The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-04 00:00:00

BANKRUPTS.

Joseph Burne,linen-factor, M,yddleton-square, Middlesex,
to surrender eb. 10, at two, and March 17, at one, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee, Frederick's-
place, Old Jewry ; Bridger and Blake, London-wall;
Dodge, Liverpool.
Joseph Henry Nail, builder, John-street, Tottenham-
court-road, Feb. 11, and March 11, at two, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Bell, official assignee, Coleman-street-
buildings; Thrupp, Winchester-buildings, Broad street.
John Season Burgess Budgett, surgeon, King-street, Cam-
den-town, Feb. 12, at eleven, and March 17, at twelve, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Turquad, official assignee, 0:d
Jewry-chambers; Armstrong and Jones, Red Lion-square.
Samuel Archer, woollen manufacturer, Rochdale, Fe'.). 18,
and March 11, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court.
Fr, ,ser, official assignee, George-street, Manchester; Norris,
Allen, and Simpson, Bartlett'a -buildings, Holborn; Heaton
Rochdale.

James Stuttard, cotton-spinner, Manchester, Feb. 16, and
March 10, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court.
Fraser, official assignee, Manchester ; Gregory, Faulkner,
Gregory, and Skirrow, Bedford•row, London ; Hampton
and Son, Manchester.
DIVIDENDS DECLARED.
_

S. Rhodes, worsted spinner, Bradford, Yorkshire—firFt div.
of 2s. Gd. in the pound, on any Monday, at the office of
Mr. Young, Leeds.
J. Wood, merchant, Sadfilleworth, Yorkshire—first and
final div. of 2s. 6id. in the pound to those who have not
before received, and a final div. of id. in the pound to those
who have, on any Monday, at tho office of Mr. Young,
Leeds.

W. Chaloner, tailor, Lincoln—first div. of 4s. in the pound,
on any Monday, at the office of Mr. Young, Leeds.
J. Rawsthorne, drysalter, Manchester—first div. of Sid. in
the pound, on Tuesday, Feb. 17, or any subsequent Tuesday,
at the office of Mr. Pott, Manchester.
J. Whitlow, laceman, Manchester—final div. of nd. in the
pound, on Tuesday, Feb. 17, or any subsequent Tuesday, at
the office of Mr. Pott, Manchester.
DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
C. Hawkins, grocer, Spitalfields, Fab. 25, at twelve—
W. Gibbs, stone mason, Andover, Feb. 23, at eleven.
In the Country.
J. Hayward, bookseller, Manchester, Feb. 25, at twelve,
at the Manchester District Court.

CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to
the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
'W. IL Taylor, timber dealer, Piccadilly, Oct. 16—W.
Vickers, billbroker, Moorgate-street, City, Feb. 25—8. Pur-
nell, vinegar dealer, New-street, Turner-street, Stepney,
Feb. 27—F. Cordaroy, hatter, Liverpool, Feb. 24—G. Coates,
apothecary, Hart-street, Bloomsbury, Feb. 24—W. L. Kelly,
printer, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, Feb. 24—E. Knyvett,
musicseller, Great Stanmore, Feb. 24—W Hay and J. A.
Titterton, oilmen, London-road, Feb. 24—E. Turner, chemist,
Princes-street, Soho, Feb. 24—8. Wade, tailor, Strand,
Feb. 24—G. Sheraton, corn merchant, Hartlepool, Feb. 24
C. Brogden, bookseller, Lincoln, Feb. 24—C. Mottram,
Manchester warehouseman, Wood-street, City, Feb. 24.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. Barnes, J. Simpson, and E. Barnes, merchants, Token-
house-yard (so far as regards J. Barnes)—J. and E. Hors-
man, haberdashers, Cheatham, Lancashire—C. W. Crowdy
and R. Brown, surgeons, Brixton hill—P. Harrison and J.
Sharwin, ivory workers, Manchester—T. Turner and J.
Walker, wool merchants, Rochdale—J. Perry and T. D. Par-
rott, coach builders, Bristol—S. Mann and J. Clarke, mus-
tard manufacturers Hull—D. E. Forbes and W. R. Drake,
attorneys, Wonfor,d-court, City—J. Standen and J. Broad-
ridge, builders, Boughton, Kent—T. Landon and J. Walker,
military tailors, Jermyn-street, St. James's—S. and J. W.
Martin, salt merchants, Poole—J. Warrington and J. Rae,
tea merchants, Liverpool—W. Standfield, W. Newbould, and
H. Johnson, general merchants, Sheffield (so far as regards
H. Johnson)—H. Lewis and F. H. P. Morland, tailors, Mad •
dox-street, Hanover square—E. Matthews, T. French, and
R. Ellay, printers, Liverpool—E. Atkinson and R. Massey,
spinners, Beela-
mills, Westmoreland—C. Cheney, W. Trego,
and J. Trego, silk manufacturers, Basinghall-street (so far
as regarde W. and J. Trego)—W. H. Winter and W. Ss mons,
builders, Plymouth—Z. Waites and A. Seymour, milliners,
Wakefield—C. Patch and C. M. Webb, brickmakers, Acton
—J. Parr and W. L. Trippett, cardmakers, Manchester—B.
Evans and J. Sherwin iron founders, Norton Folgate—E.
Gardner and Com
Hulme and J. Sadler, Cott{ n manufacturers, Stockport—G.
E. Deeley and J. Clarke , Osborne-street, Whitechapel—W.
Labrev, J. Whitlow, J. Labrev, and T. Dyson, tea dealers,
Manchester (so far as regards a: LabreY).
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.
Much 21 at the QtUce 9t Mr, X9llDgi Vlak9W.
pann bricklayers, Glasgow, Feb. 9 and

LAW INTELLIGENCE.°
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 3.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius after Term, before Mr.:Baron PLATT
and Special Juries.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. WARD.

Evidence having been adduced to prove the case,
Mr. Woßnswonnt addressed the jury for the defence, de-
daring that the tobacco was deposited in the shed without
the defendant's knowledge, and that no one was more sur-
prised when it was discovered there than the defendant
himself.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied, ridiculing the idea that
so large a bulk of tobacco could be placed upon the defend-
ant's premises without his knowledge or consent. There
could, he contended, be no reasonable doubt that the contra-
band goads were placed in the shed with the guilty know-
ledge of the defendant, and therefore the verdict of the jury
ought to be for the Crown.
lir. Baron PLATT then summed up; and the jury, after a
short consultation, found a verdict for the defendant.

GRANT 77. MADDOX.
This was an action by Miss Grant, a vocalist of some cele-
brity, against Mr. Maddox, the proprietor and manager of
the Princess's Theatre in Oxford street, to recover the sum
of 941. for the alleged breach of a theatrical engagement.
Mr. MARTIN (with whom was Mr. Peacock) stated that
in February, 1844, Mr. Grant, the father of Miss Grant, en-
tered into an engagement with Mr. Maddox, on behalf of Lis
daughter, the terms of which engagement were that Miss
Grant was to perform as a vocalist at the Princess's Theatre
for three years, at a rising salary of 5/. a week for the first
year, 61. per week for the second year, and 71. per week for
the third yeer respectively. The contract :was contained in
certain letters which passed between Mr. Grant and Mr.
Maddox. The engagement went on satisfactorily up to the
end of the season, which concluded in August, 1844. Mr.
Maddox then closed the theare, and it continued closed until
October, 1844. During the period it so continued closed
Mr. Maddox refused to pay Miss Grant any salary. When
applied to on the subject, Mr. Maddox said by an engage-
ment for three years, he meant an engagement for three
seasons. Miss Grant was willing to adopt this construc-
tion. She said, let our engagement be for three seasons, and
pay me the increased salary of 6/. per week for the second
season, and 71. for the third season. This arrangement Mr.
Maddox refused to assent to. He paid Miss Grant 5/. a week,
with some slight deductions, from February, 1844, to Fe-
bruary, 1845, whilst the theatre was open. In February,
1145, the increased salary commenced; but Mr. Maddox in
that year again refused to pay Miss Grant any salary whilst
the theatre was closed. The sums thus deducted from her
amounted to 941., to recover which this action was brought.
Miss Grant stood on her written contract.

In support of the plaintiff's case, Mr. J. Grant, the father
of the plaintiff, was called. He proved the communications
which had taken place between him and Mr. Maddox, which
corroborated the statement made on behalf of the plaintiff.
Mr. MONTAGUR CiraatnEns (with whom was Mr. Thomas)
then addressed the jury for the defendant, and contended
that the construction of the engagement w•as a mixed matter
of law and fact. It was for the jury to say what was the
meaning of persons in the theatrical world, when they con-
tracted, a 3 in this case, for a year or years, at a weekly sa-
lary. The year, in theatrical language, meant the period of
the year during which the theatre was open, or, in theatrical
language, " the season ;" and as no money came into the
treasury when the theatre was closed, no manager would be
insane enough to undertake to pay his performers during that
period. Mr. Maddox had never suffered the performers at
his theatre, high or low, to leave on a Saturday without their
full salary. Certain deductions had been made from Miss
Grant's salary when the theatre was closed, in pursuance of
the contract made with her; but with the exception of those
deductions she had been paid every shilling to which she was
entitled.

On the part of the defendant a great number of persons,
well known in the theatrical world, both as managers and
actors, were called, and they all, without qualification, stated
that in their understanding an engagement for a year at a
weekly salary only entitled a performer to be paid during
such part of the year as the theatre was open. No more was
ever demanded. If the theatre was open during the part of
a week, the salary was proportioned to the number of nights
the theatre was open.
On cross-examination, the witnesses stated that nearly all
performers of respectability had written engagements, the
terms of which varied in many particulars, but the under-
standing universally prevailed that when the theatre was
closed there was no pay. If the theatre was closed during
the whole year, the performer, though engaged for a year,
would receive no salary.
Mr. MARTIN, on behalf of the plaintiff, objected to the ad-
mission of the evidence produced on behalf of the defendant,
and submitted that the written contract between the parties
admitted of no doubt, and that it was not competent for the
defendant to put a different construction on it from the plain
import of the words, by evidence of a custom which prevailed,
perhaps, under a different form of contract.
The LORD CHIEF BARON thought himself justified in re-
ceiving the evidence, subject to the opinion of the Court. It
appeared to him that the written contract was ambiguous,
and that the evidence for the defendant showed that the un-
derstanding of the parties was probably that contended for
by the defendant.
The jury, with some hesitation, returned a verdict for the
defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
Joseph Barrat, 36, late a constable belonging to the
City police force, was indicted for stealing six quarts
of wine and eighteen bottles, the property of George
Barker.

Mr. Payne prosecuted, and Mr. Mellor appeared for
the prisoner.
The only points of interest in this case were the cir-
cumstance of the position of the prisoner, and the in-
genious manner in which the robbery was committed.
It appeared that the prosecutor had let a part cf his
house to the prisoner, and he occupied it with his wife.
A portion of the premises so occupied was over the pro-
secutor's wine-cellar, and the prisoner had taken ad-
vantage of this, to break a hole through the floor, and
by this means abstracted the property. At the last
session the prisoner's wife pleaded guilty to the robbery
and was sentenced to six month's imprisonment.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Mr. PAYNE said that the prosecutor had lost pro-
perty to a very considerable amount, and there was
this circumstance of aggravation in the case of the pri-
soner, that he appeared to have induced hia wife to
plead guilty to the charge on the former occasion, in
the hope that ho might thereby himself escape pun-
ishment.

The RECORDER said it was quite unnecessary to urge
any topic of aggravation, as the case in itielf was one
of a very serious character, which rendered it his duty
to pass a severe sentence, viz. transportatioa for seven
years. _ _ _

Mr. Barker said, that on a former occasion he hail
recommended the woman to the merciful consideration
of the Court ; believing that the prisoner was the more
guilty of the two, and he was still desirous, if it were
possible, to obtain some mitigation of her punishment.
The RECORDER said that if any representation was
made to the Secretary of State, and he was referred to,
he should not oppose an alteration of the sentence that
had been passed upon the wife of the prisoner.
Edwin William Edwards, 17, described as a clerk, was
indicted for stealing a cash-box, 61. in silver money, and
a 51. Bank of England note, the property of John
Edward Creevy, and another.
Mr. Baldwin defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prosecutor and his brother carry
on the business of a licensed victualler, No. 100, High
Holborn, and on the night of Jan. 6, the prisoner and
some other persons were in the bar-parlour partaking
of Kane refreshments, and very soon after the persons
were gone the cash-box and its contents were missed.
Suspicion fell upon the prisoner, and from information
received by the police, a constable went to the lodgings
occupied by him, and between the bed and the mattress
he found the cash-box, the lock of which had been
forced and the money abstracted from it.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner
was sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard-labour
for six months.

Frederick Tyler Russell, 22, pleaded guilty to an in-
dictment, charging him with feloniously forging and
uttering an order fur the payment of 531., with intent to
defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank of
England.
Sentence was deferred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
THE CORPORATION AND THE WATERMAN'S STEAM-
BOAT COMPANY.—Mr. Webster Flockton, who was a few
days ago convicted before the Lord Mayor upon the
charge of having caused a barge to be laid before the
archway at Paul's-wharf, thereby obstructing the clear
and orderly passing of craft, appeared again before his
Lordship to answer a complaint for a repetition of the
alleged offence, upon the 30th of January.
As might be expected, from the hostile condition of
affairs between the Corporation and the Waterman's
Steam-boat Company, much interest was excited. It
will be recollected that Mr. Flockton appealed against
the conviction in the first case. The defendant conducted
his own defence, and before the evidence was taken de-
clared that there was no obstruction at the plying-place,
and that the access to the stairs was as free as was the
access to the Old Swan stairs, Mr. Thornton's wharf, or
any other plying-plarse in the neighbourhood.
The LORD MAYOR said he drew no comparison be-
tween any two cases, and would not allow one to inter-
fere at all with another.
Henry Kirby, waterman and lighterman, stated that
on the day specified in the summons, a barge with " W.
Flockton, No. 644" upon it was lying upon Paul's-wharf
causeway, fastened to the piles. He always considered
that the place belonged to the Corporation. No boat
proceeding from London-bridge could get to the stairs
without going round the barge, which fioatcd at high
water, but was aground at low water. The piles about
the place were placed there by the Corporation.
The LORD MAYOR—Can you reach the public stairs
through the piles with a boat ? Witness—No.
The LORD MAYOR—In what way does the barge hinder
the due and orderly passing of boats to the landing place ?
Witness—lf I attempted to go to the stairs between the
piles I should be liable to have my boat smashed between
the barge and the stairs. I must go round the barge, if I
want to get to the stairs.
The LORD MAYOR—Are these stairs public? Witness
--Yes, I have known them to be so these thirty years,
and the City to keep the piles in repair. I have not
rowed to the stairs since the barge has been there. I
have been differently employed.
The witness produced his freedom in the Waterman's
and Lighterman's Company, which was examined by
Mr. Banyun, the, clerk to the Company, and pronounced
genuine.
The LORD MAYOR—Does the barge so obstruct the •
passage to the stairs that if a person were to fall from it
into the river a boat would have to go round before it
could render assistance ? Witness—Certainly. My
Lord, it has gone abroad that I have been instigated by
rival concerns to appear in this business. That is not
the fact ; we are hard-working men, and we contend
that wo have rights as well as steam-boat proprietors.
I am contending for our right.
Mr. Flockton—gy Lord, the complainant says he is a
hard-working man, and that he is injured by the posi-
tion of the barge. Now, upon the first accusation
agains', me he admitted that he had not rowed a boat,
nor been in the habit of rowing one for eight years;
how, then, ci he be aggrieyed by the barge? L lsaid ,

and I believe that he is emp!oyed by the old Steam-boat
Company of Woolwich.:
The complainant—l am not biassed ,by any company,
I positively assert, my Lord.
Mr. Flockton—The barge is a small way upon the
causeway, but to call it an obstrnction is quite absurd.
It lies opposite to a shed, and is in the mud, where it
cannot occupy any space injuriously to those who wish
to land passengers at the stairs.
Robert G. Hasler, a freeman of the Waterman and
Lighterman's Company, gave evidence similar to that
given by the complainant, as to the obstructive position
of the barge, and stated that she hid lain in the tame
place every day since the movement of the first com-
plaint, and that she formed a permanent impediment.
The LORD MA.Yoll.—Etas your boat ever come to the
stairs since you first saw the barge there ? Witness-6
Never.

Mr. Flockton—Have you a boar which plies to those
stairs ? Witness—No. If I had they were so occu-
pied that rcould not do anything there.
Mr.lFlockton—lt is evident, my Lord, that this man is
no more injured than the other.
The LORD MAYOR said the evidence of both wit-
nesses went to show that if a person fell off the barge
a boat must go round and by the delay I@ss of life
might be incurred. _ _

Mr. John 13anyon, clerk to the Waterman's Company,
stated that Mr. Flockton was a freeman of the Water-
man and Lighterman's Company, and one of the as-
sistants of the company, and his barges were registered
with the company.
Mr. Flockton admitted that the number on his barges
was 664, and said he had witnesses to whom he wished
to put few questions:
Richard Farmson stated that he had been a water-
man and lighterman forty years, and was at the present
time one of the only t.velve or fourteen working water-
men with scullery on the river. If he had a fare that
wanted to go to Paul's-wharf, he would take that fare to
the stairs at any time. He would not think of going
between the pile, as that would not be a waterman's
and accompanied with danger, and he always considered
the property between pile and pile, opposite to Need-
ham's shed, to be fur the benefit of the public.
The next witness was William Kelly, a lighterman.
His evidence wan of no importance.
The complainant—Why, this was the man who was
employed by the Waterman's Company to bring down
the craft to block up the stairs with.
The LORD MAYOR said he.considered the case against
Mr. Flockton proved, and convicted that gentleman in
the renalty of 20s.
Mr. Flock ton—My Lord, I appbal against that as well
as against your former conviction.

The usual recognisances having been entered into,
Mr. Flockton said, I trust your Lordship will grant
me a summons against the master of the Blackfriars-
bridge Pier, fcr having obstructed my crafr.

Tlie LORD MAYon2LIn what way? Mr. Floeltton—
In not permitting me to land there from time to time.

The 'LORD MAYOR—Under what section of the Act?
Mr. Flockton—l am not just prepared to say.
The LORD MAYOR—You bad better make the applica-
tion after having properly prepared yourself.
Mr. Flockton—Ccrtainly. I can apply to-morrow.
Kitlay (the complainant in the case just decided) said
he wished for a summons in the case of another barge
which made part of the platform at Paul's-wharf, but to
which was attached no name or number.

The LORD MAYOR—Against whom do you wish to
take out the summons? Kirby—Against Mr. Flockton.
The LORD MAYOR—I cannot grant anything of the
kind, except you prove the barge to be his.
Mr. Flockton—Nly Lord, this platform at Paul's-
wharf is a great public convenience. It is meant to draw
away from the Blackfriars'-pier the cause of disagree-
ment, and to administer to the accommodation of the
public, and these men sustain no damage upon earth
from it.

The steam-boat pier ended for the day in the Lord
Mayor's unsolicited assurance that the cases should be
conducted to the first adjudication in such a way as
would occasion as little expense as possible.
John Thomas, alias James Dyer, and Mary Thomas,
who were charged on Monday, the first, with having
personated a Greenwich pensioner, and the second with
having aided and assisted in the deception, were brought
up fur re-examination.

The following additional evidence was.produced :
George Perry, a veteran of the Hospital, said he knew
John Thomas, a pensioner, from 1835 to 1842, in the
Hospital, and he had known him in 1810 in New Provi-
dence. He had committed some offence and had been
discharged from the College, and witness saw no more
of him. Knew the wife of John Thomas. That was
she at the bar ; but the man at the bar was not John
Thomas.—(A laugh.) Knew nothing at all of the man
at the bar.

The description of John Thomas in the College re-
gister was produced. It bore no sort of reference to
the prisoner—lt was quite a contrast.
Joseph M'Lean, an officer at the Hospital, said the
female prisoner called upon him and requested him to
call and see her husband, John Thomas, who was sick
He went, but found that the person she called her hus-
band was drunk, and unable to answer, and he went
away. At her request witness called again, and theft a
person, who covered himself up with a blanket in bed,
said his name was John Thomas, but witness could not
say the prisoner was the man.
The LORD MAYOR—(to the woman)—ls your hus-
band alive ? The female prisoner—He is indeed, my
Lord.

The Loan MAYOR—Where is he ? The female pri-
soner—(pointing to the man who stood shivering next
to her.)—" Why, here he is !" —(Laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR— His nano is Dyer. He is not
your husband, John Thomas. The female prisoner—
Indeed he is ; I wish you'd send for the man and
woman at Whitechapel church, who gave me away to
him.

The LORD MAYOR—What ! to the man who stands
by you ? The female prisoner—Yes ; to my husband.
The LOAD MAYOR—What do you say ?—(to the man)—
are you thl woman's husband ? The male prisoner—
(in a very feeble tone, and looking at the woman)—
" Yes."

The female prisoner—Oh, he is greatly altered.
The Loup MAYOR—So a body would think indeed,
for he has grown at least half a foot higher since he was
in Greenwich Hospital. Not to say a word of other
points of diffbrence.
In answer to several other questions, the wretched
looking object said he was too ill to sfly anything. He
neither knew the name of the ship to which he belonged,
nor the number of the ward in which he was lodged in
the hospital, nor anything else.
There was no evidence produced of the death of the
real John Thomas, and the Lord Mayor regretted that
he was obliged to discharge the couple.