The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-04 00:00:00

EXPARTE BROOK AND HINCKLEY.

Mr. PASHLEY moved for a rule to show cause why a
mandamus should not issue-to two magistrates named
Brooke and Hinckley, ordering them to hear an appli-
cation for an order in bastardy. The Act under which
the application was made was the 7th and Bth Victoria,
cap. 101, and the question to be decided was one of very
considerable importance, viz., whether, after the order
was obtained by the woman, and afterwards
abandoned, an application for a new one coul.l
be entertained on the defendant's costs being paid.
The mother, in the present case, obtained a summons
from Mr. Brooke, and the case came on before Messrs.
Brooke and Baker, and was adjourned to the 17th. On
this occasion Messrs. Brooke and Hinckley presided, and
the orders were made. The attorney on the other side
said that he should appeal against the decision, as when
the second hearing came on before different magistrates,
the woman had not been sworn. The attorney for the
woman felt that the objection was fatal. After some
further discussion the woman again attempted to bring
the case before the magistrates. The attorney on the
other side, who was clerk to the magistrates, refused to
allow the case to be reconsidered until his costs in the

former application had been paid. On his receiving 30s.
he proceeded to renew his former objections. At length
the magistrates refused to hear the emie until they had
the authority of the Court of Queen's Bench.—Rule
granted.

COMMON PLEAS-('PHIS DAY )
(Sittings in Banco.)
TUCKER V. HORKINGS.

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved for a rule to set aside a
verdict in this case, which was tried at last Liverpool
Assizes, before Mr. Justice Cresswell. The action had
arisen on a debt secured by a bond due by the defendant
to a perso❑ named John Tucker, deceased, and proceed-
ings were instituted by one of the executors, Richard
Tucker, to recover the same. The verdict was given to
the plaintiff, and the rule was to set aside the verdict and
grant a new trial. The main point submitted by the.
Learned Gentleman uas the Statute of Limitations as
applied to bonds, and he contended that the Learned
Judge at trial had not put the construction on the sta-
tute, as applied to this case, which should have been
given.—Rule nisi granted.
PARSON V. SEXTON AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Sergeant MILES moved for a rule in this case to
show cause why the verdict :hould not be entered for
the plaintiff for 1171., or why there should not be a new
trial. The action was tried at the last sittings after term in
Middlesex, before Mr. Justice Erie, and a verdict given
for the defendant would leave the plaintiff to move. The
plaintiff was an engineer in Lambeth, end the defend-
ants were znillowners at Uxbridge. The dispute had arisen
about a steam-engine. The whole transactions between
the parties amounted to 356/. 19s. 6d., but prior to the
action being brought 2321. 12s. was paid. Credit was
given by the plaintiff for this sum, and also for a set off
of 71., and another part for the balance. The
defence was that the engine was boughtby the defendant
with the understanding that it was of 14-horse power,
but that it really was only of 9 horse power. The de-
fendants refused taking the sum, agreed to deduct an
equivalent for the deficiency. The evidence as to the
power of the engine was very COT flicting. Some engi-
neers affirming it was equal to 14-horse power while
others denied it. The defendant contended that the
plaintiff warranted the engine to be a 14-horse engine.
The latter denied there was any express warranty, and
contended that had there been any express warranty the
proper course would have been to proceed for breach of
contract.—Rule nisi granted.

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)
Wm. Gulling, a young man in the service of Mr.
Watts, printer, of 3, Crown-court, Pickett-street, was
placed at the bar before Mr. Henry, charged with steal-
ing a quantity of books, &c., the property of his
employer. He had been remanded from this day week.
It appeared that since the last examination, the officer
who had taken the prisoner (Serjeant Pocock, F 14) bad
been to his lodgings, and had found there nine books,
all of which were identified by the prosecutor as his
property, and also a quantity of sheets of paper and a
number of letters and memorandums.
The prisoner said that all the books were waste copies,
and he had taken them without any idea of injuring Mr.
Watts.

Mr. Watts denied that the books were waste, but
added that the felonies as yet discovered were unim-
portant in compariso❑ with some that were supposed to
have been committed by the prisoner. He would esta-
blish a charge against the prisoner of stealing several
hundred reams of paper, his acknowledgments of which
were in the paper merchant's hands, but never had been
accounted for ; and also a charge of having received
large sums of money from customers which he never
accounted for, and which indeed he had no authority to
receive.
The prisoner was remanded till Tuesday week.

MARLBRO'-STREET.—THIS DAY.)
Matilda Hassod and Eliza Good were charged before
Mr. Hardwick with violently assaulting Mrs. Best in
the street, and robbing her of her money and wearing
apparel.
Mrs. James BeSt, living at 9, Nelson-street, Camden-
town, said she had been out shopping, and returning
home about half-past seven o'clock last night, when in
the New road, at the corner of Tottenham-court-road,
as she was waiting the carriages passing by, the prisoner
Hassod came up and attacked her. She tore her bonnet
off her head, and after stripping it of the veil, threw it
on the pavement. Eliza Good at this time came up, and
seized complainant about the middle, and held her till
Hassod took a purse from her, containing 4s. 6d., a par-
cel containing the articles she had been purchasing, and
her veil, and made off with them. The defendant,
Good, then let her go, called a cab, and drove off.
George Wanfor, who saw the transaction, corroborated
complainant's evidence. He followed Hassod, and gave
her into custody.
Both the defendants denied any felonious intent.
They were committed for trial.

SOUTHWARK.—.(THIS DAY.Y
Margaret Murphy, a woman With a child iu her arms,
was charged with the following fraud :
The prisoner watched until she saw a printer's wife,
in Thomas-street, leave the house, and her hack was no
sooner turned than the former went into the shop, and,
Producing three beck-elates, told the daughter of the