The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 1.
(Sittings in Banco.)
TURNER V. DARLINGTON.

This was an application by Mr. Bodkin for a rule
calling upon the defendant to show cause why the plain-
tiff should not be discharged from prison, to which he
was committed by a magistrate for an alleged breach of
a contract entered into between him and his employer.
It appeared that plaintiff is a working miner, and had,
with many other workmen, entered into a contract with
the defendant to work in the mines of the latter for a
term of eleven months, under certain regulations. The
plaintiff and the other workmen absented themselves
from the works for reasons which they assigned to be
good and sufficient, and for this the defendant laid a
complaint against them before a magistrate in Lanca-
shire, where the mines are situated, and they were by
this functioMary committed to prison, upon the ground
that they had violated their contract. The case now
came on to be argued.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Huddleston appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. Cowling, Mr. James, and Mr. Fry for the
defendant.

The COURT, havin4 heard the arguments on the one
side and the other, decided that there was not sufficient
in the information to warrant the committal in this case,
for that various just reasons might arise to warrant a
man in absenting himself from his work without any
breach of contract—such, fur instance, as the act of
God. On the whole, in this case it did not appear to
the Court that there was any violation of the contract by
the plaintiff:

Mr. 13omint, counsel for plaintiff, here remarked that
there were five others in the same position, and that the
decision in this case would govern the whole.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 30.
(Sittings in Banco.)

WALSTAB v. SPOTTISWOODE.
The arguments in this case were resumed and con-
cluded to-day.
- It may be remembered that this was an action brought
by an allottee of scrip in the Direct Birmingham, Oxford,
Reading, and Brighton Railway, to recover from the de-
fendant, as a provisional committeeman thereof, the
amount of the deposit paid on 30 shares in that scheme,
which was not proceeded with in the present session of
Parliament for lack of funds, there being only 4,000 de-
posits out of 70,000 shares which had been issued. The
declaration contained a special count on an alleged con-
tract by the defendant to give to the plaintiff 30 shares
in the propesed railway, in consideration that the plain -
tiff would pay the deposits and sign the deeds which are
usually required in such cases, and it averred the pay-
ment of the deposit, and a readiness to comply with tf,e
other conditions, and a breach by the defendant on his
part. A second count was in the common form for money
had and receive d. To these the defendant pleaded non
assumpsit, and a verdict having passed at the trial for
the plaintiff under the direction of the Chief Baron, a rule
nisi was obtained to enter a nonsuit on the ground of mis-
direction, which now came on for argument.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Willes showed cause on behalf of
the plaintiff'. There were three questions raised by this
case. As to the first point, it was contended that the
contract was proved, inasmuch as it was set forth fully
in the letters of application and of allotment, which were
in the usual terms employed by promoters of such
schemes, and contained an express promise, on the part
of the defendant, as a provisional committeeman, made
by the secretary of the company on his behalf, that if
the plaintiff would pay the deposit of 2/. 12s. 6d. per
share, and subscribed certain deeds, the letter of allot-
ment with the bankers' receipts would be exchanged at
the office for scrip certificates, on a certain day. When
the plaintiff applied for her scrip, she was informed by
the secretary, and Mr. Blunt, the chairman, that the
committee had resolved to wind up the scheme under
counsel's advice, and that she could not have her shares
or her money, for the latter was all spent in prelimi-
nary expenses, except perhaps a small surplus, which
would be returned to her in common with the other de-
positors on 4,000 shares, if any was ultimately found to
exist. This the provisional directors had no rig ht to do,
the retention of this money, or any part of it, being
in direct violation of the contract jet forth in the letter
of allotment.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON—The argument of the &fen •
dant is, that there is no such contract in that letter.
Mr. WILLES—The contract is in tEe last letter, and
not in the two together, and if any part of the second
letter is an intimation, why not all of it ? The great
question, however, arises under the second count, which
is for 78/. 155., as for money had and received by the
defendant to the use of the plaintiff, the groundwork of
that count being, that that sum having been paid by the
plaintiff without any consideration being received for it,
the defendant is bound to restore the whole of it to her
as a provisional committeeman of this scheme, which, as
she contends, is wholly abandoned. The defendant,
however, contends that he is entitled to retain the whole
or such part of this sum as has been spent in legitimate
preliminary preparations for forming this Company ;
but this question has been already decided iu the case
of " Nockells v. Crosby," 3 B. mtnd C., 814, where it
was held that if such a scheme be abandoned under
similar circumstances, the subscribers are entitled to sue
the promoters for the whale of their deposits as for
money had and received. This case was decisive of this
argument.

—Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Was there any proof that that
sum had been so deposited ? If only 4,000 deposits were
paid out of 70,000, I doubt whether the promoters ought
to do anything till the whole deposits are paid up.
Mr. WILLES—That is the contention of the plaintiff.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—It seems that of this sum
21. 10s. per share was received by the defendant under a
strict bargain to do a specific thing with it, namely, to
deposit it under the standing orders. That disposes of
751., which was paid by the plaintiff for that specific pur-
pose, which excludes all idea of spending it in prelimi-
nary expenses. On the other hand, as to the 105. per
100/., or 2s. 6d. on each share, it seems to me very much
as though that was required for the purpose of being
spent in forming the company.
The CHIEF BARON—And that must be required to
meet future expenses, not to pay bygone engineers and
surveyors. . _ _

Mr. Baron ALDERSON—And then only when there are
80,000 shares subscribed for. 't .Nockells v. Crosby" is
for you as to the 21. 10s., and against you as to the
2s. 6d. per share.
Mr. MARTIN, Mr. F. V. Lee, and Mr. Peacock, in
support of the rule, protested, in the first instance,
against the turn which the argument had taken through
the suggestion of Mr. Baron Alderson. There was no
distinction taken between the 101. per cent. and the 103.
per cent. at the trial, nor were the standing orders re-
ferred to once. It so happened that the sum paid in-
cluded 101. per cent. and 2s. 6d. per share; but no
allusion was made at the trial to this point; and if the
Court were to depart from the common understanding
at trials,when cases came on for argument parties would
never know how to conduct their cases. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to argue that the contract set
forth in the declaration had not been proved by the
letters. With respect to the second count, the plaintiff
caanot be entitled to recover the whole of this deposit
in any view of the case. If the Court should hold
that the defendant was responsible to that extent
they would decide in effect that parties might specu-
late and gamble in these schemes, and, risking
nothing, run the chance of gaining everything. The law
might so hold, but if " Nockells v. Crosby" were to be
decided a hundred times over, he (Mr. Martin) would
still contend that gross injustice had been perpetrated
by it. Appearing there for Mr. Spottiswoode, who was
thus attacked, he (Mr. Martin) felt himself justified in
protecting him on strictly technical grounds, and he
mutt now deny that there was any evidence to prove
that this company had been abandoned in the first place,
that being the foundation of the plaintiff's cause of action
on the said count. What Mr. Blunt said was no evi-
dence against Mr. Spottiswoodo.
The CHIEF BARON—No; but the evidence was not
objected to, and formed part of your cross-examination.
Mr. MARTIN—At all events there was nothing to
show that there was a total abandonment ; neither was
there evidence that the promoters bound themselves
to go to Parliament in this session. Difficulties might
prevent their doing so now, but they might go on next
session, and until it clearly was proved that there
had been a total failure of consideration, this action
could not be sustained to recover back the de-
posit. The Company had an existence under its provi-
sional registration for twelve months, and the committee
had no power under the Act to dissolve it. It'still existed,
therefore, and might be yet carried out. Under these
circumstances, therefore, the Learned Counsel submitted
that the rule to enter a nonsuit must be made absolute
on one or other of the grounds on which it had been
granted. The plaintiff had asked for an allotment of
shares ; that she had got, and it remained to be seen
whether the scheme was abandoned.

The CHIEF BARON—The Court will take time to
consider its judgment in this case, which is most im-
portant.

Mr. BaroN ALDERSON—I. confess I cannot distinguish
this case from " Nockells v. Crosby," unless the scheme
be not abandoned. That is a question of fact, on which
there was very slight evidence indeed. It may turn out
that it is not abandoned.
Judgment deferred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Louis Pontowsky, a foreigner, who pretended that he
could not speak a word of English, was brought before
Alderman Gibba for final examination charged with
having stolen a clock, the property of the Directors of
the Marine Assurance Company in Cornhill, and a
watch, the property of Mr. Johnson, perfumer, of
Cornhill.

John Baker, a City policeman, stated in, answer to
questions put by Alderman Gibbs, that the prisoner
spoke the English language perfectly well as they came
along the streets from the Compter to the Mansi.-,n
llouse' and understood the nature of the charges against
him. Witness also said that, upon apprehending the
prisoner for stealing the clock, he found in his waistcoat
pocket a watch which Mr. Johnson identified.
Mr. Robert Johnson, of No. GS, Cornhill, stated that
some days before the prisoners apprehension, he had
deposited his gold watch in the drawer of a looking-
glass in one 'of the upper rooms in the house. The
thief must have walked into the house in the broad day,
and had taken away several trinkets of value which had
been deposited in the same place.
The prisoner said, "Me no speak a word of English.
Me not steal any Ling.
Alderman GIBBs.—I shall commit you for trial,
robbery. I dare say you'll understood that for
The prisoner.—No ;me not understand one word you
say.—(A laugh.)

The prisoner was then committed for trial.
Frederick Chapman, a millwright just arrived from
Bedfordshire, was charged by Mr. Gale, solicitor, of
Basinghall-street, with having assaulted several females
walking that morning from St. Paul's to the Poultry.
The defendant WM quite lively and indifferent for a
while.

cruelt.

Mr. Gale said that as he walked along St. Paul's, he
saw the defendant with a big half across his shoulder
apparently filled with implements of eork, which he
swung about in such a menner, that many females were
struck by it, and no dreubt hurt. The fellow cared
nething about expostulation, but laughed at the mischief
he was doing and jogged on, thrusting his bag Gf tools
against the women whom he seemed to have marked out
for that sort of sport. There was no policeman visible
until witness reached the Poultry, when he instantly
gave the defendant into custody.
A gentleman, who had been walking in Cheapside at
the time, said that he received the first notice of the de-
fendant's ruffianism by a blow from the bag of tools him-
self. He heard several ladies complain. The defendant,
in fact, walked as if there wai no person in the street
except himself, although Vie crowds were great.
Alderman GIBBS—Was he drunk?—The witness said
there was no appearance of intoxication about the man.
The defendant—l couldn't be drunk, for all I drinked
was one poiht of beer, and that wouldn't make I drunk.
Alderman GIBBS —And what have you to say? The
defendant—Why, oy was going along quoick enough,
and the people pushed, and oy warn't to blame. (Here
he looked round and laughed.)
Alderman GIBBS—You have just come from the
country? The defendant—Oy; just corned by railway,
and I'm going to another part of the country to work.
Alderman GIBBS en you must pay twenty shidings
for this conduct, or go to prison for fourteen days.
The defendant—What, poy twenty shillings! I ha'n't
got no twenty shillings to poy.
Alderman GIBBS—Then you must go to gaol. We
must not have I eople knocked about in this way.
The coutryman retired from the bar in amazement,
and upon geting close to the " lock-up," appealed to
some of the policemen, and supplicated their influence
with the alderman to induce him to reverse the sentence.
Finding, however, that his intentions were thrown
away, he said, " Well, I'll pay the money, but moind, I
I think it's very cruel."
Ann Wood, a well-known imposter, was charged with
having shammed fits in the street.
The prisoner played her old character to such per-
fection, that several persons supposed she was in the
agonies of death, and medical aid was procured, but the
surgeon who saw her, knew the nature of her disease,
and caused her to be taken to the police-station' where
she speedily recovered, and begged to be allowed to go
home unassisted.
Alderman GIBBS said, that upon one occasion, the
prisoner had been sent to her parish in the country, but
she arrived in town some time before the officer who
was ordered to accompany her,
She was committed to Briiiewell for two months.
MARYLEBONE.

THE ENRAGED OFFICER OF MARINES AND THE
BOOTHAKER—EXTRAORDINARY OUTRAGE.—Lieutenant
Gun Mahon, of the Royal Marines, who resides at No.
31, Cambridge-place, Edgeware-road, was charged with
having assaulted John Bushley Simmons, under the fol-
lowing extraordinary circumstances :
Complainant stated that he was shopman to his bro-
ther, 29, Upper York-street, and that on the previous
Monday morning, agreeably to orders, he was taking home
a pair of boots for defendant to try on, when he (defendant)
met him on the road, and having ascertained from him
that the boots were his, desired him to carry them to his
dwelling, at the same time telling him that upon his call-
ing for the money in the evening he would ba paid.
Not liking to leave the boots without the sanction of his
employer, he returned with them to the shop, and at
seven in the evening again repaired with them to the
house, when the servant by whom he was admitted
told him that he must wait a little while, as defend-
ant was then with another gentleman. In the course of
five minutes he was sent for by defendant, and on
going into the apartment in which the two gentlemen
were, he (defendant) told him that, for his master's
insolence, he should neither have money nor boots.
The bell was rung, and on a carving-knife being
brought in by direction of defendant, he cut the leg
part of the boots into several pieces, having done
which, he threw the feet, or slippers, towards com-
plainant, whom he threatened to kick out of the place in
the event of his not leaving very speedily. Complain-
ant added, that he at length quitted the house, but not
before defendant had rushed upon him and knocked him
down upon the sofa, threatening that he would give him
a d—d good licking, if it cost him 5/.
Defendant's answer to the charge was, that the com-
plainant impudently walked into the room while he was
at dinner with his friend, Captain Tringham, and, seating
himself, expressed his intention of remaining in the com-
fortable position he was occupying, as he felt very tired,
and refused to leave on being told to call in the mornii:g.
He (defendant) admitted having cut off the top parts of
the boots, but denied having laid hands upon complainant
at all.
Defendant said he had no witnesses in attendance, his
friend Captain Tringham being engaged with Sir George
Cockburn at the Admiralty.
Walter Dickenson said that he was nephew of the
landlady, and that complainant was not knocked down on
the sofa. Defendant certainly did cut the boots into se-
veral pieces.
Lieutenant Mahon was ordered to enter into his own
recognizance for his appearance to answer the charge at
the sessions, in the event of an indictment being preferred
against him.
Mr. Wontner—What am I to do, your worship,
about getting paid for the boots which have been de-
stroyed ?
Mr. RAWLINSON—I can't get the money for you ; I
think you have been used very badly, and you know the
course which I have left open to you.
PEACE WARRANT.—Mr. Conrad Cooper was charged
with having threatened to put a bullet into Mr. Storey, a
dentist, carrying on business in Fleet-street, and who re-
sides in Nelson-square, Blackfriars-road.
Mr. Woutner attended for complainant, and another
solicitor for defendant.
A great deal of evidence pro and con. was gone into,
from which it appeared that for some time past defendant,
who at one period had lived with complainant, and who
was also a dentist, had continually annoyed him, and
threatened complainant, whom he had vowed to " bullet,"
as sworn to in the warrant.
Defendant was held to bail, himself in 1001., and two
sureties in 501. each, for his appearance at the sessions.
WORSHIP-STREET.

CHARGES OF FRAUD.—George Keal, a rather re-
spectable looking elderly man, with very plausible man-
ners, was placed before Mr. Broughton for examination,
upon a charge of defrauding Mr. John Spencer, a beer-
shop keeper, at Stoke Newington.
The prisoner, it appeared, had called at Messrs, Lane
and Co s., brewers, to inquire if there was any public-
house in their trade to be disposed of, stating that he
was out of business himself, but wanted a house for his
son ; and Mr. Perry, the manager of Messrs. Lane's
brewery, gave him a card to the complainant, Spencer,
who wished to sell his business. The prisoner drove the
same day in a chaise to the complainant's, accompanied
by a young man whom he introduced as his sun, and
producing Mr. Perry's card, entered at once upon the
matter in question, stating that he was himself a free
vintner who had made enough to live independently,
but wished to put his son into business. The complainant
observed that the house which he was about to dispose
of was a very good one, and that he should require 8001.
for the lease, and 3501. for fixtures, &c , to which the
prisoner replied that, although money was no object, he
certainly would not give more than 700/. for that house.
After much conversation, however, over cigars and ale,
he agreed to give 750/, and proposed to leave at once
501. as a deposit, until the agreement could be formally,
completed. He then drew a cheque for the 50/. upon
Jones Loyd and Co., with whom he said he banked,
and as he was going away carelessly remarked that he
had come out without cash, and asked the complainant
to lend him half a crown until tl:e following day. The
complainant mace no difficulty about that, but upon in-
quiry at Messrs. Jones Loyd and Ce's., he ascertained
that the cheque drawn upon them by the prisoner was
fictitious, and soon after he found the prisoner at another
house in his neighbourhood, bargaining for that in a
precisely similar way.
At the first examination, Mr. Vine, the chief clerk,
recognised the prisoner as having been in custody at
Bow-street, upon similar charges, several years back.
Mr. BROUGHTON, the magistrate, now made known,
that in consequence of the publicity given to the first
examination, he had received a communication from
Dublin, which he now produced.
The communication was addressed to the magistrate
by " Mr. Thomas Stirling, of the Royal Canal-terrace,
Dublin," who wrote that he had himself been victimised
by a Mr. George Keal, the same person, he believed,
whose examination at Worship-street he had just seen
in the London papers. The case was this :—An adver-
tisement appeared in the Dublin papers which induced
him to become Keel's agent for the purchase of fowls,
eggs, &c., and he had actually transmitted goods to the
firm to the amount of 211,, and had received Keel's bill
for 20/., made payable at Mesa's. Latouche and Co.,
Dublin, but which he had reason to fear was mere waste
paper, and would never be honoured.
Mr. Dent, a furniture dealer, in Crawford-street, pre-
ferred a charge against the prisoner, who, on the 13th
ult., ordered 17/. worth of goods to be sent to him in
South-street, Manchester-square. He was to pay on
delivery, but managed to get possession without pay-
ment. Since his arrest part of the goods, now in pos-
session of the police, had been found in the cellar at the
house in South-street.
chaTrhgees wereprisoner
was
LAMBETH.
mt him.
de d for a week as fresh
expec gateadaign remanded
GROSS CRUELTY TO A HORSE.—John Gartland, a wag•
goner in the service of
was Mr.
charged Jam e s
beAtkins,fcre Mr. of R i
Elliottd e s -
down, near Croydon,
with grossly torturing a horse, the propertypos ed of
that,his
master.
George 'Weston, an ex-police sergeant, de
about eleven o'clock that forenoon, he saw the prisoner
drive a team of three horses, with a waggon-load of
lime. The shaft-horse had its tongue secured at about
unedndtheof.haeastal,staindlinpea'rtth.laef
theao thh eemdr iednfidl eo,
ivywi t
cah nooseNwas
tieden trho
e
ge-stake screwed in it alone; the jaw to tighten it.
The horse, at the time, -efts kicking violently a
prisoner struck it repeattAly with his clenched fistnodn ttbhoe
nese. Observirg the animal was in
shocking state, its
was hanging out of its mouth tot 8
tongue, which
con-
siderable extent, being very much swollen, and bleeding
profusely from a deep wound caused by the tightness of
the noose, he (witness) proceeded to the station-house at
Brixton and procured the assistance of a constable, who
took the prisoner into custody. On returning to the
waggon with the constable the cord was in a different
position, and in a manner which put the animal, if pos-
sible, to more pain than before, for the blood was flowing
much more copiously from its mouth, and the prisoner
threw several handfuls of dust on the wound to prevent
the appearance of its bleeding so much.
A police constable corroborated the evidence of the
last witness.

The prisoner, in reply to the charge, said, the horse
was a regular kicker, and he was obliged to drive him by
the orders of his master. He denied, however, that the

wa3 to the exi

Lt stated b.,

the witness