The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, March 18.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

lIITCHCOCK V. DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND MARQUIS
IMINII.II
UM.. OF CMANDOS. _

Mr. BET HELL (with whom was Mr.Elmsley), moved
to dissolve an injunction which had been granted
some days ex parte, restraining the Marquis of Chan-
dos from selling timber on the \Votton estates, which
had been advertised for sale on the 13th and 14th of
this month. In consequence of an arrangement with
the Duke of Buckingham, the tenant for life of the
estates, the Marquis, on whom the estates were en-
tailed, had been put in possession. The present
plaintiff had a charge, by way of annuity, on the
estates granted by the Duke, who sold him an an-
nuity of 5,0001. a year for 25,0001. It was now con-
tended, on the part of the Marquis, that the Marquis
Lad entered into possession under an arrangement
with incumbrances prior to the plaintiff, who had
power to sell the timber, and that his only object in
proposing to sell the timber was to relieve the estate
by paying off or reducing the incumbrances.
Mr. BOLT (with whom was Mr. Glasse), for the
plaintiff, stated that the injunction did not interfere
with any incumbrances prior to the plaintiff, would
even now be content if he were satisfied that the pro-
ceeds of the timber would be applied as the Marquis
stated. But, in the absence of any security that it
would be so applied, they insisted on the plaintiff's
right to the injunction, as the sale of the timber
would of course deteriorate the estates.

His Hoziona said he should dissolve the injunction.
It was now obvious that the sale was by the order
and for the benefit of those whose interest it was to
reduce the incumbrances. The Marquis, although in
possession, had, in fact, no control over the estates.
lie conld not make an order that the money should
be applied in payment of the prior incumbrances,
because the prior incumbrances were not made parties
to the bill. But he was of opinion that the law itself
imposed that duty on those who should receive the
proceeds of the sale. The bill appeared to have been
filed on a sudden, without due inquiry, and the in-
junction must be dissolved with costs.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, March 18.
George Crouch, keeper of a parcels' booking office,
in Tudor-street, Blackfriars, was opposed on the part
of two creditors, named Sprigge and Price.
The complaint of Mr. Sprigge, proprietor of the
Ark- Union Annual, was fraud. He had sold the in-
solvent 1,000 copies of the annual for 1,000/., of
which 4001. was to paid down, and 6001. in bills,
which sum included 100 copper plates. The 400/.
was paid as the first load left, and Mr. Sprigge then
discovered that the insolvent had raised the money on
the works from Mr. Southgate, the auctioneer in
Fleet-street. He objected to supply the remainder,
as the insolvent had assured him that he should ship
one half of the volumes, and send the other into the
country. Mr. Southgate entreated him to send the
remainder, and the insolvent promised that the full
amount should be paid. Ile consented, and had not
been paid. One bill was taken up. The sale only
realised 530/., and the insolvent brought an action
against the auctioneer, and failed.
Mr. Commissioner Pimurs decided that Mr.
Sprigge had condoned the alleged fraud. By sending
the other volumes after he had known they were to
be consigned to an auctioneer was a waiver of the
complaint. _ _

The insolvent owed Mr. Price 23/. for a parcel sent
to Riinburgh, which had not been delivered.
After a long investigation, the Court was asked to
rerna:id under the discretionary clause, but refused.
I\th,,il the proceedings were perfected the insolvent
would be discharged.

It is stated by the Guarantee Society as a proof of
the general good character of the coalwhippers, whose
tervic,s have just been availed of in the City as special
constables, that out of 200 of them for whom the society
has become surety under the regulations of the " Coal-
whippers' Act," to the extent of 2,000/., not one, during
a period of six years, has proved unfaithful or dis-
honest. This tact, which fully corroborates the ob
serrations of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Labouchere with
reference to these men, is interesting as a proof of the
integrity of a large class of useful operatives.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, March 18.
CIVIL SIDE.

DOE ON THE DEMISE or WARREN V. LADY BRIDGES.

The above cause was resumed this morning, when
Sir F. Thesiger made his reply on behalf of the
plaintiff.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, going
minutely through all the different points in evi-
dence.
The jury retired at half-past twelve o'clock, and
were absent about two hours, when they returned
into court, and delivered their verdict in the following
terms :—" We find that Lady Isabella Bridges is in
legal possession of the Wootton Court estate, and also
of Swanton Woods," thus finding fur the defendant.

CROWN SIDE.
Richard Allchin surrendered to take his trial upon
an indictment charging him with baying embezzled
threepence, the moneys of her Majesty's Postmaster-
General.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Ballantine conducted the
prosecution, and Mr. Horne appeared for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence adduced in support of
the prosecution that the defendant was keeper of the
poet receiving-house at Mailing, about four miles from
Maidstone, and it seemed that, at the time in ques •
tion, all letters posted there addressed to villages
within a very short distance, had first to be sent
through the Maidstone Post-office, where they were
stamped, and were then sent back to Mailing, and
then it appeared there was na carrier to deliver
them ; but the gentry living in the neigh-
bourhood employed a private messenger to
fetch their letters, and, with regard to
the poorer class of persons, if they did not them-
selves fetch them, they would remain at the Post-
office for several weeks. The man who was em-
ployed as messenger, it appeared, was in the habit,
where letters were pre-paid, and which were ad-
dressed to villages in the neighbourhood, to keep
the penny for the postage, and deliver them without
letting them pass through the Post-office, but at
length it appeared the Post-office authorities made
an alteration in the arrangements, and appointed a
letter carrier, which situation was assumed by the
son of the defendant, to the exclusion of the old
messenger, who had been endeavouring to get the
appointment, and he then, out of spite, gave infor
'nation to the Post-office authorities of the proceed-
ings that had been going on, and in conse
quence certain letters were posted, in order to
obtain evidence, and in three cases letters
were delivered without passing through the
Post-office in the regular manner, or the
postage being accounted for by the defendant. Ile
was immediately questioned upon the subject, when
he at once admitted what he had dune, and said he
had always understood that the same practice had
prevailed with his predecessor, and that such letters
were a perquisite of the postmaster. It transpired
incidentally in the course of the case that the de-
fendant's salary was only 8/. a year, and it appeared
thet he had always borne a most excellent character,
and was very much respected in the neighbourhood.
Mr. HORSE having addressed the jury,
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE expressed an opinion that,
under all the circumstances, the evidence would
hardly warrant the conviction of the defendant of
feloniously embezzling the money in question.
Mr. CLARKSON said, that after what had fallen
from the Learned Judge, he should feel himself justi-
fied in withdrawing from the prosecution.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE observed that the inquiry
had been a very proper one, and it was very neces-
sary for persons who filled the office of the defendant
in country districts to know that such proceedings
were illegal, and subjected them to severe punish-
ment. The amount lost to the revenue in one district
might be inconsiderable, hut if the same course of
conduct were adopted throughout the length and
breadth of the rural districts of the country, the
amount of loss would be very large indeed, and he
trusted the present proceeding would have the effect
of preventing such a thing occurring again.
The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Cambridge, March ls.
The business of the assizes for this county com-
menced this morning before the Lord Chief Baron in
the Nisi Prins Court, and Mr. Justice Coltman on
the Crown side. The civil business is small, and,
with the exception of one case, which, it is said, in-
volves an inquiry into certain alleged corrupt prac-
tices at a former election of this borough, and will he
tried on Monday, is devoid of public interest. The ca-
lendar is heavy. It contains the names of fifty-one pri-
soners, of whom one is charged with murder; three with
manslaughter ; three with stabbing and wounding ;
four with arson ; eight with burglary ; one with per-
jury, assigned on proceedings in a county court; one
with wounding cattle ; one with administering poison
—a mother to her illegitimate child ; and the rest
with larcenies of various kinds. Fourteen of the
prisoners can neither read nor write, fourteen can read
imperfectly, sixteen can read and write imperfectly,
five can read and write well, and of the instruction
received by the others no account is given. Fifteen
of the prisoners have been committed for offences
alleged to have been perpetrated within the borough;
of these there is but one who can neither read nor
write ; and of the offences severally charged against
them there is but one, a case of burglary, that is of
a grave character.

PRIVILEGES OF THE UNIVERSITY.

A gentleman summoned to serve on the common
jury in respect of a house occupied by him in this
town, claimed exemption as an undergraduate of the
University proceeding towards his degree, and re-
quired to attend hall, chapel, and lectures, and perform
college exercises.
The CHIEF BARON—Those are very grave duties.
The case, as I understand, is entirely novel. It
would be withdrawing you prematurely from your
studies to make you attend here. You cannot claim
exemption, but I cannot think that, without any vio-
lation of law or usage, you may be excused, and you
are excused accordingly.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
John Cooper was indicted for having, on the 29th
of September last, set fire to certain stacks, the pro-
perty of his master.
Mr. Couch conducted the prosecution ; Mr. W .
Cooper defended the prisoner.
From the evidence it appeared that Mr. Allprees,
the prisoner's employer, resides at Hilton, in this
county, and has, about three miles off, a farm, at
Papworth St. Everard, of which the prisoner, who
had been sixteen years in his service, was the ma-
nager. The stackyard contained, on the 29th of
September, a stack of wheat, a stack of barley, and
a stack of peas. In a field, the property of Mr.
Cheere, the rector, which is separated from the stack •
yard by a low hedge, there were working, at five
o'clock in the afternoon of the 29th of September, two
men, named Gates and Criswell. Gates, while in the
act of raising his head, from strewing manure on the
ground, saw in the stackyard of the prosecutor, and
near one of the stacks, a light about the size of that
of a lantern; and the prisoner, Cooper, close to it.
lie immediately cried out " Fire! fire !" and then,
" There is Cooper." The prisoner, almost at the same
moment, disappeared behind the stacks. Criswell, on
hearing the cry of " Fire," made for the stacks ; but
on reaching them found that they were all in flames,
and that it was impossible to pass between them; he
therefore went behind the stacks, giving the alarm;
and, finding a pail, ran to the moat on the farm to
get water. As he returned he met the prisoner going
from the fire towards the cart hovel. The prisoner
took the pail from him and threw the contents on a
post of one of the stacks which the fire had not
touched. The neighbours came to render assistance,
but nothing effectual could be done, and the stacks
and cart hovel, with its contents, except a very valua-
ble drill, which the prisoner succeeded in saving, were
destroyed. As the prisoner neglected to send for his
master, whom he knew to be at Burley, which is
about eight miles off, and as the testimony of Gates
tended to fix suspicion on him, this charge was pre-
ferred against him. The prisoner's employer was
examined as to certain altercations which had taken
place between him and the prisoner not very long
before the fire ; but he deposed only to a dispute of a
very commonplace kind.
Mr. W. COOPER, for the defence, contended that
the evidence for the prosecution was entirely consis-
tent with the prisoner's innocence ; that the omiseion
to send for a master, who, if present, could have ren-
dered no aid, was not unnatural under the circum-
stances, and that the only suspicious fact in the con-
duct of the prisoner after the fire had begun—his
being met by Criswell going from it—was accounted
for by his desire to save the drill. The testimony of
Criswell showed that the fire must have made some
progress when Gates first saw it; and he would call
witnesses who would prove that for a long time
before, and almost up to the moment when Gates saw
the prisoner, the latter had been with them at another
part of the farm.
A little girl, the niece of the prisoner, and a lad
who works on the farm, then gave evidence which
supported the statement of the Learned Counsel.
Several persons of respectability also gave the pri-
soner a high character for good feelings and general
propriety of conduct.
Mr. Coucn replied.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, March 17.
Haman Cantrill, aged 34, was indicted for having,
on the second day of February last, at Newholme-
cum-Duntley, discharged a gun at James Brown,
with intent to kill and murder him.
The lion. E. Phipps, the Hon. A. Liddell, and Mr.
"Fravis conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Matthews
appeared to defend the prisoner.
On the 2,1 of February, about nine o'clock at night,
Gne of the watchers on Lord Normanby's estate,
named Waite, had his attention directed to a wood by
the sound of an air gun. Shortly afterwards the re-

port was repeated. He then collected the keepers to-
gether, and they proceeded to a place where the sound
appeared to come from upon which they met with a gang
of poachers, when a severe conflict ensued amongst
them. The poachers discharged an air gun several
times at the keepers, and subsequently a common gun
was fired, which wounded Brown, one of the keepers.
Waite told Brown to fire, but having been wounded in
the arm he was unable to raise the gun higher than
his thigh, and in that position he drew the trigger.
Brown was subsequently taken to a house of one of
the keepers, where his wound was promptly attended
to. On the following morning a man named Joseph
Rhodes was found in the wood where the conflict the
preceding night had taken place, much wounded, and
crying out for assistance. He was taken home in the
morning by Rosamond, constable of Lyth, and whilst
the officer was there the prisoner went in and out
three times, and on his first entrance asked Rhodes
how he was. Rosamond inquired what had brought
him out at such an early hour in the morning, to
which he gave an evasive answer. Rhodes was sub-
sequently admitted Queen's evidence, when he stated
that he, Cantrill, Edward Sharp, a man named George,
and Nathan Gills, were in Mulgrave Woods, that
they had a severe conflict with the keepers, and that
Cantrill fired the first gun.
The wife of the deceased was called to prove that
about half-past twelve on the night of the 2.d of De-
cetnber, the prisoner came to her house and asked her
to conceal an air gun, which she did under the floor
of her bedroom. The prisoner then left. Her hus-
band was taken home a few hours afterwards, and he
lingered till the 11th of February, when death termi-
nated his sufferings. After the deceased made his
confession, the witness gave the gun to Mr. Wilkin-
son, a constable, of Whitby.
William Wilkinson, high-constable of Whitby,
deposed that when he searched the house of Cantrill he
found a single and double-barrelled gun, a partridge
and various other nets.

Thomas Linskell apprehended the priF.oner at the
house of Rhodes on the day following the affray,
when, on being charged as one of the poachers on
the night in question, he said he was at home all
night with his wife, as he expected her hourly to be
confined.

James Smith said he was employed to remain with
the prisoner in the lock-up at Whitby- on the 18th
and 19th of February. Whilst there he said it was
a very strange thing that they did not catch the other
two poachers. It seemed to him as if they did not
wish to catch them. Witness replied, perhap3 they
could not. lle then said there was a report that he
(the prisoner) had fired four times, when the latter
acknowledged that he had.
Dr. Loy, a physician at Whitby, was called to at-
tend Brown on the 3d of February. lle found him
labouring from a severe wound in his right arm and
right side. He also attended deceased. He died of
mortification, which was caused by wounds he had
received in his legs.

- ,
Mr. Matthews tnen addressed the jury for the pri-
He commenced by lamenting that the affray
in Mulgrave Voods ever took place, and th it one
man should have lost his life in the conflict. The
men went into the woods for the purpose of killing
pheasants, an object which was improper and unlaw-
ful, and one which he could not justify. It, however,
was sad in the indictment that the prisoner shot at
Brown with the intent of killing him, but this he
hoped the jury would not believe, especially as the
report of Cantrill's gun was heard twice, and, as one
of the witnesses said, two dead pheasants were found
in the wood the morning following the affray.
It appeared that the jury were not satisfied of its
being proved with what intent the gun which shot
Brown had been discharged. The Learned Judge,
in summing up, directed their attention to this point.
They retired for some time, and on their return found
the prisoner Not Guilty.
The same man stood further indicted for the offence
of being, with others, to the number of three, armed,
and in an enclosed land, for the purpose of taking
game ; and to this charge he pleaded guilty.—Sen-
tence deferred.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and
a Special Jury.)
CARTER V. HAIGH AND OTHERS.

Mr. Baines, Mr. Cleasby, and Mr. Hugh Hill, were
counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Knowles, Mr. Mar-
tin, and Mr. Addison for the defendants.
The plaintiff is a gentleman of considerable pro-
perty, residing at Knaresborough, and was formeriy
the manager of a bank. The defendants are some of
them manufacturers living at Bradford, and the other
persons who were called in to assist in the alleged
illegal act which had given rise to the present action.
Before June last there was a firm existing at Lud-
denden Foot, near Halifax, carried on by Messrs. Sa-
muel and William Smith, as cotton-spinners. Among
the persons who dealt with them was Mr. John Den-
bigh, of Bradford, and on the 4th of June, Mr. Den-
bigh met Mr. Samuel Smith at Halifax. A conversa-
tion ensued between them, and on Mr. Denbigh
asking him how he was getting on, Mr. Smith
said that money was scarce, that he wanted some
to pay wages, and he asked Mr. Denbigh if
he had any locse cash with which he could
accommodate him, stating at the same time
that he had some goods to sell, and that,
although pressed by their banker, the firm were in a
position to pay more than 20s. in the pound. Mr.
Denbigh replied that he had no doubt that either he
alone, or with the assistance of some friend, could
advance him 1,0001. or 1,600/., if he had any goods to
sell which would leave a fair profit to the purchaser.
Mr. Smith stated that he had some tops and noils,
and other articles, which he had no doubt would
leave a profit ; and, accordingly, on Monday, the 7th
of June, Mr. Denbigh and the plaintiff, who was in-
formed by the former that ho believed an advanta-
geous purchase might he made, proceeded to Ludden-
den Foot, where Mr. Carter bought of the Messrs.
Smith a quantity of tops and noils, as well as some
soap and oils, for 4161., the whole being treated as a
" job lot." The plaintiff produced five bills of ex-
change and some small cash, when Mr. Samuel Smith
said he wished to have cash. He was informed, how-
ever, that the bills were as good as cash, and on Mr.
Denbigh consenting to put his name upon them, they
were received by Mr. Smith. The goods arrived at
Mr. Denbigh's warehouse at Bradford, on the Bth of
June, and on the following day the defendants Haigh,
Foster, and another person seized the goods, not-
withstanding they were warned of the consequences,
they stating that they seized the goods on account of
the assignees of Messrs. Smith, and that they were
willing to abide by the consequences. The goods were
af:erwards sold, and the proceeds not only appro-
priated by the assignees, but also the whole of the
money due upon the bills which Mr. Smith had re-
ceived from the plaintiff.
The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted
that his client had a perfect good title against the
defendants, and that they had no right whatever to
seize the property in question.
The defendants pleaded, first, not guilty ; and,
secondly, that the plaintiff was not possessed of the
goods.
Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the defen-
dants, contending, in the first place, that the sale on
the 7th of June was of itself an act of bankruptcy,
and therefore the goods alleged to be purchased be-
came the property of the bankrupts' (Messrs. Smith's)
assignees, as soon as those assignees were appointed ;
and in the next place, that this was not a bonci fide
payment in the sense in which the Legislature in-
tended the words bond
,ficle should be used.
Mr. BAINES, in reply, submitted that the attempt
made on the other side to show that his client had
been a party to that which he was entirely innocent
of, viz., the commission of a fraud npon the creditors
of the bankrupts, had completely failed, and that
therefore the jury had no other alternative but to find
a verdict for the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff for 3981. 18s., the amount
for which the goods were sold.
March 18.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
John Lynn, 35, William Clark, 26, and Robert
Douglas, 28, were indicted for having, at North
Grimaton, on the 27th of December last, feloniously
shot at Robert Thompson, with intent to prevent
the lawful apprehension and detainer of the prisoners.
Mr. Blanchard and Mr. Foster conducted the pro•
secution, and Mr. Price defended the prisoners.
It appeared that Thompson, a gamekeeper on the
land of Henry Willoughby, Esq., together with two
other men, was out at an early hour in the morning,
when they heard the discharge of a gun, and went in
the direction of the report. The three men at the
bar came in view, and ran ; the keepers pursued
them, when the prisoners turned several times firing
off their guns, the small shot from one of which struck
Thompson, but without doing him any serious injury.
The prisoners were all acquitted of the charge of
felony.
Lynn pleaded Guilty to another indictment for
night poaching.—Sentence deferred.
Mr. Watson, who is one of the Queen's Counsel in
the commission for this circuit, sat to-day in the
magistrates' room, and tried several cases of felony.
MAGISTRATES' Room.
(Before Mr. W. H. WATSON, Q.C.)
Thomas .Haigh and Charles Haigh were indicted
for uttering a certain promissory note for 51., with
intent to defraud a benefit society at Huddersfield.
Mr. Hale and Mr. Boothby conducted the prose-
cution. The prisoners were defended by Mr.
Matthews.

It appeared that the benefit club was held at the
Friendship Inn, at Huddersfield, and that on the Ist
of December last a meeting of the club was held, at
which the prisoner, Thomas Haigh, purchased his
right to draw a .5/. share, but before the money could
be paid, the club rules require that a promissory note,
signed by the person taking the money and also by
two sureties (whom the committee of the club should
approve of) must be first given. The prisoner,
Thomas Haigh, accordingly made his promissory
note, and represented that he would procure his