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

HUGHES V. RASTRICX.

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

SHERIFFS' COURT, Dee. 3.

WILLIAMS V. CHAPLIN AND OTHERS.—THE IRON STEAM-
BOAT COMPANY.
This was an action brought by Mr. Charles Williams,
an extensive coal. merchant, against the defendants,
William Chaplin, John Sweeting, &c., the directors of
the London and Westminster Iron Steam-boat Com-
pany, to recover the sum of 7841. 85.10 d., the balance of
1,2871.55. 10d., for coals supplied for the use of the said
company.
Mr. Bodkin, M.P., with Mr. Hawkins, appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Bramwell for the defendants, who,
by allowing judgment to go against them by default, ad-
mitted that something was due to him.
The case lasted the entire day, but from the evidence
on the part of the plaintiff it appeared that up to the
15th of July last the plaintiff had been supplying the
company with coals at 235. 6d. per ton. From that time
to the 31st of the same month 311 tons more were
delivered; but for these, in consequence of a great
scarcity, 325. 6d. was charged, the plaintiff's agent,
a man named Cripps, telling the secretary to the com-
pany that if any more were required 40s. per ton
would be charged for them, on account of increasing
scarcity. Ns objection was made, and plaintiff supplied
230 tons more between the Ist of August and the 15th.
In part payment a bill for 5001 was given, and on the
plaintiff making application for the money the company
refused to pay, on the ground that the price of 325. 6d.
and 40s. per ton for coals was most exorbitant.
On the part of the defendant a tender of the plaintiff
offering to supply the coals at 245. per ton all the year
round, which was not accepted, was put in, and wit-
nesses examined to prove that the prices charged during
the months of July and August were extremely high ;
but, on their cross-examination, it was elicited that the
market price fluctuated so much at that period of the
year that it was almost impossible to give a fair average

price.
Mr. BODKIN having replied,
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF summed up, telling the
jury the only question for their consideration was the
amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to for the
goods he had sold. It was entirely a question for them
to say whether 325. 6d. and 40s. was a fair price for coals
during July tinactikvist.
After retiring for-a short time, the jury returned a
verdict for theylaintiff—Damages, 7842 Bs. 10d.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,
MANSION-HOUSE.
A young man named Henry Ford, was charged with
having committed a burglary in a public-house, into
which he bad 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 committed for the burglary and
robbery.
THE ROCHESTER OYSTER REDS.—Burford, a mem-
ber of the Rochester Oyster Fishery Association, was
charged before the Lord Mayor with having violated the
Act of Parliament by dredging in the beds of the associa-
tion, 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 native oysters in the Medway ; and that
by the regulations the members had certain appointed
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 51.
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 impossib!e 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
from the beds by the Company were produced, and
they were all declared to be of the same family, and
worth two guineas a bushel at the present moment.
The LORD MAYOR asked whether the Company suf-
fered much from the unfair dealings of which they com-
plained? The Foreman—Your Lordship would be sur-
prised at what we have endured. We are obliged to
keep perpetual watch, and the most desperate attacks
have been made upon our men by the plunderers of the
beds. Perhaps four fellows would steal a boat with
which they would row to the beds, and one would dredge
while the fourth, who is armed with a sack full of stones,
would pelt our men and desperately injure them. In
one instance one of our men was almost killed.
The LORD MAYOR.—WeII. Are you disposed to pro-
secute this man to the utmost, or will you be satisfied
as he is the first person who has been brought before
me, and you seem to have no reason to think that he
has been engaged in any irregularity as a member of
your body if I admonish him.
Mr. Wire, after consulting the complainants, said they
were satisfied with what had taken place, and that in
every future case they should go for the whole penalty
in both ways.
The LORD MAYOR—You may depend upon my most
prompt assistance. _

GUILDHALL.
Mr. Peter Gordon, of Barnshury-street, Islington, was
brought before Mr. Alderman Wilson and Mr. Alderman
Farncomb, charged with assaulting Mr. Saunders, the
keeper of the door of the court-room at the India-house.
The complainant stated that yesterday morning, find-
ing the defendant in the hall of the India-house, exhi-
biting a placard in large characters, with " Justice
denied. Patronage sold. No inquiry," he mentioned the
fact to the chairman, and, acting under his directions, he
requested the defendant to desist from exhibiting the
bill, and if he did not he must be put out of the hall.
The defendant continued to exhibit the placard, and the
complainant took it away from him. He immediately
received a smart blow on the mouth from the defendant,
for which assault he was taken into custody.
Mr. Alderman WILSON asked if he had seen the gen.
tleman before ? The doorkeeper said—Yes ; a hundred
times. He was one of the proprietors of East India
Stock.

Me. Alderman WILSON asked if he had any business
to attend to or to transact there that morning ? The
complainant said he believed not. There was not a
meeting of proprietors.
Mr. Alderman WILSON invited Mr. Gordon to explain
his conduct.

Mr. Gordon said he was a proprietor of East India
stock. On the preceding evening he attended a meeting
at the Hanover-square Rooms respecting the deposition
of the Raja of Sattara. He received a tract there, and,
having read it, he felt it to be his duty to attend at the
India-house next day to obtain the co-operation of other
proprietors and insist upon an inquiry. He seated him-
self in the
,hall near the board where the company ex-
hibited its notices, and he held up his placard. The com-
plainant came up, and, without any warning, seized his
placard, which he considered an assault, justifying the
return he made.

Mr. Alderman %Leon asked him if be was not
warned to desist before the placard was taken away ?
Mr. Gordon replied, not that he could recollect.
The complainant repeated that he told him he must
not exhibit the placard there, or he would be turned out
of the house, and the defendant made no remark.
Mr. Alderman FARNCOMBE obser►ed that the defen-
dant must see he had no right to do what he had done,
even with a view to obstruction, for if he bad a right to
stand with a placard and draw a crowd round him, 20 or
50 other proprietors might claim to do the same thing,
and with statements and counter- statements the place
would become a scene of confusion, and the ordinary
business would be obstructed.
Mr. Alderman WILSON said the doorkeeper did not
commit an assault in taking away the placard. He was
obeying the directions of the chairman. Had not this
matter been already brought under the consideration of
the proprietors? Mr. Gordon said it had been under
inquiry for eight years.
Mr. Alderman WlLsow said the object or the defendant