The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
PRIVY COUNCIL, June IL
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat to-
day in the Council Chamber, Whitehall. The Lords in
attendance were the Lord President (the Duke of Buc-
cleuch), Mr. Baron Parke, the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce, and Sir Herbert Jenner Fust.

THE IRON DUKE.
The further arguments in this collision case, which
came before their Lordships upon appeal from the Court
of Admiralty, occupied their Lordships the whole morn-
ing. We have already given a detailed account cf the
facts of the case.

COURT OA' CHANCERY, June 3.
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at Westminster
to-day, and heard appeals.

WHITWORTH V. GANGATN.
His Lordship was occupied the whole morning with
the arguments in this appeal from the decision of the
Vice-Chancellor Wigram. The only question in this
case was w healer a subs, quent mortgag. w is entitled to
prei.-rence over a writ of idegit. The Vice-Chancellor
decided that it was, from that decision the prtsent
appeal was brought.

ROLLS' COCHT, June 3
DIARTIN V. SEDGWICK.

The arguments in this case were resumed.
Mr. TURNER, on the part of the appellant, replied a,
great length to the arguments on the opposite side, and
contended that the question at issue was one that came
clearly under the law respecting real property, though
it had reference to shares.

Lord LANGDALE, in giving judgment, reviewed the
whole facts of the case. He said, this was one of those
unfortunate cases, where the Court was called on to de-
cide to the detriment of an innocent party. It appeared
that, in 1832, a Mr. Dunlop caused to be transferred
in the name of a Mr. Sedgwick, 200 shares in the Rock
Assurance Company, he bolding these shares in ti ust
for him and his heirs. The first question that arose was,
whether by the constitution of these acts a shareholder
was a partner, and whether the notice served was to be
considered as a sufficient notice to the Company. He
was clearly of opinion that such was not the case. It
did not appear, moreover, that there existed any cir-
cumstance to prevent Mr. Dunlop giving that notice
which would have subsequently prevented any in-
terference with the rights of the party justly en-
titled to these shares. These shares standing in
his name, he was certainly at liberty to dis-
pose of them in any way consistent with the
' rules of the Committee. During the whole period, the
interest of these shares had been paid to Mr. Dunlop.
It appears, from the answer, that he applied to a Mrs.
Sutherland for a sum • of money, in security for
which he gave these shares as a pledge, and he
executed an assignment to that eth-ct. Mrs.
Sutherland subsequently advanced a further sum
of money, making altogether a sum total of over
2,0001. The shares not being adequate to meet so large
a demand, Mr. Sedgwick gave other shares as a secu-
rity, and made arrangements by which these shares
should be so disposed as to liquidate in part his debt
to Mrs. Sutherland, and the debt was reduced
to 1,5001 Under all the circumstances it was
evident that the plaintiff had a clear right to have
a full account of what sums remained, respecting the
claims of Mrs. Sutherland. A question might certainly
arise between the co-trustees, but here the: case was
perfectly clear, and Mrs. Sutherland was clearly en-
titled to have those shares turned into money for her
benefit. This did not apply to the interest that had
accrued on the shares, and though no blame could be
attached to Mr. Sedgwick, yet on this point the law
was against him.

VICE CHANCERY COURT, June 3.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

GOODMAN V. DE BEAUVOIR.

This case came before the Court upon an applica-
tion to dissolve an injunction that had been granted re-
;training the Warwick and Worcester Company from
paying the sum of 21,000/. The plait,tiffs are repre-
,,nted to be all the shareholders of the Company, with
h.- exception of the defendants, who are the director,
f the Company ; and the grounds on which the appli
tation to dissolve the injunction is founded are, that
;,he facts upon which the injunction was granted were
not fully stated to the Court, and that in several re-
vects they were perverted.
The case was not finished when the Court rose.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 3.
A considerable time was occupied to-day in the hear-
ing or a case in which the governors or trustees of th,
Borough-road Institution sought to have their esta-
blishment exempted from a local parish tax. After a
long argument,
The COURT decided that the institution did not come
within the exemptions contemplated by the Act.
(Sittings in Banco.)

THE QUEEN V. JAMES GRIFFIS.

This was an appeal against a conviction, upon the
ground of illegality.
It appeared that the appellant, James Griffis, was
convicted for having, in the parish of Collington, in the
county of Devon, a dog and gun in his possession for
the purpose of taking and killing game. The convic-
tion was for three calendar months ; and it was objected
that it was bad on the face of it, inasmuch as it was
made by one commissioner instead of before two—the
one commissioner who committed not being a justice of
the peace. The law required that one commissioner, to
have jurisdiction, should be a justice of the peace, and
if not a justice, he should not adjudicate without the
presence and co-operation of another commissoner; two
commisionere, not being justices, being armed with
sufficient power to convict.
Mr. GREENWOOD argued in support of the coviction,
citing several cases in support of his argument, and
submitted to the Court that the Act of the Commis-
sioner, under all the circumstances, was legal, and that
the conviction ought to be affirmed.
Mr. MERRIVALE, with whom was Mr. CORNISII, Con-
tended that the conviction was bad, upon the grounds
above stated, and

The Court, looking at all the facts, ruled that the ob-
jection was good, and that the conviction could not ba
sustained. _

The Court was occupied during the greater part of the
remaining portion of the day in hearing arguments in
pauper cases of removal and settlement, in several of
which their Lordships gave a decision.

BAIL COURT, June 3.
In this Court to-day several applications were made,
but all of them devoid of public interest. One was a
case in which a motion was made for a writ for a dis-
tringas for 5,0001. against a party who was alleged to
have sold his goods and gone abroad, in consequence of
embarrassments in which he was involved, by reason of
railway speculation. lie (the defendant), whose name
was Wake, alleged that he had never heard of any pro-
ceedings being taken against him, and in answer to the
Court, as to how he had come by the knowledge of it,
he said he had heard of it on a Sunday, but that legally
he had not. The present application was for a writ of
outlawry against him, as it was alleged he was not ex-
pected to return, and that in several such cases Sunday
had been held to be a legal thy. •
The COURT granted the rule.
Mr. Lusts moved for a mandamus, commanding the
Thames Haven Railway and Dock Company to pay
a party the amount of ajudgtnent he had obtained against
them, and prayed that it might be granted at once, as the
Bill of the Company would expire in July.
The COURT granted the rule, but said it should be in
the ordinary way.

THE QUEEN V. HART.
In this case an application was made to remove an in-
dictment laid ugainA the deiendant for perjury from
the sessions to the assizes. The alleption was that
defendant had personated the platntiff at an elec:ion.—
Granted.

The next was a common jury case, in which the
plaintiff •and defendant stood in the relative position of
building contractor and employ, r. When the case had
gone on fur some time, it was agreed to refer it.
The Court rose at an early hour.

SECONDARIES' COURT, June 3.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
IN RE FREDERICK CHARLES PARRY.
OUTLAWRY AND EXTENT.—In this case the jury were
empanelled under a Crown extent, to ascertain what
property the defendant was possessed of within the City
of London.
The solicitor stated the case. The defendant had for-
merly been one of the registrars in the Court of Bank-
ruptcy, and had retired on a pension of 6661. per annum.
An action had been brought against him, and ultimately
the plaintiff in the suit took proceedings under which
the defendant was outlawed, and all his property had
become forfeited to the Crown ; it would therefore be
only necessary to prove by a clerk of the Bank of Eng-
gland that the defendant was entitled under an order of
the Lord Chancellor to the above amounts out of funds
in their hands.
Mr. Everts, from the Bank of England, proved the
fact.

The SECONDARY, in summing up, said the jury would
find a verdict for the Crown, to which the property fell:
what would ultimately be done with it was no part of
the present inquiry.
The jur3 accordingly gave a verdict for the Crown in
the proper form.
CHAPMAN AND ANOTHER v. FOWLER.
The plaintiffs in this action were the proprietors of
the Railway Director newspaper, and the defendant was
a provisional or managing committeeman of the Ham-
mond Vale Coal and Iron Company, a mining
speculation entered into during the last autumn.
The defendant admitted his liability to pay
part of the demand, and did not dispute
the fairness of the charges, but denied having given in-
strivtion to the advertising agent or collector for the
insertion of the whole. The real point in the case was
whether, when credit was given, a written or printed
aorder was netthe
otneeocresthsaerye.
eraSpeavneyra an
for
rdle7mlsdss., hadaa been made
at
theade
Secre-
tary, Mr. Hughes, said it would be paid.
das
ois
rice Mr.
I:hroHsor
osur aorapaeowdrta,rhi an advertising
n4iengtees,
enrth,ardl
did`ag
()ye nnrht
fb; saidfea
nwsgkihnsesfeo:
rai
ravn decade
nsgwyi
wash vi etof
the writ defendant had admitted his liability.
For the defendant it was urged that the Company
had offered to pay any amount for which orders could
be produced.
Mr Hughes was ncw called, with a view of showing
that he had
.given the orders to the amount of 6/., which
andgiivnen other had b,-en pail into Court.
ordOenr arbeB
forher
rothers, e
-examination, howeVer, he admitted an
pi.Ct S
• Hence of Dixon.
The SECONDARY said that as a matter of law it was
whheiedhid h e
not remembered
shake
the
on seeing it,
not necessary that the order should be given in writing,
althou4b it was better to have it as a matter of pre-

caution; the main question in this case was whether a cer-
tain order had been given by Mr. Hughes for the inser-
tion of a long advertisement or by one of his clerks by
accident, but that the draft or copy had got into plaintiff's
hands was quite clear, and also that they had inserted it.
The jury, after a short consultation, gave a verdict for
the plaintiffs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
_ MANSION-HOUSE.

A savage-looking fellow, named Florence Leary, was
brought up, charged with having scalded William Tut-
hill in a dreadful manner.

The complainant has been since his calamity, which
took place about seven or eight weeks ago, under me-
dical treatment, and was not able to move from the hos-
pital until Friday last. He and the prisoner have been
long considered to be quarrelsome fellows.
The complainant said that he was a tailor, and had
known the prisoner for about sixteen or eighteen years.
A little after eleven o'clock on the night of Wednesday,
the 8,1 of April, he we It into the tap-room of the Box
Tree public•house. Gravel•lane, Houndsditch, and sat
down near the prisoner. He was hardly seated when
the prisoner said to him, " what did you mean by offend-
ing my wife last night, and what did you call me an
informer for ?" Witness replied, "you are the cause
of having two man apprehended as deserters, and I con-
sider you, therefore, an informer." The moment
witness used these words the prisoner struck him in a
most desperate manner, and tumbled him upon the
ground. Witness got up and tried to defend himself,
but was again knocked down by the prisoner, who knelt
upon his breast, dragged him to the fire-place, and turn-
ing the tap of the boiler, which was on the fire, let the
boiling water over him for about half a minute, and
scalded him in the most awful manner on the belly and
thighs. In dreadful agony witness endeavoured to rise,
but the prisoner, not satisfied with having inflicted such
punishment, gave him a most unmerciful kick on the
face, which floored him in a state of insensibility.
Some people in the room then lifted the prisoner up, and
took him (witness) to his home, and from thence he was
taken to the hospital, where his sufferings were almost in-
tolerable.

VPilliam Tuggett„ who happened to be in the public-
house on the night of the quarrel, deposed to the cor-
rectness of the above statement, and said the prisoner
showed the most determined resolution to scald the life
out of him

Other witnesses confirmed the account of the prisoner's
brutality.

He was committed for tiral, and the City solicitor was
directed to prosecute him.

CHARGE OF R DER AT THE
THAMES POLICE-COURT.
On Tuesday, Benjamin Gibbins, a mild-looking mania
labourer, was brought before Mr. Broderip, charged with
the wilful murder of a woman named Jane Sloman,
' otherwise Gibbins, with whom he had lived for some
time in a state of concubinage. The case excited great
interest from a rumour that was spread, and which bears
with it an air of probability, that the life of the unfor-
tunate deceased was sacrificed by some parties engaged
in carrying on illicit distillation, in the house where she
met with her death, in consequence of her having threat-
ened to give information to the Excise. It appears there
was a still at work in the tenement for some time, and
that it was hastily removed on Monday night, about the
time the woman met with her death .
Edward Wanderer Townson, police-sergeant No. 8 K,
an officer of great intelligence and activity, stated that
at half-past eight that morning, he was sent for to the
house, No. 6, Labour-in- vain-street, Shadwell Market,
the residence of the prisoner. On arriving there, he
went up stairs, and found a woman in the front loom, a
corpse, and Dr. Ross examining the body. Dr. Ross
died Lis attention to a wound on the back part of the
head, and also to three wounds on the right side of the
ace. At the same time, the medical gentleman ex-
pressed an opinion that the case was a very suspicious
one. Shortly afterwards the prisoner c one in. He asked
him, in presence of Dr. Ross, what time he came
h,)me ? The prisoner replied that he returned to his
home about seven o'clock, and found the deceased lying
dead in the passage, at the foot of the stairs, with her
head towards the door. Witness then observed a mat,
folded up in the tortn of a pillow, which Dr. Ross said,
in the presence of the prisoner, was in the same state,
and under the deceased's head when he was called into
the house. There was a large stain of blood on it. Dr.
Ross also called the attention of witness to some blood
spattered upon the wall in the passage. There were
also scratches on the wall as if the nails of some
human hand had been scratching the wall. Witness also
observed a spot of blood on the second stair from the
passage; which appeared to have been smeared with the
finger. On questioning the prisoner he stated that he
was employed at Stepney fair during the whole of Mon-
day, in turning the wheel of a machine called an up and-
down, with cars in the shape of boats, and that the de-
ceased came to him at five o'clock on Monday evening,
and then appeared half drunk; that he came home about
one o'clock in the morning, and knocked at the door for
some considerable time, and could obtain no admittance,
but that he heard a noise inside ; that he then went
away, and went to a coffee-shop opposite Shadwell
Church, where he remained until four o'clock ; went
from there to the Duke of York public-house in the
High-street, Shadwell, and stayed there till he went
home at seven o'clock. The prisoner also stated that he
was again unable to obtain admission to his dwelling,
and borrowed a ladder of his next-door neighbour, and
entered the house by a back window; that he went down
stairs and found the body of the woman lying as before
described, and that on opening the street door some
women came in and said she was dead. Witness asked
the prisoner if he had touched the body; and he replied
that he had merely lifted the feet. Witness then ob-
served some marks of blood on the prisoner's hands, and
asked him how he accounted for it ? The prisoner said
he had cut his hand on Monday, and it bled a good deal.
Mr. Broderip—Did you examine his hand?
Towason—Yes, I did.
Mr. Broderip—Was there a wound upon it?
Townson—Not a fresh wound, Sir. After I had
looked at his hands I observed large spots of blood on
the left arm of his jacket, and I asked him how he ac-
counted for them. He said he did not know, and I also
observed several other marks of blood about the inside
of the jacket, next the pocket, and also several spots of
blood on his waistcoat. I afterwards told him I should
take him to the station-house, and he said the blood on
his clothes was caused by his lifting the head of the
deceased. I searched the house, but did not find any
instrument likely to have caused the wound on the back
part of the head. I should say there was a large
spot of blood on the thigh of the trousers the man now
has on.

Mr. Daniel Ross, surgeon, of High-street, Shadwell,
was called to the deceased a little after 7 o'clock that
morning, He found the deceased lying in the passage
of her dwelling, with her head supported by a roll of
matting made into a sort of pillow. The head was
towards the street-door, and the feet at the foot of the
stairs. About two or three feet above the body there
were two or three patches of coagulated blood pn the
wall facing the staircase. On either side of the patches
of blood there were marks of scratches on the wall.
After describing some other marks, which was merely a
repetition of Townson's evidence, he said he had the
body very carefully removed up stairs into the front
room. His attention was first called to a wound at the
back of the head, and afterwards to five marks or disco-
lourations of the skin on the right of the face. The
wound on the back of the head was a jagged or lacerated
wound, and somewhat triangular.
Mr. Broderip—Can you tell whether it was done by
any instrument or not?
Mr. Ross—The wound was inflicted by a blunt instru-
ment, or by her falling against some blunt instrument T
projecting surface. Trio bone was laid bare, and I could
p.sss my finger :wove the u.,per part, of it ab flit an inch.
[ carefully observed the skirting-board in the passage, to
ascertain if there was any blood or hair there, but was
unable to detect either. I subsequently examined the
room up stairs where the body is now lying. There had
evidently been some one vomiting there on the floor,
and the effluvia of rum was very powerful. I then en-
tered a small room on the ground floor, the door of
which opened close to the head of the deceased where
:she was first seen. The effluvia from liquor was very
powerful there. He should say it was whisky, and the
floor of the apartment was flooded with it. He then
passed through to a small back room, where he disco
vs red the remains of a still, and the floor of that apart-
ment was also flooded with strong spirits like whisky.
The still was gone, but a quantity of strong wash in
to bs and the utensils were lying about. The brickwork
in which the still had been imbedded was quite hot. He
bud no doubt the still had been hastily removed, and the
liquor allowed to be wasted over the floor. The win•
do w of the still-room was down, but unfastened ; it
m:tght very easily have been thrown up from the outside.
Pie had been ordered by the Coroner, Mr. Baker, to
make a post mortem examination of the body, and until
he had done so he could not state positively the cause of
death.
Mr. Lindley, the clerk, asked if the deceased appeared
to have been drinking ? Mr. Ross—Yes ; she smelt
very strongly of liquor.
Inspector Valentine, of the K division, said he had no
further evidence to offer at present, but if the case was
rt .manded he should be 'able to bring forward several
w itnesses, and most probably trace the parties who had
w 4 irked and removed the still.
The prisoner on being called on for his defence made
it very long statement, and said he left home at six
o'clock on Monday more in and did not enter his dwell-
again till seven o'clock next morning, when he
effected art entrance by means of a ladder raised against
the back Of his house, and obtained admission by the
6r st-floor window. He was engaged during the whole
of Monday in fitting out an up and-down, near Womb-
we Ws menagerie in Stepney Fair, and turning the crank.
Tule deceased and her mother visited the fair during the
and he put them into one of the boats of the up-
fid4lown he was attending. At five o'clock the
samed
:afternoon, he saw Jane Sloinan in the fair aegain
she was then the worse for liquor. .He begs
go home, and not distract his attention
from
tdh e h'eworkr t
he was upon, as he was fearful of he
receiving
from the crank he was turning, an
T
prisoner injurythen
went on to state very circumstantially, that he finished
his work at twelve o'clock
that after obtaining some ref n
refreshment Monday night, and
shment he went home,
and knocked at the door, and no one answered.
He made several ineffectual attempts to enter the
house, and the neiglibeurs saw and heard him knock-
ing at the door. The first time he knocked at the door
was between one and two o'clock, and the neighbours
:said, " Who's there?" He told them he was very tired,
rand should obtain a lodging elsewhere. and as he was
Heaving the spot, the neighbours exclaimed, " My God,
mho has fallen down stairs." After visiting several
ssoffee-shops and public houses he finally got in athe
window by means of a ladder. He went down stairs,.
astla saw the body lying at the foot of the staircase. He
opened the door and the neighbours entered. At the
4evire 9f the neighbours be Weed her head, And rested