The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-16 00:00:00

pleading to actions brought against him. It appeared
that the insolvent's half-pay as a Rear-Admiral Ins 4561.
a year, subject to the income-tax, and to 401. a year set
aside under a former insolvency, in 1835. He had now
a little better than 4001. a year to support himself, wife,
a son, and a daughter. Twice he had been relieved
from his debts—in 1835, and by the Court of Bank-
ruptcy in February, 1846. He now owed ab ut 1,7001.,
and said, on being pressed, that he could n t set aside
any portion of his halt pay for the creditors.
Among his present creditors were seventeen persons
for wine, spirits, and beer.

Sargood represented several small creditors for
debts incurred in the Queen's Prison since the insolvent
petitioned the Court in July, 1847. He had remained in
prison since that period, and as he could not be dis-
chargdd from debts contracted after the vesting order,
he (Mr. Sargood) prayed that they might be struck out
of the schedule.

Mr. COOKE established in evidence that in the case
of Messrs. Steele the costs of the action amounted to
37L, and in the action of Messrs. Brown and Redpath
to 251.

Mr. Bennett, the creditor, in person, stated that he
had the insolvent in prison in France. Lie was dis-
charged after thirteen months' confinement, and through
the exertions of the Sisters of Charity. Soine money
had been paid. Ho was now one of the detaining cre-
ditors for about 301.

The CHIEF Comussi3NEn, on the conclusion of the
evidence, asked the insolvent several times whether he
was disposed to set aside a portion of his income for his
creditors ? The insolvent said he had a sick wife ; he
had not the means of setting anything aside. He was
upwards of sixty years of age.
CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Why, you have 4001. a year.
I again ask you, will you do anything for your cre-
ditors? •

The insolvent declined to make any proposal; but
after an intimation from his attorney, said he would give
20/. a year.
Mr. NICHOLS asked for permission for the case to
stand over, and he would advise the insolvent to make
a proposal.
The case stood over, and an application was after-
wards made to dismiss the petition, the insolvent under-
tuking to file a new petition to include all his debts, and
promised to make a proposal for his creditors; the
amount was not stated.

His HoNOUit consented to dismiss the petition, as he
considered it would be for the benefit of the creditors.
He told the insolvent that he belonged to a noble pro-
fession, the members of which were of straightforward
and honest bearing. "Do not," added the Learned
Commissioner, " tarnish its lustre."
The COURT decreed the dismissal of the petition on
another being filed.
(Before Mr. Commissioner litmus.)
IN RE GODFREY YOUNG.

This insolvent, who had been a collector of poor,
church, and other rates, of St. Mary, Newington Butts,
was opposed by Mr. Crouch, for a Mr. Pegg, and sup-
ported by Mr. Sargood.
It appeared that the insolvent, who is now registrar
of births,-marriages, and deaths in the same parish, was
&defaulter to 'some extent as a parish collector, and Mr.
Pegg and Mr. Batchellor, his two sureties, had to pay
upwards of 2001. Mr. Pegg was now a creditor for nearly
5004 The bond given by Mr. Pegg was not in court,
and it was decided that the individual case could not be
proved. An opposition was made by another creditor.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS told the insolvent that had
the evidence been complete he would have been re-
manded on the serious charge made against him. It
was a case for the discretionary clause, and he remanded
the insolvent For four calendar months.

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT, Sept. 15.
CROUCH V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAIL.

WAY COIVPAN Y.

The plaintiff in this case was Mr. George Crouch, of
Tudor-street, Whitefriars, who sought to recover from
the London and North-Western Railway Company the
sum of ss. Iod., which it was alleged had been over-
charged by that company for conveying a basket of small
parcels from Sheffield to London.

Mr. Dod appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Russell on
behalf of the company.
It appeared that many years ago the plaintiff's father
opened an office in London for the conveyance of small
parcels to distant parts of the country. The mode of
transit then adopted was by the ordinary means of con-
veyance. The smaller pareels being collected together
and placed in one large package, were forwarded to the
agent in the country for his distribution to the parties to
wom the goods were directed. The business having
fallen into the hands of the plaintiff, he continued to carry
it on in a similar manner, until the railways drove off
all other means of conveyance on the road, and then the
parcels were sent per rail. On the 7th of July a basket,
containing small parcels, was delivered at the plaintiff's
office, for which Bs. 3d. was charged. To this he de-
murred, saying, That the amount he had previously paid
for a package of the same weight was only 2s. 5d., and
he paid the full amount under protest, and his pre-
sent action was 'to recover back the sum alleged to be
overpaid.
Fur the defence, Mr. RUSSELL contended that there
were many grounds upon which the plaintiff ought to
be nonsuited ; one was, that the London and -North-
Western Railway Company were sued for what they
never undertook to perform. They were alleged to have
over-charged for conveying a package from Sheffield to
London, when the fact was, they never undertook to
carry any goods from that place. The parties who did
were the North Midland Railway Company. It was
along their line that the goods were conveyed until they
got to Rugby, and that company afterwards settled with
the North-Western Company for running their vans and
trucks on the remainder of the distance to Camden-
town. Another ground of nonsuit was, that by the 7th
Vic., cap. viii. sec. 64, the company had the power of
charging for the carriage of any small parcel not exceed-
ing 500 lbs. any sum which they thought fit. On the
15th of July the company passed a resolution, that all
" packed small parcels" should be charged ld. per lb.
for 100 miles, and lid. per lb. over that distance. The
question, therefore, was, had the company the power to
make the resolution; if so, the plaintiff must not find
fault with the same.

Mr. Cobby, superintendent of the parcels department
of the North Midland Riilway at Sheffield, said that the
company were the :only carriers known to the public in
that town. A parcel sent there, to be delivered in Lon-
don, if unpaid, would be debited to the North-Western,
who would collect the carriage for the same, and after-
wards settle with the North Midland Company. The
Midland Company began to enforce the charge on the
15th of July. Kennett, of Snow-hill, was charged the
same as Mr. Crouch. •

The JUDGE said that the question was one of consi-
derable public importance, and he would rather it had
been tried in a higher court, He should order the plain-
tiff to be nonsuited, which would give him an opportu-
nity of trying the case in a'superior court.
The plaintiff was, accordingly, nonsuited.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before the ASSISTANT-JUDGE.)
The Court sat yesterday at the Wftttninster Sessions.
house.

Jeannette Macdonald, alias Ilfaria de Moria, alias
Mary Bally, alias Ellen Sotith, alias Ellen Johnson ;
Sanderson :Sanderson, alias
_Sanderson Herbert; Mary
Sanderson,alias Mary Sanderson Herbert, and Jane
Morgan, were named in an indictment for keeping a
house of ill-fame in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-

Jeannette Macdonald was the only person that sur-
rendered for trial.
Mr. Ballantine was for the prosecution, and Mr. Parry
for the defendant.
The house in question was situated in Oxendon-street,
near the Haymarket, and the defendant Jeannette Mac-
donald, better known as Maria do Muria, was the ma-
nager. This was proved by an old woman who was
servant in the house.
Mr. PARRY, in an energetic speech, denounced the
system under which, at the present time, prosecutions
were carried on. It' a common informer complained to
the parish authorities of any house they had to prose-
cute, and in the event of their declining, the informer
could do it himself;and on a conviction of the parties,
the informer became entitled to 101. This had the effect
of making these prosecutions a trade, and a system of
extortion, for in nine cases out of ten there were corn•
promises made, and public justice was defeated. In the
present case the parish authorities were the prosecutors,
but why did they 'single Out the woman at the bar? The
defendant was neither manager nor proprietor of this
house; she 'fives mere' Servant; and instead of being
placed at a criminal bar, why did the authorities not
look 'for the real offender—the landlord of the house,
and. inflict upon him the penalty which the law directed?
There were those in London who lived in afluence,
and maintained influential positions in society,
who derived their oppalence from this source,
and who secretly:encouraged this degrading traffic.
It was proVed • this case that the owner of the
house realised abdut 14/: a night, or something like
4,000/. a year, and. yet the woman at the bar was to be
the victim. Ile had advised her to plead guilty, knotv-
ing, that if she did so she would be let off under recog-
nizances, and that if convicted she would be sent to the
House of Correction; but her answer was that she was
net guilty, and that rather than purchase her liberty by
saying that she was guilty, she would submit to trans-
portstion-for life; she was not guilty, for she was only a
servant of a more guilty person, and ought not to suffer
for the crimes which another had committed.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE said that the prisoner could, if
she chose, disclose who was the real proprietor of this
house, and who received the proceeds; if she gave this
information, and assisted in the detection of the culprit,
it would be taken into consideration. The sentence was
that the deft ndarit'be imprisoned for the space of three
months, with hard labour.
Johh Adams pleaded Guilty to a similar charge.
The defendant stated ,that he paid fifty guineas a
month for the use of the house to a Mr. flight, who
knew the purposes for which the house was used. He
(defendant) had nothing to do with the house now, as he
had given up the key.
Cooper, a policeman, in reply to the Bench, said that
a man named Ginness was included in the indictment
against the defendant. A Bench warrant had been ob-
tained against him at the instance of Mr. Le Breton, the
vetlisntrnyet-es.lears hkoef St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, whose clerk
gave it to witness to execute. This clerk sent witness a
letter directing him not to execute the warrant against
directed the witness
had agreed to pay the law costs
the parish bad been put to.. Ginness escaped out of the
country, and N!ben this was told to the clerk, he then
the reason he
who informedawasi
tess to execute the warrant, but it was
too late. defendant was taken next morning, and
transport, not taken before was, that Bernell,
delay would effect wouig ilnett the house, and who was a returned
0, point him out, in the hope that the
(let a c • •
°lnPtcm4ll,e between him and the'
defendant.

a :~e