The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, Dec. 11.
(Before the VICE CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
STENVART V. FORBES.

This was a petition by the plaintiff for a variation of
the terms of the decree which his Honour had pronounced
in this case, and which stated that the parties had agreed
to waive an issue, and to submit the point in dispute to
his Honour's judgment ; whereupon his Honour dis-
missed the bill with costs. When the plaintiff appealed
from the decree the Lord Chancellor remarked that he
could not hear the parties upon the question whether an
issue ought to have been directed, while it appeared on
the face of the decree that the issue had been waived by
consent. But his Lordship gave leave to the plaintiff to
apply to his Honour to have the words "by consent"
struck out of the decree. This petition was now pre-
sented for that purpose.

Mr. James Parker and Mr. Smith supported the peti-
tion, which was opposed by Mr. Bethel!, Mr. Lewis,
and Mr. Schomberg.
__

His HONOUR said—lf ever a decree had been pro-
nounced deliberately, it had been this decree. He had
prepared this judgment on the memorable 10% of April,
and had handed his written judgment to the registrar.
The parties themselves had requested him to do what he
had done, and it would have been unfair to them if he
had afterwards directed an issue; nor was any objection
made to the decree at the time. And, besides, this was
not a case of mere clerical error, and he had no power to
alter a clause in such a manner upon petition. The peti-
tion must be refused, with costs.

(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. INVILLE.
In this case the information was filed, praying
(amongst other things) for the appointment of new trus-
tees. By the Act the 10th of Geo. 111., for dividing
certain common and waste lands in the parish of St.
Mary, Newington, the waste, called Lorimon Common,
as freed from rights of common, was vested in the Dean
and Chapter of Canterbury, who were lords of the
manor, and the waste, called Walworth Common, asfreed
also from right of common, was vested in the rector and
churchwardens of the parish for the time being, the te-
nant of the manor for the time being, and twelve persons
therein named as trustees ; by the second section of the
Act it was enacted that no one should be a trustee ex-
cept the rector and tenant respectively of the manor for
the time being, unless he should reside within the
parish ; and by the third section it was enacted that on
the death or removal of any trustees, the vestry
should elect' new trustees in their room, in the manner
pointed out by the Act. Since the 10th of George lIL
several Acts had been passed in reference to this pro-
perty; but the main question which came before the
Court on the present occasion was as to the person in
whom the legal estate was now vested. By the original
Act, one-tenth of the rents of the property were directed
to be paid to the rector for the time being, and the re-
maining nine-tenths to the churchwardens and overseers
of the poor, to be applied by them for and towards the
poor of the parish.
His HONOUR said that in the present stage of the suit
he should decide nothing with respect to the question
relative to the legal estate. His Honour then directed
a reference to the Master, to inquire who were the re-
maining trustees under the Act of George 111., and
various other inquiries respecting the appointment of
new trustees, and the parties in whom it would be for the
benefit of the charity that for the future the legal estate
should be vested.

Sir Francis Simpkinson and Mr. Toulmin appeared
for the relators; Mr. Russell, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Malins,
Mr. Wilcock, Mr. Raundell Palmer, Mr. W. M. James,
Mr. Collier, Mr. J. H. Palmer, Mr. Phillips, and Mr.
Welford appeared for the different defendants.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 11.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the LORD CHIEF BARON
and Common Juries.)
HODGE V. PONTIFEX AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a boiler-
maker, against the defendants, braziers and dealers In
copper and lead, to recover 42/. 10s. for a boiler sltp-
plied to their order. The defence was, that the boil,r,
was useless, •in consequence of its leaking, and that it
was not adequate for the purposes for which it was con-
structed.

Evidence was given to show that when the boiler was
put up the engineer of the defendants approved of it,
and that it held water for some time after. From this
it was inferred that the defendants had unduly strained
the machine, and thus rendered it leaky and defective.
The jury found their verdict for the plaintiff, with
damages 421. 10s.
BROOKER AND ANOTHER V :JOHNS 'AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought to recover 40/., the amount
of a bill of exchange, drawn by S. and D. Marks, and
accepted by J. Johns and Co.
It appeared by the evidence that a person named Johns
who was accompanied by a Mr. Read, the other defendant
to the action, purchased goods from Messrs. S. and I).
Marks, to the amount of 401., and gave the bill in ques-
tion in payment. When the goods were purchased, Johns
introduced Read a ; his partner, and that person assisted
him in the selection of the articles. The invoice was
made out in the name of Johns, and the goods were for-
warded to his address. The defendants about the same
time visited various tradesmen, and purchased goods,
Johns stating in every case that Read, who was a moneyed
man, had joined him as his partner. When the bill be-
came due it was dishonoured; and the plaintiffs, the pre-
sent holders, now sought to recover the amount from
Johns and Read, under the impression that they were
partners. _ _

A number of witnesses, principally Jews, were exa-
mined to prove the connexion of the defendants as part-

ners.

For the defence it was contended that Read was never
a partner of Johns, and that the circumstance of his
having been present at the purchase of the goods did not
establish his liability as a partner.
The jury found their lerdict for the defendants.
DOULCOTT AND ANOTHZR V. CHALLIS AND ANOTHER.
The action was brought by the plaintiffs, judgment
creditors of a person nulled Trigg, a builder at Bays-
water, to recover from the defendants, the Sheriffs of
Middlesex in 1847, the sum of 1611. Bs. 10d. damages,
for having permitted Trigg to have escaped from their
custody.
The writ of fi. fa. was directed to Lawrence Levy,
Luekett, and Leornard, officers of the defendants, who
arrested Trigg in September, 1847, but permitted him to
escape after he had been in their custody a quarter of
an hour. The Sheriffs' officers paid two executions
which were against Trigg, but they declined to discharge
the plaintiffs' demands, oa the ground that they had re-
ceived directions not to act on the writ, and that the
plaintiffs could not have sustained any loss as Trigg was
insolvent when arrested.

The jury thought the defence was not established, and
returned a verdict for the plaintiff's, with damages 801.

LIVERPOOL WINTER ASSIZES.
LIVERPOOL, MONDAY.
Francis O'Donnell, 29, Joseph Cuddy, 32, Matthew
Somers, 23, Robert Hopper, 22, Edward Murphy, 20,
James O'Brien, 22, Martin Boshill, Peter Herbert Dela-
mere, George Smith, and James West, were charged
with conspiracy at Liverp)ol.
There were eleven counts in the indictment. The
first count charged the Prisoners with procuring and
sending arms to Ireland, to be used in the breach of
the peace, and in opposing the execution of the laws,
and for the purpose of insurrection and tumult. The
second count charged them with procuring arms with
intent to send them to Ireland. The third count, to aid
and assist conspiracy in Ireland generally. The fourth
count charged them with an intent to raise insurrec-
tion in England, and to arm and procure arms for them-
selves, and cause others to do so, for the purpose of ob-
structing the execution of the laws and the preservation
of the peace. The fifth count, to incite others to raise
insurrection in England, and to arm and procure arms
for the purpose of obstructing the laws. The sixth and
seventh counts were similar to some of the preceding,
with a few technical differences. The eighth count
charged the prisoners with inducing persons to form
clubs to create terror and disaffection. The ninth, to
form clubs to arm and create terror. The tenth, to
form illegal clubs; and the eleventh, to riot and levy

war.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Jervis), the At-
orney-General for the county palatine (Mr. Knowles,
Q C.), Mr. Welsby (specially retained), Mr. Crompton,
and Mr. Pagett appeared for the Crown. Mr.. Pollock
and Mr. Simon defended O'Donnell, Cuddy, Somers
Hopper, and Murphy. Mr. Tindal Atkinson defended
O'Brien; Mr. James, Boshill; Mr. Seger, Delamere ;
and Mr. Dearaley and Mr. Aspinall, Smyth.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case. He drew
attention to the standing in society of the prisoners, and
proceeded to say that it would be proved that the pri-
soners had organised themselves to set fire to Liverpool
if the Government would not grant the demands of the
Irish. Mr. Meagher, now convicted of high treason,
came over from Ireland to Liverpool and,meetings were
held and clubs formed for the purpose of assisting
the Irish to obtain the Repeal of the Union. He then
referred to the first meeting of the repealers in Liverpool,
in Deeemberlast, when the prisoners were present. He
then road the minutes of that and subsequent meetings from
the minute book, of which the authorities had obtained
posesssion. It appeared that M'Manus was continually
writing to the disaifected in Ireland, reporting the pro-
gress of the organisation in Liverpool. The Learned
Gentleman continued at length to read from the minutes
of the different meetings, which disclosed the arrange-
ments made for procuring arms, and the appointment of
different sub-committees to cause their sale and distribu-
tion among the people. No one could read these minutes
without being struck with what was intended, and that
the Constitution itself was in danger. He then said he
would read from the speeches of the prisoners, one of
which, delivered by Somers, was the most outrageous
he had ever yet had to bring before a court of justice.
Amongst other topics, the speaker asked his audience
if they were resisted in Liverpool, and a massacre took
place, what would they do? The answer was " Mos-
cow!" The Learned Gentleman, in continuation from
the speech of Somers, referred to the observations he
made towards its close, in which he stated that he was
reminded of Warsaw in flames, and that if the
Government did not grant their demands the sky
would be reddened with this Babylon (Liverpool) on
fire. He then cited extracts from speeches delivered by
Dr. Reynolds, who publicly advised the people to get
pikes and guns. He also read from speeches of the
other prisoners at different meetings, in •which the con-
viction of John Mitchel was alluded to in the most vin-
lent terms, and the people requested to arm for his
rescue. In one of the speeches the speaker observed,
amongst other things, that Lord John Russell had made
a fool of an apostate, the Attorney-General, and that it
would give him great pleasure to see Lord John Russell's
head on the top of a pike. The speaker then stated the
price at which pikes could be had. The Learned Gen.
tleman then referred to the arrest of several of the pri-
soners, and to the pikes and arms found in their pos-
session.

A number of police having deposed to taking the pri-

soners, and to finding arms, minute books, and papers in
their possession,
Ralph Harvey Thompson said that he was formerly a
clerk of Mr. Terence Bellew M'Manus. Was so up to
the time of his leaving Liverpool. It was on a Monday
night, about the end of July. In p4ge 16 of the book
he saw M'Manus's handwriting. The same handwriting
was also in pages 35, 49, and 92. Knew the prisoner
Murphy. Ho was intimate with M'Manus. They had
lodged together. Page 41 in the book was in Murphy's
handwriting; also pages 45 and 57, and the signatures
in 93, 106, and 119. Knew the prisoner Delamere. He
was in the employ of Tayleure and Copley, coal mer-
chants. He had before that been in the employ of Mr.
M'Manus. Pages 62 and 85 in the book were in his
handwriting. Delamere was in tke habit of calling on
M'Manus. Dr. Murphy. Dr. Reynolds, and Smyth were
also in the habit of calling.
Mr. DEARSLEY—Did not Smyth speak in condemna-
nation of M'Manus's physical force notions?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the question.
Thomas Staines knew Dr. Reynolds, and identified
Dr. Reynolds's hand writing in the minute books. He
also identified the handwriting in the books of tho pri-
soner, Dr. O'Donnell.

Thomas Fell, a draper, in Liverpool, identified some
of the handwriting in the books as that of Patrick
O'Hanlon. Was acquainted with George Smyth. Saw
his signature in pages 38, 65, and 83. A file of letters
was here handed to the witness, two of which he iden•
tified as the prisoner's handwriting.
Thomas Holley was in the employ of Turner and
Kilpin, joiners, in Liverpool. O'Brien was also in their
employ. The witness swore to his handwriting in the
minute book.

Mr. Knowles then proceeded to read in detail from the
minute books found in the possession of the prisoners,
and which had been referred to by the Attorney-General
in his opening address. Amongst the proceedings re-
corded was a protest against the Irish Crime Prevention
Act, and a speech against it by M•Manus and some of
the prisoners. Minutes of subsequent meetings de-
clared war to the Morning Chronicle, Times, Post, and
the press generally.
The minute disclosed a most voluminous account of
the organisation effected, their general correspondence,
and the continued formation of the clubs, and the pro-
gress made in arming. Amongst the correspondence
which the reading of the minutes disclosed was that which
had taken place between the various clubs in Liverpool
and the Confederates in Dublin, and the suggestions
made for a general organisation on the arrest of Martin,
Duffy, and the other Irish prisoners. Several of the
speakers declared that the covenant between the people
and the Government was broken, and that we were with-
out a constitution.

The letters found in the possession of the prisoners
were then read by the Learned Gentleman. One of thern
recommended that addresses should be sent to the people
of France from all the large towns in England for their
encouragement, and in order to attract the attention of
Ministers.

Charles Aldred, who called himself a newspaper re-
porter, read notes of the speeches alluded to by the Attor-
ney-General.
Robert Roche, reporter, was present at a meeting in
Queen's-square on the 26th of March. Mr. Doheny was
one of the speakers.
The evidence of this witness was proceeding when our
report was dispatched.
There were 51 witnesses on behalf of the Crown.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION HOUSE.
Benjamin Masters, Mary, who lived with him as his
wife, and John Thomas, were brought before the Lord
Mayor, in the custody of Davis, a city policeman,
charged with having committed frauds. The two first
prisoners were well known as expert hands, and the de-
scription of their system, which it will be necessary for
trades-people to observe, as the process was stated to be
extremely successful, caused a good deal of interest
amongst the policemongers i❑ attendance.
Davis said—On Sunday evening I say the three priso-
ners in Leadenhall, and knowing them to be bad cha-
racters I watched them. Thnjamin Masters left the
other two, and went into the shop of a tobacconist, where
I was afterwards told he bought a pennyworth of to-
bacco, and paid for it with half a sovereign, and upon
receiving the change pretended to recko❑ it, con-
cealed a shilling, and then told the shopman
that another shilling was wanting. As the custo-
mer persisted in his statement, and the shopman
thought it possible that he might have made a mistake,
the shilling was handed over. Benjamin Masters then
left the shop, joined his two companions, and off they
walked into Gracecharch-street, where in an instant
they disappeared. On Saturday evening I saw the three
again in Leadenhall-street, and followed them. Masters
and the woman went into the Mansion-house public..
house, and called for two pennyworth of gin, paid for it
with half-a-sovereign, and received 9s. 10d. in change.
The man suddenly slipped one of the shillings into his
mouth, began to reckon up the change, and said to the
barmaid, "Hallos, this is not right; I must have another
shilling." The barmaid was about to give him the other
shilling, but was informed by the street-keeper, whom I
had told to keep an eye upon the pair, that the man had
received 9s. 10d. from her. I then took the man and
woman into custody; and the third prisoner, who was
outside smoking a pipe, came in afterwards to see what
delayed his friends, and was also apprehended. Other
witnesses confirmed this account.
Benjamin Masters said, that the first charge was al-
together without foundation, and thought the Lord
Mayor would not suppose the tobacconist to be such a
flat as not to know the difference between 9s. 10d. and
Bs. 104., especially as a shilling would make a large hole
in the profit in twopence worth of tobacco.—(Laughter.)
As for the last case, he merely put the shilling in his
mouth to see whether it was a good one, and was only
joking when he spoke of a deficiency in the change.
The policeman produced a basket which he had taken
from the woman, and which contained sundry small
articles, each of which must have cost about 2d. or 3d.,
and the presumption was that 10s. or 12s. were plun-
dered from tradespeople in the mere business of supply-
ing the basket.
Davis said that the prisoners had scoured the metro•
polis with wonderful success, and lived in very nice
style upon the profits of their industry. It appeared
that they kept a book containing a list of the shops they
had visited.
The LORD MAYOR said he felt much satisfaction in
seeing before him persons who had been checked in such
a career, and sentenced Benjamin Masters to imprison-
ment in Bridewell, as a rogue and vagabond for three
months, the woman for six weeks, and John Thomas for
one month.
Masters—Well, I hope your Lordship will order that
all the money the officers took from me may be restored
to me.
The LORD MAYOR—Not at all. It shall be entered
open the back of your commitment, to be applied to de-
fray the charge of your support in prison.
Mrs. Masters—l hope your Lordship will let me have
my basket and the property in it.
The LORD MAYOR—No. They shall be disposed of
for your support in prison.
Upon going down stairs to be locked up in the cage
until the termination of the day's business, the woman
said to her two companions, in the presence of the police-
man, " Well, I told you not to come into this City.
I knew we'd catch it." A little afterwards they all ac-
knowledged that they had done wonders at the west end
of the town, and that near Chelsea there had been nine
distindt charges, each one of which was true, against
them, but the fool of an inspector refused to notice any
one of them, and, in the opinion of the female, that was
a neighbourhood which they ought not to have left for
the City. They all admitted that they had been
in fifty prisons, but thena was no law to reach them.
GUILDHALL.

Mr. Benjamin Andrade, butcher, of the College-
market, appeared on a summons before Alderman Hum-
phery, to show cause why he detained 6 stone weight
and 21bs of beef, the property of complainant.
Mr. George Bentley, of Henrietta-street, Manchester-
square, stated that on Saturday morning he went to the
College-market, and purchased three ;pieces of ribs of
beef, at sd. per lb., which weighed 6st. 2lbs. He paid
Mr. Andrade the sum of 1/. Os. 10d., and left the meat
for a short time. On his return he was about to take it
away, when he was prevented by the defendant and his
man, who said that he had agreed to take four bits,
the other being a part of the loin weighing 231b5., and on
his refusing on the ground that he never purchased it, he
was told that unless he did take it he should neither have
the meat nor his money. Under those circumstances he
took out the present summons.
The defence set up by Mr. Andrade was, that he sold
the four pieces to the complainant, and told his man to
weigh them, but the latter made a mistake by only
weighing three, and when the weight was called out he
did not notice the difference, in consequence of being
engaged with another person at the back of the pre-
mises. However, shortly after, he asked his man why
he had not weighed the fourth piece, as it was pur-
chased, and on being told it was a mistake, and being
likewise informed that his man had been tampered with
by the complainant, who offered to give him half a pint
of beer to throw a pound weight out of the scale, he
(defendant) was determined to keep Mr. Bentley to the
strict letter of his bargain, particularly as he left the
least valuable piece of meat behind him. He, therefore,
ordered that the meat should not be delivered up, unless
the fourth piece was taken, according to agreement.
The defendant then called his man, who spoke to its
weight, and also swore that the complainant offered to
give him a penny to throw out the pound weight.
Alderman IlumPHEar —Did it not strike you, that if
he intended cheating you, he would have immediately
taken the three pieces away after paying you, instead
of leaving them there and calling again?—Well, I did
not think of that. It did not strike me in that way.
Alderman HUMPHERY—You must return the money
and pay the costs.
The defendant paid the amount directly.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Charles Roland, a Swiss, who fills the office of clerk
at the Swiss „Protestant Church in Moore street, was
charged with a criminal assault on Frances Keast, a girl
about thirteen years of age, but of the appearance of a
child of ten years old.
The girl's mother, it appeared, had been separated
from her husband for some years. The prisoner visited
the mother for the last three or four years, and had been
accustomed to sleep in the same bed with the mother
and the girl. About three years ago, the prisoner com-
menced indecently assaulting the girl. The girl told her
mother on several occasions, but was either scolded or
beaten by her. The prisoner continued from time to
time his shameful conduct, accompanied by circum-
stances of disgusting atrocity wholly unfit for publica-
tion. From the evidence of the girl the prisoner had
more than once committed a capital offence. The girl
at last met with her father, and she told him of the pri-
soner's conduct and her mother's neglect. The prisoner
was, accordingly, apprehended as soon as he could be
met with.
In defence, the prisoner said he had been a father to