The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQCER, June 1,
ZRYANT v. AA.RDELL AND ()THEM.
was an action in trover, to recover the sum of
701.. for the illegal conversion of property which had
been hired to the defendants for twelve months.

Mr. Crowder and Mr. Pigott appeared for the plain-
tiff : and Mr. Humfrey, with Mr. Gray; conducted the
vase for the defendant Dormer; and Mr. Ogle represented
other two defendants, Wardell and Lewis.

it appeared that, at the latter end of 1845, the three
defendants having entered into an agreement to take
the English dwarf " Torn Thumb," for the purpose of
exhibiting him, also made an agreement with the plain-
tiff to take the stage which was then in use at the
Suffolk-street Gallery, and certain dresses and decora-
tions which had been made for the English dwarf,
whose real name was, as we understood, Garside.
The, defendant Wardell is the well-known
_lessee of
Vauxhall-gardens ; the second defendant, Dormer,
keeps Dolly's Chophouse, sear to St. Mary's Church,
in the Strand; and the third defendant is connected
with the " Royal property." Shortly after the agreement
was entered into, by which the plaintiff was to receive a
certain proportion of the profits of the exhibition (if any
of course), its locale was changed to the Egyptian-hall.
To that place thelstage and all the properties were there-
fore removed, bnt as the room wherein the " great"
little man was to display his qualifications as well as
his smallness of stature chanced to be somewhat larger
than that at the Suffolk-street Gallery, it was found
necessary to increase its size, and additional decora-
tions were also discovered to be requisite. These
latter wcre all provided, and towards their provision
it was proved that the defendant Dormer had con-
tributed. Whilst the exhibition was carried on at
the Egyptian-hall, it was also proved that the
other two defendants, Wardell and Lewis had acted
as the managers. After a due quantum of time had
been accorded for the metropolitan public to gladden
their eyes by a gaze at the " little wonder," in this, as
in the case of most other natural and unnatural pro-
ductions, a provincial tour was commenced. Oxford,
Taunton, Bridgewater, and Bristol, were the places
selected for visitation, but after they had been at the
last-named city a short time it was found that the affair
was not attractive, and as the " means" ran short, the
parents of the dwarf carried him off, whilst the person
who had been the exhibitor was obliged to quit; but
adopting this step, the properties were retained for ar-
rears of rent. During one part of the time the plaintiff
acted as check-taker, for which he was to be paid an ad-
ditional 31. per week. As has been stated the present
action was instituted for damages arising from the al-
leged conversion of the stage and properties by the de-
fendants, in violation of their contract to return them at
the expiration of twelve months.
The jury, after an absence of an hoar and a quarter,
returned with a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 101.,
against all the defendants, for the conversion of the
stage.

The Foreman of the jury then addressing the Learned
Baron, said that the jury had not been paid for two trials
upon which they had sat on Tuesday, in ;consequence of
the attorneys in those cases not having paid the cus-
tomary fees.
Mr. Baron PARKE said, if that were so, the proper
plan to be adopted would be for the jury to find out who
the attorneys were, and to make them public.
The Juryman rejoined, that the cases, were (as was
understood) " Cook v. Willis," in which the attorney
was Mr. Eyre, of Grecian-chambers, and the other was
" Sayer v. Glossop," wherein the name of the attorney
was Mr. Warneford, of Symond's Inn.
Mr. Baron PARKE then said, it was quite right that it
should be made public that these parties had not paid
the fees, of the court.

SHERIFFS' COURT, June I.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCIELL.)
WOOLF V. BURTON AND WIFE.

This was an action to recover the sun of 51. 4s. for
board and lodging of defendant's wife. Plaintiff was a
housekeeper in Arundel-street, Strand ; and defendant
is a solicitor at Manchester. The material plea was that
the plaintiff kept a house of ill-fame, and that defendant's
wife was living in the house for immoral purposes, and
that the board and lodging was afforded to her to assist
her in such purposes.
Mr. PARRY, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that
he could not conceive how the defendant could have ven-
tured to put such a plea on the record, as defendant had
frequently visited Mrs. Burton, then Miss Durant, and
married her from the house.
Mrs. Rebecca Menzies was called, and said she had
been housekeeper at the house, 28, Arundel-street.
Knew defendant's wife; she lodged at the house from
June to October last year. Defendant was in the fre-
quent habit of visiting Miss Durant during that time,
and they were married in October last. Defendant slept
at the house the night before the marriage, and on
leaving the next day gave an I 0 U for 51. 4s.
Cross-examined—Let the apartments to Mrs. Burton.
Did not agree that she was to be allowed to see
gentlemen. Miss Durant did not ask. When she
toek the apartments she said she was about
being married to a Mr. Burton, at Manchester,
and he called the next week. Gentlemen certainly
visited her. She said said she had been playing at the
Deptford Theatre in the Stranger, and it was most
likely she would have several friends to visit her.
Other professional ladies lived in the house. Could not
say the gentlemen slept with her. She had a latch key,
and was out late at night. Mr. Burton slept there, but
Miss Durant always said he slept on the sofa. Never
knew any other gentlemen stay there. There were
two other ladies, and they also had latch
keys. They said they were not married ladies,
and that they had gentlemen to visit them. Witness
was now the keeper of the house. Would claim the
protection of the Court, whether she was bound to
answer if she lived with plaintiff as his wife.
i
The UNDER-SHERIFF said she was not bound to
answer.

Mr. THOHAR addressed the jury, and urged that the
plea was made out by the plaintiff's own witness.
A juror said he had made up his mind.
Mr. PARRY claimed the right of reply.
Mr. THOXAS then said he would call a witness to
prove payment by a friend of defendant, and also the
material plea.
The UNDER-SHERIFF suggested that a juror should
be withdrawn, but the plaintiff's attorney would not
consent.

Mr. Alfred Higgs was called to prove the payment.
but he said he only lent the money to last witness on the
10 U. Never paid anything on account of Miss Durant,
but had given her a trifle now and then- He returned
the 1 0 U, because he conid not bring an action on it,
and the money was still owipg to him. Did not offer to
support Miss Darant if she would not marry Burton.--
(Laughter.) Declined answering whether he had an
improper intimacy with Miss Durant.
Rachael Nathan was present when Harriet Matilda
Sloman (who passed by the name of Durant) took the
apartments. She gave Mrs. Menzies intimation for
what purpose she wanted apartments—to see gentlemen;
she had no other means of getting a living.
Cross-examined—Miss Durant told Mrs. Menzies she
would have " friends" to see her. She was not a
theatrical lady.
Harriet Witney, who resided in the house, proved that
Miss Durant frequently took home gentlemen. Mrs.
Menzies often let them in. They often talked with Mrs.
Menzies on the occurrences which took place. She fre-
quently met Miss Durant at the theatres and in the
street. Plaintiff charged 2I 10s. board and lodging.
Had distinct permission from Mrs. Menzies to see
" friends."

Mr. PARRY briefly replied.
The UNDER-SEERIYi summed up, and said the plea
of payment had failed, and if the last plea was made
out, neither the defendant nor his wife were at any time
liable.
The jury said they did not wish to re-hear the evi-
dence, and ga►e a verdict for the defendant.

---
POLICE IN
MANSION-HOUSE.
Abraham Simmonds, the owner of a public-house in
the neighbourhood of the Surrey Theatre, was brought
before the Lord Mayor, in the custody of John Forrester
upon the charge of being in possession of two Bank of
England notes, each for the sum of 1,0004, well knowing
that they had been stolen.
Mr. Mullens, of the firm of Bush and Mullens, solici-
tors to the Committee of Bankers for Protection against
Felonies and Frauds, appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Ballantine the counsel, and Mr. Child, of the firm of
Wire and Child, solicitors to the Society of Licensed
Victuallers, appeared for the prisoner.
As the last Epsom races were stated to have been in
some way'conneeted with the transaction which formed
the ground of the charge, the proceedings were listened
to with a more than ordinary degree of interest.
Before the witnesses were called in support of the
prosecution application was made upon the part of the
prisoner
to postpone the case, in order that he might meet
it with testimony which he pledged himself would satis-
factorily show that he was wholly blameless in the trans-
action; and the argument for postponement was at-
tempted to be strengthened by the assurance that the
idea of a prosecution was merely suggested by the an-
nouncement to the Bank, that an action had been brought
against that establishment for having refused to pay the
notes in question when presented.
Upon the part of the prosecution, it was urged that
before a postponement could take place some facts must
be stated to prove that the Lord Mayor was justified in
holding the prisoner. It was also represented, in answer
to the imputed cause of the prosecution, that instructions
had been given to prosecute before the threat of station
was heard of.
The LORD MAYOR said, it was due to the prisoner that
some evidence should be given, and
Mr. Mullens then stated, that the accusation arose out
of a robbery which had been committed in the year 1843
upon Mr. Blakemore. the Member of Parliament for
We
11s, , in an omnibus, and that two of the three 1,0004
bank notes which that gentleman had received in the
City, and of which he bad been soon afterwards plun-
dered, were found to be in the possession of the pri-
soner.
Mr. John Garwood, clerk in the house of Messrs.
John Masterman and Co., said, on the 3d of July,
1843, I paid three 1,0001. Bank of England notes to Mr: Blakemore. They were each marked and numbered
"E. P., 10,578, 10,578, 10480."
Mr. Mullens—The two notes are in the possession of
Mr. Simmoods. Will his solicitor produce them?
The prisoner's solicitor declined to produce the notes.
Mr. Richard Blakemore said, I reside at Lees, in
Herefordshire, near Monmouth, and am a Member of
Parliament, disengaged from any other pursuit. On the
3d of July, 1843, I received three Bank of lingdlapnudt
notes
for 1,000!. each at Masterman's Bank, and
into the right hand pocket of my trousers. I walked
then from Nicholas-lane along Cheapsida to St. Paul's,
and at the top of Ludgate-hill I got into an omnibus,
in which there were many other persons. At the corner
of Charles-street, Regent-street, I ,got dui-went