The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-19 00:00:00

KILMARNOCK AND TROON.

The two remaining Bills had come before their Lordships on second
reference. They were the
SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLNSHIRE EXTENSION,
the promoters of which were declared to have compiled with the
standing orders ; and the

GALWAY AND KILKENNY,
the further consideration of which was adjourned till Tuesday.
Their Lordships then rose at half-past Four, and adjourned
till to-morrow at twelve.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, June 18.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
WEBB V. CRO.

SELLING OF PUTRID MEAT FOR NEW-GATE-MARKET.

The plaintiff' in this action is a butcher in Newgate-market,
and the defendant is a horse slaughterer at Camden Town.
The action was brought to recover the sum of 8/., for money
had and received by defendant, under the following circum-
stances :

The principal witnesses were George Benton, assistant to
plaintiff, who proved that in April last plaintiff bargained
with defendant for the carcase of a cow, which was said to be
in the Ram Inn yard, Smithfield. Defendant said it was
fresh, fat, and bright, like one he pointed out, and said it had
been killed that morning by his son. Plaintiff said that if so
he would give 81. for it. The money was paid, but when
the cow was seen it was found to be unfit even for cats' meat.
Thomas Fairey, a slaughterman in the Ram Inn yard,
proved that defendant took the cow early in the morning, but
after it was dressed witness found it so bad that he cut it in

two and set it aside, as it was not fit for human food. Witness
told defendant it was not fit to go to market, and he would
not send it, or have anything to do with it. Defendant stood
by whilst it was dressed. Defendant afterwards said he bad
sold it to plaintiff for 8/. Witness would not have delivered
it in the market, as he would have been: liable to an action.
Witness recommended defendant to return the money, and
take the cow away. Defendant said he would not ; he had
got the money, and he would " stick" to it. He had known
him sell other cows. Witness had never bought any himself.
He sent for a policeman to see the meat, but he would not
take the defendant into custody, and the meat was con-
demned.

Wm. Graftob, one of defendant's men, gave the strongest
evidence as to the bad state of the meat ; it was carried to
the Ram on the knacker's cart. Defendant said he could
make a better job of it than cutting it up into dogs' meat
and he should try to get 91. or 101. for it. Defendant
bought it of a person in Kentish-town for 275. 6d. It had
died a natural death.

Other evidence was adduced to the same effect.
For the defence it was contended that in law no
bargain could be set aside where there was any consideration,
and if a person made a bad bargain he must put up with the
loss. It was contended that, however bad a "knackerman"
might be to sell an old diseased cow for human food, the
butcher must be worse; and the jury ought not to assist him
by giving a verdict.
Witnesses were called to prove that defendant ga‘ve
61. 15s. for the cow, and that it had not died
a natural death, but had been killed because it was
very " weak on its legs" and " giddy."
Mr. Cooper, a veterinary surgeon, deposed that the cow
was not diseased in the flesh, but had what is called the cold
phellaim, which only affected the spine.
Robert Hale, a slaughterman, said that the animal had
been offered to him, but when he began to cut it he found it
was a " stinker ;" it was a dead one, and must have been dead
some days.
Mr. THOMAS, for the plaintiff, in reply, said that the abuse
of his client was unmerited, as he had been grossly imposed
on, and the cow spoken of by Mr. Cooper could not be the one
offered to be sold to Hale and the plaintiff.
The IT 14DER•SHILIUFF summed up, and said that if the jury
were of opinion that both parties were culpable—that was,
if they thought the plaintiff had any notion that he was
making a purchase of what was not exactly good, the de-
fendant would be entitled to the consideration. It
would be seen that plaintiff had dealt with the
defendant, knowing him to be a knackerman,
and if he was only deceived as to the extent to which the
meat had become bad, but thought it would just do, that
would not entitle him to a verdict; but if, on the contrary,
the plaintiff had been wholly deceived, and had not had what
he had bargained for, then there was a failure of con
sideration.

The jury retired, and on their return gave a verdict for the
defendant, but expressed their opinion that the case was dis-
graceful, particularly on the part of the defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Baron ROLFE and Alderman MUSGROVE.)
John Graham was placed at the bar, indicted for feloniously killing
and slating Thos. Blewitt, in the month of May last, in Drury-lane.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
After several witnesses were called to speak to the prisoner's
character,

Baron ROLFE went through the evidence, and addressed the jury
at some length on the distinctions which hold between murder,
manslaughter, and accident.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at ten minutes past twelve
o'clock, and had not returned their verdict at five o'clock, some
five of them having by that time cautioned their wives by letter not
to look for them before to-morrow morning.
Baron ROLFE, however, sent for them at six minutes after five
o'clock, when the Court was about to rise, and said that
he was afraid that the manner of his putting the case
to them had perplexed them. There was what he would call
mere culpable negligence, and that involved manslaughter. There
was a more bold bravado rashness, which was, however, still only
manslaughter, though of a deeper shade. But there was a venial
negligence, against which ordinary foresight could not guard ; if it
was that, the jury would acqqa the prisoner.
The jury then consulted fora few minutes, without retiring, and
returned a verdict of Not guilty.
The prisoner was then ordered to be discharged.

THE SWINDLER ‘• J. H. WYND-

HAM."

WlNDsort, WEDNESDAY.—It has just been ascertained,
from a letter which Mr. Dotesio, of the Royal Hotel,
Slough, has received from Inverness, and, by compar-
ing the writing of a dishonoured cheque inclosed, with
the cheques drawn by " J. H. Wyndham," at Windsor
and Slough, that the same party was at Inverness in
October last, and also about the same time at Edin-
burgh and Glasgow, where he successfully victimised
several hotel-keepers north o' the Tweed, under the
name of " Jamieson Williams." The following is a
copy of the letter, and its inclosure, forwarded to Mr.
Dotesio:—

" Caledonian Hotel, Inverness, June 13, 1846.
" Sir,—l have seen in the newspapers an account of a
swindle' practised on you. In October last, a person
answering the decription given of your customer came
to the Union Hotel here, which I also keep, and lived in
it about eight days. I was foolish enough to take a
cheque in payment of his bill, and give him the
difference; which cheque proved to be utterly worthless,
and I soon discovered that he did' for several other
hotel-keepers in Edinburgh and Glasgow, in the same
way. Scotland having become rather hot for him, I
should not be surprised if he is the person who has
lately favoured you with his patronage. As it may be of
consequence to prove a number of cases against him, in
the event of his being taken, I enclose the cheque to
which I refer, that the handwriting may be compared,
and will be obliged by your returning it when you have
done so. If it turns out that he is the same person, I
can furnish the names of other parties whom he has
swindled.

" I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
(Signed) " JOHN GRANT.

The cheque referred to in the above letter, which is
not drawn upon a printed form, is clearly in the hand-
writing (without any apparent attempt at disguise) of
the same party who committed the frauds upon the re-
spectable tradesmen in this vicinity. It is to the fol-
lowing effect:—

" Yarmouth Bank, London, Oct. 21, 1845.
" Messrs. Glyn, Halifax, and Co., Bankers, London.
"Pay Mr. Grant, or bearer, the sum of ten pounds.
" 101. ." JAMIESON WILLIAMS."
Upon it being presented by Messrs. Barclay and Co.,
to Messrs. Glyn and Co., it was returned to Inverness
unpaid, the drawer being wholly unknown to the London
tesion
writer' satafetgewi,d
bankers.
A. letter, signed by " Mr. Wyndham," posted in
London, and dated June 3, was received by Mr. afterDo-
li r.hroe
oletfetsioslowuoguhl,d in which
adtgahayaistn s ti f
-
proceedin ta i any the
him, he would return part of the
money he had received on account of the dishonoured
cheque of 101. ; and requesting that an answere might
be returned through the medium of rtiaemtut in
the Times newspaper. Mr. D.Jtesio, who, it in
served. had no faith in the promise of a man Zhoeroebn--
dered himself liable (if caught) to be severely punished,
and who has expressed his determination to enter into
no sort of compromise with the swindler, but to let the
law take its full coost urse,
anoth took no notice of the letter. By
last Monday's per letter was received, bearing
post mark, of which
the Liverpool the following is a
copy '—

in " Liverpool, June 12
" I have written you, to which you have g •
reply. I now offer to pay you in full for the aillvo
from you. given no
your account on your letting me hear
(Signed) "J. H. WYNDHAM."
Messrs. Neville, Reid, and Co., the Windsor bankers,
have given Mr. Yarrow, tailor, of Eton, credit for the
cheque he received from Mr. Wyndham fora " wedding
suit" on the day of his departure from Slough for Lon-
don by the Great Western Railway.

Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent visited the
Queen yesterday, at Buckingham Palace.