The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-05 00:00:00

EXPARTE BROOK AND HINCKLEY.

Mr. PAsEELEY moved for a rule to show cause why a
mandamus should not issue to two magistrates named
Brooke and Hinckley, ordering them to hear an appli-
cation for an order in bastardy. The Act under which
the application was made was the 7th and Bth Victoria,
cap. 101, and the question to be decided was one of very
considerable importance, viz., whether, after the order
was obtained by the woman, and afterwards
abandoned, an application for a new one could
be entertained on the defendant's costs being plid.
The mother, in the present case, obtained a summons
from Mr. Brooke, and the case came on before Messrs.
Brooke and Baker, and was adjourned to the 17th. On
this occasion Messrs. Brooke and Hinckley presided, and
the orders were made. The attorney on the other side
said that lie should appeal against the decision, as when
the second hearing came on before different magistrates,
the woman had not been sworn. The attorney for the
woman felt that the objection was fatal. After some
further discussion the woman again attempted to bring
the case before the magistrates. The attorney on the
other side, who was clerk to the magistrates, refused to
allow the case to be reconsidered until his costs in the
former application had been paid. On his receiving 30s.
he proceeded to renew his former objections. At length
the magistrates refused to hear the caze until they had
the authority of the Court of Queen's Bench.—Rule
granted.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
SCOTT v. RENT.
This was an action to recover the sum of 261. ss. sd.
for the use and occupation of apartments, and for goods
sold and delivered.
Mr. Petersdorff and Mr. Lush appeared for the plain-
tiff; the defendant was undefended.
The action was brought by Mr. Scott, formerly the
proprietor of Fendall s Hotel. In December last the
defendant came to the hotel, and stated that
he was engaged in a cause at Westminster-
ball. He brought a number of witnesses with him.
The cause lasted five days, and during that time both
he and all the witnesses called for whatever they wished.
There were several items for spirituous liquors under 20
and as the defendant had pleaded that 41. 15s. of the
sum in that account was for spirituous liquors under
205., that sum was struck out, and a verdict returned for
the plaintiff, for the sum of 214 10s. sd.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 4.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WEBB v. WATTS.
Mr. MARTIN moved fora new trial in this case. It
appeared that the plaintiff was employed upon one of
the numerous railway schemes of the last year (the
made Irish
W e
withmanagement of the company's affairs,
by virtue of which
agreement the plaintiff was to proceed to Ireland, and
take the traffic on behalf of the company. The plaintiff
accordingly
est
plaintiff
went to Ireland, and in pursuance of his
Coast Railway). w
a r. Campbell, who had the
a y An engagement had been
m
intentions proceeded to adopt the necessary measures
for taking the traffic, and the necessary tables for Par-
liamentary deposit. Subsequently plaintiff brought his
action against the defendant, who was one of the pro-
visional committee of the railway in question, which
was tried at Nottingham, during the last assizes, before
Mr. Justice Cresswell, the result of which was that
the plaintiff was nonsuited.
The Court granted a rule for a new trial.
(Sittings in Nisi Prias, before Mr. Baron PUTT
and
Common Juries.)
BRADBEER V. JOUNSON.
This action (which was in part heard yesterday) was
brought by the plaintiff, John Bradbeer, to recover from
the defendant, Mr. Johnsor, damages for false imprison-
ment.

Several witnesses were called, who deposed to the
fact of John Bradbeer, the plaintiff, and his brother,
Richard Bradbeer, having been present at the bar of
the Mitre Tavern Som's-mews, Paddington, kept by
the defendant, and' while there, creating a disturbance,
and using abusive language to the defendant and his
wife, and that a policeman was called, to whom the de-
fendant gave Richard Brad beer into custody, but that
John Bradbeer, the plaintiff, was not given into custody.
The inspector of police at the station-house was nut
able, however, to identify the party who was given into
custody. The chargewas entered on the sheet as
Richard Bradbeer.
Mr.ivleVnitt:TeErptiatc:stTiffifnotro the defendant, contended that
there was no evidence at all to show that the defendant
had g
Mr. Baron PLATT summed up, and the jury returned
a verdict for the defendant

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Banco.)
TUCKER v. TIORKINGS.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved for a rule to set aside a
verdict in this case, which was tried at last Liverpool
Assizes, before Mr. Justice Cresswell. The action had
arisen on a debt secured by a bond due by the defendant
to a person named John Tucker, deceased, and proceed-
ings were instituted by ono of the executors, Richard
Tucker, to recover the same. The verdict was given to
the plaintiff, and the rule was to set aside the verdict and
grant a new trial. The main point submitted by the
Learned Gentleman was the Statute of Limitations as
applied to bonds, and he contended that the Learned
Judge at trial had not put the construction .on the sta•
tote, as applied to this case, which should have been
given.—Rule nisi granted.

PARSON "V
SEXTON AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES moved for a rule in this case to
show cause why the verdict should not be entered for
the plaintiff for 1171., or why there should not be a new
trial. The action was tried at the last sittings after term in
Middlesex, before Mr. Justice Erle, and a verdict given
for the defendant would leave the plaintiff to move. The
plaintiff was an engineer in Lambeth, and the defend-
ants were millowacrs at Uzi), idge. The dispute had arisen
about a steam-engine. The whole transactions between
the parties amounted to 3561. 193. fid., but prior to the
action being brought 2321. 12s. was paid. Credit was
given by the plaintiff for this sum, and also for a set off
of 71., and another part for the balance. The
defence was that the enginewas bought by the defendant

with the understanding that it was of 14-horse power,
but that it really was only of 9 horse power. The de•
fondants refused taking the sum, agreed to deduct an
equivalent for the deficiency. The evidence as to the
power of the engine was very cor flicting. Some engi-
neers affirming it was equal to 14-horse power while
others denied it. The defendant contended that the
plaintiff warranted the engine to be a 14 horse engins.
The latter denied there was any express warranty, and
contended that hud there been auy express warranty the
proper course would have been to proceed for breach of
contract.—Rule nisi granted.

RICKETTS V. BENNETT AND OTHERS.-THE WHEAL

PROVIDENCE MINING COMPANY.

Mr. CROWDER, Q.C., moved for a new trial in this case,
which was tried at the last Cornwall assizes, before Mr.
Baron Platt, and in which the verdict was for defendant, on
the ground of misdirection, and that the verdict
was against evidence. The plaintiffs were bankers at
Truro, and the defendants were adventurers in the Wheal
Providence Mining Company. The mine had been in
existence for several years, and a banking account was
opened with the Messrs. Ricketts in September, 1844,
by Mr. Robinson, who was one of the company in ques-
tion. The action was for the balance of account due,
3,668/. At the time of the opening of the account the
purser of the Wheal Providence mine was the son of
Mr. Robinson referred to, but lie was succeeded in the
situation by a Mr. Bennett. On the trial it was argued
that the company could not be made responsible for the
acts of Robinson, he never having received express in-
structions to borrow. It was likewise ruled by the
Learned Judge that one particular director could not thus
pledge the credit of the others without express powers.
The real question at issue was, whether a mining com-
pany was different in its character to ordinary partner-
ship. The Learned Judge ruled that it was, while the
plaintiffs contended that it was not. They did not mean
to affirm that Robinson had acted under any express
authority, yet that he did under an implied authority.
Rule granted.
WONTNER V. SHAIRP—TIIE DIRECT LONDON AND

EXETER RAILWAY.

Mt. BRAMWELL moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict in this cause should not be set aside, and a
nonsuit entered. The case was one of considerable im-
portance, and was tried during the after-sittings or last
term, in Middlesex, before Mr. Justice Erle. The ver-
dict was given for the plaintiff, 821. 103. The plaintiff
was Thomas Wontner, a solicitor, the defendant a pro-
visional director of the Direct London and Exeter Rail-
way. The plaintiff claimed the recovery of the deposit of
1/. 7s. 6d. on each of 60 shares on two grounds-Ist, that
of the 11. 7s. 6d. on each share, 11. ss. was paid for the
purpose of coupleting the Parliamentary deposit, but
the company having failed to proceed to Parliament,
the plaintiff was entitled to recover the 11. ss. ; and
2d, that in consideration of the total failure of the com-
pany to fulfil its pledges, and on the ground of fraud, he
was entitled to the whole sum of 82/. 10s., the deposit of 60
shares. A verdict was given for the plaintiff. The
company was formed on the 4th of June, 1845, and the
defendant was appointed a provisional director. On the
16th of September he was nominated one of the manag-
ing committee. A prospectus was issued, and on the
25th of the same month the plaintiff applied
for shares, which were allotted to him. On the 11th
the plaintiff received a letter which stated that the
deposit of 11. 7s. 6d. must be paid within eight days at
the bankers named, else the shares would
be forfeited. Oa the 17th of October follow-
ing an advertisement from the company appeared, and it
was on this that the plaintiff mainly depended. It
stated, the committee have " completed the allotment."
It subsequently appeared that only 58,000 shares had
been allotted, and it was on this that the charge of
Fraud was made to rest, and the verdict of the
jury obtained. The Learned Gentlemen went at
great length into the history of the transac-
tions of the company, and contended that the
Learned Judge bad misdirected the jury, and
that the deed of settlement under which the company
was formed (lid not state that the capital of the company
should be made up of shares to the number of 120,000.
Rule to show cause granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

Win. Gulling, a young man in the service of Mr.
Watts, printer, of 3, Crown court, Pickett-street, was
placed at the bar before Mr. Henry, charged with steal
ing a quantity of books, Sze., the property of his
employer. He had been remanded from this day week.
It appeared that since the last examination, the officer
who had taken the prisoner (Serjeant Pocock, F 14) had
been to his lodgings, and had found there nine books,
all of which were identified by the prosecutor as his
property, and also a quantity of sheets of paper and a
number of letters and memorandums.
The prisoner said that all the books were waste copies,
and he had taken them without any idea of injuring Mr.
Watts.
Mr. Watts denied that the books were waste, but
added that the felonies as yet discovered were unim-
portant in comparison with some that were supposed to
have been committed by the prisoner. He would esta-
blish a charge against the prisoner of stealing several
hundred reams of paper, his acknowledgments of which
were in the paper merchant's hands, but never had been
accounted for ; and also a charge of having received
large sums of money from customers which he never
accounted for, and which indeed he had no authority to
receive.
The prisoner was remanded till Tuesday week.
MARLBORO UGH-STREET.
Matilda Hassod and Eliza Good were charged before
Mr. Hardwick with violently assaulting Mrs. Best in
the street, and robbing her of her money and wearing
apparel.
Mrs. James Best, living at 9, Nelson-street, Camden-
town, said she had been out shopping, and returning
home about half-past seven o'clock last night, when in
the New road, at the corner of Tottenham-court-road,
as she was waiting the carriages passing by, the prisoner
Hassod came up and attacked her. She tore her bonnet
off her head, and after stripping it of the veil, threw it
on the pavement. Eliza Good at this time came up, and
seized complainant about the middle, and held her till
Hassod took a purse from her, containing 4s. 6d., a par-
cel containing the articles she had been purchasing, and
her veil, and made off with them. The defendant,
Good, then let her go, called a cab, and drove off.
George Wanfor, who saw the transaction, corroborated
complainant's evidence. He followed Hassod, and gave
her into custody.
Both the defendants denied any felonious intent.
They were committed for trial.
CLE RK EN WE L L.
On Tuesday, Thomas Lavender, a young man, who de-
scribed himself as a porter, was placed at the bar before
Mr. Combo, charged by Miss Anna Jones, of 28, Salis-
bury .street, Llington, with having feloniously stopped
her on the Queen's highway, put her in bodily fear, and
stolen from her person a valuable silk shawl.
The prosecutrix, whose face exhibited marks of vio-
lence, deposed that on Monday evening she went to a
party, where she was detained until twelve o'clock. She
had made an appointment to meet her mother at the
Temperance-hall, South-street, Islington, to proceed
home with her, and as she was on her way the prisoner
accosted her, saying, "It is a fine and he soli-
cited her to take his arm. She declined this invitation
and walked on but he continued to follow her, and
several times importuned her, but she hastened onwards
much alarmed. He at length asked her to enter a pub-
lic house and have something to drink. She begged of
him to desist, and go about his business, or she would
give him in custody to a policeman. On her arrival at
the corner of South-street, near Britannia-fields, the
prisoner seized her, and told her to open her shawl, when
she called out " Murder," " Police," keeping tight hold
of her shawl. The prisoner then struck her a violent
blow with his clenched fist on her mouth, which lacer-
ated her lips, loosened several of her teeth, one of which
was knocked out, and, dragging the shawl from her
shoulders, he ran off with it. She bled very much, and
was nearly stunned, but she called out " Stop thief,"
and the prisoner was taken into custody.
John James, of Miles-street, lioxton, picked up the
shawl near to the spot where the prisoner was taken
into custody.
James Hitchcock, 131 N, deposed that he heard the
cries of " Murder," and " Police," in a female voice.
He went towards the spot, and met the prisoner walk-
ing away. He said to witness,—" You are wanted at
the corner." Witness went on, and found Miss Jones
bleeding from the mouth. She pointed out the direction
the prisoner took. Witness pursued and apprehended
him. He said,—" I did not take the shawl." The
prisoner was eoncealed near a hedge, opposite South-
street, when he took him.
Miss Jones positively identified the prisoner. She
knew nothing of him; she never saw him before in
her life.

Mr. COMBE cautioned the prisoner that it was a very
serious charge against him, and he was not bound to say
anything in his defence at present.
Prisoner (indifferently)—l needn't say anything now.
He was fully committed for trial.
Ann Parker, a young woman, was placed at the bar
charged with having attempted to murder her own mo-
ther by strangling her.
Elizabeth Jennings deposed that the prisoner was a
street-walker, and lodged in the same room with witness
and her mother, wko was a washerwoman, at No. 5,
Vernon's-buildings, St. Pancras-road. At 3 o'clock
that morning the prisoner came home intoxicated.
A quarrel ensued between the prisoner and her mo-
ther, when the prisoner seized her by the throat; they
struggled together .for some time, until the pri-
soner forced her mother down undermost on the bed,
and held her until she was black in the face. Witness
separated them, and the mother lay on the bed appa-
rently lifeless. Witness instantly sent for a surgeon,
and called in a policeman who took the prisoner into
custody. A surgeon attended, and the mother was re-
stored to her senses. She said (meaning the prisoner),
" She did it." (The witness gave her evidence with
great reluctance, and was evidently desirous of cmceal-
ing the truth.)
Haines, 194 5, deposed, that at half-past three o'clock
he was called in, and he found the mother to all appear-
ance dead, lying on the bed. When she came a little to
her senses he inquired who it was that offered the vio-
lence to her ? She replied, " She did it," meaning the
prisoner. Witness took her into custody. The prisoner
said several times, "I did it," and, making use of bad
language and threats, exclaimed, " I will do it for all
of them one after the other." He produced a certificate
from the surgeon that " Henrietta Parker was lying in
a dangerous state from the effects of violence by stra
gelation."

Mr. ComBE inquired of the witness Jennings whether
the marks of violence upon the mother's neck were caused
by the prisoner's hands ? Jennings—I can't say whether
by the hands or strings of the petticoat.
Mr. COMBE asked the prisoner if she wished to say
anything to the charge ? Prisoner (sullenly and HlM-
ferently)—l came, home and she was drunk. She began
with me and struck me pn the nose first.
Mr. ComnE—Xour mother's life is in danger. This