The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-03 00:00:00

EVEN-I N 6, DEC Elti

The case for the plaintiff having been brought- to a
conclusion, • _ -

; Mr. JA.lams addressed the jury on behalf: of the
. .„
'defendant in a most. eloquent and foreible- 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 oftrnuniher of young
,noble-
men to defend the present actinii,- 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 gaining-house. ACcortling to the rules of
,the club, persons-who played,:did not py 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 Creckford,", 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 allurmentAand fascinations
of elegance, was equally a gaining-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 hii 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
aglass 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 CIIIEF BARON, in summing up to the jury,
said, that in his opinion the house in question was not a
"common gaining-house" under the mean? 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 thejury 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 fur his subscription for
1841 ; and seeondly, whether the dinners, and wine were
sent to the house in Bolton-street, end if so, how many,
and whether they were sent by his Lordship's orders.
The jury retired, and after a short consultation, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount.
The Court was crowded to,exces' during the trial by
a number of persons who seemed to take considerable
interest in the result.

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
the very loose manner in which the verdict had been
returned. The verdict was for.the full amount; but for
a great number of the, items, in the bill of demand there
was not a tittle of evidence in support thereof. Ile
would, therefore, advise the Counsel upon both sides, to
strike out from the amount of the verdict such articles
for which no evidence bad been given.. The same leek-
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
fur the reduced sum of 54/. 14s. 6d., exclusive of the
sum paid into Court.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
LEES V. 'NICUOLSON-SOUTHERN 'COUNTIES UNION

RAILWAY.

This was an action brought by Mr. Charles Lee, a
surveyor, against Mr. William Nicholson, 'a gentleman
residing in Manchesterzstreet, to recover 1001., being
the defendant's proportion of debt, which, it was alleged,
as one of the provisional directoraof the Southern Coun-
tiea 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 1,350/. The
defendant pleaded not indebted.
Mr. Sergeant Byles and idr. 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 Pollit, 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 as
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 asurveyor.
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' offioe, conducted
the company's affairs, and issuedi 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 ehairman, 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-
brekers 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, chMr. ar erk to 'Ch Barker of, Bir-
chen-lano, advertisinz
agent, produced several London
and provincial papers, in which the prospectus with Mr.
Nicholson's name, apPeared. The secretary, Mr.' Gadsden,
gage ihe 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 wa's every reason 'to suprogn be must have
seen his name in the advertisements refeired to.
Dugald M`Farlane, of the Register
ffice, Produced
the registery of the comPany. The first registration was
in the name of 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 be supposed.
Mr. 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 bad 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 applicants for
shares. They were given to a clerk to be posted. The
this
st
time,nCapital was fixed at 2,500,0001., but out of 'all the shares
issued there was but 150/, paid up. Not one of the
caused
db
provisional directors had paid anything on their shares.
Cross-examined—The, panic had taken place before
aunt he
allotmentcould n not
of say
shareswhat
under the
ouch
areasonseir werean m
.
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. llopkins" 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.

'in this case, and a
taer
nr at ne
rgeedmfeonr t
by consent.
verAdl thweapslacionmtiffe to

•
. BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evests.)
IN BE DONALD MACLEAN, LATE 31. P. FOR OXFORD.
Mr. LAWRENCE this day. applied to his Honour for a
further postponement of the hearing in the ease of this
bankrupt.present
residing
id reading a
at
Dome, letter from
com
farocolmpr Maclean, who is
at in.
yin._
6 a medical
certificate from his physician, Dr. Carey, attested by
the clergyman of the Protestant Church there, that the
a E g u behalf
tlfless than 70,0001.,
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.
used on of the creditors.
Al ilnvolved,
lve
oh,
and no assets of any consequence
to meet, it. It was
some
necessary, therefore, that,measures should be taken
to comtrand the attendance of.the bankrupt.
Mr.
j was D
lblasreNe so%
There ip
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
'Jordepson, would exhibit interrogatories, they would
be transmitted to Mr. Maclean, and answers would be
returned to them.
Mr. JOBDENSON still oppo.see the postponement of the
hearing. The creditors werir most anxious to obtain
possession of certain propertias believed to be in the
,hands of the bankrupt's friends, and for-this purpose the
attendance-of the bankrupt wsls necessary.
Mr. Commissioner EVANS thought the creditors wet 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.
—_ _

4
the woolcotnbers' strike ti Keighley has terminated by
an amicable at rangement between the masters and the
men,--Leeds Inteaigencer.

W-STREET.--(i'llIS 'DAY.)
John Clark was charged on a summons with assault
lug William Jolly, under the following circumstances:—
The complainant stated that the defendant had made
a charge against him of- stealing half a sovereign, which
Charge the inspector at the station-house refused
.to
entertain, on the ground that it vas not a theft, but.a
debt, for which: a.summons must be, taken out: The
defendant then wcntaway, and he (complainant) followed
in a few moments, and overtook the defendant at a short
distance. The deft ndant, as soon as he saw witness,
ran towards him, and struck him in the face, without the
slightest, provocation, witness not having spoken a word,
or taken any notice of the-prisoner. . .
William Morgan, who was with the complainant et the
time,-corroborated this statement. ,
: The defendant said, that after he had left, the station,
he was standing in the street talking with a friend,
when the complainant, and his witness came towards him,
and said, in a loud tone, "That's the d—d•vagabond
who said I stole his half-sovereign." At the same time
he lifted his • hand, and attempted, to strike him (the
prisoner), but he warded off the blow and struck the
complainant in the face. -
The person mentioned by the prisoner as being with
him at the time gave evidence in support. of this
statement.

The prisoner's employer, in whose service he had
been for fourteen yearc, gave him an excellent character,
and said that he was a remarkably quiet and peace-
able man.

Mr. JARDINE said that he suspected, even when the
complainant was giving his evidence, that some such ex-
pression as that spoken to by the prisoner's witness was
made use of. These sudden attacks were not made
without some provocation, or something to excite the
person at the moment. and though the complainant chose
to deny it, he himself-believed the witness, that the com-
plainant called the defendant a "vagabond." Taking
this into,account, and also taking into account the pri-
sonee's previous good character (which, in all cases, had
Considerable weight with `him), he would inflict no
penalty, but defendant must pay the costs (25.) The
defendant payed the costs, and left,tho Court.
John Orchard, a drummer in the Coldstream Guards,
was-charged with stealing a watch ;and a sovereign, the
property of Captain Charles Grimslead.
It appeared that, on the 26th November, the prose-
cutor left his gold watch and a sovereign on the table in
his own room, adjoining the guard-room (to .which no
one but the prisoner and a corporal had access), at
eight o'clock in the evening, when he went to
mess. At eleven o'clock he returned and missed the
watch and sovereign. Nobody but the prisoner and
the captain's servant had been in the room. The
prisoner was apprehended on Tucedey last by policeman
17, at a public-house in Whitcehapel. He said that
he had taken the watch and and had taken a
cab to Ratcliffe-highway, where lie got a man whom
he knew to pawn it for 31. The policeman, after leaving
the prisoner at the station, went to the lodging of the
man mentioned by the prisoner, but failed in apprehend-
ing him. He-afterwards made inquiries at the pawn-
broker's, and found the watch which he now produced,
and which was identified by the captain.
, Mr. JARDINE remanded the prisoner till to-morrow
week.