The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, elugyst 1,8.
The House sat to .day to hear appeals. The Cords presen
were, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Campbl, and the Bishop of
Oxford.

PATRICK. V. KING.
The arguments in this part-heard appeal were concluded
to-day, and
Their LORDSHIPS gave judgment, affirming the decision
of the Court of Session.
It is the last appeal their Lordships will hear this session.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, August 17.
(Before Chief Baron POLLOCK.)
THE LATE FATAL CoLLISION ON THE EASTERN COUNTIES

RAILWAY.
William Clare and James Quinlan, the driver and stoker
of the Firefly engine, which caused the late serious and fatal
evident on the Eastern Counties Railway, at Stratford, were
brought up under a writ of habeas, before Chief Baro❑ Pa
lock, at the Judges' Chambers, to ascertain if there was any
just reason why the prisoners should not be admitted to bail.
Mr. B. W. Rawlings, solicitor, of Romford, appeared in
support of the application ;. and Mr. W'►itticomb, of the
firm of Messrs Duncan and Co., on the part of the Eastern
Counties Railway Company. Tt►e prisoners were in attend-
ance in the custody of an officer of Ilford gaol.
Mr. RAWLINS stated that the prisoners happened to be
employed as the driver and stoker of an engine called the
Firefly, which on the 18th of last month unfortunately ran
into another train at the Stratford station. For this the so.-
cused parties were given into custody by the railway autho-
rities, and under the powers of Lord Seymour's Act, the
Ilford bench of magistrates had committed his clients to take
their trial for the misdemeanour. It was on this charge that
the writ of habeas had been obtained to bring the prisoners
before his Lordship; but subsequently one Of the parties in-
jured by the accident had died, and a coroner's jury had re-
turned a verdict of "Manslaughter" against one of the pri-
soners. He had understood since he had been there that,
although the Learned Judge should admit the prisoners to
bail, there were police-officers in waiting who held the war-
rant of Mr. Baker, the Coroner for Middlesex, and who, upon
the authority of that warrant, would instantly take Clare
into custody, and convey him to Newgate. He (Mr. Raw-
lings) put it to the Learned Judge, whether he had not the
power, should the prisoners be once admitted to bail, to pre-
vent either of them being so taken into custody ?
The Learned JUDGE said he bad no such power, as it ap-
peared that to be admitted to bail on the charge of man-
slaughter was not the actual application before him, al-
though he must confess that at the outset he had considered
that it was so.

Mr. WHITTICOMB observed, that if the application had been
confined to the admis-ion to bail on the charge of the mis-
demeanour under Lord Seymour's Act solely, his instructions
were, on the part of the Eastern Counties Railway Company,
to offer no opposition ; but he could not consent to the ad-
mission to bail upon the subsequent and more serious charge
of marslaughter, especially as the security was so small as
two sureties in the sum of 50/. each.

Mr. RAwLiNas--Would not the taking into custody of
either of the prisoners, after their admission to bail by your
Lordship, be a contempt of court, my Lord?
Chief Baron PoLLocx—Certainly not; it is on another
charge.

• Ali. RAWLINGS submitted the hardship that would be in-
flicted on the poor man Clare if allowed to be taken into cus-
tody and conveyed to Newgate the moment he was admitted
to bail, moreover as he understood it was intended to apply
to put off the trial from the next session of the Central
Criminal Court to the subsequent one.
The Learned JUDGE said ne should accept the bail for the
misdemeanour, and if the accused Clare was taken into cus-
tody on the coroner's warrant, the depositions could be im-
mediately forwarded to him,4and he would admit him to bail
in that case also.

Mr. Charles Renck, of the Angel Inn, Stratford, and Mr.
James Heath, grocer, of Stratford, having been accepted as
bail, these proceedings terminated.
Clare was subsequently taken into custody on the coroner's
warrant, but the necessary arrangements were made in the
course of the day for his admission to bail.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
OLD COURT.
.. _

The Court was occupied throughout the day with
cases of uttering counterfeit money, but none of them ps-
sessed any interest whatever.

NEW GOUIIT.

Thomas Livermore was indicted for embezzling two trifling
sums of money from his master, Mr. W. Lamprell.
Mr. DOANE. who appeared for the prosecution, stated the
case, from which it appeared that the prosecutor was a
licensed victualler, and that the prisoner was in his employ,
his duty being to carry beer to his customers, and to make
up his accounts daily. The latter he omitted to do in July
last, and gave no account of the money he had received
from one of the customers, with the embezzlement of which
he was now charged.
The payment of the money to the prisoner having been
proved, and the witnesses cross-examined by Mr. Ballantine,
who appeared on the part of the prisoner,
The COMMON SERGEANT summed up, and
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
UTTERING A FORGED ORDER.—James Russell, a lad, ap-
parently about 15 years of age, was indicted for uttering a
forged order on the 23d of July last, with a view to obtain
goods fraudulently.
Mr. CLARKSON, who appeared on the part of the prosecu-
tion, stated the case. The offence with which the prisoner
stood indicted was very common, and one from which, re-
spectable persons in business had suffered very severely. The
prosecutors, Messrs. Ellis and Co., who carried on a respect.
able business, had amongst their customers a gentleman I
named Owen, who was also in business in Great Coram-
street. On the day in question the prisoner came to the
shop of Messrs. Ellis and Co. and presented an order, which
purported to be from Mr. Owen, and which was as follows:
" Gentlemen—You will oblige me by sending by the bearer
a piece of satin of each of the enclosed patterns, each piece
not to exceed in price 48. " D. W. OVEN."
These facts having been proved, the prisoner, who
was called on tor his defence, said that he had
been the dupe of another person, with whom previously he
had had some acquaintance, and who met him on the day
in question, and represented himself to be in the employ of
Mr. Owen. This person gave him the order, which be told
him he had just received, and desired him, as soon he had
obtained the goods, to meet him at a place which he speci•
fled. He was quite innocent of any intention to commit the
crime with which he was charged.
The COMMON SERGEANT summed up. He said the
points which the jury had to try were, whether
the prisoner had presented the order in question,
whether that order was forged, and whether the
prisoner at the bar was cognizant of the latter fact. The
two first had been clearly established ; and he thought that
there was little credit to be attached to the s'atement of the
prisoner.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty ; and, it appearing
that the prisoner was well known at the Court, he was sen-
tenced to be transported for seven years.

POLICE IN TELL IGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

MR. WILLIAM COBBETT.—On Monday Mrs. Cobbett, the
wife of the above individual, who is at present in the Court of
Queen's Bench, and who is the son of the late celebrated 3:r.
Cobbett, appeared before Alderman Wood, for the purpose of
making an application under the following circumstances :
Mrs. Cobbett stated that about eleven years ago a person
named Jesse Oldfield came to her father-in-law's house in
Sheffield, and represented himself as a man of substance.
He also brought a woman with him, whom he represented
to be his wife. On being asked if he had ever been in ser-
vice, he replied in the negative. From that time he had
been connected with Mr. Cobbett's family ; and, on the
death of the elder gentleman, he ( Mr. Wm. Cobbett, the
heir-at •law.) was, on the property being thrown into
Chancery by the gross imposition of Jesse Oldfield,
thrown into prison, where he had been for seven years.
She now applied, on behalf of her husband, under an
Act paused in the reign of George HI., for the punish-
ment of persons uttering false certificates and cha-
racters of servants. Jesse Oldfield had said that he had never
been a servant, when it was untrue, and that the woman
whom he introduced was his wife, which was not the case.
Under tha,e circumstances she now applied on behalf of Mr.
William Cobbett, that he (Aicerman Wood) would order
two magistrates to go to the Queen's Bench and take her
husband's evidence, on oath, respecting her statement, for
the purpose of granting a warrant and apprehending Mr.
Oldfield on these darges. Forgery had been committed,
and the Judges had informed her, if such was the ease, she
could apply to these Courts and they would take the proper
steps for doing justice to all parties. She had applied a. the
Mansion House and they had referred her to this Court
(Guildhall).
Alderman WOOD said he thought that the Act under which
applicant applied had been repealed during the reign of
either George IV., or William IV., but on looking over the
various Acts of Parliament, no such clause could be found.
Mrs. Cobbett observed that Oldfield was quite willing to'
compromise with them and let her husband out. if he would
stay all further proceedings, but they were determined not
to do so.
Alderman Weep said, from the letter he had read from
Mr. Cobbett, he was of opinion that Oldfield was in the
relationship of a confidential steward with the late Mr.
Cobbett.

Mrs. Cobbett urged that Mr. Oldfield had committed

forgery, and that be wa3, and had been, erjo:ving Chef;
property to the amount of nearly 25,000/. tor the last seven
years.

Alderman WOOD was of opinion that it would be highly
indecorous fbr a magistrate to interfere with the pri,eceoings
of a superior Court. The question of forgery had been
mooted in the Court of Chancery, and instead of its being
thought a case of forgery, the decision was quite the reverse.
Under these circumstances he could not accede to the appli-
cant's request.

The parties then left the Court.
SOUTHWARK.
On Monday, Mrs. Cobbett, the wife of one of the sons of
the late W. Cobbett, made an application for a warrant
against a person who had been formerly in her husband's
service. She said that her husband, Mr. Cobbett, had now
been an inmate of the Queen's Bench prison for the last
seven years, arising out of a Chancery proceeding, in which
there was pending a suit to the amount of 22,0001. ; that
the it dividual against whom she made the present complaint
had obtained employment under her husban a father by means
of a fictitious character, and that principally through his
means they had been d frauded of property to the above
amount, which they ought to be enjoying now, instead of
Mr. Cobbett lingering for a period of seven years within the
walls of a gaol. That her husband was justly entitled to
the property there was no doubt upon earth; but by the
pro eedings adopted by the Court of Chancery they were '
kept out of it, and they had no hope of redress from that
quarter. Her object in making the present application was
to ascertain if they could not have some redress at this court
against the man who had, by means of false pretences, ob-
tained employment in her husband's service, and who, by
artifice and chicanery, was the cause of producing such
misfortune amongst the members of his family.
Mr. CorriNGHaat inquired how long ago it was that the
party against whom the alleged complaint was preferred had
acted in the manner described P—The reply was that it was
now about ten 3-ears ago, and that she was induced to make
the present application owing to a case of a similar nature
having been brought under the notice a short time since 01
ss
the Lord Mayor, and in which the applicant had redress
Mr. COTTINGIIAM said that he regretted to hear
of. the
present situation of the applicant's husband, but that toe long
a period bad been suffered to elapse to take proceedings
against the party of vitoin site complained. But with respect
to the p:,,c,e.angs in the Court of Chancery, of
course he
could not offer any opinion or advice.
Toe applicant stated, that if her husbandi, consented to
give an undertaking nut to proc•ed fu er in the suit for
the recovery of his properiy
he would Uo.liberat(d to-mor-
row. This, however, he would n. t consent to do, and ulti-
mately, from the justice of his claim, expected to recover his
property. The applicant having thanked the Magistrate
then withdrew.

B 0 W-STR R ET.
Mr Robert Oliphant, the son of Mr. James Oliphant, army
accountant, was charged with an assault upon Mr. Dimand,
partner to Mr. Eisenberg, the "chiropodist."

Mr. Dimand, who is a foreigner, and spoke with great.
difficulty, stated that the assault arose out of a dispute in
respect of some money burrowed by the defendant in the
name of his father, for payment of which he applied to the
father on Monby. Mr. Oliphant sent a -message to him,
desiring him to go to his (Mr. Oliphant's) office, and to wait
there for him. This he refuses to do; but Mn Eisenberg,
who was with him at the time, went to the offi-e. lilts
Oliphant agaift sent a message to him to go to the office, and
he did so. On his entering the office he f-ound Mr. Eisenberg
there, with the defendant and his brother, Mr. Henry
Oliphant, who both "began to abuse him," and called hint
a " scamp," "rascal," " vagabond," &c. He turned to
Mr. Eisenberg and said, "Let us leave these blackguards.
and go away ;" upon which the defendant rushed upon
him and struck him a violent blow on the mouth,
which hurt him very severely, and drew blood. A police.
man was then sent ter, and took the prisoner in custody,
while witness left the office and went to the ne 'rest-surgeon's.
—(The witness's mouth was very much swelled.)
Mr: Eisenberg said that, on his entering the office, he
found the defendant and ills brother there. The latter asked
him how Mr. Dimand dared to go and talk to his father
about the money he had lent his brother ? Aid the de-
fendant said—" If he comes down here we will knock him
down ; red if I do it I'll dash his brains out ; he shall not
walk out again ; he shall be carried out." Mr. Henry
Oliphant either said the same thing, or "-assisted the de-
fendant to say it," but witness was not quite sure. When
Mr. Dimand was heard coming down stairs to- the office the
defendant and his brother both said " Here he is; we'll do
fur him:" and on his entering the office the defendant com-
mitted the assault described by Mr. Dimand.
The defendant admitted that he struck the complainant,
but denied that the circumstances were as they had been
described by him and Mr. Eisenberg. He said that when
Mr. Eisenberg entered the office he (defendant) complained
of the conduct of Mr. Dimand in going to tell his father
about a debt which he had contracted, and said," The dirty
little devil deserves to be kicked out of the office." Mr. Di-
mand, on coining into the office, called his brother (Mr.
H. Oliphant) " a blackguard," of which he took no notice,
but defendant said, " I would not let him call me a black-
guard, I would knock him down if he did so." The com-
plainant then turned to him and called him a blackguard,
upon which he struck him in the face. He did not use any
of the language described, and neither he nor his brother
threatened to knock the complainant down, or knock his
brainsout, or" do for him."

The defendant called, as witnesses, his brother, Mr. Henry
Oliphant, and a clerk in the office, who fully confirmed the
above statement.

Mr. JARDINE said that he thought the provocation proved
to have been given, though it would not justify, would yet
palliate the assault. It would have been better if the de-
fendant had acted in the sa:ne manner as his brother had,
and taken no* notice of the complainant's abuse ; or if he
had turned him out of the office, which he might have done
without striking him. However, he would not go to the full
extent of tie law, but would fine the prisoner 405., or, in
default, sentence him to one month's imprisonment.
A charge of obtaining 61. under false.pretences was after-
wards preferred by the complainant's solicitor agai,ist de-
fendant, but Mr. JARDINE refused to entertain it, saying be
thought there was no foundation in it.