The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 4, 1846,

produced was correct, and the charges were those of the I
house. _ . _ _

Cross-examined—A bar book was kept by Miss
Saunders, the barmaid ; 121. 12s. was charged for the
three servants, including the chambermaid.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS—I am afraid the cham-
bermaid had little to do, as there was so little sleeping.
Mary Knowles, the chambermaid, said the party oc-
cupied six or seven beds, which they used by turns;
some sleeping in the day, and others in the night; when
one got up another took his place, and she had to make
the beds at unseasonable hours of the day and night.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS held, on behalf of the de-
fendant, that he was not liable to pay the demand of the
plaintiff, and he should show that the surveyors who
used the house were sent there by Mr. Higgins, who had
contracted with the company to defray all the expenses
of the survey, and those incidental to it. The ordering
of the champagne by the defendant, and its ommission
from the bill, showed, at his request, that he did not wish
it to be confounded with the bill of Mr. Higgins. When
the surveyors first went to the house, the defendant was
in Staffordshire, so that it could not be held that they
were sent by him. The plaintiff himself had admitted
that Mr. Higgins was liable; he attended a meeting of
his creditors, and claimed the amount of his bill; so that
it was quite an afterthought to turn round and demand
the amount from the defendant, and first of all he claimed
only 671. Bs. 9d., then the amount for which the action
was brought. He then called the following witnesses in
support of his ease:—
Mr. Boyman, the secretary to the railway, examined
by Mr. JAMES—He said Mr. Higgins was the engineer
of the line, and received about 1,000/. from the com-
mittee for the purpose of paying the survey and sur-
veyors. The committee had nothing further to do with
the expense of it. The plaintiff called on him on the 3d
of December, and stated that Mr. Higgins had informed
him that he (Higgins) had enclosed his (the plaintiff's)
bill to him for payment. The account was received
with a letter from Mr. Higgins, requesting a cheque on
account of the expense of the survey, The bill he sub-
sequently returned to the plaintiff, telling him that Mr.
Higgins was the person to look to, as he had contracted
to furnish the survey. The plaintiff, in reply to ques-
tions, stated that Mr. Higgins sent the surveyors to his
house, and that the articles charged were supplied to his
order and to his account. A few days after the
defendants called with the plaintiff and told him (wit-
ness) that he was very apprehensive that Mr. Higgins
would not be able to pay his bill, and hoped that the
committee would pay it for him. The bill was given
back to him in order that he might make out two sepa-
rate bills, that the board might know what he had sup-
plied to the account of Mr. Grey. The whole of the
first bill was made out in the name of Higgins ; he
made no claim in my presence upon Mr. Grey for the
bill.

Cross-examined—No authority was given to Mr. Hig-
gins by the committee to incur tavern bills on their
account.
Mr. Bickerton, railway agent, of Cannon-row, West-
minster, deposed to a conversation taking place at
Gerard's Hall between a Mr. Hill, the company's
solicitor, the plaintiff, and the defendant, in which the
defendant offered him 10Z in addition to the 61. lent, and
31. for champagne, to give him a discharge ; but the
plaintiff declined to accept it, saying that if he took it
where was he to look for the balance of his account.
Both Flint and the defendants admitted owing some-
thing for themselves and their clerks.
Mr. Illidge, the defendant's partner, deposed to having
been present at a meeting of the creditors of Mr. Higgins,
which was held at the Law Institution, Chancery-lane,
and the plaintiff claiming 1201. from his estate.
Mr. Nichol, an engineering surveyor, living in Duke-
street, proved sending several persons to the Boar and
Castle by Mr. Higgins's order. Murphy, he thought,
was one of them, but he did not send him by Mr.
Higgins's order.
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Gagent, surveyors, gave similar
testimony.
This was the case for the defence.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA, in his reply, explained that the
different sums applied for by the plaintiff arose from his
being induced by the defendants to believe that
Mr. Higgins was liable for part of the ac•
count, and that finding he could not get
any part of it from either—that, in short, he had been
misled, and that the defendant was clearly liable—he now
brought the action for the full amount of his claim. He
held that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict on the
evidence adduced.
Mr. Justice ERLE told the jury that they ought to
find for the plaintiff if they believed the contract was
made between him and the defendants; and for the de-
fendants, if they believed it was made with Mr. Hig-
gins. It was for them to say whether there was or
was not a reasonable presumption to believe from the
evidence, and particularly from the personal conduct of
the defendants that he was liable for the refreshments
supplied.
The jury, after deliberating at eat half an hour, found
a verdict for the defendant.

BAIL COURT, Dec. 3.
THE QUEEN V. ARNOLD.

In this case a writ of mandamus had been issued
ordering the defendant to register a certain vessel
belonging to the Pacific Steam Navigation Company.
To this the defendant had demurred, on the ground that
the vessel was partly owned by foreigners.
Sir F. Thesiger was heard in support of the demurrer,
and Mr. Hill in support of the mandamus.
The LORD CHIEF JuslacE, in giving judgment, said
that the object of the mandamus was to compel an
officer in her Majesty's Customs to register a vessel be-
longing to the Pacific Steam Navigation Company.
That was a corporation by charter. It was not attempted
to be denied that the corporation was a British one, but
the question was whether it was qualified to own
British built vessels under the statute 8 and
9 Victoria. It had been stated that several
members of the corporation were foreigners, and not
British subjects, and consequently the vessels did not
belong exclusively to British subjects, required by the
sth section of the Act. These persons, as individual
members of the corporation, would not be enabled to
have privileged vessels registered with their names as
the owners, but being only members of one corporate
body—a British corporate body—the Court was of opi-
nion that the presence of some foreigners in the corpo-
ration was not a sufficient ground to refuse the regis-
tration, and the mandamus must therefore be made
peremptory.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 3.
C Rwo
hc R
ich D a
st, V. o
in pRaDr MhAel
aDrfidT OmE
yesterday, was
gter, who deposed that the
defendantresumed g
mT hr
sLe
aat
whs
hei r
had
a dnme
had
a morning
theug
cellar-waiter,
ebwl yl
aarcrda-
sof forty dinners, and thatwl
upon every occasion he had wine with them, and a large
quantity of wine was also sent to Bolton. street, by his
Lordship's orders.
John Hunt, who had lived eighteen or nineteen years
in the employ of the plaintiff, deposed to the fact of the
dinners and wine being sent to Bolton street, and also
that his Lordship directed one shilling to be paid upon
each occasion to the person taking it. He also stated
that the lady residing in Bolton-street, whose female
servant took in the dinners, gave at Christmas a Christ-
mas-box of five shillings to the waiter.
Mr. Langham deposed. to having received from Lord
Maidstone an order for six dozen of sherry.
Other witnesses were called, who gave evidehce of a
similar nature, and it appeared that the dinners were
supplied to Bolton-street three years after the peried of
his Lordship taking the dinners at the club-house.
The case for the plaintiff having been brought to a
conclusion,
Mr. JAMES addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant in a most eloquent and forcible speech, con-
tended that his client was not liable to pay in the present
action, and that so far from deserving to experience
severe regret, as intimated by his Learned Friend,
he was entitled to the greatest credit for having
come forward at the head of a number of young noble-
men to defend the present action, which was only one
of a number of similar others. It was admitted by the
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, that the house in
question was a gaming-house. According to the rules of
the club, persons who played did not pay the subscrip-
tion, nor was it ever intended that it should be paid ; no
application had been made for the subscription during
the life time of Crockford. The jury would not be led
away by the high sounding names which had yesterday
been paraded before them by his Learned Friend. The
splendid house which Crockford used significantly to
style " his hell," and over which might be inscribed the
language of Dante, "Farewell hope to all who enter
here," fitted up with all the allurments and fascinations
of elegance, was equally a gaming-house in the eye of
the law, as any place which was devoid of those extra-
neous adornments. And if the Duke of Wellington or
other noble personages should play at unlawful games in
that house, he was in the eye of the law an " evil dis-
posed person," and was equally guilty with the
poor wretch who, at Epsom or at Ascot, staked
his last shilling at thimble rig. Lord Maid-
stone had lost immense sums in that place, and
it was as "false as dicers oaths" to say that he
did everything there but pay, as the Learned Counsel
for the plaintiff had asserted. There could be no doubt
at all that this was a common gaming-house, within the
meaning of the Act. The rules of the club stated that
the proprietor should find, at his own cost, a cold supper,
the choicest wines, and the choicest fruits of the season,
every night. Who then was to pay for this ? why it was
clear that, as at the booths at Ascot or at Epsom, where
the young and unsuspecting dupes were called in to take
a glass of sherry for nothing, the victims of their fell de-
signs paid it. Ile would therefore leave the case to the
jury, trusting to their good sense to return a verdict for
the defendant, who had been already nearly ruined by
his connexion with the club.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up to the jury,
said, that in his opinion the house in question was not a
" common garniag-house" under the meani—; of the Act,
there being no evidence to prove it, the only evidence
going to show that several members of the club did at
various times
play among themselves for a considerable
amount, and that the custom existed to a most deplorable
extent. The questions for the jury to consider were,
first, whether they were of opinion that the plaintiff was
liable to pay his subscription of ten guineas as his
entrance fee, and ten guineas for his subscrip.tion for
sleBn4tl:o
tahnedhsoecuosnedimany,re
and whether they were sent ,by his Lordship's orders.
lny, ,Bo
Bolton-street,
whethert
ree thet dainndn eirfs
The jury retired, and after a short consultation, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount.
The Court was crowded to excess during the
.trial by
so, and wine
ewe
interest in the result.
a number of persons who seemed to take considerable
Upon the jury giving in their verdict for the full
amount in the above case,
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that he thought it a
duty to call the attention of the Counsel in the case to
returns The verdict was for the full "Punt; but for
the very loose manner in which the verdict had been

a great number of the items in the bill of demand there
was not a tittle of eviderce in cupport they-not: He
would, therefore, advise the Counsel upon both sides to
strike out from the amount of the verdict such articles
for which no evidence had been given. The saint reck-
lessness appeared in the jury in an undefended case yes-
terday, where the jury returned a verdict for the full
amount, without a particle of evidence in support of the
majority of the claims of the plaintiff.
The proposition of his Lordship having been acceded
to by both parties, the verdict was entered by consent
for the reduced sum of 541. 14s. 6d., exclusive of the
sum paid into Court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 3.

LEES V. NICHOLSON-SOUTHERN COUNTIES UNION

RAILWAY.

This was an action brought by Mr. Charles Lee, a
surveyor, against Mr. William Nicholson, a gentleman
residing in Manchester-street, to recover 1001., being
the defendant's proportion of debt, which, it was alleged,
as one of the provisional directors of the Southern Coun-
ties Union Railway, he owed to the plaintiff, who sur-
veyed the line. The whole bill charged was 3,2501.,
which had been reduced by the payment of 1,3501. the
defendant pleaded not indebted.

Mr. Sergeant Byles and ..Ir. Lush appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Martin and Mr. Atherton for the defence.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES having stated the case, called
the following witnesses

George Pullit, a clerk in the employ of Mr. Wells,
the solicitor to the company, deposed to the receipt of a
letter from Mr. Nicholson, accepting his appointment ai
one of the provisional directors of the company, and also
accepting a number of shares.
J. B. Wells, the solicitor, gave evidence as to the
origin of the company, and the appointment of a surveyor.
The company was first formed by himself and a Mr.
Gadsden. They were the company for a short time.
Several gentlemen met together at his office, conducted
the company's affairs, and issued a prospectus. There
was no regular committee of management formed till the
2d of October. Prior to that the surveyor had been
arranged with. There were eleven gentlemen present
at the meeting. The provisional and management com-
mittees were then definitively appointed. Mr. Sheriff
Chaplin being nominated chairman, and Mr. Alderman
Hughes Hughes, Deputy-chairman. Power was agreed
to fill up vacancies. Mr. Nicholson gave his assent in
writing, before these proceedings, to be one of the provi-
sional directors. He had nothing to do with the actual
engagement of Lees. That was done by Mr. Lucas,
another provisional director, some days prior to the first
regular meeting.
Cross-examined—Mr. Lees, the plaintiff, was witness's
brother-in-law, as was also the solicitor who brought the
action. In all there was about 250 provisional directors;
out of which 100, along with Mr. Nicholson, gave their
consent. About 150 paid in their shares.
Joseph Lees, a sharebroker, of Manchester, deposed
that the firm with which he was connected were share-
brokers of the company, and that he had showed Mr.
Nicholson the prospectus with his name on it. The
note produced, with Mr. Nicholson's name written in it,
was filled up by witness, but he did not see that gentle-
man sign it.

George Street, el( rk to Mr. Charles Barker, of Bir-
chen-lane, advertising agent, produced several London
and provincial papers, in which the prospectus, with Mr.
Nicholson's name, appeared. The secretary, Mr. Gadsden,
gave the orders.
Mr. Bennett, of Manchester, proved that all the prin-
cipal papers of the kingdom came to the Manchester
Exchange, and that Mr. Nicholson attended there, and
that there was every reason to suppose he must have
seen his name in the advertisements referred to.

Dugald MTarlane, of the Register Office, Produced
the registery of the company. The first registration was
in the name or Gadsden alone, but, subsequently, the
names of a number of provisional directors were regis-
tered ; among others that of Mr. Nicholson. The names
were written all in one hand-writing, that of the secre-
tary he supposed.
lir. Lees was recalled, and deposed to his having
been present at the allotment of the shares, and that
100 were set apart for the defendant. It was, he believed,
in pursuance of the letter received from the latter. He
understood that letters were sent to all parties to whom
shares were issued. Mr. Jacobs was at that time pro.
tern. secretary, and it would be his business to send the
letters. At this time Gadsden had ceased to be secre-
tary, having been dismissed.
George Adam Jacobs said he was acting secretary in
November last year. On the Bth of December he sent
out the notices of the allotment to the app:icants for
shares. They were given to a clerk to be posted. The
capital was fixed at 2,500.0001., but out of all the shares
issued there was but 1501. paid up. Not one of the
provisional directors had paid anything on their shares.
Cross-examined—The panic had taken place before
this time, but he could not say what the reasons were
that caused an allotment of shares under such circum•
stances. He was not aware that the provisional board of
directors were the real parties who were conducting this
prosecution, in order to place all the expenses on the ge-
neral provisional directors.

John Johnson, clerk to the company, proved the post-
ing of the allotment letters, and among others one to
Mr. Nicholson,

This being the whole of the case for the plaintiff;
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, on the application of Mr.
MARTIN, ordered the plaintiff to be non suited, inas-
much as there was no evidence as to the responsibility
of the defendant. The decision of the Exchequer in
" Wyld v. Hopkins" was the ground upon which the ap-
plication of Mr. Martin was founded.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES tendered a bill of exceptions to
the ruling of the judges.

HUGHES V. RASTRICK.

An arrangement was come to in this case, and a
verdict entered for the plaintiff by consent.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 3.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Eva/is.)

IN RE DONALD MACLEAN, LATE M.P. FOR OXFORD,

Mr. LAWRENCE this day applied to his Honour for a
further postponement of the hearing in the case of this
bankrupt. He read a letter from Mr. Maclean, who is
at present residing at Rome, accompanying a medical
certificate from his physician, Dr. Carey, attested by
the clergyman of the Protestant Church there, that the
bankrupt's state of health would not at present allow of
his returning to this country, and he (Mr. Lawrence)
therefore prayed his Honour for a further postponement
for two months.

Mr. JORDENSON opposed on behalf of the creditors.
There was a large sum involved, not less than 70.0001,
and no assets of any consequence to meet it. It was
necessary, therefore, that some measures should be taken
to command the attendance of the bankrupt.
Mr. Commissioner EVANS did not see that any object
would be gained by refusing the enlargement of the pe-
riod for his appearance.
Mr. LAWRENCE would undertake that his friend, Mr
Jordenson, would exhibit interrogatories, they would
be transmitted to Mr. Maclean, and '`answers would be
returned to them.

Mr. JORDENSON still opposed the postponement of the
hearing. The creditors were most anxious to obtain
possession of certain properties believed to be in the
hands of the bankrupt's friends, and for this purpose the
attendance of the bankrupt was necessary.
Mr. Commissioner EVANS thought the creditors wei e
not likely to be benefited, if by refusing to enlarge the
term, the bankrupt were declared a felon. He should,
therefore, postpone the further hearing for two months.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
A young man named Henry Ford, was charged with
having committed a burglary in a public-house, into
which he had been taken as a pot-boy from charitable
motives.

On Wednesday morning, at a little after seven,
Knight, No. 437 of the City police, saw the prisoner
pass along Bread street with a box, of the possession of
which he gave so unsatisfactory an account, that it was
found necessary to take him before a magistrate. Upon
a little inquiry it was ascertained that the fellow had
been about a fortnight, employed by the owner of the
Castle public-house, in Little Trinity-lane, who, as he
was taken in unrecommended and unknown, except for
his necessities, did not allow him to sleep in the house,
and that having left the house at half-past ten on the
night before, to go to his lodgings, he returned, got in at
the window, and stole the landlady's work box, which
contained some silver and receipts, &c., and was kept at
the bar.
The prisoner made the old excuse, that he had received
the box from some benevolent person in the street, whom
he had never seen before.
The prisoner was committ.d for tho burBl.l7 "a
robbery.
THE ROCHESTER OYSTER BEDS.—Burford, a
Mem-
ber of the Rochester Oyster Fishery Association,
n was
violated the
charged before the Lord Mayor with having
associa-
tion, Act of Parliament by dredging in the beds
when he was not entitled so to do.
The foreman of the association, who had been ac-
quainted with the fishery upwards of 50 years, and
several of the principal members attended; the question
being one which interested a great number of poor fami-
lies in Rochester and its neighbourhood.
Mr. Wire appeared as solicitor to the company, and
stated that they had been at infinite pains to establish
the beds of the oystersnative in the Medway ; and that
by members
had certain appointedt by the regulations t
times for dredging, and that no member was allowed to
dredge out of turn, so that the benefit was properly felt
by the whole number. It had been ascertained that the
defendant, who must have been perfectly cognisant of
so necessary a rule, had violated it ; and four bushels of
native first-rate oysters were yesterday morning seized
by Mr. John Goldham, jun., in Billingsgate Market while
on sale in his possession.
The LORD MAYOR—The breach of a regulation so
necessary for the protection of the fishery, is a serious
offence, and I am surprised to hear such a charge
against a member of the society.
There was no proof that the defendant had been seen
dredging.
The defendant said he had not touched an oyster in
the beds, for he knew his turn had passed by, but he had
caught them out of the limits, where every one was
allowed to fish or to dredge. 'The company could not
show that he had been amongst the beds, and he was
therefore entitled to a full acquittal.
The LORD MAYOR—The Acts of Parliament says
distinctly, " that if a person accused of such an offence
do not prove satisfactorily to the magistrate that he has
possessed himself lawfully of the goods, he is liable to
two months' imprisonment, as well as to a penalty of 5/..
It is not necessary for the company to prove anything
but what they have proved, that you are in possession of
a quantity of the native oysters without having legally
dredged in the beds for them.
The foreman said, in answer to a question from Mr.
Wire, that it was quite impossible for a man to get a
large quantity of oysters out of the limits of the beds,
although a few were occasionally to be had in the sea or
the deep water.
Here samples of the oysters found in the possession of
the defendant, and of those which were just brought up