon. Members represented it. Front reading it he did not
think it would throw the whola management and advantages
of the line into the heszals of the Great Western Company.
The interpretation he put on it was nothing more than that
the shareholders of the company should not have the power
to prevent the Great Western Company running along it;
and that the former should not be allowed to play into the
hands of the other great rival company. Under all the cir-
cumstances he must support the clause.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.'
Messengers from the Lords broughtup several Bills, which
were ordered to lie on the table.
The discussion on the railway Bill previously under consi-
deration was then resumed.
Mr. HODGSON thotight they ought to judge the clause,
not in reference to the London and Birmingham or Great
Western Companies, but in regard to the public interests.
He thought the clause so important that it ought to be
.printed, and that time should be given for its consideration.
They would then see whether it was really in agreement
with the general intentions of the resolutions on railways
passed by Parliament.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET was in favour of the
clause as it stood.
Mr. G. W. HAI'TER admitted that this case was pro-
vided for by the Consolidated Act, in the event of the two
parties being favourable to tke union; but the House must
recollect that the Grand Junction and Manchester and
Birmingham Railways, who were allied to the London and
liirmingharn, held the majority of the shares in the proposed
line, and hence the latter Company would have the power
of preventing the Great Western Company from using the
line unless the House agreed to the clause in its original
form.—(Hear, hear.) Now, under these circumstances, he
contended that it was for the benefit of the public that the
amendments which bad been proposed should be agreed to.
Mr. GREENE protested that there was no necessity
whatever for inserting the clause in the Bill at all, in so far
as the original Consolidated Act gave the Great Western
Company sufficient power and control over the new line,
either as regarded the rights of themselves or the interest of
the public.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. Mvwra and Mr. DENISON, the
amendment was withdrawn, and the clause in its original
form was agreed to.
The repOrt was then received, and the Bill, as
Meals],
ntered to be engrossed.
LIVERPOOL, ORMSKIRZ, AIM PRESTON
ordered
RAILWAY.
The consideration of the report on this Bill was resumed.
4epoit was ultimately agreed tot Itud Wend to '
be engrossed.