The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-13 00:00:00

RE BOOTHREY.

Mr. PASHLEY applied to the Court for a writ of habeas
corpus, under the following circumstances :—ln Sep-
tember last, Boothrey, the Learned Counsel's client,
was committed to the Wakefield House of Correction,
under what was called the Worsted Acts, for having in
his possession a certain quantity of silk, of which he
could give no satisfactory account. The conviction was
made on the information of the constable of the parish,and
Boothrey was committed to prison for the non-payment
of the penalty which the possession of the silk rendered
him liable to. This conviction the Learned Counsel
contended was illegal, because the law under which it
was made was defective, in so far as the statute did not
specify to whom the penalty should be paid, but said
generally that it should be paid as the law directed.
Now, Boothrey being ignorant of the law, knew
not to whom he ought to pay the penalty,
nor could any of the local authorities determine
who was the party entitled to it, and hence
there being no responsible person to receive the penalty,
it was morally impossible for him to comply with the
terms of the conviction, and therefore his detention in
prison was a wrongful and illegal act. '1 he conviction,
moreover, deviated from the form prescribed by the
statute, for it did not set forth the value of the goods,
the owner of the goods, or the allegation that they were
suspected to be stolen goods, and it was upon those
grounds that he moved the Court to issue a writ of
habeas corpus for the release of the prisoner.
The Loup CIIIEF BARON ruled that a trifling devia-
tion like that in the present case from the prescribed
form of conviction was immaterial, provided the sub-
stance or spirit of the form was retained; and as it was
clear that the prisoner could give no satisfactory account
of the goods in his possession, which he was bound to
do by the statute, his committal in default of his paying
the penalty was valid and justifiable. With respect to its
being in doubt as to who was the party entitled to the
penalty, he thought this point was disposed of by the ge-
neral and common law of the land, with which it was pre-
sumed everybody was well acquainted, and which provided
that the penalty should be divided equally between the
informer and the poor of the parish where the conviction
took place. He was therefore of opinion that the motion
must be refused.

The remainder of the Court concurring in this judg-
ment, the motion was refused accordingly.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY)

POTTS AND OTHERS V. HIGHTON AND JONES.

Sir T. WILDE moved for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not take place in this cause, on the
ground that the verdict had been against evidence. The
cause was tried at last sittings at Guildhall, and a verdict
given for the defendant; the action being to recover from
Highton, OR the allegation that he was a partner of Jones,
a sum of money due to a bankrupt concern on the ac-
count of the latter. In the defence it was maintained
that no partnership existed, for that though Highton had
assisted Jones in certain business transactions, it was
not in the character of a partner. The Learned Gentle-
man at some length went on to show that Highton was
a partner, and on that ground considered that a new trial
should be ruled for the plaintiff.—Rule to show cause
granted.

CARTER V. BUCHANAN.

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved for a rule to show cause
for the setting aside of a verdict and a new trial granted
in this cause, on the ground of misdirection of the judge,
on which a verdict was given for the plaintiff. The cause
was triad before Mr. Justice Cresswell, at Guildhall,
during last sittings, and a verdict given to Mr. Carter
for 2141. The plaintiff is a watchmaker, residing in
Cornhill ; and the defendant, Mr. Buchanan, is a mer-
chant, who has been in the habit of dealing with the for-
mer for watches to send out to his correspondent in India.
In January last Mr. Buchanan went into the shop of the
plaintiff, and the contract was made, out of which the
present action had arisen. One order was for three
dozen of watches at 40s. each watch ; and four dozen
others at 365. each. It was a Fart of the contract that
the watches should be guaranteed to go, a point which, in
the sequel, would be seen to be most important to this
case. In March an intimation was sent to Mr. Bu-
chanan that the watches were ready, but Mr. Buchanan
was not in a position to receive them. In May
Mr. Buchanan again called, and saw the watches
and looked over some rings, which he bargained for.

He ordered two of the watches and a case of the rings
to be sent. They were not forwarded till Mr. Buchanan
sent a message for them, when one of each sort of watch
and the rings were dispatched to the offices of Mr. Bu-
chanan. Nov, the point was, were these watches and
rings to be considered as part delivery of the order, or
rather only as specimens, to see whether the order had
been properly executed, judging by the specimens, He
;Mr. blur -,hy) admitted that an important letter had
been read at the trial, sent by the defendant to the plain-
tiff, stating, that as he had learned there was a great
glut of' cheap watches in the Indian market, he wished
to know what he v, ould take to allow the bargain to 1„e
off. On this letter the jury was instructed to give a
verdict for the plaintiff. Now, this letter was dated on
the 16th of May, whereas, looking over the evidence, he
found there were no rings named in the invoice till after
that date ; and as the two watches and rings were de-
livered at the same time, it was proof that the letter
was written before, arid could not be taken as any re-
cognition of the contract. Under the circumstances,
reviewing the whole case, he thought their Lordships
ought to grant a new trial.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that there could be no
misdirection on the part of the Judge, as there was
nothing left out in the Judge's charge to the jury. Be--
cause a Judge did not dwell so strongly on a particular
point as a learned gentleman might think fit, it was no
reason why it should he called a misdirection.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY—Then the verdict must be
taken as against evidence, and on this ground he would
apply. Moreover, admitting the cuntract, the watches
were not what had been agreed upon. They did not
perform, and were riot at all conformable to the order
given. The watches, though kept, were not kept as a
recognition of the order, for immediately after he com-
plained of their quality, and he merely kept the !ample
in order to ascertain really what the watches were.
Now, the watches the defendant had previously had
gone well.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was necessary in a
contract to prove the delivery of goods, and the accept-
ance. Now, in the present case, there could be no doubt
of a contract being made. After that, the defendant
went to the plaintiff's shop, looked over several tiers of
watches, and selected two of them, as part of those
about which the contract had been made. He desired
these two to be sent home, and had retained them till
this day, so that here was an acceptance and a sufficient
case for the jury, leaving the question of the letter out
of view. But when the letter was considered, in con-
nection with these other facts, he must say that the jury
had come to a proper verdict.
The other Judges agreed with his Lordship, and the
rule was consequently refused.

MARLBRO'-STREET.—(T HIS DAY.)
Wm. Harris, a ycun,,,, man who is said to be respect-
ably connected, was charged with committing an out-
rage on a respectable married female, and her sister, as
they were passing through Cecil. court, St. Martin's-
ane, between eleven and twelve o'clock last night, on
their way home. The defendant was at the time intoxi-
cated, but not so much so but that he knew what he was
about.

Mr. MALTBY having very carefully investigated the
charge, told the defendant that he should commit him
for one month.

The defendant seemed astounded on hearing his sen-
tence, and earnestly entreated that the worthy magis-
trate would impose a fine in place of the imprisonment.
Mr. MALTBY refused to alter his decision, and the
defendant was locked up in one of the cells to await the
prison van to convey him to Westminster Bridewell.

NARROW ESCAPE.—On Wednesday evening last,
as Mr. Milne, of Market-street, Cambridge, was crossing the
river on Mr. Searle's new ferry-bridge, he fell into the river
up to his neck. It seems the ferry does not reach the bank
on the Chesterton side, but that a small bank is made in the
water at the side of it for persons to step upon. Not being
aware of this, and too dark for him to see, he stepped forward
into the water.—Cambridge Chronicle.
The Mercers' Company sent yesterday :a donation of
101. to the poor-box of Marylebone Police-court.
A CHELSEA PENSIONER'S FUNERAL.—On Sunday,
the remains of the Chelsea pensioner Bridge, No. 1 company
of the Woolwich division, were interred at Charlton church-
yard with military honours. The party consisted of the staff;
non-commissioned officers, and twenty-four privates, in uni-
form, but without a firing party, as the corps was not out
upon duty at the time of the pensioner's death. A portion of
!he expense of the funeral is defrayed by Government, and
the body was carried to the grave on the shoulders of the
comraths of the deceased.

Mr. Shell, we regret to learn, has had the misfor.
tune to lose his only son. The young gentleman was in his
twenty-fourth veal*, and died a short time ago at Funchal,
in Madeira, whither he had gong for the benefit of his
health.

J. H. Campbell, Esq., M.P., for Salisbury, has
kindly given to the Mayor of that city 1001. to be distributed
to the poor of the town. This gentleman, by the death of
his mother, now takes the name and arms of "Wyndham,"
with the estates of his late uncle, Wadham Wyndham, Esq.,
who for many yams represented that city.