The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-30 00:00:00

COURT OF COM.VION PLEAS, June 29.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, 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 93/. into court. The question now to be
determined was whether the balance of 261., 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who had withdrawn from the projected company on the 31st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.• 41. 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 41.
and for the 151., but not for the 71.
Verdict for plaintiff accordingly—Damages 191.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
IVOR S HIP-STREET.
SUPPOSED ATTEMPT TO POISON A FAMILY.—A young
fellow, named Thomas Crawford, was re-examined before
Mr. Broughton, the magistrate, charged on suspicion of
BK,E.
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-crown
from his master; but while he was locked up in the station-
house a fellow-prisoner was taken ill, and in the confusion
that arose he contrived to effect 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 the bed of his master'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
him 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, aged eleven years,
under whose bed the prisoner had been found concealed, now
deposed that the prisoner, while in his father's service, showed
him one day some stuff, which he told him was sugar of lead,
and pointed out to him how much of it would be enough to
poiso'l 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 mix it with the water to be
used by the family, and they lived in constant anxiety and
fear in consequence of what had taken place.
Mr. Bnouorfrow said, that such circumstances were cer-
tainly very alarming. Under the circumstances, he should
require the prisoner to find bail, two sureties for 301. each,
for six months, and unless be could procure such bail, he
would have to remain in prison for that time.
The prisoner was committed accordingly.
SOUTHWARK.
UTTERING FICTITIOUS CHEQUES.—George William Draper,
late clerk in a Government office, was brought before Mr.
Seeker for re•examination, charged with obtaining money by
forged cheques.
It appeared that on the 4th instant, the prisoner, who
was previously known to a Mr. Wills of Great Charlotte-
street, called on him, and, producing a cheque for 51. 7s. 6d.
drawn on Messrs. Curries, the bankers, of Lombard-street,
requested he would give him cash for it. Mr. Wills, know-
ing the prisoner to have filled a respectable situation under
Government, obtained change for the cheque, which was sub-
sequently presented at the above banking-house, the drawer
of which, a fictitious one, having no effects there, it was re-
fused payment. On a subsequent day, the prisoner obtained
from another tradesman cash for another cheque of 8/.145. 6d.,
drawn upon the same bankers, and which turned out, as in
the former case, to be valueless.
A witness was then examined, who stated that he was
clerk to Mr. Gamble, a stock-broker, No. 5, Bank Chain-
bers. On the 3d of June the prisoner called at the office, at
which time Mr. Gamble's cheque-book was lying on the desk.
Witness had occasion to quit the office, leaving the prisoner
there, and during his absence the latter had full op-
portunity of cutting some leaves out of the cheque-book.
The policeman produced Mr. Gamble's cheque-book, with
several of the blank cheques wanting, and on comparing those
uttered by the prisoner, it appeared they corresponded with
those taken from the cheque-book. As other evidence was
wanting to complete the charge against the prisoner, he was
_ remanded.