The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-17 00:00:00

GLEN V. METHOLD.

This was an action brought to recover the amount of
a baker's bill. The defendant pleaded coverture.
It was not stated who the parties were, and Mr.
THOMAS said he should put the defendant's mother in
the witness .box to prove the marriage.
Mrs. Clarke, of Mount Pleasant, Lewes, was then
called, and said—l know the defendant. She is m)
daughter. She is a married woman. She married a.
Mr. Methold. I was present at the marriage at the sub-
deanery of Chichester on the 16th of May, about fourteen
or fifteen years ago.
In cross-examination she said she saw defendant's
husband last August. lie was then in company with
defendant, but he had not lived with her for eight or nine
years. He made her an allowance.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF said that could not
affect the plea, which was, whether or not the defendant
was married.
The plaintiff's Counsel said he disputed the marriage,
or that there was any evidence to go to the jury as to
the identity of the defendant.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF—The witness says,
" defendant is my daughter;" that leaves a matter of
fact for the jury.
The jury said it would have been more satisfactory if
the certificate had been produced.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said that there could not be
better evidence of identity than by the mother.
The plaintiff elected to be nonsuited.
VICIIELO V. SCALES.
This was an action to recover damages for false im-
aantcoisstaertmraodnegsmera,nanindsued
to go by default.
Lam-
beth-walk, and suffered judgment
ipnr i
fsoornmmae im-
prisonment. ta u
per Theis,
pane of plate glass, in the
sad plaintiffdteili
defendant
on the night of the 2d May. a
person who had
The facts of the case were these:—About twelve o'clock
ipnl
gai plaintiff's window, noduotw,
the was b
plaintiffrok broken, ,
t d and was
theas
snd several persons hay-
thrown the stick, he was given into co_ oy, h
locked up at the station-house for upwards of an our,
until he
theetb inundagbiasitlr,abtuets, it was
onthecast dismissed.,bein
being heard the next
dayt
To prove the plaintiff's innocence,
Thomas Waters was called, and swore that he was
stick after him and it brokveertyhe"wwinilddOw'
standing in Lambeth walk on the night in question,
when a man named Knight took an orange out of his
basket, which made him
plaintiff.
it " as quick as a shot. He was frightened, as he bad
no money, and he got out as he could.
—(Laughter.) He of sight as soon
a
wore a drab coat on that night similar
to one worn by
Mr. PARRY-Sellinganything else whlienheover
seWWHolltbasbea .andwrih.tenetshsre"wicuat
The UNDER-SHERIFF
dgoennee general
the dark.
I is a general dealer ?
_ttlittle brandy, cigars, razors, or
itg;nheostns
wry
aNsrocoutt,
night fish,
andrsauncdhylickigars, or razors by
lltlre-dy'and admitted his share in the trans-
action, and that it was Waters who threw the stick ; it
missed him.

Mr. PARRY—Certainly ; or you would not have been
here. (The stick was five feet long and three inches in
circumference.) Witness did not hear the crack of the
window, as he ran too quick in order to get out of the
way of the stick.— (Laughter.)
Other witnesses were called as to the apprehension of
plaintiff.

Mr. PARRY addressed the jury, and said this was a
case of great hardship on the plaintiff. It was clear that
the plaintiff and all the witnesses were in the habit of
" larking" about to the annoyance of the inhabitants.
Under the declaration it was impossible for the defendant
to plead a justification, for whatever the damage done to
the window, if it was done by accident, the defendant
WAS not justified in giving the plaintiff into custody. He
would, however, show that he was morally justified in
acting as he bad done for the offence had in fact been
committed by the plaintiff, and if he proved that the
jury would no doubt think that the smallest coin would
be more than sufficient damages. If Knight had
been hit on the head with the stick, the person who