The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

SOCIETY OF ARTS.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, Dec. 13.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
HER MAJESTY'S AND PRINCE ALBERT'S
ETCHINGS AND DRAWINGS.
THE QUEEN AND PRINCE ALBERT v. STRANGE,
JUDGE, AND OTHERS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. SMITH then went on to contend that the answers
of Mr. Strange completely exculpated him from blame;
for be had sworn that the basis of his engagement with
Mr. Judge was that her Majesty's consent should be
obtained to the publication of the etchings.
His HONOUR—Is it explained why none of the house-
hold of Prince Albert were consulted before the publi-
cation of the catalogue ?
Mr. SMITH—No, it does not, but the catalogue was
never published. Mr. White, the attorney on the other
side, when he came to Pa:ernoster-row, could not obtain
a copy. In fact, the catalogue, with the exception of 11
copies sent to the Palace and to the members of the
Royal Family, was as unpublished as any work, the proof
sheets only of which had been sent out. Perhaps the de-
fendants acted in ignorance of the matter, thinking, no
doubt, that the publication, without any formal application,
would be more acceptable to the feelings of the Queen
and her Consort. The election of Prince Albert to the
Chancellorship of the University of Cambridge was an
example of the kind. The Prince did not give his con-
sent to be put in nomination; yet Professor Whewell
and others, some of whom occupied high positions on
the bench, did put him in nomination, and he was
elected. If the decision of his Honour was
adverse to the defendants, on the same principle
sought to be established here all criticisms might
be subject to injunction—nay, more, the recently-
published illustrations of the cattle exhibited at the
cattle show might be stopped by injunction. But, after
all, the matter resolved itself into one of costs.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—The costs, and something
more—to be indemnified from loss; that was the tenor
of the correpondence which, though written without
prejudice, was nevertheless set forth in the answers.
Mr. SMITH said the defendant was prepared to give
up all the copies, and not to similarly offend for the
future, on the payment of the legal costs to which he
had been put. He had made this offer, but it was de-
clined; the costs of the prosecution alone were offered to
be paid. Now, Mr. Strange believing conscientiously that
he had not acted improperly, but as a fair trader and as
a man of honour, and not wishing to sneak out of this
matter except in the mast honourable manner, refused to
accede to this proposal, because he would thereby admit
that he was guilty of the offence imputed to him,
of which he was altogether innocent.
[ The whole of the voluminous correspondence was
here read by Mr. Smith, and bore out the statement in
his address. j
His HONOUR, at their conclusion, said he doubted much
whether he should have permitted the public time to
have been occupied by the reading of those letters,
which appeared to him to have been written with a view
to a comprcmise; the act, however, was one of all the
counsel.
Mr. SMITH said be had read the letters to show that
Mr. Strange did not wish to be considered as acting
submissively in this matter, but with an earnest desire
to bo relieved from the proscution honourably. He
thought the Queen and Prince Albert should congratu-
late themselves, that instead of finding a bad subject
they had found a most loyal one.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he appeared for Prince
Albert in support of the injunction, and that he wished
to submit the case to his Honour on the same
principles as those which would guide the cause of the
humblest individual. • He submitted that he was entitled
to hold the injunction. Mr. Strange and Mr. Judge
entered into the speculation as the property of others, as
their joint experiment for their joint profit. The case
was like that of a private gentleman who sent
an engraving to a printer to have proofs struck
off, and who had had some of the engravings pur-
loined—by the sale of which the value of the proe
perty or the engraving might be materially in-
jured. Courts of equity were constantly dealing
with literary property of this kind about to be interfered
with in a similar manner. He admitted that the dis-
tinction in this case was very fine, but surely when it
was obvious that the sale of the work would be immense
—that it would have found its way into almost every
assembly, and into every house—that great profits would
have been realised—it could not be contended
that there was no property in the matter. He
submitted that he had clearly established the
existence of property in this case. About a 100
years ago the Earl of Arundel brought home from
abroad the valuable marbles which now decorated the
University of Oxford, and which threw much light upon
chronology. Could it be contended that if they
were pirated no injury would result to the
value of the property ? The Court could as
much interfere in such a case as in cases of pi-
racy of valuable chemical experiments shown at a
lecture, the compilation of a book from the catalogue of
a private literary gentleman, who had allowed a person
to inspect it, or in the piracy of trade marks. Such
cases had occurred.
His HONOUR inquired if the Learned Solicitor-Ge-
neral could furnish him with the name of the case to
which Lord Eldon had so often alluded—the case of a
person of strong memory going to see a new play, and
afterwards producing it.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD believed it was the case of
" Miller v. Elliston."
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL said in the case of Macklin
v. Richardson it was held that going to a play and ob-
taining the words by the aid of short-hand was a viola-
tion of copyright. In this way the defendant had ob-
tained the language of a popular farce, Love a la Mode,
in which Mr. Macklin had obtained much success. The
learned Solicitor-General cited cases in which medical
lectures, published in the same way, had been held to be
violations of copyright. He applied the same law to this
case. The printer at Windsor, or rather his pressman,
had no right to part with the etchings.
His HONOUR inquired if this version was recognised
on both sides?
Mr. WARREN said the mode in which the etchings
were obtained was set forth in the bill, but Mr. Strange
knew nothing of the way in which they were obtained.
His HONOUR—Does it appear in the answers that Mr.
Strange asked Mr. Judge how he obtained the etchings?
Mr. WARREN—NO, Sir, it does not.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL referred to the judgment of
Mr. Justice Willmot in the case of Bridgenorth
v. Green, which had reference to obtaining, by sur-
reptitious means, a portion of the revenues of an estate.
In that case his Lordship said that restitution must
ensue, since the defendant had obtained the property by
unfair means—the source was polluted. A similar re-
sult must follow in this case. The statement that Mr.
Strange did not know how Judge obtained the etchings
could not be believed. He knew that it was untrue when
he put the statement down. Mr. Strange said he
entered into the arrangement with Mr. Judge " pro-
vided it is not offensive to her Majesty or Prince
Albert." He must have known that Mr. Judge
was not a likely person to be particularly
favoured by the Court, or to have ready access to the
private apartments of her Majesty. If the defendant
and Mr. Judge really wished to obtain the consent of the
Queen and Prince Albert to the publication of the
etchings, why did they not seek it before the appear-
ance of the paragraph in the Berkshire paper? The
catalogues were doubtless sent to the various members
of the Royal Family in the belief that they would bo
thrown into the waste-paper baskets, and not receiving
a reply, that they might be enabled to say.that they had
obtained the consent of the Royal Family to the publi-
cation of the catalogue, or that the Queen and Prince
Albert might be induced to avoid the unpleasantness of
having their etchings exhibited to the public by a pecu-
niary consideration.
His HONOUR said no man in his senses could believe
that Mr. Strange did not inquire of Judge the
whole particulars of how he obtained the etchings.
The Learned SOLICITOR-GENERAL concluded a most
able speech by expressing his conviction that the Court
would retain the injunction, and also stating that it was
the desire of her Majesty and Prince Albert that his
Honour would only give to them the same measure of
justice that he would award to the lowest of her subjects.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD followed on the same side,
and had not concluded when the Court rose.

Last night the fourth ordinary meeting of the mem-
bers of the Society of Arts was held in the great room
at the Society's house, John-street, Adelphi. Mr.
Thomas Webster, M.A., F.A.S„ vice-president, in the
chair.

Mr. J. HOLMES proceeded to read an extremely inte-
resting lecture upon the present state of electricity as
applied to telegraphs. Tracing the application of elec-
tricity to the purpose of telegraphic communication from
its earliest invention in 1746 down to the present day,
the lecturer stated that it was not his intention to can-
vass separately the various plans of electric telegraphs
which had from time to time been brought under the at-
tention of the public. For his present purpose it would
be sufficient to divide them into two great classes-1.
The mechanical telegraph, in which a system of clock-
work was set in motion by the agency of electricity ;
and 2. The mere theoretical instrument, which depended
upon the direct action of the current, either by induction

' upon a suspended magnetic iron bar, or by the decom-
position of certain chemical solutions, so placed as to
form a part of the magnetic circuit. All the early tele-
graphs recorded between 1746 and 1798, were constructed
to work by electricity of a high tension, and the results
obtained were far from successful, still, to those early
efforts, especially to an invention of Dr. Watson's, they
were indebted for the comparative perfection which the
instrument had now reached. No advance of great im•
portance in this direction was made until the discovery
of the voltaic battery in 1800, aided by M. Arago's
adaptation of the electro-magnet. In 1837, the inven-
tion was still further improved, and was rendered of
practical utility by the process of Messrs. Wheatstone
and Cooke, who then registered their patent. The se-
chanical telegraph had been hitherto very little employed
in this country. The first erected in England was placed
by Professor Wheatstone to work the Admiralty signals
upon the South-Western Railway, between Gosport and
Nine Elms. Out of 2,000 miles of telegraph, the only
other railway on which it had been employed was the
South Devon, a length of 27 miles, and such was the per-
fection it had attained, that frequently as many as
2,000 distinct signals were conveyed without the
slightest failure or casualty of any description. After
much experience and mature consideration of the sub-
ject, however, he must express his opinion that these
telegraphs were not applicable to railway purposes, or
where a great deal of attention could not be bestowed on
them. The other class of telegraph, which he had de-
scribed as the more theoretical system, was the one gene-
rally in use throughout the country. These were first in-
vented byMr.Alexander, of Edinburgh,with 24 needles and
24 wires. They were now reduced, however, to two
needles with two wires, and even to one needle with one
wire. This plan was first adopted by Professor Ersted
in 1813. Still the whole system was replete with im-
perfections. For long distances, and in wet weather,
the difficulty of working them became immense, and the
signals were often perfectly unintelligible, the needles ,
scarcely vibrating at all. To meet this difficulty, lighter
and improved needles and a new helix were invented,
which had enabled him to transmit 120 letters in a
minute. The power of printing by electric telegraph
was now an undisputed fact. Davey made the first
great stride in its application to the conveyance of
printed messages, in 1838, and in 1847 Mr. Bain suc-
ceeded in producing a beautiful instrument for the
purpose. A perfect printing communication now ex-
isted between Liverpool, Manchester, and London, and
the operations were carried on with tolerable rapidity,
but not by any means with the speed of which the
instrument might be capable. Frequently 2,000 dis-
tinct symbolic characters had been conveyed in a
minute, but that was not upon any great length of line.
250 letters in a minute had been accomplished be-
tween Liverpool and Manchester, a distance of thirty
miles. The average, however, was about 75 letters in a
minute.

The lecturer illustrated his subject by a series of
extremely well-executed diagrams, which proved of no
small assistance to the less scientific portion of his au-
dience.

TROOPS FOR HONG•KONG.—By latest intelligence
received from Hong-Kong, the authorities were informed
that the sickness among the troops there prevailed to
such an extent, that there were not men enough conva.
leecent to perform garrison duty. In consequence of
this report, the 75th Regiment, 1,200 strong, has been
placed under orders to hold itself in readiness to em-
bark at short notice for that colony. It is probable,
as it would be more economical, and certainly more
comfortable for the troops, that her Majesty's ship
Belleisle will be commissioned to convey the 75th to
Hong-Kong.
A FARMER ATTACKED BY A RAM.—As Mr. Wil-
liam Underwood, farmer and grazier, of Lutterworth,
was lately walking through one of his fields, a large ram
of the Wiltshire breed ran up to him and knocked him
down: after which it walked off; but as soon as the ob-
ject of its attack was again upon its legs, it returned in
the most furious manner to renew the attack. Having
a gun in his hand, Mr. Underwood began to beat the
ram about the head with the butt-end, but this made
little impression upon the invincible skull of his horned
antagonist, which again brought its master to the ground.
Mr. Underwood began to think his life was in danger,
as no one was near to rescue him; but after several un-
successful attempts to escape from his perilous situation,
he thought of an expedient which succeeded in effecting
his escape. Thoegh in a state of great exhaustion, he
managed to get a handkerchief out of his pocket, and,
holding the ram by the horns, he partially blindfolded
the animal, and by this means evaded its observation
and got away. His fleecy combatant, however, seemed
to have some notion of fair play, as it never attacked its
victim when he was down; had it done so, in all proba-
bility Mr. Underwood would have lost his life.—Norfolk News.

COURT OF QUEEIV'S BENCH, Dec. 13.
:Sittings,before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and a Common
Jury.)

RUSSELL U. CLUMPTONL SAME V. SAME.
Mr. Montague Chambers and Mr. Dowdeswell ap-
peared for th4laintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr.
Hawkins for the defendant.

....
This was a case in_ which two actions were com-
pounded into one for the purposes of trial. One of these
actions was for assault, the plaintiff being an apprentice
of the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the plain-
tiff had misconducted himself, and that he, the defendant,
had, as he lawfully might, corrected the plaintiff, his
apprentice. The other action was for alleged breach of
covenant in turning the apprentice away and refusing to
teach the plaintiff his business as a linen and woollen
draper. The defendant, as to this action, pleaded that
he had not broken the covenant, and had not refused to
teach him the business, nor had turned him away. The
plaintiff was the son of a person living near Maidstone,
and had been apprenticed to the defendant, who carried
on an extensive business in the Whitechapel-road, as a
linen and woollen draper. The plaintiff sought to es-
tablish that the defendant had subjected him to disa-
greeable and severe treatment, putting him under a
counter to sleep, thus exposing him to bugs and mag-
gots, and sometimes venting rage upon him in the shape
of a severe beating; on one of these occasions actually
striking him with a hammer, which defendant happened
to have in his hand. The witnesses who were called to
make out this case admitted, on cross-examination, that
the food of the apprentice was good, that some of the
apprentices slept on a bedstead kept under the counter
in the day-time and pulled out at night; but that the
master's own son had formerly done the same. As to
the beating, this was denied; and in the particular case '
water.
ouf the blow with the hammer, the circumstances seemed
tterboefthhese:—
uacv_ing been mischievously employed in injuring a
That the plaintiff was accused by his mas-
-0 f
his
an kd,
and
dd struckthatthe i
rod e, faesntdhaen
wt
ittooknes
stehsefohramt
hme
pe rl
aoi
nu.t
tiff thought, with the hand in which he held the hammer,
but the witnesses for the defendant denied this altoge-
a sort of char. As to the uestion of the defendant turning plain-
tiff and
service; ta in
tiff out of the h ci
glass was broken; it appeared that thero had been a
quarrel and
shatk
named fight between the plain-
. e Chinas, who was in the defendant's
unkenco.urse of this scrambling contest
some
terfered, and struck ' andi that the defendant then in-
the witnesses said the thedePlaintiff or kicked him (some of
him), saying,t .. eonidant pushed and did not kick
mined never to dosnoutythin myu shop, you seem deter-
the plaintiff left the defengdantt'sm_isehief," and after this
The defendant Aron _ to . house, and went home.
Plluntati 'a father a letter, in

SUPPLY OF FISH.—At present there are in our
market a variety of fine fish, such as cod, haddocks,
turbot, halibut, brill, plaice, soles, herrings, &c., in
Kreuter quantities than used to be at this season of the
get well out to Year. This
ext
weather being
several of th fra supply may be attributable to the
favourable so as to enable the boats to
ctosaeta, together with the trawl net that
and the discovery osf havel been fitted out with latterly;
ward of Pittenweern.a 1;;41e shoal of plaice a little Bast-
in expectation that
Government will ai4 him in facili-
tating the improvements aelt.:r
effected upon the cora-1
moTnltirnawclunoeLt.E—RAC.a_ledoonniaTnhurs
.13070:he new cases in
on Saturday 6, yes
az curl/.
eaath nn..
Edinburgh were 10, on Friday
terday 4. The deaths reported
Friday 6, Saturday 5, yesterday 6. RemairgaYinwt,erdei:4_,
burgh, 154; in Leith, 8. On Thursday, nuengd
curred at Silverknows, Cramond parish, and
which has since proved fatal was reported from itde
.
dingston, the same day; but we have heard of no new
cases in any other country district for several days. In
Glasgow on Wednesday there were three new cases, on
Thursday 5, Friday 2, Saturday 2, seven deaths being
reported during that interval. The epidemic continues
to manifest itself with great virulence in Dumfries,
there having been 23 cases on Wednesday, and 14 on
Thursday. Since the first appearance of the disease
there have been in Dumfries and Maxwelltown, up
to Thursday, 289 cases and 87 deaths.—Caledonian
Mercury.

THE' FISHING.--AVICK, DEC. B.—Our fishermen
only got to sea one day last week, when some of them
made a very successful fishing, so much so that one
curer got upwards of 3,000 fine haddocks out of a few
boats. The poor fishermen, however, will soon be hard
enough pinched, if better weather do not speedily visit
us; Jokn o' Groat Journal.

which he spoke of the plaintiff's leaving, but did not say
that he required the plaintiff to come back; and this
evidence was relied on by the plaintiff as making out
the allegation that he was turned away. On the other
hand, the defendant's attorney, from the moment of his
earlist communication with the plaintiff's attorney, told
him that the defendant would not surrender the boy as
an apprentice. The details of this evidence occupied
the Court part of Tuesday and the whole of Wednes-
day.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE summed up the case to the
jury as one of a short and simple kind, although the
circumstances detailed in evidence had occupied so much
time. He said that the questions were—first, whether
any assault had been committed, for if so the plaintiff
was entitled to a verdict. The striking with the hammer
could not be justified, if it had ever taken place. But
the jury would say whether in fact it had taken place;
and on that question it was deserving of consideration
that the supposed blow had been given in 1845, and that
no formal complaint of it, no action for it had been
brought till the parties quarrelled upon other matters,
and this question about the service being put au end to
had arisen. As to the other assaults, the jury would say
whether they appeared to have been committed in the
way alleged; for it was not to be supposed that a master
was at all times to restrain himself from everything hay-
ing the appearance of chastising an apprentice, although
certainly kicking was not the mode in which the master
was to correct his apprentice. The jury would say
whether the assaults had been committed, and,
if so, what were the damages to which the
plaintiff was entitled in respect of them. Then,
as to the turning out: the jury would consider
whether the expressions used more than once, " Get
out," or " Get out of the shop," or " Get out of the
house," really meant to dismiss the plaintiff from the
. service, or were mere words of unmeaning anger. The
words appeared, in the first instance, to have been
treated by both parties as amounting to a severance of
the connexion; but then there was the distinct declara-
tion of the defendant's attorney on the other side. The
jury would consider all these circumstances, and say
whether the defendant had wrongfully put an end to the
contract, and if so, what was the amount of damages to
which, in that respect, the plaintiff was entitled. The
experience of the jurors in the relations of master and
apprentice would enable them to appreciate the various
circumstances of this case in a proper manner; and they
would say—first, whether there had been assaults, as al-
leged; and next, whether there had been a turning out
of the service. If they answered both these questions in
the negative they must find for the defendant; but if
they answered both, or either of theta, in the affirma-
tive, there must be a verdict for the plaintiff, with such
temperate damages as the case seemed to require.
The jury retired for half as hour, and returned a
general verdict on all the issues for the plaintiff, with
501. damages for the breach of covenant, and 401 damages
for the assault.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 13.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before Lord Chief
Justice WILDE and a Common Jury.)
CHILDS V. ABRAHAMS.
The plaintiff in this case was a constable of the city
of London, and employed by the Trinity House, and
the defendant resided at 27, Hanway-street, Oxford-
street, but of what business did not appear. The action
was in 'respass to recover a compensation in damages in
respect of the defendant having given the plaintiff into
the custody of a policeman upon a charge of felony, and
caused him to be taken to a police station.
Mr. Sergeant Channel and Mr. Creasy appeared for
the plaintiff; the defendant conducted his case in person.
The plaintiff's case in effect was, that a person named
Cetta, in business in Hatton-garden as a dealer in look-
ing-glasses, chronometers, barometers, &c., having rea-
son to suspect that some articles of that description,
supplied by him at the premises No. 10, Maiden-lane.
in the City, had been obtained by the person ordering
them under false pretences, got the plaintiff, in his capa-
city of constable, to watch the premises on the 24th of
August last. The result was, that at about six o'clock
in the evening of that day, a person named
Venables being seen by the plaintiff to come
from the premises, with a looking glass and baro-
meter, was taken into custody by the plaintiff, and con-
veyed to the Bow-lane police-station, where, on being
sent for, Cetta identified the articles as being
part of his property ; and thereupon Venables
immediately gave them up to Cetta. It next ap-
peared that at about four o'clock in the afternoon of the

lat of September, the plaintiff, whilst walking along
the street, was accosted by the defendant, who was at
the time a perfect stranger to him, and in company with
Venables. They had no sooner met than the defendant
called up a policeman, and said (as the policeman
proved) he gave the plaintiff in charge for stealing a
barometer and looking-glass. Upon that the policeman,
who knew the plaintiff's character, advised the defendant
to be cautious, and asked him twice whether or not he
would be responsible, and thereupon the plaintiff was
taken to the police-station in Bishopsgate-street, about
200 yards off. The charge was not followed up, and
the plaintiff was immediately set at liberty. The same
witness further proved that immediately afterwards the
plaintiff said the defendant should hear more about it,
and upon that the defendant turned round to Venables
and said, " You gave him into custody;" to which Ve-
nables replied that he had nothing to do with it, that he
(defendant) gave the plaintiff in charge.
The defendant called Venables as his witness, and what
he stated in effect was, that he was at the time porter to
Messrs. Barclay and Bristow, of 10, Maiden-lane; that
on the Ist of September he went with the defendant for
the purpose of giving the plaintiff into custody, and that
he and not the defendant did, without having been
cautioned by the policeman, give the plaintiff into cus-
tody upon the charge of stealing the looking glass and
the barometer both in the street and at the station, and
that the defendant never urged him to make the charge,
and only attended with him professionally.
The LORD CRIES' JUSTICE having left to the jury the
question of whether or not the defendant was the person
who ;gave the plaintiff into custody, and what was the
reasonable amount of damages,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 51.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, Dec. 13..
(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.)
MARTIN WALLER V. THE LONDON AND 'WESTMINSTER
COAL CLUB COMPANY.
William Godfrey Handsford, Henry Vernon, and
William Wright, three shareholders in the London and
Westminster Coal Club Company, attended on sum-
mons, to show cause why execution should not issue
against them or their goods' 'towards satisfaction of a
judgment obtained last term by' the plaintiff against the
company.
Waller, who had been a clerk in the Coal Club Com-
pany's service, brought an action against the company
for a quarter's salary, 251., and on the 16th of November
judgment by default was entered. On the following
day execution was issued by the plaintiff, but the Sheriff
of Middlesex having returned the writ of fi. fa., certify-
ing that the company had neither goods or chattels
within his bailiwick, the present proceedings were insti-
tuted, for the purpose of making the defendants per-
sonally responsible for the debt and costs, which amount
to upwards of 1001.
Mr. CHITTY said that the present application for
liberty to issue execution against the persons or property
and effects of Henry Vernon, King's-road, Bedford-
row • William Godfrey Hansford, John's-place, Hornsey-
road; and William Wright, High-street, Islington, as
shareholders in the company, was made under the pro-
visions of the Joint-Stock Companies Act, sec. 68. The
affidavit sworn in the case by the plaintiff, and Randal
Hurley, another clerk in the concern, set forth the
material facts of judgment having been obtained by de-
fault against the company, the issuing of execution, the
return of the writ unsatisfied, the execution of the deed
of settlement by the parties summoned, and the com-
plete registration and incorporation of the company ac•
cording to Act of Parliament.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL thought that the section re-
lied upon for the present proceedings, referred merely
to a judgment obtained by a shareholder, and not by an
official of the company.
Mr. CHITTY observed that the full Court had ruled
otherwise, in the case of the Universal Salvage Company,
and so important did they consider the point which was
brought before them on appeal from Mr. Justice Wil-
liams's decision, that they delivered an elaborate written
judgment, having first taken time to consider the argu-
ments advanced.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL could not understand how
such a decision was made by the Court, when the
words of the section were, " at the suit of said share-
holder." However, as he had been told that the Court
interpreted the section adversely to his impression, and
as sitting in Chamber, he was bound by that interpreta-
tion, he should hold that the statute applied to the pre:
sent case.
Mr. BARSTOW resisted the application, and submitted
that the facts disclosed on the face of the affidavits
sworn by the parties summoned, and others, would jus-
tify the Learned Judge in not sanctioning the summary
mode of execution sought by the plaintiff. The plain-
tiff's salary was not due until the 29th September, yet
they found that final judgment was entered upon the
16th November, the action, as the plaintiff swore, having
been " lately commenced," and there was no evidence
upon whom the writ had been served, with the view of
showing that the concoction of the company was not of
the purest character. Counsel read the affidavits of
Henry Vernon, William Wright, John Maunder, and
Thomas Hay White, and he contended that Waller was
a party to those proceedings, whereby the defendants
had been led to execute the company's deed of settle-
ment. With regard to the judgment against the com-
pany having been obtained by collusion and fraud, coun-
sel contended that, from the extreme haste used in the
proceedings, there was a strong case of suspicion, at
least, that they had not been straightforward, as it was
desirable. Under all these circumstances, he trusted
the application would be refused, and that the plaintiff
would be left to his remedy by scire facias if he had any.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL inquired on whom the writ
in the original action had been served?
The plaintiff's solicitor—On one of the directors.,
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL—Which of them?
The plaintiff's solicitor—l now understand it was on
the secretary, Mr. Devey.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL—He was only secretary pro
tem. Where is the affidavit of service?
Mr. BARSTOW directed the Learned Judge's attention
to the fact that it was only on the 23d of November the
parties summoned had received notice of the plaintiff's
intention to fix them with the responsibility of the da-
mages and costs obtained against the Coal Club Com-
pany, so that it was quite clear the action had been
instituted merely as introductory to the present appli-
cation.
Mr. CHITTY contended that the affidavits relied on by
the other side established the case of fraud against the
plaintiff. There might have been fraud in the getting
up of the company, but with that the plaintiff had no-
thing to do. The three shareholders now sought to be
proceeded against bad signed the deed with their eyes
open.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL-Oh, no; not with their eyes

- Mr. CHITTY—They should have seen what they were
aboat. It the present application were not granted, he
doubted whether the plaintiff could have any remedy, as
it might turn out that no scire facias would lie.

Ali:. Justice CRESSWELL refused the application, ex-
ercising the discretionary power vested in him, because
he felt that sufficient doubt had been raised on the case
to warrant him in refusing the order for issue of execu-
tion against the defendants.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Dec. 13.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
TAYLOR V. JENKINS.
The plaintiff in this case was an advertising agent, in
Nicholas-lane, City ; he sought to recover the sum of
5/ for writing and publishing an article in the London
Journal of Commerce.
Mr. Cox appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Parry for
the defendant.
On the part of the plaintiff it was stated that in Oc-
tober, 1847, the defendant, Mr. Jenkins, was negotiating
with a Mr. Colwell for the purchase of a patent ; an
agreement was drawn up and executed between them, by
which Mr. Jenkins guaranteed to pay the sem of 40,0001.
as the entire purchase of the patent, 1,4001 of which was
to be paid down as a deposit. The defendant, however,
was not able to raise the 1,4001., and consequently the
agreement between Mr. Colwell and him was not acted
upon. Subsequently the defendant determined to estab-
lish a company to carry out the patent, and a person
named Lloyd was employed to act as secretary.
The defendant, in conjunction with Lloyd and Colwell,
the patentee, commenced proceedings. An office was
taken at 73, King William-street, and advertisements
were iuse:ted in the several daily journals, with a view
of obtaining men of capital to join the speculation.
During the progress of these preliminary proceedings,
the plaintiff called at the office in King William.street,
to solicit advertisements ; and after some conversation
with Lloyd, the secretary, the latter engaged him to
write an article, to be inserted in the before-mentioned
paper, for which he agreed to pay 51, and to take 51.
worth of papers, when the article was inserted. The
plaintiff wrote the article, and submitted it to Lloyd for
correction, and for the approval of the promoters, after
which it was published.
John Ballard Lloyd, the secretary to the company,
was called on behalf of the plaintiff. He stated that
the defendant was the managing director of the company,
and it was by his instructions that he (witness) took the
offices, and employed the plaintiff to write the article,
which was the subject of the present claim. Witness
acted throughout the whole affair on the general in-
structions given by the defendant, " to do whatever was
necessary to form a eompany." In cross-examination,
the witness admitted that he had been examined before
Alderman Johnson, on a charge of writing a threatening
letter, and that in consequence of what then transpired
Alderman Johnson got up a subscription for him, but he
(witness) did not receive a farthing of that subscription.
He was told that it was because he would not emigrate.
He was not living with his wife, and he could not say
that the subscription was withheld because he had de-
serted his wife. It was Roe, the officer, who told him
that it was because he would not emigrate with his wife
and children that he would not get it. He did not know
where the woman was now, nor did he care.
Mr. PARRY then pat i❑ some letters directed to the de-
fendant, which were admitted by the witness to be in his
own handwriting. When these letters were read, it
clearly appeared that instead of the defendant being a
principal in this company, that he was acting a sort of
❑eutral part, and that the witness, who was the secre-
tary, was endeavouring to coax him on, by charging him
with a want of energy, and blindness to his own inter-
' ests, as a certain fortune was to be made by the specu-
lation. The witness, however, still persisted after these
letters were read, that Mr. Jenkins was the managing
director, and countenanced the whole proceedings. The
manner in which the witness gave his evidence was cen-
sured by the Court, and in some instances so very con-
tradictory was it, that Mr. Cox, Course' for the plain-
tiff, said that if he had nothing to rest his client's case
upon but the evidence of Lloyd, that he would with-
draw from it altogether; be, however, would submit it
to the jury on the strength of the defendant's letters to
the witness whilst the latter was acting as secretary.
Mr. PARRY, in addressing the jury, said that it was
altogether a malicious spirit on the part of Lloyd to-
wards the defendant that induced him to come forward
to give evidence against him.
The Jury, without waiting to hear the Learned Se
condary sum up, returned a verdict for the defendant.
The attorneys on both sides refused to pay the Cour
fees.

The Learned SECONDARY was appealed to on the sub-
ject: he said that he was not iu the habit of receiving
them, it was the officer who was accountable for them,
and whose duty it was to receive the fees. All he could
say was that it was usual for either party to pay. Nei-
ther, however, would pay, and they left the court with-
out doing so.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, Dec. 12.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice MAIILE.)
Benjamin Laycock, aged 46, Francis Carmody, 19, Paul
Holdsworth, 33, and Martha Holmes, 35, a respectable-
looking married woman with four children, were in-
dicted for a robbery with violence, and stealing from
Robert Emmett two half-crowns and six shillings, at
Bradford, on the Bth of September last.
This indictment arose out of Chartism, at Bradford,
and Mr. Vincent was in the gallery during the trial, very
attentive to the proceedings.
Mr. Overend and Mr. Nicholson were for the prose-
cution. The prisoners were not defended by counsel, but
Holmes was assisted in examining the witnessess by an
attorney from Ashton.
Robert Emmett, the prosecutor, said that on the
evening of the Bth of September, he was returning
from market at Bradford, where he lived, when the
prisoners came up to him, Laycock seized hold
of him on the left side, and one Phillips,
not in custody, on the right. Holmes came up and
said, damn him, he has got plenty of blood money on
him, take it from him. Phillips and Laycock said, damn
him, we will kill him, he knows us all. They then
kicked him and got him down, and one cried, drown
him. They then dragged him down the street and threw
him irto the beck or goit (a stream about a yard deep.)
By that time about 100 persons were present. He, how-
ever, waded up the beck, got out and run and made a
complaint at the police.office. His face was bleeding,
his clothes torn, his pockets dragged out, and his money I
gone.

The witness was cross-examined by the prisoners re-
spectively. He did not when first at the police-office
complain of having been robbed. He had drilled the
male prisoners. They were Chartists. He had then
given information to the police of the drilling and train-
ing. While in the beck Phillips tried to drown him,
and he kicked, and he and Laycock tore his pockets,
in which he had I ls. 4d. He was sometimes called
Skipton Dick. He was an engine tender, but at that
time was a woolcomber. There had been just before
Chartist disturbarces at Bradford. They said he had
had plenty of blood-.honey, and they would drown him.
When he first saw them,that night they said he was an
informer, the informer was coming, and cried out
him, kill him. lie had been a soldier, but he had not
deserted twice. He had not an R branded on his
shoulder. He had never told any one that he had. He
had not told them if they would join the Chartists and
follow him he would teach them to blow up the Brad-
ford Court-house at an expense of 3s.—(The prisoners
said that he bad done all what he now denied, and that
he was the principal promoter of Chartism in Brad-
ford.) He did not think Carmody had anything to do
with the robbery. He had married twelve years ago,
but was separated from his wife, and lived with another
woman.

By the JUDGE—He could not positively say whether
his money had been taken by any one, or whether on his
pockets being torn out and he knocked about it had
fallen into the river.
The constable said all the prisoners were persons of
good character, except that they were Chartists. Holmes
was a very respectable woman, he said, and well con-
ducted.

On being asked whether they had anything to say,
Laycock said he lived in a cellar-hole close to the
street, and hearing a noise he went out and spoke to
the prosecutor. He then left him, and afterwards saw
the crowd near the beck. He then saw the prosecutor
wade up the beck and get away, but he was not himself
near the beck.

Carmody said he was at work with his father at the
time, and heard some one shout the informer is coming.
He went out, but was never near Emmett.
Holdsworth said he was never near the place.
Holmes said the jury bad heard her character and
Emmett's, and they would judge between them.
Mr. Justice MAULE summed up. He said, after
hearing Emmett's answer to his question, the jury would
hardly find the prisoners guilty of robbery, and he
thought the oily question for them was, whether any
was guilty of an assault.
The jury at once acquitted them of robbery, but found
all the prisoners Guilty of an assault.
Mr. Justice MAULE, addressing the prisoners, said if
they had been convicted of the robbery, they might have
been transported, for they must not, on the pretence of
being Chartists, rob people; no point of the charter
would ever reach that.
He hoped they were convinced
by their reflections while in prison, that pursuits, such
as Chartists had been engaged in, would not benefit
them. Many had got rich, and raised themselves by in-
dustry and economy, by getting as much as.,u they
neyocnoeulbdy,
and spending as little as they could help;h
joining Chartist societies; and he advised them to follow
the example of those who had done themselves good, and
give up politics, unless they were determined to listen to
those who told them, that because they could not read
(none of the prisoners bad had any education) they were
wiser than those who had been well educated. It was
very flattering to them, but not useful to them, to listen
to such persons.
The prisoners all declared they bad never been in
any such trouble before, and would take care they never
would be again ; and Laycock said, if he could get back
to his " bairns," the Judge should never see him again.
His LORDSHIP then sentenced each of them to be
imprisoned with hard labour for two months.
Holmes wept bitterly, and begged his Lordship to send
her home to her poor children and sick husband. She
had never used such language, she assured him.
His LORDSHIP said he was sorry for her, but could not
reduce the term of imprisonment.
She had been out on bail.

THE WEST RIDING ELECTION. -- Nothing new
has transpired since the nomination on Monday regard.
ing the election, but both parties have since been ac-
tively engaged in preparing for the struggle that is to
commence this morning in the several polling districts.
Sir Culling Eardley is gradually recovering from his
indisposition.

THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 14, 1848.7

THE STATE TRIALS

LIVERPOOL, WEDNESDAY EVENING.—On the opening
of the Court this morning, the trial of the several par-
ties charged with a conspiracy against the Crown and
the Government was resumed.

The JUDGE (Mr. Justice Erle) having taken his seat
upon the bench, the jury were called over, and each
having answered to his name, his Lordship proceeded to
sum up the evidence. He laid down the law of the case,
and showed the jury how they were to apply the evidence
adduced in the course of the prosecution. They were to
discard from their miads all irrelevant topics which had
been introduced in the course of the trial, and give their
verdict upon the facts deposed.
The jury having retired to consider their verdict, re•
mained some time in consultation. At length they re-
turned into Court, and handed in the following verdict:
—" We find all the prisoners, except Delamy, Guilty of
all the counts in the indictment."

The prisoners' Counsel then raised some legal objec-
tions, which being replied to by the Aitorney- General,
his Lordship overruled.
Some mitigating circumstances in favour of Boshill,
Murphy, and O'Brien, were then urged by Messrs. Pol-
lock, James, and Atkinson.
His LORDSHIP, after commenting on the enormity of
the crime, and the serious and awful consequences which
would have resulted had they been successful, sentenced
the prisoners as follows--James Smith, O'Donnell, and
Hop, to two years' imprisonment in Lancaster Castle,
and to find bail themselves in 100/., and two sureties in
25/. each. Boshill and Cuddy to be imprisoned in Kirk-
dale for twelve months, and to enter into recognizance in
the sum of 100/. for their future good behaviour. O'Brien
to be confined in Lancaster, and Murphy three months
in Kirkdale.

On hearing the sentence, the prisoners bowed to their
Lordships, shook hands with each other, and left the
dock.

The trial for the murder of the policeman, Byrne
takes place to-morrow.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

T. Casey, A. Marshall, J. Bradshaw, Jno. Croft, and
Thos Manager, were summoned under the 42d Geo. 111.,
cap. 119, before Mr. Henry, for having, on the 4th of
September, unlawfully conspired with others, to keep a
certain office at No. 12, Haymarket, in which were kept
open and exposed, to be played and drawn, certain lot-
teries nut authorised by law, called " Monster St. Leger
Sweeps." A second summons charged them with suffer-
ing a lottery to be drawn at the above named premises.
and the defendants were charged in a third summons as
rogues and vagabonds, with keeping an office or place
for a game or lottery not authorized by law.
Mr. Bodkin attended as counsel, assisted by Mr. Hay-
ward, from the office of the solicitor to the Treasury, to
conduct the prosecution, and Mr. Clarkson appeared for
the defendants.
The defendants Casey and Marshall were the only
persons who appeared to answer the "charges.
The warrant officers proved the serving of the sum-
monses.

Mr. Bodkin inquired if the constable had taken any
steps to serve the other defendants, at their office in the
Haymarket?
Blundel, 93 F, warrant officer, replied that he made
inquiries there, and was informed by a person who
seemed to be a clerk, that they were not there, nor was
it their place of abode.
Mr. Bodkin said that if the officer was allowed longer
time he could have reported the progress he bad made
to the Treasury, but he had no objection to proceed
against the defendants present, or to postpone the fur-
ther hearing of the case until the addresses of the
others could be ascertained, it being his intention to
proceed against the defendants jointly for conspiracy, in
order to call upon them to put in bail for an indictable
offence.

Mr. Clarksen observed, that he had been concerned
for a licensed victualler on a former occasion, for trans-
gressing against the tenour of his license, but the pre-
sent charges were of a different character, being against
lotteries generally.
The defendant Casey said, that as he was separately
charged, he was anxious the case against him should be
proceeded with at once, it being a matter of serious con-
sideration to him, particularly as he knew nothing what-
ever of the other parties.
The Learned Counsel were about to agree that the
case should stand over until Saturday, when
The defendant Casey said he could not attend on that
day, and he saw no reason why he should be dragged a
second time to the court, when no cause was assigned on
the other side for such a course.
Mr. Clarkson advised him to be silent, unless he felt
disposed to conduct his own case.
Mr. HENRY also told him that he could grant a war-
rant to compel his attendance at a future day.
After some further conversation, it was agreed that
the further heari3g should be postponed till Saturday, at
12 o'clock.
The Hon. Mr. Bouverie, the banker, was in court, to
give evidence of his being the landlord of the house oc-
cupied by the defendants.
It may be necessary to state that the 2d section of the
Act of George 111., entitled " An Act to suppress cer-
tain games and lotteries not authorized by law," provides
that any persons, after the lst of July, 1802, publicly or
privately keeping any office or place for any game or
lottery called a " little go," or any other lottery what-
soever not authorized by Act of Parliament, shall forfeit
the sum of 5001., to be recovered in the Court of Exche-
quer at the suit of the Attorney-General, and shall be
deemed rogues and vagabonds within the meaning of the
17th George 11., cap. 5, and shall be punishable as rogues
and vagabonds accordingly.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Samuel Simons, a Jew dealer, living in Petticoat-lane,
was brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged with the
following offence:—

George Davies said he was in the employ of Messrs.
John Bradshaw and Co., of No. 27, Warwick-square,
military tailors and gold-lace men. On Thursday morn-
ing, about eight o'clock, while cleaning the outside of the
shop windows, the prisoner came up to him and asked if
his master had any old clothes to sell. Witness replied
" No," and the prisoner then asked him if there were any
lace or sables to sell. Witness told the prisoner he had
better ask Mr. Bradshaw. The prisoner then inquired
if he could not get some lace and a few sables, without the
knowledge of his employers, as, it being the end of the
week, a few shillings might be useful to him. The pri-
soner requested witness to meet him at the Bull and
Mouth that evening, but witness said he could not
meet him before Monday evening. The prisoner told
witness to bring some sables, gold lace, and any sorts
of silks he could lay hands on, so as to make up about
ten shillings. Witness replied, " Very well," and the
prisoner went away. Last Monday morning the pri-
soner came by the shop, and beckoned witness to come
out. Witness shook his head, and the prisoner then
held up eight fingers, meaning thereby that witness was
to meet him at eight o'clock that evening. Witness went

to the Bull and Mouth, Regent•streeCand waited un

nearly nine o'clock, but the prisoner did not come. Pre-
vious to going to the Bull and Mouth witness acquainted
his master with all that had passed. The next morning,
before eight o'clock, the prisoner came by the shop,
opened the door, and came in. Witness said to him,
" You were not there last night." The prisoner re-
plied, " No," and then asked witness if he had anything
ready for him. Witness answered "No," but he would
try to get out about nine o'clock that evening, and
would meet him at the corner of Sackville-street,
and bring something." The prisoner said, " Bring
lace—bring some sables, and the more the better."
As the prisoner was going out, he said, " Sables,
sables." At nine o'clock witness went to the corner
of Sackville•street,_and waited about twenty minutes,
but the prisoner did not come. Yesterday morn-
ing, about eight o'clock, the prisoner came into the
shop, and witness said, " How is it you were not at the
appointed place yesterday ?" The prisoner replied he
was there, and he then asked witness if he had the
things ready for him ? Witness then took out of a
drawer three sable skins and gave them to the prisoner.
He also gave the prisoner a quill of gold which was on
the counter. The prisoner put the things into his bag,
and kept on saying, " Sables, sables." Witness replied
he could not get any more sables, because the drawers
were locked. The prisoner then asked for some old lace.
Witness went to the window, and gave him two pieces of
gold cord. The prisoner was going out of the shop, but
he turned back and said he would meet witness at ten

o'clock. Witness replied he could not meet him then.
The prisoner answered, " Well, try and see if you can't
bring some more sables and lace." The prisoner opened
the door and winked his eye, as if he was going to give
witness some money, but he did not, and he went off.
Inspector Leicester, who was in waiting, immediately
followed the prisoner and took him into custody, with
the articles given to him by witness in his possession.
The prisoner declined to make any defence, and was
fully committed.

SOUTHWARK.
John Richards and William Arkwright, two well-
dressed men, were brought before Mr. Cottingham on
the charge of conspiring to rob Louis Vandal of 201.
The complainant stated that he was carpenter on
board the barque Geelong, and that on Saturday last,
while occupied in viewing the outside of Buckingham
Palace, Richards came up and entered into conversation,
remarking that the alterations in the building then in
progress would entail a great expense to the country.
While they were talking the other prisoner joinedthem,
and it was proposed they should go to see the Welling-
ton statue, and on the road thither Arkwright began to
talk of having had a brother who recently died at Deme-
rara, and who he said left him considerable property.
lie went on to say that he was then going to a lawyer
in Chancery-lane, from whom he was to have a large
sum of money, and that his intention was to lend it out at
interest in small sums to those who required such assist.
ance. Richards, who assumed to be unacquainted with his
fellow-prisoner, whispered to complainant that they were
lacky in meeting with such an acquaintance, and soon
afterwards_Arkwright asked complainant if he stood in
need of any cash, adding that if he did he would soon
assist him with some. Arkwright then asked complainant
if he had been paid his wa-res for his last voyage, and
the answer being in the affirmative, he proposed that, if
he produced 201. to convince him that he was worth that
sum, and bad saved so much wages, he (Arkwright)
would give him 501. Complainant said that he had not
the money about him then, and it was agreed that they
should all meet on the following evening, at seven
o'clock, on the south side of London-bridge, in order to
settle the business. Complainant, satisfied from what had
passed that he had fallen into the hands of two London
sharpers," who wanted to plunder him of his money,
gay

'e information to the police. On the previous evening
,he complainant, accompanied by two policemen, Wild
and Hunt, repaired to the place of meeting, the two
latter watching at some distance. The prisoners were
true to their appointment, and the moment they saw
complainant, Arkwright inquired if he was prepared to
exhibit his 201. The answer being in the affirmative, it
was then proposed that they should adjourn to the
accordingly
White Horse, in Union-street. They
pro.