The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-08 00:00:00

SHERIFFS' COURT.7(THIS DAY•)

(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff 'BURCHELL.)

HIBON V. PALMER AND ANOTHER.

This was an action for breach of covenant.
The facts of the case were briefly these :—ln 1829 a
lease of some property in Dalton-road, near Croydon'
was granted by Mr. Edward Bullock, deceased, to
Palmer, deceased. There was the usual covenantin the
lease for the payment of rent. In 1844 the defendants,
as representatives of J. Palmer, assigned their interest
the lease to the plaintiff, in consideration of 401, covennt.
ing in the assignment that all the covenants in the original
lease had been fulfilled. It however appeared that the
covenant for payment of rent had been broken, both
before and after the death of Palmer, and that, in fact'
an action of ejectment was pending at the time the as
signment was made, and plaintiff was subsequently dis-
possessed of his property.
A surveyor said that the ground was very eligible for
building on, and worth, for that purpose, 200/.
The jury gave a verdict for plaintiff—Damages 90L
BUCKLAND V. GREGORY.
The plaintiff in this action is a brewer, at Hampstead,
and the defendant is Mr. Barnard Gregory. The action
was brought to recover the sum of 131. 10s. for goods
sold and delivered to defendant's wife before her mat.
riage. The defendant denied his liability.
Mr. Lusre stated the case. The amount claimed was
for goods supplied to defendant's wife between the months
of June, 1844, and January, 1845. The present Mrs'
Gregory was a Mrs. Labarre, niece to Mr. Thompson, ei
gentleman residing at the Priory, at Hampstead. Mr!'
Labarre rt sided with her uncle up to the time of his
death in March, 1843. A dispute then arose as
to the will, Mrs. Labarre claiming the property,
but Mr. Gregory also held a will which was in his favour.
Mrs. Labarre, however, continued in the house, and the
servants looked upon her as mistress. Ultimately, bow
ever, the rival claimants settled the dispute by marriage.
In June, 1844, Mrs. Labarre wrote to a tradesman et
Hampstead, stating that she was about returning to her
seat at Hampstead, and desiring goods to be supplied oil
her credit, as the law-suit would soon be settled in her
favour, and desired the servant who took it to call upon
plaintiff, and show the note, and order ale to be sent into
the Priory. There could not, therefore, be any doubt
as to the liability of Mrs. Gregory before her marriage,
and consequently of the subsequent liability of the
defendant.

Peter Archer, "gardener to the late Mr. Thompson,
was examined at great length ; the material fact vas'
that on being served with notices that Mr. Gregor,'
claimed to be master, Mrs. Gregory said " They are
from Gregory's party, what the devil have they ,
to do with it ?" She was mistress, and witness vw
to obey her ; and that in Juno 1844 she paid him WS.
on account of wages. He could not say when the
marriage took place.
Mr. Gregory appeared on his own behalf, and DR.
Lewis claimed to be heard on the part of Mrs. Gregory
The. UNDER-SIIERIFF said that both could not be
heard ; defendant and his wife were " one" now.
Mr. LEWIS cross-examined the witness, and elicited
that he had demanded his wages from Mr. Gregory, wh,°
had raised his wages immediately after Mr. Thompson s
death ; he, however, always considered Mrs. Gregory
his mistress. He was in the habit of taking vegetables to
Mr. Gregory's house, in North Audley-street, where
Mrs. Labarre also resided when in town, but frequently
went to dine at the Priory.
M. A. Clarke, housemaid to Mrs. Labarre, was called:
and proved giving the order for the beer and general
instructions on the part of Mrs. Labarre, as mistress.
Witness, however, had frequently been paid her wages
by the coachman as from Mr. Gregory, but did not re"
member receiving any money from him after June. 1844,
when Mrs. Labarre said that she was mistress. Witness
was not told to show the note to plaintiff.
James Joiner, clerk to plaintiff, proved the order and
delivery of beer. In July, 1844, Mrs. Labarre sent word
not to supply any more beer at the Priory, for it would
not be paid for.
Cross-examined—Never looked to any one else for
money than Mrs. Labarre, but was told by the coachman
Tomkins, that it was for the servants on Mrs. Labarre's
credit.

Mr. Hammond, attorney for the plaintiff, proved the,
the first witness, Archer, called on him to bring an action
against Mrs.Labarre, but understanding there had been
a marriage, witness wrote to Mr. Gregory. M'
Gregory called, and witness thinking he had called to
pay, said that if defendant gave a cheque for the debt,
he would take it without costs. Witness, however, bad
a writ in his desk. attendant refused to pay, and said,
,
that if any proceedings were taken, Messrs. Lewis, 0'
Ely-place, were his solicitors, but, as he became abusive,
witness took out the writ and served it on defendant.'"
(Laugh ter.)

. •
I iMr. LEWIS, for the defendant, contended that the
goods had been negligently sent in on the order of the
servants, for if Mrs. Labarre wrote a note to one trades'
man she would have written to another; and immediateli
she heard that there was a dealing in her name, she sentnotice not to supply any more. He also raised a pillt
that there 1% ss no proof at what time the marriage toes.
place ; therefore the plaintiff's case had not been
made out.

----- (The verdict had not been returned when our report left.)

CRIMINAL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice WiceermArr and Mr. Justice ERI,O
SMASHING.—The greater part of the forenoon visa
occupied with the trial of John Thomas, for feloniously
uttering a counterfeit sovereign. There was no feature
in the case warranting special notice, and the prisene
having been found guilty, and a previous eonvictinri
.
being proved against him for a similar offence, he
sentenced to transportation for ten years.
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE.—Thomas Smith and A"
Jones were charged, the first with robbery accompanied
with violence on Thomas Phillips, and stealing from hie'
a bank note, value 101., his property ; and the second
with receiving the same, well knowing it to have bees
stolen. The case, at the time it transpired, was fully re-
ported in the newspapers. The robbery was committes,
on December 14, at the house of Mrs. Hamblin, 01
Catherine-place, Camberwell, where Mrs. Phillips, the
lady in question, was on a visit.
Mr. CLARKSON appeared for the prosecution, end
having briefly stated the case, he called the following
witnesses,

Sarah Ann Gollavin was examined, and depost d that
on the evening of December 14, the male prisoner caul.
to her mistress's residence, and asked to see the lady °`
the house, saying he had a letter for her. Witness too!c,
the letter to her mistress. It contained a threat that 3f
a sum of money was not immediately given, he would
plunder the house. Mrs. Hamblin was in great alarnit
and not being able to find any money, went to Mr, phil-
lips, her brother-in-law, who was on a visit, and gage
him the letter. Smith was standing all the:time in the pas"
sage, and drew out a large pistol, stating, once or twice+
that if his demand were not conceded, he should call 131
other men IN ho were lying in wait. Witness at last sari
Mr. Phillips give the prisoner something, on which he
went away.
Caroline Hamblin examined—She said that on the night
in question the letter was put into her hands hi
the servant. The letter contained a threat that if a sud
of money wail not immediately produced, he would call
in his men, twelve in number, and plunder the house.
The letter produced was the one received. Being dread'
fully alarmed, and having no money at hand, she was
about to go out to try and get some, but was stopped V
the prisoner, who threatened violence if she stirred froal
the house. She then went to Mr. Phillips, and gave hill
the letter, on which he went to the prisoner, and learned
from him, that unless 101. was immediately produced,
the house would be at once plundered. The prisoner
accompanied this threat by pulling out a large horse
pistol with one hand, holding a dirk or dagger in the
other. Mr. Phillips at last gave the prisoner what he
demanded, and he went away. She would not We.
consented to the prisoner getting any money had she not
been in terror of her life.

Mr. Thomas Phillips corroborated the previous evi'
dente, and added, that when he objected to give the
money to Smith, he called in another from the garden.,
who was similarly armed to himself. He gave the 101'
at last from fear of the house being plundered, and vie"
lenee done to the inmates.
The prisoner was clearly identified by all the
nesses.

Several other witnesses were called, proving that the
male had been seen lurking about that evening, whil°
the evidence of Mr. Attenbury, a pawnbroker, proved
that the female had passed the 10/. with him in redeem'
ing some pledges, and that when the alarm was raised,
and he questioned her about how she came by the note,
she gave evasive and unsatisfactory answers. It wa3 at
last traced to the male prisoner, whom she represented
to be her husband, and a labourer in the country.
The note was here produced and identified.
This closed the case fur the prosecution ; the PO•
soners were undefended.
On the prisoners being asked what they had to say
in answer to the charge, Jones declared that she was
innocent of any criminal intention, She was the wife
of the other prisoner, and it was her duty to go and ge',
the note changed when she was sent.
.:,Mr. Justice:Eß.lx then summed up the evidence, going
minutely over all the facts adduced in evidence, when
the jury, after consulting for some time, found Swap_
Guilty. A verdict of Not Guilty was returned in favour
of the female prisoner.
The former was then sentenced to be transported he'
yond the seas for the term of his natural life.
We have been informed that the prisoner Smith yr!
transported for burglary last year, but escaped from the
transport ship at Woolwich ; and the police state that I'
is suspected of having committed a robbery very recently
in Northamptonshire.

NEW COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
EXTENSIVE ROBBERY.—Mary Bcorra, a miserablhei
looking woman, aged 35, who appeared at the dock wit
an infant in her arms pleaded Guilty to a charge Oci
stealing twenty. five gallons of wine, value 221., atl
ninety three bottles, value Bs., the property of George
Barker.

In answer to some 'questions by the Court, the pros!'
cuter said that he is a wine-merchant, residing Ind
Bishopsgate-street, and the prisoner and her husban,
were tenants of his, and occupied a house immediatedf
over his cellar. In consequence of large quantities °
wine being constantly missed, his suspicion fastened °13.,
the prisoner and her husband, and he went to theici
house on the 29th December. He saw them both, 111)
told them that he wished to look over the house. °ll
opening a closet he found four bottles of wine, ancl.°l•
the woman seeing them she pointed to swots.;
eloset, and opening it witness found that the flo°riir,
had been removed so as to allow a passage into the coiii/j' e.
The woman admitted having taken a quantity of 0113 fit,
Her husband was present when she made that staterne'es
and did not appear to control her in any way. Witri:o•
missed twenty-five bottles from the bin under the °t ea
ing. There was a case in the cellar which had contsl-sa
seven dozen and four bottles of Madeira, but which vs'