The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, Auguet 6.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
EASTON V. HEDGES.

The UNDER-SHERIFF said that he could not tell which
way they had decided, but it was right to say that the
plaintiff's counsel had the right of reply.
The jury said they were in favour of the defendant.
The plaintiff's COUNSEL contended that the goods had been
delivered at the usual place, and to men who had been in the
service of defendant; and that the plaintiff was not respon-
sible for the fr •uds of the servants of other persons.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said the fair and real question was—
if Peake was in the service of the defendant, and plaintiff
had been in the habit of supplying him as usual, without
having had notice not to do so, then would he be entitled to
a verdict; but if he had notice, of course he would not.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, SERGEANTS' INN,
August 5.
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
COMMITTAL GI, MR. RICHARD DUNN, TDB BARRISTER, TO
NENVGATE.
_ _ _

Mr. Richard Dunn, the barrister, was brought up in the
custody of Inspector Shackell, and Sergeants Langley and
Shaw, of the detective police, before the Lord Chief Baron at
chambers, on a warrant which had had been issued by Mr.
Justice Patteson.
It will be recollected that in the course of the session held
at the Central Criminal Court in June last, Miss Burdett
Coutts and some of the other partners of the banking-house
of Coutts and Co. preferred a bill befure the grand jury
against Mr. Richard Dunn, for wilful and corrupt perjury,
the defendant having gone and attempted to sue out a
fiat of bankruptcy before Mr. Commissioner llolroyd
against Miss Burdett Coutts, alleging that she had given
him the authority to draw on the banking-house for
100,000/., and that she had committed an act of bankruptcy.
After a true bill had been found, an application was
made to Mr. Justice Patteson for a warrant for the appre-
hension of the defendant, which was granted; five days after
the defendant applied for a writ of certiorari, to remove
the indictment from the Central Criminal Court to the
Queen's Bench, which was ultimately granted, the de-
fendant being directed to enter into his own recognisance
of 200/. and two housekeepers in 601. each. Some weeks,
however, elapsing, and Mr. R. Dunn not complying with
the terms, the warrant was given to Inspector Shackell to
execute, and on Tuesday evening Shackell, with the aid of
Langley and Shaw, succeeding in taking the defendant into
custody, at his residence, in New-street, Covent-garden. At
first the learned gentleman exhibited a great deal of re-
sistance, threatening to blow the officers' brains out, but
after a little while he became more quiet, and walked with
them to the Bow-street station of police, where he was
locked up for the night, and from whence he was removed
to Sergeants' Inn.
Upon the case being called on before his Lordship,
Mr. JARMIN, from the office of a Mr. Humphreys, the soli-
citor to the prosecution, said he had to apply to his Lordship
to commit Mr. Richard Dunn to Newgate, for not having
complied with the terms of the order of Mr. Justice Patte-
son, that of attempting to enter into bail without giving the
necessary notice to the prosecutor.
Mr. Dunn said that he was not bound to give any notice
of bail, as the writ of certiorari completely superseded the
warrant, and he then proceeded at great length to re-argue
the case, and said he was prepared, by affidavit, to support
the facts. He would now read the affidavit.
The LORD CHIEF BARON declined to hear the affidavit read.
The simple question before him was his non-compliance
with the writ and the warrant, and he had no other
alternative but to commit the defendant if the prosecutor
pressed it.
Mr. JARMAN said that every lenity had been exercisd to-
wards Mr. Dunn, but as it appeared that he was trying to
take advantage of their forbearance, it was necessary to en-
force the warrant.

Mr. Dunn denied taking any advantage. The fact was,
everything that could be done to prosecute him was daily
c died into action ; that whenever he got bail the prosecutor
took care to alarm them, and the consequence wag, he had
been prevented from obtaining bail ; and as the 8 and 9 W. 111.,
cap. 33, declared that in all cases of writs of certiorari there
was no occasion to give notice of bail, he was determined to
act upon his right.
The LORD CIIIEF BARON doubted the construction of the
clause as put upon it by Mr. Dunn; but said he would send
for the Clerk of the Crown Office, and consult him on the
point. _ _

The further proceedings were accordingly adjourned for the
attendance of the Clerk of the Crown Office, and when the
case was again called on,
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that he found that Mr. Dunn
was right, and if he had his bail in attendance he would
take the required recognisances at once.
Mr. Hetherington, a member of the Irish bar, of South-
place, South-square, Gray's Inn, then presented himself as
one of the bail for Mr. Dunn.

Mr. JARMAN cross-examined the Learned Gentleman as
to the length of his residence at the above place, which ap-
peared to be about four months.
Mr. Dunn said that was sufficient.

Mr. JARMAN contended that the law required that the
person who offered himself as bail should have resided for
twelve months, and paid the parochial and assessed taxes.
The Loan CHIEF 13ArtoN overruled the objection, and said
he should accept Mr. Hetherington as one of the bail.
Mr. Kempler, of the Borough, then offered himself, and
was objected to on the ground that he was nut a house-
keeper.

The LORD CHIEF BARON said the objection was fatal.
Mr. Dunn then wanted to have his own recognisances in-
creased from 2001. to 500/, and to have but one surety.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said he could not alter the terms
which had been laid down ; and if the application was
pressed. he had no alternative but to convict.
Mr. JARMAN said he was instructed to press for the com-
mittal of Mr. Dunn.

The LORD CHIEF BARON then signed the warrant for Mr.
Dunn's committal, saying, at the same time, if in case he
could get another surety by to-morrow, he would take his
bail, and send down his discharge.
Mr. Dunn said that his committal was illegal, and he
would not let the matter rest here.

He was then handed over to the custody of the cfficers
who had apprehended him, when he was conveyed to New -
gate, and delivered into the custody of Mr. Cope, the go-
vernor. Mr. Dunn, while waiting to get his own recog-
nisances in the outer office, declared that he would get his
case brought before the House of Commons, although he
might not be more than a day in Newgate.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT.— Guildford, Thursday, Aug. 6.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Special Jury.)
COOKE V. WETHERELL, CLERK.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. John
Mynde Cooke, against the Rev. Charles Wetherell, his
father-in-law, for criminal conversation with his wife.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr. Mostyn Chambers, and Mr.
E. James appeared for the plaintiff. Sergeant Channell,
Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Lash were for the defendant.
It will be remembered that this action was tried at the
last summer assizes, at Croydon, when a verdict was re-
turned for the plaintiff, with 3,0001. damages ; but upon
subsequent application to the Court, a new trial was
ordered, which now came on to be disposed of. The
proceedings appeared to create a great deal of interest,
and the Court was crowded the whole day.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE addressed the jury, and detailed
in his novel, cloar, able and forcible manner, the cir-
cumstances of the disgusting and horrible case which
he said it was his painful duty to have to lay before
them. He then called the following witnesses :
Mr. W. H. Meade examined by Mr. James—l have
known the plaintiff for several years, and was present
at his marriage with Mrs. Cooke at St. George's, Hano-
ver-square, on the 25th September, 1842. The marriage
took place in presence of the father of the lady. About
nine or ten days afterwards, I called upon the defendant
in order to ascertain what liabilities the defendant had
incurred by his marriage, and this was done in conse-
vence of a bill having been presented to the plaintiff,
accepted by his wife. I saw the defendant and made
the inquiry of him, and mentioned one bill of 550/., of
which his daughter was the acceptor. The defendant
said there was but this one bill, and that it would forth-
with be arranged. I saw the defendant a second time
the same day, and he told me be had seen his solicitor
since I was with him, and he should decline having any
further communications with me upon the subject. In
the beginning of October I went down to Byfield, ac-
companied by the plaintiff, and I there saw the di fen-
dant and his daughter. There was a difficulty about
our admission to the meeting, and Mr. Cooke said he
hail only come to demand to see his wife, and to take
her away with him. He was eventually admitted, and
I heard some conversation in a loud and angry tone be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant, brit we all left, and
by arrangement with Mrs. Cooke returned to Byfield
on the following day, and it was fully arranged tnat
Mrs. Cooke should accompany her husband back to
town, and she did so on the following day. This was
on the Sunday fortnight after the marriage had taken
place. Mr. Cooke appeared very kind and affectionate
to his wife. At that time he had only just come of age,
and he had been admitted and was practising as anat-
tor!ley. I know nothing of any liability incurred by the
plaintiff except the bill I mentioned.
Cross-examined—I am a bill discounter by profession.
My offices are in Duke-street. St. Jamus's I have had
money transactions with Mr.. Cooke, and at the time of
his marriage I owed him five or six hundred pounds. I
paid him that sum, ald. he has once owed me money,
hams if
ltofth'debt in the Insolvent Court.
marriage' was to take pace forty-
egdtiiidt he purgedo
thours k
w th
before the ceremony. Captain Gadsell and
ibiun no
jr, Waddy signed the marriage register, I mysj

The plaintiff is a hay and corn dealer in the Edgeware-
road, and the defendant is a horse dealer in the vicinity.
The action was brought to recover the sum of 71. 9s. 6d. for
hay, &c., sold to the defendant.
The defendant pleaded the general issue.
The plaintiff's ease was to the effect that the parties had
been in the habit of dealing together for some years, and in
November last year the account was settled between them,
and the defendant said he was going out of town, but wished
plaintiff to let his man have things as usual. Some goods
were delivered at the stables as usual, and others to a man
named Peake; but after the defendant's return it was dis-
covered that Peake had sold a portion of the hay, and a
question arose as to whether he ought not to be given into
custody, and a policeman was called in, but plaintiff refused
to give him in charge.
Peake was called,and swore he had been in the defendant's
service for eight years, and had not been discharged.
When defendant left town. in November, he gave witness a
part of his week's wages, and witness from time to time sold
hay and straw for his own support, as he received nothing
from defendant. He had been jobbing about for one and
another since, and occasionally for plaintiff. Plaintiff
asked him to stay to give evidence, but he never said that
he would prosecute him if he did not give evidence to " fix"
the defendant. He got the hay from plaintiff on de-
fendant's account, but told the persons to whom he sold it
that he got it in exchange for a horse.
Mary Gunn, the mother of Peake, was called, and swore
that she met defendant a few days ago, and he told her to
tell her son to keep out of the way at the time of the trial,
and she had better get some one to make him drunk.
Mr. THOMAS, on the part of the defendant, called a witness
named Lund, who swore that he took the premises of de-
fendant in December last, as he was going down on a railway
contract, and that no horses were kept there of
defendant's, nor had any hay or straw been delivered at the
stables after then, although plaintiff's witnesses had sworn to
the contrary. He had heard plaintiff say that Peake had
committed a felony, and he had put Inspector Wiggins on
him, and he would have him if he was above ground. It
was further proved that the plaintiff had sent several times
to the persons who had bought the hay, and required, of them
to pay the difference between the price they bought it at and
the fair price, thereby treating those parties as their creditors.
The jury said they had made up their minds at least an
hour before.