The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-09 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 8.

HILTON V. LORD GRANVILLE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
After hearing Counsel on both sides, the Court
reserved its decision.
The case will go to a Court of Error.

BAIL COURT, May 8.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
IN RE CHARLES NORVAL.

Mr. PARRY moved for a rule nisi, calling upon the
Judge of the County Court of Lambeth to show cause
why a writ of prohibition should not issue, to restrain
him from issuing his warrant in a case where Mr.
Norval was the defendant. By the 122 d section of the
County Court Act power was given to the judge to assist
landlords to recover possession of small tenements, where
the rent did not amount to 501., and where the tenanthad
made default in payment of the rent. The section pro-
vided that " upon proof " of the non-payment the Judge
should be at liberty to issue his warrant to give the
landlord possession. In this case the defendant held
under an agreement, but, nevertheless, the Judge of
the County Court decided against him. The Judge,
however, did not issue his warrant within a reasonable
time after the decision; and, on behalf of Mr. Norval, it
was contended that he ought now to be prohibited from
issuing it at all.
Mr. Justice ERLE said the application was premature.
The issuing of the warrant might now be illegal, and it
was not the practice of the Court to issue orders to re-
strain parties from committing illegal acts, until the ille-
gality had actually commenced. It would be time
enough to apply to the court, when the judge had issued
his warrant.
Rule refused.
'WALLER AND OTHERS v. DANVEY AND OTHERS.
Mr. Peansoss moved for a rule nisi, calling upon the
Judge of the County Court of Middlesex, to show cause
why a writ of prohibition should not issue to restrain
the plaintiffs from proceeding further in the case. The
Court was aware that the 58th section of the County
Courts Act provided that the judge of any of these
courts could not have jurisdiction in any case where the
title to corporeal or incorporeal property was involved.
Now in this case the defendant rented three houses in
Chelsea, which the late Mr. J. Sickery of the same place
left by his last will and testament to Mrs. Jane Feary,
and by the same will he bequeathed the same property
to the plaintiff in trust for Mrs. Jane Feary. Subse-
quently to the death of the testator the rents were paid
to Mrs. Feary, with, the consent of the plaintiffs, but Mrs.
Feary had since died, and the plaintiffs demanded that
the rent should be paid to them. The executors of Mrs.
Feary also set up a claim under the will of Mr. Sickery,
and the result was that the matter was carried into the
County Court, and a decision was made to the effect
tAheat,
that the rent ought to be paid to the plaintiffs. The
however, took the case out of the jurisdiction of
the County Court, and as the defendants might possibly
be called upon to the twice
jrocere.nt over, they wished to
have all further
stopped, and the matter dinSs in the County Court
Rate nisi. carried to a higher tribunal.

,LICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-Yo
REXARKABLE CASE or FORGE "E'i
named John Clarke and James HenrynTwo young men, I
,inchta cudstody of John
Bradbury, were
with having
brought before the Lord Mayor,
banking-house of
and Daniel Forrester, the officers
uttered two forged cheques upon the :2.eankl.6n
Sir John Lubbock and Co., one for 434/.
the other for 371/. 7s. 4d. The prisonerss. were and
skilful management, caught with almost the e'
~bid„
amount of the proceeds of the cheques in their pos..
session.
Mr. Mullens, of the firm of Bush and Mullens, soli-
citors to the Committee of Bankers for protection
against Forgeries and Frauds, attended for the prose-
cution.
The prisoner, having but just landed from the Con-
tinent, were not provided with legal assistance, but they
intimated that upon the next examination they would
produce materials of defence.
Mr. Mullens—l accuse the two prisoners of having
been concerned in both forgeries, which were uttered
under rather extraordinary circumstances. In the case
of the cheque for 4341. 16s. Bd., a person named Joseph
Thornet was made the instrument by which the amount
was received at the banking-house. It appeared that on
the 22d of April it was presented by Thornet at the
counter, and paid to him, he having received it from a
person to whom he becama known through the medium
of an advertisem,,nt. Thornet had Previously advertised
in the Times newspaper for a situation, and on the fol-
lowing day inquiry was made for him by an individual
wllO afterwards bad several interviews with him, and who
told him it was for another person's service he was re-
quired. In the course of the communications
took
Place thewho . negotiatingwith
person was WI
Thornet, and'
lieve that the which
who led that unsuspecting party to be •
he could be engagement was perfect, asked him whether
negotiatorsh"id
Thornet said trusted with a cheque to get cashed.
and the faithfully execute the order,
ea office in the E who made it appear as if he had
unedfor 434? 16s. id. upon Lubbock
street, handed a cheque India Chambers, in Leadenhall-
and Co. to Thornet,cla
bill case to put the money
house, happened
the banking-
to make a mistake in a
Thornet, in the way to '
turn, and asked a strangerm moment
right direction. The prisoner, Clarke, at that
street, he would thc.
direction towards
that he was himself going rin,ent Caine up, and saying
Mansion House street,
and he accordingly did so, willingly point out the •
sented, and at once paid in four 1001,e cheque was pre-
and upon Thornet's return into the notes and cash"
who asked him whether he had dons his he
saw Clarke, '
when he replied in the affirmative dis is business, and
net then took the money to the
personappe are d . Thor-
net
him, and who gave him half-a-c7ho had em-
trouble, and promised to write when his future for
his
should arrive in town. At Brussels, Clarke wilsutrei master
custody by the police, in comcany with Bradbury,a 'eninto
bank-notes which had been paid at Lubbock's for
andfo the
cheque were found upon both of them. With respect rt
the
forged cheque for 3711. is, 4d.,_ the circumstances f)
the
similar. Timothy Newbound advertised for the sit were
of servant on the 18th of April, in the 7 imes,
anuaation
;
called upon by a person, who engaged with him fury
scrviee of a geWeman, andappointment made an the
to
• meet him at the Custom-house. Upon Newbounu'
ar-
rival at the Custom-house, he saw the gentleman who
.., made the appointment, and who, after some conversa-

roe

tion, said he had a ship lying off, which he could not
get in till the duties were paid, and Newbound readily
undertook to get a cheque cashed at Lubbock's bank, for
the purpose. Upon returning to the Custom-house,
Newbound paid three 1001. notes, a .50/. note, and 211.1
75. 4d. in cash, to the man who had thus employed him,
and who appointed to meet him at Hatchett's Hotel, in
Piccadilly, to confirm the engagement ; met him accord-
ingly, gave him ten shillings, and appointed to meet
him again, but did not keep his word in the last in-
stance. In the latter, as well as the former, the proceeds
of the forgery were found upon the two prisoners.
Mr. Mullens said, it could be proved that the plate
from which the cheques were struck off was a forgery,
as well as the signatures to the cheques.
Mr. Charles C. Lawrence, clerk to Sir W. Lubbock
and Co.'s banking-house, in Mansion-house-street, said
Messrs. T. and W. Hawes keep an account with us. On
Saturday, the 22d of April, the cheque produced for
371/. 7s. 4d., purporting to be drawn in their names was
presented at the counter, and I paid it in three 100/
notes, dated 10th of January, 1848, and numbered seve-
rally 43,226, 45,307, and 36,137, a 50/. note No. 4,253,
date 23d of December, 1842, of the Portsmouth Bank,
and cash 21/. 7s. 4d. From circumstances which have
since come to my knowledge, I believe the signature to
be decidedly a forgery.
Mr. Richard Mullens, of the firm of Bush and Mul-
lens, solicitors for the prosecution, said, I was present
at Brussels on Thursday last, the 4th instant, when the
prisoner Clarke was examined by the police magistrate
there. I heard him state that the bank note for 50/.
(No. 4,253) produced was found on his person in a
pocket in the inside of his flannel waistcoat, worn next
to his skin, at the time he was taken in custody by the
police in Brussels. I also was present on the same day
when James Henry Bradbury, the other prisoner, was
examined before the same magistrate. I there heard
Bradbury state that two 100/. notes (Nos. 43,226 and
36,137, dates 10th January, 1848,) had been changed by
him at Brussels on Tuesday. the 25th of April. Brad-
bury selected these notes from several others lying
before him, andointed to the writing, J. Brad-
bury, Brighton," written on the backs with ink, and he
stated that these notes and others were given to him on
Saturday, the 22d of April, on the quay at Dover, by a
Mr. Bullock, of 114, Yardley-street, near the King's-
road, Chelsea.
Mr. Mullens said he had no further evidence to pro-
duce upon the present occasion.
The LORD MAYOR—Do the prisoners wish to say
an thing? Clarke—Not at present, my lord. It is my
intention
employ solicitor.aaiso w isht
employ a solicitor, but
do Bradburylto
ai
do not wish to say anything now.
Remanded._
_

~......__
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Mary Ann Sheard, Sophia Garnett, and Isabella Hyde
three notorious thieves, were yesterday placed before
Mr. Bingham, the former charged with stealing from
Mrs. Sarah Snenshott a purse, containing twosovereigns
and
suspicion,
w with 1 being
ishillings,
concerned e rtnh ed in stealinge
latterlwo
thesame.
charged,e.on
James Hall, footman in the service of Sir James Roe,
96. Piccadilly, said, on Saturday afternoon, about four,
o'clock, he was at
" -08, Regent-street, ard saw the pri-
soner Sheard standing outside the shop. Witness
watched her, and saw her go up to a lady who was
looking in the shop-window, and put her hand into
the lady's pocket. The prisoner then looked round,
and seeing that witness was observing her, ran away.
Witness then went up to the lady and asked her if she
had lost anything ? The lady felt in her pocket, and
said that she had lost her purse. Witness then told the
lady what he had seen, and went in pursuit of the pri-
soner, whom he found near Maddox-street, with the
purse in her possession. He detained her till a consta-
ble arrived, when he gave her in charge.
Mrs. Sarah Sparshott identified the purse produced as
her property.
Andrews, 116 C, said he took the prisoner Sheard into
custody, and on their way to the station she said that the
other two prisoners were as much in it as she was, and
that Hyde had taken the purse and gave it to her. He
went iu search of the other prisoners, and found them
concealed in the coal-cellar of a public-house in Maddox-
street. He then took them into custody.
The prisoners Garnett and Hyde denied all knowledge
of Sheard, and protested they had never seen her before.
Mr. BINGII-4.31 said he should commit Sheard for trial,
but as there was no legal evidence against the other two,
he should give them one more chance by discharging
them.

ATTEMPTED SUICIDE.—Henry Dutton, a poor half-
starved sailor, residing at No. 35, St. Clement's-lane,
was charged before Mr. Bingham with having attempted
to commit suicide, by jumping into the Serpentine in
Hyde-park.
Godfrey, the deputy superintendent of the Royal
Humane Society, said, on Saturday, about one o'clock
in the afternoon, he saw the prisoner jump
from the bridge into the water. He imme-
diately rowed to the spot and dragged him
out in a state of great exhaustion, and
took hiss to the receiving-house and placed him in a
warm bath. When he recovered himself he told witness
that he had a wife and four children, who, with himself,
were in great distress and starving. He also said that
he was tired of his life, and had resorted to the above
means to get rid of all his troubles.
Mr. BINGHAM in the most kind and feeling manner
addressed the prisoner on the enormity of the offence,
which he said was a most cowardly way iof getting
rid of trouble, and only resorted to by those who had
not the moral courage to bear up against difficulties and
misfortune. He would now discharge him, providing he
(prisoner) would promise not to repeat the offence.
The prisoner's brother here came forward, and under-
took to take care the prisoner did not attempt the same
again.
Mr. BINGHAM then discharged him.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
GROUP IW.

This Group re-assembledy-esterday in Committee Room
No. 30; Mr. Eliot Yorke in the chair.

EXETER, YEOVIL, AND DORCHESTER
BRA NCHES.

Mr. D. HILL opened the case for the promoters of
this Bill, which, after a very severe contest, was passed
by a Committee of the House of Commons last session,
bat the struggle between the two contending parties, the
South-Western and the Great Western Companies,
was protracted till so late a period that there
was not time to carry it into the Lords.
The Bill was to authorise the construction of a line, on
the narrow gauge, from Salisbury through Yeovil to
Exeter, with branches to Bridport and Shaftesbury. The
merits of the scheme were fully gone into last year, and
ultimately established to the satisfaction of the Com-
mittee; and it was, therefore, not intended to re-open
the general case. The opposition, he understood, was
to be directed against the subscription contracts. It was
contended by the opposing petitioners that the subscrip-
tion contract was invalid, but it would be proved beyond
all question that there was no ground for such an
allegation; and he was sure the Committee, in the end,
would have no difficulty in confirming the decision come
to last year.
The COMMITTEE decided that they would not require
the promoters to substantiate their subscription con-
tracts, but throw the onus of proving their informality
upon the opposing petitioners.
Mr. KEATING then addressed the Committee on behalf
of the petitioners, contending that the subscription con-
tracts did not bear the names of bone I fide subscribers.
The COMMITTEE did not think these objections in any
way detracted from the genuineness of the contracts,
and directed the Learned Counsel to confine his attention
to the objections he had to urge against individual sub-
scribers.

The petitioners not being prepared to go into these
objections,
The CommirrEE consented to adjourn till Wednesday.

GENERAL COMMITTEE OF
ELECTIONS.

The members of the General Committee of Elections
met yesterday afternoon, and appointed the following mem-
bers to try the merits of the petition presented against
the return for Longford:—Lord Henry Bentinck, Mr.
R. Slaney, Mr. William H. Pole Carew, Mr. Thomas
B. Readlam, with Mr. Bouverie for their chairman.
The Committee will be sworn to-day, and coal-
mence its labours on Wednesday.