The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-17 00:00:00

LA VS • ELLIGE:CE
.1-;XCHIEQUEic, Jan. 15
(Sittings i Banco.)
EG,;RTON V. lIICKINIOTT.
,reogiar. to recover eompensa-
ti::n in damages for a maiiciou,, prosrcutio;i. The ease
was in the sittings after last Michaelmas Term,
before the Lord Chid Baron, when a verdict passed
for the de!'endant.
'i'kn plaintiff, it appeared, was an auctioneer re-
sitting at Stepney; the defendant was the landlord cf
certain prkanises which were let to a person of the
name of Edtnonds. The tenant, being desirous to
dispose of the premises, agreed with one Read to let
the same, on certain conditions contained in a memo-
randum of agreement drawn up between the parties.
differe.nce arose upon the construction of this
agmement, and upon the parties attempting to remove
the fixtures and goods from the premises, the de-
fendant gave the plaintiff and others in custody on a
charge of felony. The plaintiff was tried at the Old
Bailoy on a charge of conspiracy, but was acquitted.
.Ir. ilumranv now moved for a rule nisi to set
aside the verdict for the defendant, or for a new trial,
on th'. ground of misdirection of the Learned Baron,
be having left it to the jury to decide whether there
wa% any reasonable or probable cause for giving the
pariei into custody.
The COURT decided, upon the construction of the
agreement, that they could not disturb the verdict.
Rule refused.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Jan.
(Before Sir H. JENNEIt FusT.)
Several motions were disposed of to-day.
IN THE GOODS OF MARX B.ITEMAN.
In this case the testatrix was Mrs. Mary Bateman,
who died on the Ist of October last, leaving con-
siderable property, and among it nearly 10,0001. in-
vested in Pennsylvania bonds. The will, which was
by the Court's direction ordered to be propounded (a
mere motion, for probate having been previously
made); was all in the handwriting of the deceased,
the legacies left in it were very numerous; attesta-
tion in defect was, that the paper was not signed in
due form as required by law. Civilians on the one
side urged the Learned Judge that where the inten-
tions of the deceased were so clearly defined the law
should not hold tight to the letter, as by so doing
injustice might be done to legatees, and the real in-
tention of the testator defeated. Contra, it was con-
tended that the Court had no course to pursue but, in
a case like this, to carry out the law.
Sir H. J. DUST, after stating the ordinary circum-
stances of the case, said there could not be any doubt
but that the paper before the Court was in the hand-
writing of the deceased. It contained a vast number
of legacies ; it occupied three sheets, and was most
carefully written. There was no signature of the
deceased on the third side, but there was on the fourth,
about half way down. The attestation clause was
very carefully drawn, The question the Court had
to decide, was such an execution as this valid under
the 9.11 F,ection of the Act, which required that the
signature of the party making a will should "be at
the foot and end thereof," either by himself or her-
self, or by some party at his or her request. If the
Court would follow its own dictates, it would no doubt
come to a conclusion in favour of the paper, as there
was evidently no disposition of violating the law.
Were the circumstances of this sufficient to allow the
Court to pronounce for it ? The Court could not
allow parties to put their own construction on the
taw. The deceased had not complied with the statute,
although she intended to do so. The cases of "Ayres
v. Ayres," and " Willis v. Lowe," referred to by
Civilians, could not be allowed to bear upon this. The
Court was bound upon principle to reject the allega-
Con, but it expressed a hope that the opinion of the
Superior Court should be taken upon the question.
The will was not signed by the deceased at the end
and foot thereof, and the Court must reject the Pile-
gation.

SOUTHWARK COUNTY COURT, Jan. 15
(Before C. NEALE, Esq., Judge.)
THE WATERMEN'S COMPANY V. WHITE.
This was an action brought on behalf of the Water-
men's Company against the defendant, a licensed
waterman, to recover the sum of 1/., due by the de-
fendant to the company. The case created much In-
terest amongst the above-bridge watermen and
occupiers of Sunday ferries.
Me. Banyon, the clerk of the company, stated that
under the 43d section of the 7th and Bth of George
IV. (the 7.atermen's Act), the company were
authorised to form and let Sunday ferries on the
river between Chelsea Reach and Bow Creek and the
river Lea. These ferries were let from time to time,
by tender, for one year, and the whole of the pro-
ceeds arising from them were devoted to the relief
of aged, infirm, and decayed members of the com-
pany, and in the year 1830 the proceeds arising
f:om these ferries amounted annually to 1,120/. ;
but since the introduction of the numberless steam-
boats on the river, they did not yield more at the
present time than 3001. per annum. In the year 1841,
the defendant, in conjunction with one James %Var•
wood, sent in a tender to the company for the renting
of two ferries, one from the Surrey Canal to King
James's Stairs, and the other from Shadwell Dock to
King and Queen Stairs, at a rent of 61, from the sth
of April, 1841, to the sth of April, 1842. The tender
was accepted, and the defendant and Warwoo,' at-
tended, and pail the amount of deposit (31.) in lieu of
security, and entered into possession of the ferries,
and continued to do so, the ferries being worked by
six persons, each of whom received a warrant from
the company, but the defendant and Warwood only
being the tenants of the company. Warwood, in
addition to the 31., paid 21., leaving 1/., since which
both had been lost sight of until lately.
Mr. llill, one of the Court of Assistants of the
company, stated that the object of the company in
pressing the present claim was to protect their aged
poor. It was a common occurrence for owners of
ferries to refuse paying for the latter portion of
their terms in the ferries, and the company had
determined, on behalf of their poor, to sue every de-
faulter. The defendant was well able to pay, and
ought to be compelled.
Tne defendant denied renting the ferry. War-
woo 1 was the only tenant, he (the defendant) work-
ing under him. He never signed any tender, or
authorised any one to do so. The name attached to
the tender was not in his handwriting, and he had
never attended at Watermen's Hall to complete the
tender. Had he been indebted to the company, they
would have claimed the amount when he paid his
quarterly dues on binding his apprentices.
‘Va.rwood, on being called, deposed that the de-
fend.lnt authorised him to sign the tender, and held
the ferry jointly with him.
Tile JUDGE said he should give judgement for the
full !,rnount and costs.
Judgment for the company entered accordingly.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
On Saturday, John Jacobs, who was brought before
the i.ord Mayor some days ago, charged with having
fraudulently obtained clothes, value 8/. 195., from Mr.
Moses Judd, under rather peculiar circumstances,
was brought up for final examination. The justice
room was crowded with members of the Jewish re-

ligion.
Mr. Buchanan appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Mellor for the prisoner, who has, up to the
pre.ieht accusation, borne a very respectable cha-
racter.
David Hart said—Between 10 and 12 o'clock on
the morning of the 7th of December, 1. saw the de-
fendant and my employer together on Mr. Juda's
prewises, and an agreement was made for the de-
fendant to have some goods on sale or return. Mr.
Juda gave the defendant the goods, and the latter
took ail oath in the llebrew language that he would
return the money or the goods on the following Mon-
day, ~,nd took them away. In about ten minutes the
defendant returned to the shop, from which Mr. Juda
was then absent, and asked me to go up stairs into
the o areroom, and when I went up he said to me,
4, I have seen your employer, and I am to have two
more coats, three more waistcoats, and three pairs of
trousers," in consequence of which, and supposing he
bad come from youdr. etonptl,orytehra,tlhelehtadhiotbntahianveed tthhee-
articles. I did not
pernaihsissiconvfor some days afterwards.
Mr. Mellor—The defendant
mey for a considerable time, and
hgrisCo drbstemewsn-ietkxhnoa
otni%itNi, nn e dt
had goods from °the hnolusesoludpgoonodssaleforornsreotunrene
several times. lie
dhaiB(
in the country, an he came back with the
'loteny
money I settled the account off the
the defendant's address. on the first slate.o c a silo knew
the 7th of December, he wanted moreg
had from Mr. Juda, but he was refused,asntdhan
whathe
he then had was the largest amount h
v, e don he ever had.nt
'When we give out goods on sale or return,
enter the account in a book, only, on slate, but
r
e g e
what I receive cash fur I enter in a-book. N
them a ticket with a number on it with the articlel
vv e
give out. I wrote to the defendant, informing him
that if he did not pay
the amount , or return all the
goAi he had got from Mr. Juda and from me, he
should be apprehended. I would not, I assure you,
trust my own brother without the permission of my
employer.
Moses Juda, confirmed the statement msde by his
foreman in its essential parts, and said none Of the
articles delivered by Hart formed part of those I let
.him have. I did not authorise the prisoner to go to
my foreman to get these goods, and I knew nothing
about it for five or six days, I went to Manchester
and gave the prisoner in charge for this offence.
The witness 'a cross-examination rather confirmed
than invalidated his statement, and he concluded by
saying' the defendant's wife came to me, and asked
me to forward to the defendant an invoice to Co-
ventry ; but I said, no ; I should certainly refuse to
give any invoice for them.
Michael Deady, City policeman, said I took the