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

SHERIFFS' COURT, April 9.

Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCUILL, and a Common
Jury).

LASRETT V. M'CANN.-A UNIVERSAL RAILWAY DIRECTOR.

Tbis was an action bruught by the plaintiff, to re-
cover of the defendant the sum of 9! 4s. 6d. for services
rendered.

To this the defendant pleaded, first, that he was never
indebted ; and secondly, a " set off."
Mr. PARRY said, the plaintiff was a medical gentle-
man, and brought the present action to recover the sum
of 91. 4s. 6d. for his services as an assistant to the de-
fendant, Mr. M'Cann, the well-known surgeon of Par-
liament-street, Westminster. In the latter part of the
year 1843 the plaintiff entered the service of the de-
fendant, with the understanding that he was to receive a
salary of 201. for the first year, 25/. for the second ; and
301. for the third. On the 13th of January last a
quarrel took place between them, which led to a separa-
tion, there being then due to the plaintiff a balance
amounting to 91. 4s. 6d.
Henry John Crawford, clerk to plaintiff's attorney,
stated that he served the defendant with the writ in the
action, and told him that the claim was for one quarter
and three weeks' salary from the 11th of September,
1845, until the Ist of January, 1846. Mr. M`Cann com-
plained that Mr. Laskett had detained a book belonging
to him, and that he would not pay him a farthing until
it was returned.

Mr. J. Hawkins was present in August, 1343, when
Mr. Laskett engaged with Mr. M`Cann. The agree-
ment was, that he should have 201. the first year, and 5/.
per annum increase afterwards, if he suited.
Cross- examined by Mr. HoGGINS—CouId not remem-
ber exactly whether there was a written agreement.
He might have signed one, but it was so long ago, he
could not swear that he had.
Mr. HOGGINS here produced a document, and asked
the witness if he had ever seen it before? The witness
said that it now occurred to him that he had signed a
written document; the one produced was the same. His
own signature left no doubt upon his mind.—(Laughter.)
It had been executed at the time, but it was only an
agreement for the first year. It was afterwards arranged
by a verbal agreement that plaintiff was to receive a
progressive salary.
Mr. HOGGINS addressed the jury for the defendant,
contending that the document which had been put in
proved beyond a doubt that the plaintiff had engaged to
serve the defendant for 201. per annum. He would ad-
mit that the defendant had paid the plaintiff 5/. more
than the salary for the second year. It was not done in
the fulfilment of any agreement between them, but as a
gratuity bestowed tor attention to business. There had
been other transactions between the plaintiff and de-
fendant, upon which the second plea was founded. In
the
.year 1845 Mr. M`Cann was a "provisional director"
of the Madrid and Valentia Railway; which the plain-

tiff being aware of, applied to the defendant for an allot-
ment of shares. Mr. M'Cann told him that he could
not grant them, but that he could, if he wished, write
to the committee. The plaintiff did so, and received an
allotment of tea shares, on which a deposit of 21. per
share was to be paid within a certain time, at the bank-
ing-house of Messrs. Forbts. To pay this deposit,
the plaintiff having no money, the defendant kindly lent
him 201., which was the set-off he should now estab-
lish.
Mr. J. H. J. Roberts, assistant to Mr. M'Cann, said
he knew the plaintiff, and recollected his having an
allotment of shares in the " Madrid and Valentia Rail-
way." The plaintiff told him that Mr. M'Cann had
given him the money to pay for them, and he hoped they
would soon be at a premium.—(Laughter.)
Mr. PARRY—Was Mr. M'Cann provisional director of
more than one railway ? Witness—l believe he was a
director of a great number of railways.
Mr. PARRY —Then he was a sort of universal railway
director ?—(A laugh.) Witness—l believe so.
Mr. PARRY—There was a great deal of business done
in the railway line at the defendant's surgery, I believe ?
Witness—There was.
Mr. PARRY—Has not the plaintiff written letters on
railway matters for Mr. M'Cann ? Witness —Yes.
Mr. PARRY—Did he not sit up until three o'clock in
the morning conducting Mr. M'Cann's railway business ?
Witness—Sometimes.
Mr. PARRY—How many railways was Mr. M'Cann a
director of ? Was he a director of ten ? Witness—
More.

Mr. PARRY—Twenty ? Witness—More than twenty.
Mr. PARRY—Have you not written letters for Mr.
M•Cann ? Witness—l have.

Mr. PARRY—Then you have been " stagging it ?"
(Laughter.) Witness—A little.—(Renewed laughter.)
Mr. PARRY—Now, on your oath, has not Mr. M`Cann
instructed you to write in your own name for shares in
various speculations ? Witness—He has not. I have
written in his name, but not in my own.
Mr. PARRY—Are you not aware that the 201. was
given the plaintiff for extra services ? Witness—l be-
lieve it was ; the plaintiff has told me so.
Re examined—The plaintiff has sat up more than
once. I think defendant had about two hundred shares
in the Madrid and Valentia Railway Company. Mr.
M`Cann has got plaintiff's shares. lie gave them to him
as security for the 20/., plaintiff to have the profits.
Mr. H. T. Furbin, clerk to Messrs. Forbyn, bankers,
sa;d that the plaintiff came to the banking-house on the
15th of October last, and presented a cheque for 201. as
a deposit on ten shares in the Madrid and Valentia Rai!-
way Company. Witness said to him, "You are a fortu-
nate fellow to get an allotment "—(Laughter)—" and
Mr. M'Cann to give von the money to pay for them."
the plaintiff said, " Yes, he was." He also presented a
cheque for 500/. a: payment for Mr. M•Canu's shares.
Mr. PARRY having replied,
The jury, without any hesitation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

BREAKING THE WINDOWS OF SIR JAMES GRAHAM.
—Mary Stuart, of No. 184, Kent-street, was brought
before Mr. Hardwick, charged with having wilfully
broken two squares of glass in a window of the residence
of Sir James Graham, No. 31, Hill-street, Berkeley-
square.
Webb, the porter to Sir James Graham, said the de-
fendant called that morning at the house, and said she
wanted to see Sir James Graham. She was told to go
to the Home-office, but she replied she had been there
until she was tired, and she would not go again. She
then walked away, declaring she would have her re-
venge. She then deliberately pulled a stone out of her
pocket and smashed two panes of glass in the hall win-
dow. The stone was thrown with force, and passed very
close to the head of Sir James's valet, who was writing
in the hall. The damage done was about Bs.
Mr. HARDWICK called on the defendant to explain the
reason of her conduct.

The defendant, a middle-aged woman, respectably
dressed, with great composure said—l am the grand-
daughter es
ionf
IC7h4asr.lesinStulasr2t,B
afsouegmhptlotyheed basattllaedyo,sf
maid in the family of the Marquis of Winchester. My
royal birth was discovered, and an application was made
to Government on my behalf. Seventeen years ago I
made application for assistance to Government, but I
could get nothing done, and I was prevented from taking
another situation. George IV. paid attention to my
claim to royal birth, but did nothing for me. In 1841,
when the present Ministerial party came in, I applied to
Lady Annabella Ramsden, but she insulted my birth,
and would not assist me in getting a situation. My title
has been examined by the Marquis of Queensberry, who
has seen the writing and the arms of my ancestor James
11. I applied also to the King of Hanover, and his
Majesty promised to make application to Government
on account of my birth, but he has done nothing. lam
now reduced to the greatest destitution and distress, and
I had no other resource than to apply to Sir J. Graham.
Mr. HARDWICK—Why did you apply to Sir James
Graham in particular ? Defendant—Because he is Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department. I have
written to him, but he wrote to inquire whether I was
really the granddaughter of Charles Stuart or out of my
senses. The Lord Mayor has got my testimonials, and
between them all lam deprived of an opportunity of
getting any living. Ido not know what lam to do,
unless it is to go into the workhouse.
Mr. HARDWICK—And why not ? Defendant—On
account of my age. As to my birth I don't think any-
thing of that. I only want to get my living, and it's very
hard I am prevented from doing so.
Mr. HA.RDWICK—You must not attempt to gain your
object by breaking windows.
Defendant—Why does not Sir James Graham give
me an answer ? I have applied at the Home-office, and
can get no attention paid to me.
Mr. Hsanwicx, taking into consideration the obvious
incoherence of the defendant's manner and language, said,
he would fine her the amount of the damage, Bs., but
would append a note to the commitment requesting the
surgeon of the prison to inquire into the state of the
defendant's mind.
The defendant was removed in the van at the usual time.
EFFECTS OF DRINK.---MF. John Fiddes, of 4, St.
Anne's Villa, Acarcia-rued, was sumnar ned for having
menaced his wife Harriet, whereby she went in budily
fear.
Mr. Hobler attended for the wife.
It appeared-that the parties had been separated for
some time, and that the complainant by her own exer-

tions maintained herself and her two children. The de-
fendant, however, followed her from place to place,
acting in a manner so as to excite serious fears for her
own and her children's safety. The defendant's conduct
was exceedingly violent when he was under the influence
of liquor, which indeed was an habitual vice. Mrs.
Fiddes gave several instances of the defendant's me-
nacing behavour towards her with his stick, and called
evidence to show that it was not safe for her to be with
her husband, in consequence of the effect which drink
had on him.

A surgeon, who had attended the husband profes-
sionally, said he knew that the consequences of indul-
gence in drink had been to produce delirium tremens in
the defendant. He thought the defendant could not be
safely trusted when intoxicated. _

Tlie defendant, whose language towards his wife was
very endearing, said if his wife, whom he dearly loved,
would live with him again, he would promise to give up
drink, and would keep sober.
The wife said she could not depend upon that promise.
It had often before been given and always broken.
The husband said his object in pursuing his wife from
place to place was to see that she had no visitors. He
objected to her living in private lodgings by herself.
Mr. Hobler said the complainant was only visited by
old friends of the family.
Mr. HARDWICK said, after the evidence of habitual
intoxication, and the violence to be apprehended from
the defendant when in that state, he was of opinion
that the wife was entitled to the protection of the law,
which she prayed, against her husband. He should,
therefore, require him to find sureties, himself in 1001,
and two sureties in 501. each, to keep the peace to-
wards her.

MARYLEBONE.
OUTRAGE ON A LADY. —John Welle, a helper in
stables at Tattersall's, was charged with the following

outrageous conduct towards a lady.
A solicitor attended for the complainant.
Miss Charlotte Flower deposed, that she resided at
the Rev. Mr. Pemberton's, the Hyde, Kingsbury, and
that on the afternoon of the 24th ult., as she was walking

alone in the direction of Kilburn, the defendant passed

and repassed her several times. She quickened her pace
in order to avoid him, but he persisted in his annoyance,
and at length, making a full stop, and looking her full in
the face, uttered the most disgusting and indecent lan-
guage. H' subsequently held up a large stick to her
twice in a threatening way, at which she was consi-
derably alarmed. Fortunately, a pieman who happened
to be coming by, and to whom she mentioned the de-
fendant's misconduct, put her into a chaise-cart which
was going along the road, and by that means she got

away.
George Brougb, the pieman alluded to, corroborated a
portion of the preceding evidence.
The defendant, on being asked what he had to say,
replied, that he was truly sorry, and that he should not
hare misconducted himself in the way he did had he
been sober.

Mr. LONG observed, that the offence was one of such
a shameful nature, that it could not be passed over
lightly, and he fined the defendant 405., and in default
of payment, one month's imprisonment.
ROBBERY BY A LODGER.—Mary Ann Pitcher was
charged with the following robberies:—
The prisoner had been lodging at the house of Mrs.
Korts, 2, Charles-lane, Portland-town, and while there,
two brooches, a shawl, and a silver watch (the latter
article belonging to another lodger) were missed. The
prisoner was at length taken into custody, and it turned
out that she had pl. dg,d the stolen property at the shops
of different pawnbrokers.—She was committed for trial.
CLERKEIV WELL.
EXTRAORDINARY DOUBLE MARRIAGE.—Mary Cowley,
a well-looking person, eighteen years of age, residing
in St. Helena-place, Clerkenwell, was charged before
Mr. Combe by her husband, William Cowley, upwards
of seventy years of age, with having threatened his life.
Mr. Woulfe, from the office of Mr. Flower, attended
on the part of the complainant, and stated the facts of
the case.

It appeared that the plaintiff, who is a nervous, weak
old man, although being six feet high and of propor-
tionatedimensions, made a promise to his deceased wife,

whom he called his " blessed sainted," that, under any
consideration, he would never marry a second wife after
her death. After her demise, however, although he was
in affluent circumstances, he fretted so much after his
" sainted" that he became way worn and lonely, until
he was " piloted" into the defendant's family, who were
in the " cat's meat line." They " oft invited " him, and a
reciprocity of sympathy existed, or appeared to exist,
between Mr. Cowley, the plaintiff, and the defendant's
mother, who, with tears in her eyes, frequently al-
luded to her "late beloved," to whom she made a solemn
vow never to marry again. Promises are, however,
made sometimes to be broken, let them be ever so solemn,

especially under the peculiar inflnerce of the tender
passion, which suddenly seized the plaintiff at first sight
of defendant's mother, and, in a moment of rapture he
proposed matrimony, and they were married in 1842.
They kept the wedding gloriously, and, what with the
drinking, the " light fantastic toe," the sounds of the
fiddle, and the other amusements, they kept it up until
daylight peeped. The next day the new wife repented
of so rash an union, and of breaking her promise with
her late beloved, and she told the old gentleman that she
would give him a written legal release from the mar-
riage if he would marry her daughter. He agreed to
the proposal, and took to himself a young wife. They
were married ; the wedding was kept up expensively at
plaintiff's cost. Ever since the union with the prisoner
he had not enjoyed one moment's peace or comfort.
She annoyed him in every possible way, beat him till he
was black and blue, refused to sleep with such "an old
villian," threatened to stab him, to dash his brains out
with a rolling-pin, and told him to go to the lower re-
gions. The poker and otherimplements of domestic conve-
nience were frequently brought into active requisition,

and not only his head but his very life was in actual
danger, and he was compelled to apply for the law's
protection. " Indeed," said the old gentleman, "she
knocks me about just like a shuttlecock.—(Laughter.)
And we have one child, your worship."—(Laughter.)
Here he put on a longitudinally woful countenance.
Mr. CoMBE asked the defendant what she had to say
in her defence? Defendant—lt is all false; the first
fortnight he was kind, but ever since he has only al-
lowed me half a quartern loaf and two pennyworth of
bacon a day for our support, and a penny for our supper.
Plaintiff—You always bad a rump steak for your
supper. You have robbed me, picked my pocket, pawned
and sold my property, left me without a bed, and driven
me to poverty. I can't bear it any longer.
Mr. Woolfe said, if it were applicable to the question
at issue, he could " a tale unfold" to show that the
T.ilaintiff was an injured and persecuted man, and that he
had been inveigled into this strange sort of " double
union" for the sake of his property.
Mr. COMM ordered defendant to find bail to keep the
peace.
The plaintiff was formerly a respectable householder,
and well-known in the parish of Clerkenwell. The
Court was crowded to excess by respectable inhabitants,
and there was an impr?ssion afloat that a charge of
bigamy mightprobably be instituted against the plaintiff.
WORSHIP-STREET.

Yesterday, two young fellows named James Clew and
George Meredith. were charged with committing a high-
way robbery upon Evan Morgan, a tailor, re,iding in
x ton -market.
The prasecutor was passing a dead•wall in the Kings
land-road, between the hours of five and six on Tuesday
evening, when he met the prisoners, and Meredith
having struck him a violent blow on the head, which
stunned him for a moment, snatched from his hand a
bundle, containing two new coats. Both the prisoners
then ran off together, and were apprehended on Wed-
nesday night by police-constables 365 N and 121 N,
who found in Clew's possession a black wrapper now
identified by the prosecutor as that which had contained
the two coats.
The prisoners were remanded.
LAMBETH.

A VICTIM OF SEDUCTION.—Martha Wood, a young
woman, whose apparel was both scanty and indifferent,
applied to Mr. Norton for a summons, to compel the
father of her two illegitimate children to support them.
The applicant, whose manner and address betokened a
good education, said, that some three weeks ago she
made an application to Mr. Henry, at this Court, similar
to the present, and that gentleman granted her a sum-
mons, but she unfortunately had not got the two shil-
lings to pay for it. Since then she had endeavoured to
raise the two shillings to get the summons, but was stilt
unable to do so, and was at present driven to such a state
of distress, with her two little children, that she knew
not on earth what to do.
Mr. NORTON desired her to state the circumstances
under which she wanted the summons, when she said
that eight years ago, and when only fourteen years old,
she waioinduced to leave the house of her father, by a
sentleallb holding a situation in the Council, and enjoy-
ing a salary of 5501. per annum, and to go to live with
him. For some years he supported her in excellent
style, but twelve months ago he deserted her, leaving
her with two children, one three years old,and the
other a mere infant. He had, however, contributed to
the support of the children until about three
months ago, when he discontinued paying anything, and
the consequence was, that she had been obliged to do the
best she could, and as long as she could, to provide(athbe-
solute necessaries. On the evening before she went to
Chelsea to see the gentleman, the hope of his doing
something for her, but, on knocking at the door, she was
told by the widow of an officer, who is at present living
with him, that unless she took herself off, she
widow) would give her into the custody of the police.
Mr. NORTON—What was the cause of the father of
the children leaving you? Applicant (much affected).—
I don't know, Sir, except it was that he got tired of me.
Mr. NORTON—How have you supported yourself these
three months? Applicant —I have lived with my father,
who, though once a timber-merchant, is now glad to
work journeywork as a carpenter with a person who was
once his own errand-boy.
Mr. NORTON—Was your youngest child twelve months
old when you first made application for a summons
against the father? Applicant—No, Sir, not quite; but
it is more than twelve months old now.
Mr. NORTON—Then you shall have a summons against
the father for the youngest child, but the other is beyond
the age prescribed by the Act of Parliament.
The applicant expressed her thanks, and the summons
was made out, and marked " poor."
SOUTH WA RK.
ALLEGED FRAUD BY AN ATTORNEY'S CLEM—Mr.
Henry Kempton, a tradesman residing in the vicinity of
this Court, attended on the preceding day to make
complaint of an imposition which was practised upon
his wife in the course of some proceedings which had
taken place there.
The applicant stated, that a few days since he had
occasion to give his wife into custody for assaulting him,
and that the mytistrute (Mr. Cottingharn) held her to
bail in two securities of 20L each to keep the peace.
The defendant not. being in a situation at the moment
to find the required bail, she was locked up, but had
not been long in the cell, when a person named