The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-25 00:00:00

,THE QUEEN V. WATKINS AND OTHERS.

The defendants had been found guilty on an indictment,
at the instance of the Navigation Committee, of creating
a nuisanceln the Thames, at Garden-stairs, Greenwich,
by persisting in maintaining a pier there, after repeated
notices to remove it. The matter was brcuglat before
this Court, and an order was issued directing the Navi-
gation Committee to abate the nuisance. It appeared
they had misunderstood the order, and at once directed
the water-bailiff to remove the pier, and be accordingly
did so on the 28th of July last, the defendants assisting
him in its reir Jval, believing that he was empowered to
do so by the order of the Court, but subsequently, find
ing they were in error, they forcibly replaced the pier.
Mr. WORDSWORTH now prayed the judgment of the
Court on the defendants for transgressing the order of
the Court.
Mr. Sergeant SNEA, who appeared for the defendants,
dwelt upon the fact, that the order had been misunder-
stood by the Navigation Committee, who, it was under-
stood, were to appoint a properly qualified person to see
that the nuisance was properly abated, not absolutely re-
moved. The. pier could not nuw be considered a nuisance
as a stone pier, which was objectionable, had been re-
moved, and access to Garden-stairs might now be easily
obtained.
After some discussion, on the suggestion of Lord
Denman, it was agreed between the parties that Mr.
Walker, the engineer, or a properly qualified person to
be appointed by him, should be empowered to adjudicate
and abate the nuisance with as little injury to the pro-
perty of the defendants as possible, the defendants to pay
all reasonable costs.
THE QUEEN P. THOMPSON.
In this case a little had been obtained calling upon the
defendant, who is an attorney of this Court., to show
cause why he should not be struck off the rolls.
Mr. WHITEHURST, Q.C., showed cause against the
rule. His objections were—that the offence imputed to
the defendant was clearly an indictable one, and, on ac-
count of the time which bad elapsed since, the. offence
was stated to have been committed—namely, 13,':ceraber,
1844—whereas the rule was not applied for
until last June. , The defendant was charged with the
concoction of a scandalous conspiracy to obtain money
under false pretences. He was charged with conspiring;
with a person named Luke, who, in August, 1844, oc-
cupied some property in Northamptonshire, to concoct
a fraudulent title in his name to some land, for the
purpose of inducing a solicitor named Pell, or a client
of his, to lend him (the defendant) 82/. or 1001. upon
them, and that the defendant well knew that Luke had
no title to the land in question, and that the whole
matter was a piece of fraud; but then the
rule was mainly moved and obtained on hearsay evi-
dence. Now he apprehended that the Court would not
take any proceedings in a case in which the offence
charged was a criminal one, and consequently indict-
able. Besides, if the case was allowed to proceed in its
present form, the defendant might be betrayed into
the admission of statements which might be used
against him on his trial. The proper time to
make such an opposition was, when the ulterior
proceedings had been completed. In a case re-
ported in the sth of Barnwell and Adolphus.
Lord Denman was reported to have said with re-
spect to a rule calling upon two solicitors to show cause
why they should not be struck off the rolls for improper
conduct, that the offence was an indictable one, and that
the defendants should undergo the ordeal of a trial
before such an application was made to the Couet. The
Learned Gentleman cited a number of other cases
which favoured his view of the case, and trusted the
Court would discharge the rule.
Lord DENMAN suggested that the matter should go
before a master of the Court.
Mr. WHITEHURST opposed the adoption of such a
course, as the defendant preferred to have the whole
matter brought before the Court, and as an investigation
before the master would be most expensive; besides he
anticipated that a private investigation would not be so
effectual as a solemn investigation before a judge and a
jury.
Mr. JAMES called the attention of the Court to the
fact that the defendant had become a bankrupt, and that
he had been examined before Mr. Commissioner Fon-
blanque, who had refused to certificate him en account
of his improper conduct. He apprehended that the
Court ought not to dismiss the rule until further inquiry
was made into the defendant's case.
Mr. WHITEHURST explained that the money was lent
on a bill at two months,-which became due on the 20th
of December, 1844, the title deeds being given to Mr.
Pell as security. The bill was not paid, and the pro..
perty to which the title deeds referred was put up to
auction, but an arrangement was made between Mr.
Pell and the defendant, by which he was to pay 101. a
month until the amount of the bill and some other debt,
amounting altogether to 1301., was settled, but the pay-
ments were stopped on account of the defendant becoming
a bankrupt. The defendant, in the whole transaction,
had acted as the attorney of. Luke, who set forth in his
affidavit_ that he purchased_ the property referred to in

felonhituesmiyrelci:teedredthe in 1826,
alnBdo3th;etbtaittiehdiseedn
deeds stolen; was
that
defen-
dant to frame new ones, which he did 3'• that the
pro-
perty was his (Luke's); and that the reason the deeds
were renewed was, in order that he might place them
with Thompson for 821. los., which he had agreed to
obtain for him for two months. Other affidavits set
forth that it was well known that the pro-
perty did not belong to Luke, but to a
person named Wyman, who only allowed him to occupy
it on account of his poverty ; that the defendant had
admitted that the deeds were fraudulent, and asked Mr.
Pell not to take proceedings against him, which it
appeared he indignantly denied. The Court should bear
in mind that Mr. Pell was a solicitor in the same town,
and that he did not take proceedings until the defendant
became a bankrupt, and long after the circumstances
had taken place.
Mr. FLOOD followed on the same side, and urged in
support of the discharge of the rule that Mr. Bell did
not come into the Court with "clean hands " as he had
brought actions against Mr. Thompson, which increased
the 821. to 1261., and when an arrangement was made
between them it was on the express understanding that, if
any interruption took place in the payment of the instal-
ment, his claim shouldbe increased to 1501. The whole profit
made by the defendant, out of the transaction in which
Luke was engaged, was only 31. 65., a sum so insignifi-
cant, that it forbade the inference that a professional
man would destroy his character for it ; besides, Luke's
name was in the list of voters as proprietor of the land,
pretty strong evidence that he, and not Wyman, was the
proprietor.
Mr. ROBINSON submitted, in support of the rule, that
the defendant alone was to blame for not having before
now appealed to the proper tribunals if he could prove
his innocence. lie cited cases to show that the Court
had interposed its authority, and struck solicitors off the
rolls some years after the offences with which they were
charged were committed, and held that this was a case
in which the Court should so interpose, because it was
incumbent on the Court to see that none but respectable
persons were allowed to practise in it.
Lord DENMAN stopped Mr. Robinson, and stated that
the Court considered the case ought to be remitted to
the master, before whom additional affidavits would be
necessary. The Court had given its opinion with
re! pect to the first objection in the case of " King," and
considered that the second with respect to time was not
tenable, inasmuch as the proceedings before the Com-
missioner of Bankruptcy justified the re-opening of the
matter.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)

THE QUEEN V. THE TREASURER OF THE COUNTY OP

CUMBERLAND.

Mr. MANISTY moved on the part of the Keeper of the
Queen's prison, for an order upon the treasurer of the
county of Cumberland, to pay a sum of money towards
the maintenance and relief of poor prisoners, as directed
by the Act 53d Geo. 111., chap. 113, sec. 2. By the 2d
section of that act, it was enacted that every treasurer of
every county mentioned in the Act should, on or before
the Ist day of August, in each, year, pay from the public
stock of such county, a certain sum of money, according ,
to the terms mentioned by tb e Act to • the treasurer of
the county of Surrey, to be applied to the relief of poor
prisoners in the Queen's pn: ion. On reference to the
schedule of the Act, it would • appear that the treasurer
of the county of Cumberland, was to pay 101. towards
the Queen's prison, and 51. to wards the Fleet prison.
Then came the Act, 5 and 6 Victoria, chap. 22, by which
the Fleet prison was abolished, and section 8 of that Act
enacted that the money payable to the account of the
Fleet prison, should be paid to the Queen's prison. By
the 53d Geo. 111, it was also stated that in case of non-
payment, this Court, on the affidavit of the keeper of the
Queen's prison, should have the power to make an order
for the payment of the money. This was the first appli-
cation which had ever been made under the statute.
Mr. Justice PA.TTESON—As it is the first application,
you may have a rule nisi for an. order. The rule should
be absolute.

FAULKNER V. WALLER.
Mr. I-Itra. moved for a rule to show cause why the
proceedings in this action should not be stayed until
after an indictment, which •was now pending in the
Central Criminal Court, shot': td have been tried. The
Learned Counsel stated that the defendant in this case
was an inspector of the City police, and in the month
of March last the two plaintiffs were given into custody
upon a charge of forging railway scrip. When they were
taken to the police-station a very considerable quantity
of paper, in the form of railway scrip, was found upon
them, and also the sum of 1,0.251. in notes.
Mr. Justice PATTEsorr--Do you mean genuine notes?
Mr. HILL .said that the notes were genuine Bank of
England notes. These persons were taken before the
magistrates, and were remanded from time to
time, until, in the month of June, they
were committed to to.ke their trial upon the
charge of forgery. The _Bank notes and railway
scrip were handed over to thc defendant, as being One of
the inspectors, ,to he prodtb;ed upon the trial. Mr.
Alderman Gibbs made that order. The trial:Nias post-
poned, for some reason, :until the month :6f October, and
during the interval the plain tiffs• were admitted to bail.
At the October sessions the plaintiff Faulkner surren-
dered to take his trial, but the other plaintiff; Fabian,
did not surrender, and his recognisances were estreated.
Faulkner was, acquitted, but the Learned Judge, 'after
tho trial, directed that 3601. should be paid out of the