The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, JULY l, 1846.

LAW IN TELLIGENCE.
JUDGES' CHAMBERS, June 29.
(Before Mr. Justice PArrEslx.)

MISS lURDETT COUTTS AND RICHARD DUNN, 4IIIC BARRISTZR.
To-day waa appointed for Mr. Bodkin and the other parties
engaged in the above prosecution to show cause why a writ
of certiorari should not issue to remove the indictment for
perjury against Richard Dunn, from the Central Criminal
Court to the Queen's Bench.
Mr. Dunn appeared in person, and Mr. Bodkin with Mr.
Humphreys attended the Judge on behalf of Miss Burdett
Coutts.

The Learned JUDGE inquired if Mr. Bodkin had any
affidavit to put in
➢ir. BODKIN replied in the negative.
Mr. Dunn, with extreme volubility then argued that he
bad received letters purporting to bear the initials of the
defendant; that he had replied to them, and taken the best
means of ascertaining their authenticity ; that by appealing
to the bankruptcy laws he had adopted what he thought
was the shortest course to justice; and if the authority was
not genuine, why did not the bankers impound the cheque,
and adopt such rigid measures as bankers generally would
do if a false cheque were presented to them! On the con-
trary, Mr. Marjoribanks had only stated, on seeing the
authority, that he had no orders to pay the 100,0001. de
manded. He (Mr. Dunn) believed that the influence of the
bankers was so great upon the citizens of London, that if he
were tried by an Old Bailey jury he could not expect to
receive fair play as an English subject who had always
borne allegiance to the Queen. He had been watched from
house to house by the police—he had had his papers taken
from him—no attorney or barrister would act on his behalf—
his very food was interfered with through the agency of this
woman.

Mr. Justice PArrEsoir said, that two of the Judges would
preside at the Central Criminal Court, and therefore the de-
fendant would have as substantial justice done him as in the
Queen's Bench.
Mr. Dunn said that he could not obtain the assistance of
Queen's counsel without paying a fee of fifty or one hundred
guineas. A major in the army, who was also a witness, was
absent from London, and he (defendant) required time to
arrange his evidence. Forty-two magistrates had on a former
occasion decided against him, and but for the interposition of
the Queen's Bench, he should have been sacrificed to as base
and diabolical a conspiracy as the present.
Mr. BoDKIN said he was instructed to leave the matter
entirely in his Lordship's own hands. The lady, however,
who was the object of the defendant's persecution, was en-
titled to some consideration. If the case was removed to the
Queen's Bench it would only entail heavier security on the
defendant ; and, without going into the pretended authority
to draw upon Coutts' bank for 100,0001., he (Mr. Bodkin)
would state that the indictment for perjury assigned that
there was no debt due or owing to the extent of one farthing
by Miss Coutts. The Learned Counsel th-n called the at-
tention of the Learned Judge to the following lines, and
which defendant had sworn was his authority for drawing
the cheque, and for non• payment of which he sought to make
the firm of Coutts and Co., bankrupts :
" Send to Coutts's your bill,
There are lots in the till,
I'll give the clerks orders to do it ;
Then get your discharge,
Your dear body enlarge,
And in Stratton-street do let me view it. -
And, by the by, love, my affection to prove,
For your long cruel incarceration,
Tell a good round sum,
As I've plenty of tin
To make you a fair compensation.—A.B.C."
He (Mr. Bodkin) would put it to the Judge, whether any
sane man would pretend to rely upon such a poetical effuii,,o
as the production of a lad
3"
100,0001. ? , and as authorising him to draw

The Learned JUDGE said there were many statements in
the affidavit quite beside the question, but he thought it
would be more satisfactory to all parties to allow the writ of
certiorari to issue, and to increase the bail.
The defendant was then ordered to find bail, himself in
2001., and two sureties of 601. each, to take his trial on the
charge of perjury at the Court of Queen's Bench.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 30.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at the Guildhall, London.)
There were two special jury cases for trial on the paper
this morning, but they were disposed of, without going to
trial, by being referred, with the consent of the parties, to
arbitration.
After disposing of an undefended case, the Court adjourned
till to-morrow, the parties to the common jury cases on the
paper, not being prepared to go on with them.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 29.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins,
at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice ERLE
and London Common Juries.)
BARRY V. POLEY.
The plaintiff was proprietor of the Journal of Commerce
and also of the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette; the de-
fendant, a provisional director in the scheme for a Chelms-
ford and Bury Railway. The action was brought for the
cost, &c., of advertisements, amounting to 1191. The de-
fendant had paid 931. into court. The question now to be
determined was whether the balance of 26/., or any of it,
or if any, how much of it was due? The defendant had
been registered on the Ist of February, 1845, as a promoter,
and subsequently, on the 6th of March, as a provisional di-
rector. In October his name was registered as that of one
who had withdrawn from the projected company on the 31st
of August. Part of the advertisements had been inserted in
November, the cost whereof amounted to 71. ; 4/. were
charged for advertisements sent out on the 7th, and inserted
in the newspapers on the Bth of February, 1845, the day on
which defendant was first registered. There was a question
if the defendant was liable, seeing he had not been regis-
tered until after the order for these advertisements was given,
and Mr. Justice Erle left it to the jury to say whether he
(the defendant) was or was not liable, or, in other words,
whether he was not engaged in carrying out the concern as
well on the 7th as on the Bth. This made one question for
the jury; and another was, whether defendant was liable for
the advertisements which appeared after his registration, and
previous to his actual withdrawal of his name. The cost
of these was 15/. The third was with respect to his liability
for the 71.

The jury found that the defendant was liable for the 4,
and for the 151., but not for the 71.
Verdict for plaintiff accordingly—Damages 191.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 30.
(Sittings at Nisi hills in London, before the LORD CHIEF
BARON and Common Juries.)
DAY V DAY,
Mr. Humphery appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bovill
for the defendant.

This was an action brought to recover a sum of about
7,0001.. as for money lent and on account stated.
The defendant pleaded that he was never indebted ; and
that as to 2,500/. of the amount, the ground of action, oc-
curred more than six years ago. The replication put these
pleas in issue. It appeared that the parties in this case were
brothers, and that the plaintiff had, on several occasions, as-
sisted the defendant. On the 25th February of the present
year, the brothers met, and then settled the account exist-
ing between them, upon which settlement the present action
was brought.
Mr. BOVILL submitted, on behalf of the defendant, that
the settlement produced was not of a nature to support the
declaration.
Ultimately a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, with
damages, 6,8501., several points of law being reserved by his
Lordship for the consideration of the full Court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
A poor young man, whose case excited much corn-
misseration, was brought before Alderman Musgrove,
charged with having stolen a piece of gingerbread.
A confectioner stated that the prisoner, who appeared
to be greatly distressed, walked into the shop, took up
the piece of gingerbread as if he was desirous of being
seen, and willingly resigned himself to the custody of an
officer.
Alderman MusoaovE expressed regret at seeing a
Young: man, who had the appearance of respectability,
compelled to resort to such a mode of showing his
distress.
The prisoner, with tears in his eyes, said he for the
first time since the day of his birth took possession of
what was not his own. He had been in a linendrapers'
house in the country for a considerable time, and had
the respect of his employer, until he had the misfortune
to be left a legacy of 1091., a sum which completely
turned his brain, and made him an idle vagabond. Until
the money was spent he never thought of attending to
any business, and his place being supplied by a more
attentive person, he wandered about in quest of some
employment, but failed in every application.
Alderman MusueovE —Then the legacy was your
ruin? The prisoner—No doubt of it. I never had a
day's luck since I got the money. If I had never seen
it I should now be comfortable and respectable, instead
of pretending to be dishonest in order to save myself
from starvation.
Alderman MuscaoyE.—Why did you not apply to
the union ? The prisoner—l did apply there, and I
was advised to hang about the parish, and do something
which might cause me to be taken before the Lord
Mayor, who would be induced probably to intefere for
me. I then took the gingerbread, and it was the first
off'nce I ever committed, except the foolish extravagance
with which I spent the money, which ought to have been
kept for respectable purposes.
Alderman MUSGROVE said the case of the unfortuate
young man was by no means an uncommon one, and it
would certainly have been fortunate for him if he had
never seen a shilling of the legacy. The prisoner—
Until I got it into my possession, I had no care and no
vice, and I can refer for character to many most respect-
able persons, who have known me long and intimately.
Alderman Musc ROVE directed that the officers of
the Cannon street Union should provide for the prisoner,
and send him home in a few days.
IVORSHIP-STREET.
Sera:roma ATTEMPT TO PoLSON A FA3,fiex.—A young
fellow, named Thomas Crawford,
was re-examined before
Mr. Broughton, the magistrate, charged on suspicion of hav-
ing intended to poison the family of his late master, Mr.
Unthank, a tradesman to whom he was apprenticed, in Old-
street-road.
The prisoner, a sullen and determined-looking lad, was
some time since given into custody for stealing half-a-crowu
f from his master; but while he was locked u in the station-
house a fellow-prisoner was taken ill, and in the confusion
that arose he contrived to etTect his escape. On the Satur-
day night after he found means to enter his master's house
clandestinely, and was by mere accident discovered concealed
under tee bed of his roaster's son, with an axe in his hand.
He was then again givnn in charge to the police, and his
indentures being cancelled at the Court, he was committed
for trial for the original felony of stealing
the half-crown.
The grand jury, however, ignored the bill,
and he was libe-
rated. Last Saturday fortnight his late master, Mr. Unthank,
was alarmed by a noise in the back premises, and a police-
man being called in, the prisoner was found upon' the leads of
an outhouse over the water-butt, and the constable, seeing
bun fumbling at his trousers pocket, and shifting something
from it to his coat pocket, took from him a paper Containing
a powder, which a chemist pronounced to be sugar of lead, in
sufficient quantity to destroy half a dozen persons.
The prisoner asserted that he had found the stuff in Pit-
field-street, Hoxton, and he did not know what it was.
Peter Unthank, the complainant's son,
under whose bed the prisoner had been aged eleven ears,
found concealed, now
deposed that the prisoner, while in his father's service, showed
him one day some stuft; which he told him was sugar of lead,
and pointed out to him how much of it would be enough to
y
poison a person.
Mr. Sadler, a practical chemist in Norton Folgate, said he
had examined the contents of the paper found upon the pri-
soner. There was about an ounce of sugar of lead, which ap-
peared to him to have been kept a considerable time, and if
put into a cistern with even twenty-five gallons of water,
would seriously affect those who partook of it.
Mr. Unthank, the complainant, said his firm belief was,
that the prisoner had intended to miz it with the water t 9 be •