The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-18 00:00:00

lIARRIS V. KIMBERLEY.

Mr. Sergeant ALLAN moved for a rule to set aside a
non-suit obtained by default, the plaintiff having been
absent when the cause was called on.

This was a cause which was put down for trial by a
special jury at the last Gloucester Assizes, and there be-
ing 13 or 14 common jury trials to come on on the Tugs-
day, the special causes were ordered for hearing on the
succeeding morning at nine o'clock. The Lord Chief
Baron, however, without notifying his intention of doing
so, sat at eight o'clock, and thus when the plaintiff and
his witnesses arrived in Court, they found that a nonsuit
had been entered in their absence.

His LORDSHIP granted a rule to show cause, reserving
the question of who should bear the expenses till a future
period.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 17.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and
Common Juries.)
His Lordship disposed of several undefended cases.
THOMSON V. GREGORY AND WIFE.

This was an action to recover two sums, one of 24'. 19s.
514 d., and the other 111. 19s. 3d. In respect of the second
claim the defendant paid the sum of 12/. into court, and
pleaded "not indebted" as to the first.
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Lush were for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Jervis and Mr. Peacock for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action is a grocer, carrying on busi-
ness at Hampstead, and the defendant is Mr. Barnard
Gregory, the comedian. There was a lengthened examina-
tion of witnesses into the circumstances under which the
alleged debt took place, but the case possesses no public
interest to warrant a more detailed report.—Verdict for the
plaintiff:

The next case was one equally destitute of interest, and
occupied the attention of the Court for nearly the remainder
of the th.y. It was an action to recover damages for a col-
lision that had taken place down the river between two barges.

COURT OF C0311:1101V PLEAS, April 17.
(Sittings in Banco.)
riGur I. TIM: EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA moved for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not be granted in this case, which was tried
at the last Chelmsford Assizes, before Mr. Baron Alderson.
The application was made on the ground of the improper
admission of evidence by the Learned Judge. The action
was brought by the plaintiff for damage done by fire on his
premises, contiguous to the Eastern Counties Railway, occa-
sioned by a spark or sparks from one of the engines of the
Company. A verdict was given for the plaintiff, and the
amount of damages was settled out of Court. There
was no dispute set up by the defendants that the fire
was not occasioned by a spark from the engine, as it
appeared the fire, which originated in the plaintiff's
cart shed, was occasioned in the way alleged; but the
objection taken by the defendants was to the plaintiff's
declaration, which alleged that the damage arose from negli-
gence and unskilfulness on the part of the Company, in not
using a fire-screen or " bonnet," such as is used on other rail-
ways, for the prevention of sparks flying off; and also in
the use of engines inadequate in power to the work. Two
scientific witnesses were called in support of this declaration,
and several other witnesses were examined, who stated they
continually saw sparks emitted, some as large as an orange,
and that they saw several flying into the premises of the
plaintiff. Evidence of this kind was admitted to an unli-
mited extent, to the admission of which the defendants ob-
jected, en the ground that the declarations severally attri-
buted negligence and unekilfuleess in the management of the
railway, whereas he submitted the declarations should have
been confined to the particular case at issue, and to the pre-
cise facts of negligence in relation to it.—Rule to show cause
!gaited.
The Court shortly afterwards role.

SECONDARIES' COURT, April 17.
(Before Mr. Secondary Porrim.)
CLARKS v. ALSTOX.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 15/. 16s. 6d.,
of which the defendant was alleged to be the acceptor. The
defendant pleaded that it was not his acceptance.
Mr. PEARSON appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, whom
he said is an oilman in Fore-street, City, and the defendant
is a beer•shop keeper in the vicinity. He would call two
witnesses to prove that the defendant had admitted to them
that he had accepted a bill for 151. 165., drawn by a Mr.
Linde and indorsed to Mr. Hamond, who had paid it away to
the plaintiff. What evidence could be called to rebut this
he was at a loss to conjecture.
The first witness called was a clerk to Mr. Hammond, who
proved that the defendant called on him, and said his name
was Alston, and he had called about a bill drawn by Hude,
which he was told was in Mr Hamond's hands, and he wished
for a little time. The bill had however been paid to the
plaintiff.

The clerk to the plaintiff's attorney, proved that when he
served the writ, the defendant said that he had accented a
bill for the accommodation of Hude, who was to have assisted
him in taking it up, but he (defendant) would pay it in a
short time.

Mr. HUGHES, for the defendant, elicited that the witness
did not know the handwriting, nor was the bill in question
produced to him. The Learned Counsel then addressed the
jury, and submitted that they were bound to go by the evi-
dence, and there had not been any given as to the hand-
writing. That there had been bill trassactiona with 'Nude
there could be no doubt, but there might have been many
other bills to the same amounts. Hude ought to have been
called to leave shown the bill was the one the defendant had
signed.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW STREET.
A young man named John Dowker, a medical student
at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, was charged with steal-
ing a silver fork from an oyster-house in Vinegar-yard,
kept by a Mr. Perks.
The niece of the prosecutor deposed to having served
the prisoner and a gentleman who accompanied him with
oysters, &c., in a room up stairs, from which the fork
was missed directly after their departure. -Witness
noticed the hurried manner in which they left the place,
and was for that reason induced to send her brother to
the room to see if the property was safe It was found
that one of the parties had left an umbrella behind, and
in about half an hour afterwards the prisoner returned
for it. He was then charged with the theft and given
into custody. He denied all knowledge of the robbery,
but offered to pay the value of the fork until he could
produce his friend, whom, he said, he had only known
a few hours, having met him at Moncrieff's, a tavern
close by. Subsequently he stated that he met him acci-
dentally in the street, and that their acquaintance arose
from the one having inquired of the other the way into
Catherine-street. He paid for both at the oyster-shop.
Chadwick, a police-sergeant, took the prisoner into
custody. He said, on his way to Bow-street, " I did not
take the fork; but I will give you half-a-sovereign to let
me go." He said he was a medical student, and lived at
King's College. Witness went and inquired there re-
specting him, but be was wholly unknown. This he com-
municated to the prisoner, who replied, "Not know me!
the devil they don't. Did I say King's College? Oh! I
meant Bartholomew's, at Smithfield. I'm drunk, and
shall be sick directly. Witness thought he appeared
confused, but did not think him too drunk to know what
he was about. The fork had net been found.
The prisoner appeared equally incomprehensible in
the dock. He gave several different accounts of the
transaction, first saying that his friend was a stranger.
and then that he was a fellow student. We could not
understand what he either saWor meant.
Mr. Clark, landlord of the Artichoke, in Hart-street,
having been sent for by the prisoner, stated that he
knew him very well, that he was a highly respectable
gentleman, a student at Bartholomew's, and quite in-
capable of a felonious act or intention. The prisoner
dined at his house with some friends the previous even-
ing, and witness heard him say he should go and have
some oysters. He went out, apparently for that pur-
pose, with one of his friends and fellow-students. He
presently returned, and, discovering that he had left his
umbrella at the oyster-house, went out again to fetch it.
Witness saw no more of him.
Mr. HALL thought that it was a case for further in-
quiry. The statement of the young woman who served
the oysters was a very strong one, and it was neces-
sary that the person who accompanied the prisoner
should be discovered. The fact of his returning for his
umbrella, after the alleged theft, was a circumstance in
his favour. Still there was suspicion enough in the
case to justify him in remanding him to Monday next,
but he would not object to take bail for his appearance.
Mr. Clark tendered the requisite bail, and the prisoner
was accordingly remanded.
Edwin Ball, and Frederic Sampson, both persons of gentle-
manly dress and appearance, were charged with throwing a
trussel into the river from Waterloo-bridge, and thereby en-
dangering the lives of people upon the river.
Policeman F 72 said that he was on duty on Waterloo-
bridge at about half-past two o'clock yesterday morningeand
saw the prisoners standing in one of the recesses, over an
arch, with two women of the town. He heard one of them
shouting out to some person below, he supposed, a bargeman.
He then saw them run across the bridge and go into another
recess. There was another gentleman besides the prisoners.
Witness seeing them go into the recess on the opposite side
crossed over for the purpose of watching them, and met the
Sergeant F 4, with whom he had some conversation about
what was geing on. They had not been together many
minutes when they heard a splash in the water. The ser-
geant said, " I suppose they have thrown a trussel over,"
and witness went to see whether that was the case while the
Sergeant stopped the prisoners who were walking quickly
away. The truasels were wooden beams which were laid
across the carriage way in order to force carts, carriages, &c.
to go over
T the part of the road that had been newly maca-
damised.
thrown over b hey were very heavy and could not have been
y one man. Witness had seen a trussel lying
in the recess a few minutes before and missed it after hearing
the noise.
The person who was with the prisoners had parted with
them before the splash was heard. He went with them to
the station-house, but did not give any evidence.
Police sergeant F 4, corroborated the evidence of the first
witness. He had been sent to " visit" him. The prisoners
made no attempt to escape. The police had received orders
from Mr. Powel, the solicitor to the Waterloo-bridge Com-
pany, to take care of these trussels.
Mr. Powel, solicitor to the 1.1 aterloo. bridge Company,
proved that the trussels were the property of the Company,
and were put there for the purpose described by the con-
stable. They were very heavy, usually weighing from IIA
to 2 cwt. If a barge had been passing at the time, the
trussel falling into it would have knocked the bottom out.
Witness had been to the spot this morning, and had missed
one of the trussels. There were marks ou the bench and
parapet, and particles of wood, as if a trussel had been thrown
over. A man was tried at the Old Bailey for manslaughter,
having thrown a stone over and thereby killed a boy.
Mr. Logan, the inspector, said that at the station the pri-
soners made no direct denial of the charge, but only contra-
dicted the statements of the officers in minute particulars.
Ball had dust on his shoulders, as if from lifting a trussel.
t_ The prisoner Ball was vociferous in complaining that
he
were women who were with them on the bridge
i not admitted to give evidence at the station-
iouse. Neither he nor the other prisoner made any state-
ment in answer to the charge, but called a witness to dis-
prove the statements of the
policemen. This was the person
who was with them at the time the officer first noticed
° them, and his evidence went to show that the time between
his
parting from the prisoners and their being taken in
Charge IPril " /l 4 IWAit WU izapos4ibli fin aim t 9 have