The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-14 00:00:00

IN RE RICHARDSON.

Sergeant MANNING moved for a rule to strike an at-
torney off the rolls under the following circumstances.
It appeared that on the 25th of July, 1837, a Mr. John
Richardson died intestate. His widow, Sarah, within
three months of his decease applied to a certain attorney
living near Woolwich, to obtain for her letters of ad-
ministration, and for that purpose she gave him 8L She
was accompanied by a Mr. Peck, the obligor to the
widow, and she took the necessary oaths befor the surro-
gate. As the day on which this proceeding took place was
market-day, Mr. A. 8., the attorney requested them to at-
tend upon the secretary oa the Friday following fur the
purpose of completing them. They accordingly attended
at the time and place indicated by A. 8., and were in-
formed by him that he had obtained the letter of admi-
nistration, but had left them at Norwich. On their
applying on a subsequent occasion, another excuse was
offered, and after more than 100 applications it was dis-
covered that no letters of administration had been taken
out at all.—The rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 13.
(Sittings in Banco.)
CASTLEMAN V. CAPPER.

This was an action brought to recover 1,000/. on a
policy of insurance effected upon the ship Alarm, wish
the Marine Insurance Company, of which the defendant
was the underwriter. The case was tried before the
Lord Chief Baron, at the recent sittings in London,
when it was proved that the plaintiff was the mortgagee
of the brig Alarm, and with the view of possessing
himself of an additional security for the money he had
advanced upon her, which amounted to 1,000/., he in-
sured the vessel with the defendant's company. The
brig at the time was engaged in the coasting trade of
South America, and subsequently to the completion of
the policy of insurance she received some very material
injuries while performing a voyage between Monte
Video and Paraguay, which ultimately led to her con-
demnation by two of her Majesty's naval officers, who
happened to be cruising off the former port, and the
plaintiff brought the present action to recover the whale
amount of the policy he bad effected upon her. For the
defence it was contended that the injuries the vessel had
received were not of such a nature as to justify her con-
demnation, and the defendant therefore refused to pay
more than half the insurance money, alleging that tht•
vessel might have been amply and properly repaired fur
that amount. Eventually, however, the jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff, awarding him the full amount he
claimed.
Mr. JERVIS now moved for a rule nisi, to show cause
why that verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
had on the ground that the vessel was not properly
surveyed before condemnation. It was admitted, the
Learned Counsel said, by the plaintiff's witness, that the
copper of the vessel was not taken off, and consequently
the injuries she had received beneath the copper was all
matter of conjecture, and could not be ascertained with
any degree of certainty. He contended, therefore, that
due and proper care had not been exercised in the exa
mination, and hoped the Court would grant him the rule
for which he prayed.
The Loan CHIEF BARON—Take a rule to show cause.

CALLOR AND ANOTHER. V. LYON.
This was an action of assumpsit brought to recover
the sum of 50L, the amount of a promissory note given
by the defendant to the plaintiffs, who were the trustees
of the Metropolitan Loan Society. The case was tried
at the Middlesex sittings after term, when it was elicited
that the defendant was the security of a man named
Morris, who had borrowed from the Loan Society the
sum involved in the action, and a verdict was returned
for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed.
Mr. PEARSON now moved for a rule nisi to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
had on the ground that the note was obtained by fraud,
inasmuch as the rules of the Society differed from the
terms of the note, and the defendant, when he signed
the note, was in a state of intoxication.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said the constitution of loan
societies was so well known, that the defendant could
hardly have been mistaken as to the nature of the note,
and he must hive signed it with his eyes open. The
finding of the jury was therefore correct, and the rule
must be refused.—Rule refused accordingly.

RE BOOTHRET.
PASHLET applied to the Court for a writ of habeas
corpus, under the following circumstances :—ln Sep-
tember last, Boothrey, the Learned Counsel's client,
was committed to the Wakefield House of Correction,
under what was called the Worsted Acts, for having in
his possessioa a certain quantity bf silk, of which he
could give no satisfactory account. The conviction was
made on the information of the constable of the parish,and
Boothrey was committed to prison for the non•paymenl
of the penalty which the possession of the silk rendered
him liable to. This conviction the Learned Counsel
contended was illegal, because the law under which it
was made was defective, in so far as the statute did not
specify to whom the penalty should be paid, but said
generally that it should be paid as the law dir-cted.
Now, Boothrey being ignorant of the law, knew
not to whom he ought to pay the penalty,
nor could any of the local authorities, determine
who was the party entitled to it, and hence
there being no responsible person to receive the penalty,
it was morally impossible fir him t) comply with the
terms of the conviction, and therefore his detention in
prison was a wrongful and illegal act. The conviction,
moreover, deviated from the form prescribed by the
statute, for it did not set forth the value of the goods,
the owner of the goods, or the allegation that they were
suspected to be stolen goods, and it was upon those
grounds that he moved the Court to issue a writ of
habeas corpus for the rehmse of the prisoner.
The LORD CHIEF BARON ruled that a trifling devia-
tion like that in the present case from the prescribed
form of conviction was immaterial, provided the sub-
stance or spirit of the form was retained; and as it was
clear that the prisoner could give no satisfactory account
of the goods in his possession, which he was bound to
do by the statute, his committal in default of his paying
the penalty was valid and justifiable. With respect to its
being in doubt as to who was the party entitled to the
penalty, he thought this point was disposed of by the ge-
neral and common law of the land, with which it was pre-
sumed everybody was well acquainted,and which provided
that the penalty should be divided equally between the
informer and the poor of the parish where the conviction
took pl4ce. He was therefore of opinion that the motion
must be refused.

The remainder of the Court concurring in this judg-
ment, the motion was refused accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 13.
POTTS AND OTHERS V. RICHTON AND JONES.
Sir T. WILDE moved for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not take. place -in this cause, on the
ground that the verdict had I:wen against evidence. The
cause was tried at last sittings at Guildhall, and a verdict
given for the defendant; the action being to recover from
Highton, on the allPgation that ho was a partner of Jones,
a sum of money due to a bankrupt concern on the ac-
count of the latter. In the deftnce it was maintained
that no partnership existed, for that though Highton had
assisted Jones in certain business transactions, it was
not in the character of, a partner. The Learned Gentle •
man at some length went on to show that Highton was
a p inner, and on that ground considered that a new trial
should be ruled for the .plaintiff.—Rule to show cause
granted. -

Mr. MALTBY having very carefully investigated the
charge, told the defendant that he should commit him
for one month.
The defendant seemed astounded on hearing his sen-
tence, and earnestly entreated that the worthy magis-
trate would impose a fine in place of the imprisonment.
Mr. MALTBY refused to alter his decision, and the
defendant was locked up in one of the cells to await the
prison van to convey him to Westminster Bridewell.
BOW-STREET.
A respectably-dressed married woman, named Bliss,
residing at Chelsea, applied (through a friend) to Mr.
Twyford, the sitting Magistrate, for his advice respect.
ing an occurrence which had thrown her family into
great distress.
She stated that her son George, a lad about 13 years
of uge, had been in the servic of a tradesman in Colvin-
terrace, Chelsea, until about three weeks ago, from
which time nothing had been seen or heard of him. She
had tried in vain to get some information ►espeeting
him from his late master, whom he had been assisting in
the removal of some goods, &c., to another halm. She
ha i given information of the circumstance a t the various
police-offices in the metropolis, and described the appear-
ance of the lad in an advertisement; but three weeks
had elapsed, and no tidings of him could be obtained.
She stated that he was generally a very quiet and well-
'conducted boy, and his disappearance therefore had
caused the family much anxiety and uneasiness.
Mr. TWYFORD regretted that he had no means of
as-istine the mother, but if the reporters would kindly
give publicity to the application made upon the subject,
it might lead to the recovery of the child.
It was stated in the handbills, &c., that any informa-
tion would be received at the rectory of St. Luke's,
Chelsea.
The mother and her friend then thanked the Magistrate,
and withdre v from the Court.
A young man, ame 1 Tidswell, for many years in the
service, as foreman, of Mask,ll and Stone, plumbers and
glaziers, of Chichester-rents, Chancery lane, was charged
with stealing a quantity of lead, belonging to his em-
ployers; and a man named Bell (his brother-in-law) was
charged as an accomplice.
One evening last week Bell was stopped by a constable
and questioned respecting some sheet lead which he
had upon his shoulders. Bell stated that he had it from
the prosecutors', and consented to go back to their shop I
with it. On reaching the shop the other prisoner assumed
the functions of the master of the place, and stated that
it was all right. The constable was still suspicious, and,
observing that Bell took the lead to his own residence,
he made inquiries of the firm, and the felonious trans-
action was consequently disclosed.
It was stated that Tidswell had been lately promoted to
the management of the concern, for the widow of Mr.
Stone, and had hitherto had credit for the highest re-
spectability and integrity. His salary was 21.25. a week.
It also transpired that he had employed Bell with the
approval of the firm, and had drawn 30s. a week for him ;
whereas be had only paid him 20s.
The attorney for the prosecution intimated his belief
that Bell bad ben unconsciously drawn into the matter
by Tidswell ; and he therefore applied to have him ad-
mitted at Queen's evidence.
The case was again remanded for a few days.
WESTMINSTER.
A genteel and very pretty looking girl, about 20 years
of age, was charged before Mr. Burrell with the follow-
ing determined attempts to commit suicide :
The case appeared to create some interest, as the
Court was crowded with persons, amongst whom were
several well-dressed young men, who seemed to be very
attentive listeners to the proceedings.
Police. constable Morris, 215 B, said that, between six
and seven on the previous evening, he found the defen-
dant in Millbank-street, Westminster, suspended from a
high railing by a silk handkerchief, which was fastened
tightly round her throat. Finding that she was quite
insensible, he held her up whilst be called for assistance,
and some gentleman who came up cut ber down. Me-
dical assistance was immediately procured, and the pri-
soner having recovered was conveyed to the station,
where she admitted that she had taken poison the same
evening.
Mr. Moran, an inspector of the B division, said that
every attention had been paid to the female, who had,
after receiving proper medical treatment, been sent to St.
rgaret's Workhouse, where she was closely watched
during the whole night.
Mr. BURRELL asked whether she had assigned any
reason for attempting suicide in so determined a manner?
Defendant, who was much affected, and so unwell
that she was supported in the dock by a female, said,
" I did it through distress of mind."
Mr. BURRELL—What have been your means of living?
Defendant—l am a florist.
Mr. BURRELL—Are your parents living? Defendant
(in a subdued voice)—l have both father and mother.
Mr. BURRELL —I should wish to restere you to them.
The poor girl sobbed hysterically, and said, " I would
not go back to them now for the world. I have dis-
graced them."
Mr. Moran intimated that she had fallen a prey to
the arts of a seducer, who had abandoned her.
Mr. BURRELL—Your father and mother, with the
tenderness of parents, might pardon your errors, and
receive you.
Defendant—/ could not ask them. I could not go
back in the state I am in. They are very respectable.
I have brought disgrace upon them.
Mr. BURRELL--But if they offered to receive a peni-
tent child, sensible of her guilt, would you refuse to
return to your parental roof ? The poor girl, whose

.+ L: v:!-

c t~:t..

. • ,