The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-16 00:00:00

SOUTHWARK.

Edward Elsbury, a fashionably-dressed young man,
was brought before Mr. Traill for reexamination,
charged with breaking into chambers occupied by Lord
Burghley, St. John's College, Cambridge, and stealing
upwards of 501. woi th of property, consisting of diamond
shirt studs, pins, and brooches, the property of his Lord-
ship.
Lord Burghley, accompanied by the Hon. Frederick
Montague, a fellow collegian, attended, and from the
statement of the former, it appeared that on the morning
of the 26th ult. he went from his rooms in the above
college, about eleven o'clock, leaving the various articles
of jewellery safe in his dressing-room. Ho returned
about nine o'clock the same night, and then discovered
that his rooms had been entered in his absence, and
plundered of the whole of the jewellery, none of the
books or any other description of property having been
removed. A set of diamond studs was here produced,
and his Lordship identified them as forming part of the
articles of which he had been plundered, under the cir-
cumstances just mentioned. He added that he had no
know'edge whatever of the prisoner, never having seen
him until he was placed at the bar of the Court.
Inspector Rogers briefly described the circumstances
under which the prisoner's apprehension was effected,
from which it appeared that on Tuesday last the pri-
soner walked into a pawnbroker's shop in Blackfriars-
road, and, producing a very splendid opal pin, wanted to
pledge it. The shopman, suspecting that the article had
been stolen, detained the prisoner until the arrival of a
policeman, into whose custody he was given, and when
taken to the station-house, a pawnbroker's duplicate for
a valuable diamond pin was found wrapped up in a
corner of his shirt. The pin in question was also pro-
duced, and identified by Lord Burghley as his property.
Mr. TRAIL', inquired if the prisoner was seen at Cam-
bridge about the period the robbery was committed?
An inspector of the Cambridge Police stated that evi-
dence wouldle forthcoming to prove that a young man,
answering the prisoner's description in every particular,
was seen leaving St. John's College between seven and
eight o'clock on the 26th ult.
On the former examination, the prisoner said he lived
at Cambridge, and in accounting for the possession of
the diamond pin he offered in pledge, and the duplicate
of another article of jewellery, he said that he had pur-
chased them of a Mr. Roll, a silversmith, of Cambridge.
Neither the latter gentleman, nor any of the prisoner's
friends attended now, although he was strongly ads ised
to communicate with them, particularly with Mr. Roll,
in order that he might bear out the truth of his asser-
tion with respect to his having purchased the diamond
pin of him.
In reply to Mr. Trail!, the inspector said the assizes
commenced that day at Cambridge, and as that was the
ca e, the magistrate said that the prisoner had better be
taken down there immediately, the offence having been
committed there, and that the necessary evidence to es-
tablish the charge could be produced at once before the
grand jury.
The prisoner, who made no remark, nor expressed
any disappointment that his friends were not in at-
tendance, was then given into the cost idy of the Cam-
bridge inspector, who accordingly proceeded with him to
the above place.
LAMBETH.

On Saturday Mr. Samuel Henry Powell, a gentleman
residing at North Brixton, appeared before Mr. Norton
to answer to an information laid against him under the
7 and 8 Vie., commonly called the Joint Steck Compa-
nies' Act, by Mr. White, a surveyor, residing at Missen-
den, in Buckinghamshire, for an alleged Aimee under
that Act, by which he was liable to a penalty of 201.
The plaintiff conducted his own case, and Mr. George
Smith, of 24, Golden-square, attended on the part of Mr.
Powell, and to watch the proceedings.
It appeared that the complainant, Mr. White, had been
employed by the Messrs. Dempsey. surveyors of the
Grand Junction Great Western and South Western Rail-
way Junction to survey a portion of the line, but they
becoming embarrassed were unable to pay him 2804
due to him for the survey which he had made. The
Messrs. Dempsey stated that they were unable to pay,
in consequence of the company refusing to pay them the
amount of their bill, which amounted to nearly 3,0001.
Mr. White, finding that he could not get his money,
wrote to the clerk of the solicitors, in which he threatened
to call a public meeting of the creditors of Messrs. Demp-
sey, and hinted that such an exposure of the affairs of the
company would not be very serviceable to the promoters of
the project. The communication not producing any
effect, Mr. White went to the Registry Office, Sergeant's
Inn, Fleet-street, and there discovered such omissions in
the registry of the company as induced him to adopt the
present proceedings. Before doing so, however, he, as a
necessary preliminary, obtained the sanction of the At-
torney-General, and he now sued in the name of that
learned functionary.
It was admitted on the part of the defendant that a
prospectus put in had been printed by directions of the
managing committee ; that it had not been registered ;
that tne name of Mr. George Smith had not been re-
gistered as its solicitor, nor had its place of business iu
Charlotte-place, Mansion, house, been registered.
Mr. Smith denied that the complainant had anyclaim
whatever on the company, as he had never been em-
ployed by them ; and as to the Messrs. Dempsey, they
had been paid from time to time 1,5001. for surveying
the line, and, although they had undertaken to have the
plans, &c., ready by the 30th of November, they failed
in carrying out their contract, and the consequence was
that the company were obliged to give up the project.
Mr. Powell, the defendant, assured the magistrate that
he himself, and the committee of management, had done
everything in their power to satisfy every one who had
tbahyajttuhe st
fa claim on the late company, and the best proof
theye
th thad
that,
h etceoeudgehd
mi n
r. their
White
h objectad thought was
properevidenced
to institute a similar proceeding at the Mansion-house,
and though the proceedings there had been protracted
from day to day, not a single individual was found to
come forward to make a complaint. An irregular,
lengthy, and somewhat personal discussion followed,
which Mr. Norton at length put an end to, declaring his
opinion to be that the case rem amply proved spinet