The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-27 00:00:00

Sub-Committee No. 5.

The Committee met at half-past twelve this day ; present Mr.
Home Drummond, (Chairman), the O'Conor Don, Mr. G. Phillips,
Mr. 11. E. Compton, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Mr. Forbes Maeltenzie,
and Mr. Cornwall Leigh.

'AMBERGATB, NOTTINGHAM, AND
BOSTON.

The further hearing of this case, front yesterday, was resumed,
and the petition of several persons against this line was entered into.
The next allegation brought forward this morning was, that in the
parish of Boston the height of the proposed railway over a certain
carriage-road was not shown.

Mr. Thomas Harrison, surveyor of highways, was called, but he
did not prove the road was a public one, as it only led to private
property. lie was in the habit of repairing it, and the expense was
charged to the parish.

M. Rice, a solicitor, of Boston, was called, but said he never saw
any carriage pass over it.

The Committee decided it was a public road, but whether a car-
riage road they would not for the present decide.
The next allegation was that a certain place in the said parish was
not mentioned in the hook of reference and that there were no cross
sections laid down.

➢tr. Underwood, an engineer, pointed out the cross sections on the
plan, and the Committee decided the standing orders were complied
with in respect to this railway.
CHESTER AND 2W/12/CHESTER DIRECT.

Pairr, agent to the line, begged for a postponement as they
were not prepared before Monday to enter into the proofs. The
Committee would not comply, and decided that the standing orders
were not complied with, inasmuch as the proofs required were not
given by the promoters of the line.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
This'Committee resumed its sittings at twelve o'clock. The follow-
ing companies having been declared to have complied with the stand-
ing orders, their Bills passed :—The Longford to Sligo Extension
Railway, the Sligo and Shannon Railway. The Committee reported
that the standing orders had not been complied with in the case of
the Wexford, Carlow, and Dublin Railway.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
This Committee resumed its sittirg this day at one o'clock. The
members present were—Mr. T. C. B. Estcourt (Chairman), Mr. E.
W. W. Pendarves, Sir William Heatheote, Mr. Home Drummond,
Mr. Greene (Chairman of Committees), Mr. William Ord, Mr. C.
Bruce, Mr. W. Miles, Mr. Wilson Patten.
THAMES HAVEN DOCK AND RAILWAY.
Solicitor, Mr. llderton; Mr. Giles, Engineer; estimated cost,
300,0001. Allowed to be proceeded with.

•
LOWER BANN NAVIGATION.
Agent, Mr. Dorrington. Allowed to be proceeded with.
ENNIS DOCK AND FEARGUS IMPROVEMENT.
IPSWICH AND BURY ST. EDMUND'S.
In this case the agents did not appear, and we could not therefore
learn the decision.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY).
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, Guildhall, before Lord DEssiAx.)

THE QUEEN V. PARKER.

This was a most complicated and intricate case, and will occupy
the Court the wkole of this day and to-morrow. The cause of action
arose out of some bill transactions, in which the defendant was in-
volved. Upon occasion of a former trial the defendant was exa-
mined as to the nature of these bills, and it was owing to the evidence
he then gave that the present prosecution was instituted, the prose-
cutor alleging that that evidence was not in accordance with the
facts in connexion with the bills In question.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner PANE.)
IN RE JONES.
PETITIONING CREDITOR'S COSTS.—ID this case the petitioning cre-
ditor resides at Luton, in Bedfordshire, and an application was made
for an order for his expenses, an execution having been put in on the
bankrupt's goods.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said he could not make any order on
the subject. An argument might be raised that the law should be
altered, but, as it stood, the petitioning creditor must pay his own
travelling expenses the same as any other creditor.
The Solicitor said the steps taken by the petitioning creditor were
for the benefit of the estate.
The Learned COMMISSIONER repeated that lie could not interfere.
THE COMMERCIAL BANK OF LONDON V. ROBINSON.
This was a summons under the 6th and 7th Victoria, calling on the
defendant, who is a tailor in St. Paul's Churchyard, to show cause
why he did pay the sum of 861., the balance of a bill of exchange.
The Solicitor to the bank said that terms had been proposed, and
as the Company were not desirous of pressing harshly, he would
consent to an adjournment for a week.
The case was accordingly adjourned.

SECONDARIES.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary Poi'TEL)
BENNY= O.
The plaintiff in this action is a carpenter, and the defendant a
banker at Kensington. The action was brought to recover the suns of
61. 55., for work done for the defendant.
The payment of Cl. 10s. on account was admitted, andthedefendant
had paid 21. les. into Court. The defence was, that the plaintiff had
overcharged for the work. The evidence was very conflictory.
On the part of the plaintiff it was shown that the plaintiff had been
engaged in various repairs of the counter, &c., and charged for the
work by the day, and also materials, and it was sworn that the bill
was fair and reasonable.
For the defendant two surveyors and builders were called. They
were both of opinion that in such a job the charge should be en mea-
surement, and not by time—the first estimated the fair charges at
41. 155., and the other at 51. Is. 11d.
Mr. Tuomas, for the defendant, contended that there was no bind-
ing rule as to the mode of charging, and did not consider the jury
would take such a close calculation as the last witness had made,
when the difference was so small between the sum allowed and
that paid.
The SECONDARY said it was entirely a question for the jury.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff,
This was the only case tried this morning.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron PAaaa and Mr. Justice MAME.)
Louis Phillips, 27, was charged with feloniously forging an accept-
ance to a bill of exchange for 971., with intent to defraud Lyon
Michael. There were five other charges, but only three were pre-
ferred.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty. He was recommended by the pro-
secutor to the consideration of the Court Witnesses were also called
to character.

Mr. Baron PARKE, in passing sentence, said that the offence was so
scrims, that it must be marked by the displeasure of the Court, and
the sentence would therefore be that he be transported for the term
of ten years.

itichtirdifickmoll was indicted for stealing eight silver forks, value
Si., the property of Nicholas Westley.
The prisoner was proved to have pawned two of the forks stolen.
Sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, with hard labour, the
last fortnight to be kept in solitary coptlnement.
Edward Bryant Carey, aged 51, a solicitor, was indicted for felo-
niously forging and uttering a certan instrument purporting to be an
office copy of a certificate of the Accountant-General of the Court of
Chancery, for the sum of 2,5961. 175., with intent to defraud.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Waddington. and Mr.
Clerk attended to prosecute, and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., with Mr.
Parry, appeared for the defence.

The
ki-rousty-GENnuAL opened the case by referring to the
statute of 'George 1., which referred to this species of offence, and he
then stated in detail the circumstances of the case, which may be per-
haps better understood from the evidence of the witnesses.
John Romani, clerk to the solicitor of the Accountant-General's-
office, examine() by Mr. Bonus—Produced a document marked E,
an office copy or the Lord Chancellor's order in the case of the Rev.
Edward Franks.

The document was read at length by the clerk, and contained an
order to pay the sum of 2,5561. 17e. into the Bank of England to the
credit of the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery.
Thomas Jones Bellamy examined by Mr. WADDINGTON—Resided
at Brighton. Was trustee in the affairs of Mr. Banks, a lunatic.
Mr. Foster was a co-trustee. He knew the prisoner, Mr. Garey,
who was concerned for the young A... the parties beneficially
interested, and they also employ awe expense, lu the

month of June last witness received ',the letter produced from the
prisoner. An order had been made directing himself and co-
trustee to pay in certain sums to the Bank of England in the name of
the Accountant-General. He received three cheques to•have his sig-
nature affixed, one of the cheques being for the sum mentioned in the
indictment. He signed the cheque, and crossed it "Bank of Eng-
land, to account of the Accountant-General." That appeared to be
struck out, and " Goslings and Co." substituted instead. After signing
the cheque he transmitted it to Mr. Foster. He afterwards received
a letter from the prisoner, dated Jan. 17, stating that he bad paid
the cheques into the Bank of England, and inclosing receipts alleged
to be signed by W. B. West, one of the cashiers of the Bank, for the
Bank and the Accountant-General. On the 20th February, witness
and co-trustee) called at the office of the Accountant-General's,
and made inquiry into the matter. The money was afterwards paid
by witness to the Accountant-General.

Cross-examined, by Mr. Mokirsonz CHAMIITILS—A Mr. Tristran
was employed as a solicitor in part of these transactions. Nis costs
were 4001. A commission of lunacy was taken out on Mr. Finks in
1825, but his insanity from the year 1816 was so manifest, that any
deeds of his after that period were void. By a settlement of
1806 the deceased had willed certain sums to the younger children,
which the heir-at-law disputed. Mr. Carey then undertook the
cause, and received the money which had been so settled upon them.
He did not know whether Mr. Carey had advanced his own money
for the purposes of the suit, but as the matter was very involved the
expenses must have been very heavy. He (witness) paid the pri-
soner some 200/., but the costs must have been greatly above this
amount. The costs, he, believed, were as high as 2,0001.
Charles James Foster, a barrister, and co-trnstee with Mr. Bel-
amy, examined, by. Mr. CI-elm—Had affixed his name to a cheque
'for 2,5961. 17s. The words "Goslings and Co." were not, upon it
then. The cheque was afterwards taken to Mr. Garey's. In De-
cember last he received a communication from Mr. Bellamy, and in
consequence he saw the prisoner at Southampton-buildingA, hi his
office. He asked him if he had the receipts, and he said he would
have them in a day or two. He could not recollect the words which
passed between them, but the impression was that Mr. Garay had
paid the money. Some time after he accompanied Mr. Bellamy to
the Accountant-General, and in this month he went to the Bank of
England, mid with Mr. Bellamy paid the money over again.
John H. H. Tristran handed the 'cheque so •often reftrred to to
Mr. Carey. It had not then the words " Goslings and 0o.." on it. It
was crossed to the Bank of England. When he asked for
the receipts, the prisoner said that they were at the Accountant-
General's office, and on subsequent occasions he said that he had
not had time to send for them.

Mr. Strange, cashier in the banking-house of Goslings and Co.,
proved having received the cheque in question from the prisoner.
A clerk, from Messrs. Coutts and Co., spoke to the fact of the
cheque having been brought to their house, and duly honoured on.
presentation.
Alfred Kinns—Was a writing-clerk in the prisoner's office last No-
vember. He entered the prisoner's service on the 10th of November
last, and left on the 24th of January following. The document
now produced, purporting to be a receipt from the Bank of England.
for the cheque paid into Gosling and Co., is in my hand-writing. He
wrote it on the 17th of January, at the desire of the
prisoner. The piece of paper on which he wrote was brought
to him by Mr. Garey. Upon giving it to him he desired
him not to spoil it as it was folded in a particular manner.
The prisoner also brought a piece of paper which was to serve as a
copy for the alleged forged certificate. This copy was in the hand-
writing of Mr. Garey.
Inspector Haynes examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—He had
apprehended the prisoner. The onlypapers he took possession of were
those which were found on his person, Finding upon examination
that none of these papers referred to the charge upon which the pri-
soner was taken into custody, he returned them all at the station-
house in Bow-street.
Alfred Kinns re-called—During the time he was writing the
alleged forged certificate the prisoner came from his inner office
several times to give him directions how he should do it.
Samuel Parkinson, clerk In the Accountant-General's office—The
usual course of business was, that the solicitor brought the order,
which was read through by the clerk, to understand the object of it.
In paying money to the credit of the Accountant-General it was
usual first to go to that functionary's office in Chancery-
lane, and there, upon the production of cash or a cheque,
a certificate was given to the solicitor in attendance, which certificate
was handed into the Bank of England with the money. The Bank
gave a receipt upon the money being paid in, and this receipt was
afterwards brought to the Accountant-General's-office, who affixed
his signature, and thus rendered the acknowledgment perfect. The
certificate now produced was not such a one as would be given
under the eircumstaces. The Accountant-General always received
private information every day of the sums of money paid into the
Bank of England, under orders granted by the Court of Chancery.
From the search which he made in the Record-office, and among the
books kept in the Accountant-General's office, it did net appear that
the sum in question was ever paid by the prisoner. It could not
have been paid in without his knowledge.
[The witness was under examination when our report left, and It
was not expected that the ease would be concluded this evening.]

NEW COURT.
•
(Before the RECORDER and Alderman W. RENTER.)
John Brasington pleaded guilty to an indictment, charging him with
feloniously stealing a satin dress, ♦alue 71. 75., the property of Charles
Wells, his master.

The prisoner, it seems, has returned from transportation within
the last three months, and is considered to be one of the most deter-
mined characters of the present day.
The Learned RECORDER then sentenced the prisoner to be trans-
ported for the term of ten years.
Joseph Gibson, indicted for bigamy, was placed at the liar, an
pleaded Not Guilty.
Wm. Davidson Day, on apprehending the prisoner, told him he was
charged with bigamy. Prisoner said, in reply, "It will be settled
now, and 1 wish it may be so. My present wife knew, when I mar-
ried her, that I was previously married to another still alive." Day
went down to Kingston-upon-Hull, and found the certitlcath of the
Brat marriage.

Mary Ann Jefferson—Knew the first wife of the prisoner. She is
still alive. They were married in 1824, and the prisoner lived with
his wife f.,r three or four years, but during that time had been absent
for one year and ten months. When he returned, he found his wife
far gone in pregnancy, which was the cause of their being separated.
Since that, the first wife had married another man at Hull, and had
been living with him.—(This fact, brought out in cross-examination,
caused a good deal of merriment in Court.)
Eliza Mary Miles, the prosecutor and the second wife, was called
into the witness-box. She was apparently about sixty years of age,
in the weeds of widowhood, and said she was married to the prisoner
eight years ago, in St. Saviour's, Southwark. Before that time, and
after the death of her former husband, she was supported by her
brothers. • .

Mr. WYLD (for the defence)—Was your son married very recently,
and had some of the furniture in the house given him ? Witness—
Yes.

Mr. WYLD—Was not that the ' cause of the present prosecution
against the prisoner, because he would not give up his property ?
The witness hesitated, and seemed unwilling to answer.
The RECORDER-It was that which led to some family broil? Wit-
ness—Yes.

Mr. WYLD —Did you know at the time of your marriage that the
prisoner had another wife ? Witness (very unwillingly)—Yes.
Mr. WYLD—Then why do you raise this prosecution? Witness
(unwillingly)—l did not expect anything unfair.
The RECORDER —That is, you wished to have a husband, but to
have the separate and entire control over your property, and this
prosecution is just another way of securing that?
The old lady was dismissed from the witness-box, and the evidence
for the prosecution having been closed, Mr. Wyld was proceeding to
call witnesses to the prisoner's character, when the Recorder re-
marked that he thought that quite unnecessary. If the counsel could
touch the facts he might try it, but in the case before them the Re-
corder thought there was little room for supposing the prisoner had
circumvented and ensnared beauty and youth.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and the Court sentenced him
to three months' imprisonment and hard labour, the Learned Re-
corder observing that the sentence proceeded from a regard not to
the first wife or the second wife, but to the interests of society.