The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 13, 1848,

criticisms on the works referred to in the eatologue,
which were of the most flattering nature. Nay more,
on the title-page appeared these lines from Shalt§peare,
which showed the motives by which the defendant was
aetultel—

" your deserts speak loud; and I should wrong it
Ti lock it in the wants of covert bosom,
When it deserves, in characters of brass,
A forted residence 'gainst the tooth of time

And razuro of oblivion."
Nay more, early proof copies of the catologue were
sent, in the first instance, to the Queen, Prince Albert,
the Duchess of Kent, and other members of the Royal
Family. Then at the bottom of the page it was stated
that each purchaser of the catalogue will be presented
(by permission) with a fac-simile of the autograph of
either her Majesty or of the Prince Consort, engraved
from the original,.the selection being left to the pur-
chaser." "By permission"—let the Court bear that in
mind.

His HONOUR inquired what the statement with respect
to the signature met.nt ?
_.

Mr. WARREN replied that it related to an ordinary
signature of the Queen or the Prince. When Mr.
Strange was first applied to on the matter, he offered to
give the whole of the catalogues up, intimating, at the
same time, that unless he did so entirely, without preju-
dice, he should be prepared to contest his right. After
some further observations, the Learned Counsel
concluded by expressing an earnest hope that
his Honour would decide the matter as if it were a mere
ordinary question of law between two of the humblest
persons in the realm. He wished to add that by the Act
passed at the marriage of the Queen, the Prince could
not possess any property which might be acquired by
the Queen.
Mr. J. SYDNEY SMITH followed on the same side,
and contended that Mr. Strange had fully and satisfac-
torily replied to the bill, and that he ought not to be
kept longer before the Court. The position of Mr.
Judge, as a gentleman, destroyed any suspicion that
might be entertained that he obtained the etchings in an
improper manner.
His HoNouß—What is his position ? I have not
heard it stated. What is it?

Mr. SMITH—He is an author. He writes for the news-
papers.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—He was formerly editor of
a Cheltenham paper.
( The case was proceeding when our report left)

SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
IN RE EITWELL, BART., AND OTHERS V. HALL.

This was an action to recover the value of timber
sold by the plaintiffs, the trustees of certain estates in
the county of Salop. The defendant did not plead, and
it was shown that he had agreed to purchase and fell the
timber at ls. per foot. The value amounted to 5171. 18s.,
but as defendant was to have credit for one half till
January next, the jury only gave a verdict for one half
the above amount.
TAYLOR V. JENKINS.

The plaintiff in the action is
i an advertising agent, in
Nicholas-lane, and defendant s a licensed victualler in
the Commercial-road, and it was sought to recover
5/. ss. for writing a paragraph, and causing it to be in-
serted in a newspaper, respecting an invention of a pa-
tent windlass, it being contended that defendant was a
promoter of a company to carry out the patent.
Tho case was likely to last all the afternoon.

CLERKEN WELL.-(THIS DAY.)
Thomas Larkin and Robert Mitchell, the former a
butcher and skin-dealer, living in Cow-cross, Smithfield,
and the latter a jeweller, residing in the same locality,
were charged before Mr. Combo with stealing six
hundred bladders, of the value of 161., the property of
Richard Hargreaves, of Grennell's-rents, Cow-cross,
bladder and skin-dealer. _ _

It appeared that on Sunday night the prosecutor, on
going into the part of the premises where the bladders
were stored, observed that the lot of bladders in ques-
tion, and a great quantity of other property, had been
removed within the previous hour. He went to the
prisoner Larkin, who lived close by, and was
frequently on his premises, and communicated
to him his loss, when they agreed to go to-
gether next day to all the lard manufacturers
they knew of, in search of the bladders, which were the
most readily disposed-of parcel in the stolen property.
They did so, and in consequence of their description of
the bladders, three of which were so remarkable that
they could be identified on oath, William Pultin, of
Hollywell lane, Shoreditch, a poulterer, and one of his
men, were detained yesterday, and given into custody
by Mr. Fitt, of Suffolk street, Hackney-road, an exten-
sive lard manufacturer, to whom they offered the blad-
ders for sale, and who recognised them by the dvserip-
tion he had received. Pultin immediately stated that he
had bought them on Monday from Mitchell, who was well
known to him, and the latter was sought after. In thecourse
of the evening Mr. Farey, of the Ram Inn, Smithfield,
met Mitchell, and gave him into custody. Mitchell
stated that the property was given to him to dispose of
by a person whose name he did not know, but who lived
somewhere about Cow-cross. However, he gave such a
description of the unknown as caused suspicion to fall
upon Larkin, and he was arrested. However, the other
prisoner did not pretend to recognise him, and he for
his part disclaimed all knowledge of Mitchell. It ap-
peared also that he had accompanied Hargreaves to the
lard dealers, and that he even took him to Mr. Fitt's,
where the bladders were subsequently stopped. He re-
ceived also a good character from friends of the prose-
cutor who were in court, and he was discharged. Mitchell
was remanded to Monday.