The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-01 00:00:00

.111141 SUN';' LONDON; MONDAY, MARCH 1,

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.--READINO, FICIDAY.
JONES V. ELLIOTT.

This was an action of libel, brought by the plaintiff; a farmer
residing at Binfield (the defendant in the action Bolton v. Jones),
against the defendant, a gentleman of fortune, formerly residing at
Binfield House, and now at Hirst Lodge, in this county.
The circumstances of the case were these :—Mr. Jones, the plain-
tiff; having put Bolton and his family out of possession of the cottage
which they rented of him, the woman Went to Mr. Elliott, the de•.
fendant, and stated the circumstances to him, He thereupon wrote
the alleged libel, upon a sheet of paper, which he handed to the
woman, and which was as follows:—" The bearer, Ann Bolton,
wife of James Bolton, has been cruelly used by a brutal land.
lord, whose own arrears of rent have often exposed him to a prison,
if not more mercifully dealt with by those under whom he rented.
The compassionate assistance of those more blessed by Providence
is prayed." The petition was headed "Pitiable Case of Ann
Bolton," and the first name in the list of subscribers was Mrs.
Elliott, 10s. With this paper Mrs, Bolton,by the defendant's direc.
Lions, went round the neighbourhood, and received various subscrip-
tions, amongst others from Sir John Conroy, Captain Garth,
&c. The plaintiff', having by his attorney required from the
defendant a retractation of this libel, or a compensation for
the damage occasioned by it, Mr. Elliott, in reply, stated
that he had never during the course of his life had occasion
to retract or apologise fur one word he ever uttered, or any
act he had ever done, and he should not condescend to begin
now ; and that he should " rejoice at any course which Mr.
Jones might think proper to take which would give greater publicity
to the cruel case of Ann Bolton." The action was then com-
menced. The defendant pleaded ajustification to the whole libel,
setting out facts which he said showed that the conduct of the plain-
tiff' was cruel and brutal, and that he had frequently been in arrears
to the defendant as his landlord fur rent, in respect of which he
might have been arrested.

The bailiff, •who levied the distress at Bolton's cottage, was
called for the plaintiff; he swore that he heard Mr. Jones use no
harsh or violent language towards the woman, but that she swore
at him, and that he had said if she could bring him a pound or two
she might remain. That she assi.tcd in carrying some wood into
the house, and requested it might be locked up there for safety, and
appeared willing to be put out of possession.
In answer to a question from the Learned Judge, he stated that
it was his usual habit to avoid taking away the goods upon
which he distrained, but that the landlord being present, and
wishing them taken away in the van, he had followed his li.
rections.

Mr. Baron GURNEY strongly reprobated t'•e praetice .• • y
ing oft' the goods, especially the beds upon which the !i ta
were- sleeping when the distress was made, and said he neve
heard of such a custom.

Mr. WHATELEY, for the defendant, in an eloquent address,
contended that the defendant was fully justified in expressing the
opinion he had formed of the conduct of the plaintiff, vihich was
unnecessarily harsh and cruel.

Mr. Sergeant Luncow having replied at great length upon the
defendant's case,

Mr. Baron GURNEY summed up the evidence, expressing his
opinion that it we uld at all events have bee❑ better, if the de-
fendat,t, though doubtless acting from a generous impulse of the
moment, had forborne to express so strong an opinion upon the ex
parte statement of Mrs. Bolton.

The Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict
far the plaintiff—Damages, 501.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL.

Wm. Hawley, sett. and jun., George Wooldridge,
Win. Llandrif, and Win. Llickling, were again brought
into Court, to answer a charge of combination and ob-
struction, preferred by five; men of the same craft, who
were prevented from falowing their craft and calling in
the Temple Church. A details(' report of the previous
inquiry appea►ed in the Sun of last week.
Mr. Clarkson, the barrister, and Mr. Flower, the
attorney, for the prosecution, and Mr. Phillips, and Mr.
liumphteys, the solicitor, for the defendants, again made
their appea.ance.
The Court, consisting of Sir P. Ifaurie (Chairman),
Sir C. Marshall, and Alderman Farebrother, met at an
early hour, is order that the course of ordinary business
should not be deferred.
Mr. PhiMips said that the five men for whom he ap-
peared might or might not have acted contrary to law.
The charge against them was that they would not allow
other five men (the complainants) to exercise their call-
ing as masons, required to repair the Temple Church,
pursuant to an alleged hiring by a gentleman of the
name of Barrett. When he was here last week, he
(Mr. Phillips) took a technical objection with regard to
the misrepresentation of a name (Barney instead of Bar-
nabas). Since the last hearing he had availed himself
of seeing Mr. Barrett, and represented to him that it
was a pity that there should be bickerings between
workmen, and pointed out the distress and ruin which
would ensue to them and their families, unless some
compromise was made.
Mr. Barrett thought with him (Mr. Phillips) that it
would be better, aid that gentlemen (who was within
call) said that he would readly engage the com-
plaiaantg, and take care that they should not be mo-
lested by the defendants. On the part of the men com-
plained against, he (Mr. Phillips) would state they were
willing to allow the complainants to work without bt or
hindrance, and that he believed was all that the prose-
cutors could require.
Mr. Clarkson—We have been struggling here some
time to see whether we were to work or not. My friend
Mr. Phillips has made an overture which l'd gladly ac-
cept, with this appendage attached to it. I require an
order, to test the sincerity of the defendants, that the
Court will let the warrant stand over for ten days ; and if
at the expiration of that term there has been no obstruc-
tion, I abandon the summons.
Mr. Ph lips—The standing (y.er or postponement
would not only be expensise but inconvenient to nll
parties.

Sir PETER LAURIE—We'II try and settle it at once.
Who are the complaining parties ?
The ejected parties stood forwaril, and by gestures
signified that the five defendants prevented them from
pursuing their lawful calling on the day named in the
summons.
Sir PETER LAURIE—I mean to get the consent of
the five men complained against to allow the five com-
plainants to go to work on Monday next.
Mr. Carkson again urged that ten days ought to be
granted to test the sincer:ty of the defendants.
Sir PETER LAURIE—I'II not grant ten days or ten
hours : but I'll do this, and take the responsibility on
myself. If the master of the works will employ the com-
plainants, and the defendants obstruct them, let them
be brought before me here, at one o'clock on Tuesday,
and I will enforce the law to its utmost extent against
them. At the same time I wish them to understand each
other's interests. It is only from a want of that that these
dissensions arise. The Worthy Magistrate said that lie
should like to hear what Mr. Barrett had to say.
Mr. Phillips—He is here.
Mr. Barrett then came forth and denied that he had
hired the complainants, and that they were hindered,
but le was still willing to employ them.
Mr. Phillips—Why keep up the bone of contention ;
let the matter be put to a test at once. •
Mr. Barrett—l have made up my mind on the sub-
ject, by virtue of the power vested in me to discharge
the whole of the men who have beau hitherto em-
ployed.

- Sir PETER LAURIE—DI adjudicate upon the case. It
shall stand till Tuesday ; but I hope and believe that
I shall not see them again.
Mr. Phillips—This day will cost my clients twenty
guineas, and there must be expenses on the other side.
Why not let the matter be settled at once—why co me
here again on Theaday ?
Sir PETER LAURIE—There will be no occasion for an
appearance If the defendants do not further interrupt.
Mi.. Clarkson—Then let the matter stand thus—if
my clients go to work, and have no right to complain,
I'd undertake that the matter is at an end. I hope
Mr. Barrett will employ the men, and piece them at
as great a distance from each other in the Temple
church as possible.
Sir PETER LAURIE.—NO, no ; let them work tc-
gether, and depend upon it they will become good
friends ; it is separation that causes dissension, but
joint operat:on causes a community of feeling.
The parties then retired.
CHURCH-RATES.—This was a case, which stood by
speeialadjournment for bearing on Saturday, pursuant to
summonses which had been issued under the statute
53d George 111., cap. 127, entitled "An Act for the
better regulation of the Ecclesiastical Courts of Eng-
land ; and for the more easy recovery of Church-rates."
Mr. Teague appeared for the parish, Mr. Edwards for
the appellants, viz., Mr. Heath and Mr. Crooks,
householders in Fetter-lane, in the parish of St. Dun-
stan's in the West.
Mr. Sloan, one of the Churchwardens of the parish,
steted that he had made a demand of 18s. for church-
rates, of Mr. Crooks and Mr. Heath, and payment
was refused. The rate was made as far back as the
12th of June, 1839.
By Mr. Edwards.—We have collected part of the
rate. The collector having made his demand, I made
mice afterward., and produced the resolution of the
Vestry, which gave me authority.
Sir P. LAURIE wished to know why the rate was
objected to as to its validity ?
Mr. Edwards considered that certain moneys and es-
tates had been left for the proper repair of the church,
to other
tnaor y
legalg ra noPtlua;
nh ee
snoeocane—,l
dhPbeuer cPnioeans edt eso ncontrary
as t t
clieinnts. the
t te s
otl atf ml
wae
wan
said by the respectable
op-
posed—" We havegr gentlemen to whom he was
antel annuities upon the funds
you allude to," but that was no answer.
Sir PETER LAURIE
We must have evidence before
we can proceed any further.
Mr. Sloan said he was born in the pariah Sears
ago, and had had something to do wi h t 59
he
went of its affairs during the last four or fiveinanjge•
Mr. Edwards (interposing}--1 gave Mr.,,eagu years.
no-
tice to produce certain books, but he has not; the ere-
fore, I am entitled to give secondary evidence.
Mr. Teague—Mr. Edwards requires books and do-
cuments so f.:r back as 1808. We notdo
produce
them, and we act under the advice of a learned civilian.
Sir PETER. LAURIE thought that the opinion of the
most learned doctors could have no weight as the matter
at present stood.
Sir P. Laurie wished to know whe-
tber the appellants went to church, and were seat-
holders ?—Mr. Churchwarden Sloan—Certainly not,
your worship.
Mr. Edwards—MY clients are Churchmen in the
strict sense of the word. They do not, however, go to
this Church on account of the bickerings there have
bees.—(Skame.)
Mr. Seeley, a respectable inhabitant said that he

understood from what he had heard that the resist-
ance of payment arose from the notion of a misappro-
priation of funds.
Mr. El wards—Certainly.
_ _

Mr. Seeley—Then we have no objection to go to the
Ecclesiastical Court, to show how we have disposed of
those funds.

After some further conversation, the Magistrates
(Sir Peter Laurie and Sir Chapman Marshall) confirmed
the rate.

The case of Mr. Crooks, the other appellai.t, was
called on, and the same adjudication made without
observation by solicitor on either side.

Mr. Edwards then gave notice that he shou!d g:va
notice to the Magistrates who bad heard the case of
his intention to apply to the Court of Queen's thnch
(or an order, but would leave the other party to apply
to the Spiritual Court, if they thought fit.
Here the matter ended for the present.

BOW- STREET.
LOAN SOCIETIES.—Ia the course of the last geek
several persons have applied to the Magistrates of this
office for tt.eir advice and assistance under the follow-
ing circumstances :—They had become surct;es for per-
sons who hat borrowed money of different loan so-
cieties, and who had made default in payment of the in-
stalments due from them ; that in each of their c.:ses
an attorney was one of the shareholders of the society,
and that when the party borrowing made a defau't in
his payments, the attorney, instead of summoning the
sureties before a Magistrate, in order to compel them
to pay the amount, had commenced proceedings against
thorn in the Court of Queen's Bench, thus put-ing
them to very considerahl3 and unnecessary expense.
This course of proceeding appears to have been adopted
in consequence of a decision of the Magistrates at the
different Police Courts to compel sureties to pay the
amount for which they had undettaken to Lecorne re-
sponsible only, and not the fines also, which the hos-
rower may hate incurred according to the rules of the
society._

On Saturday, a person, named Thomas Jocer, came
before Mr. •Jardine, and stated that he had become
surety for a person named Morgan to the Union Joist
Stock Loan Society, and that Morgan, who originaly
borrowed 15/., had only repaid 6/. 10s. of the money,
and Francis Browne (the secretary) summoned him
(applicant) before the Magistrates of the above office on
the Bth of October last for payment of the Unice 8/.
10s., when Mr. Twyford, before whom the case was
heard, dismissed it on the ground that the society itself
had not complied with its own rules After this deci-
sion the applicant did not expect to hear any more of
the matter, but on Friday to his surprise, he received a
fetter from an attorney, stating that urless he paid the
amount in the course of the following week proceedings
would be taken against him in the Court of Que. n's
Bench, in order to compel him to do so.
Mr. JARDINE, in this case, repeated the answer he
had previously given ko several similar applicaf cns,
viz., that the Loan Societies Act pointed out a specific
mode of proceeding against the sureties of persons who
were defaulters in their repayments of money borros.el
by them from loan societies, and also against their sure-
ties, by summoning the parties before a Magistrate ; bat
at the same, it did not restrain such societies from
taking proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench, or
any of the superior Courts at Westminster, to recover
the amount due to them. He (Mr. Jardine) was, how.
ever, of opinion that such societies were not legally
justified in instituting proceedings in one of the higher
Courts for that purpose, but he would not take upon
himself to decide upon a question of such importance,
and would recommend the applicant to consult some re-
spectable solicitor on the subject.—lt appears that the
17th clause of the Loan Societies Act, 2 and 4 Vic-
toria, eh. 10, enacts that—" The treasurer or cl.!rk
of the society for the time being may proceed for the
recovery of the 'sum dae on such note against the
party or parties liable to pay the same in any County
Court or Court of Conscience or Request, having ju-
risdiction to the amount so due, according to the course
and practice of such Courts." The only clause in the
Act which alludes at all to the Superior Courts is the
16th, which, after directing that the societies shell
summon defaulters before a Magistrate, and directing
the Magistrate to issue execution against their gcods
in default of payment, stated, as if the intention of the
framers of the Act was ttrat no proceedings shoeld be
taken against them in the Superior Courts, ."fhat no
such proceedicgs (before such Magistrates) shall be
removed by certiorari or otherwise into any of her
Majesty's Superior Courts of Record." Toe question
is one that has excited great iuterest among the class
of persons peculiarly affected by it, and the decision
respet ting it is anxiously looked forward to.
EMBEZZLEMENT.---A lad in the employ of Mr. W.
H. Smith, newsvender in the Strand, was committed
to Nevvgate for trial, for embezzling 3/. .se. 102., re-
ceived by him on account of his master.

after he (complainant) said that his desk had been
I opened, and six sovereigns stolen. They had break
fasted together the same morning, yet the prisoner did
not say one word about his having been robbed. The
prisoner afterwards said that he had the diamond brooch
given him the night before it was st, len from him.
The bed-room and also the sitting-room which they
occupied were also open, and the landlord and landlady
and the three servants had access to them when they
thooght proper.
Sergeant Aylesbury, of the L division, stated that
when the prisoner was given into his custody, he said
that the diamond brooch, of which he had been robbed,
was given to him by a lady at Wandsworth to have re-
paired. Witness asked him where the lady lived, and
offered to accompany him to the house to ascertain the
truth of his assertion, but he refused to tell him where
she lived, or to give him any information on the subject.
Mr. TRAIL asked the prisoner whether be wished to
say any thing to the charge? The prisoner declared
that he was perfectly innocent of the charge, and that
he anew nothing whatever about the stolen money. He
soid that he had lost three sovereigns and a diamond
brooch at the lodgings, but that he would be very sorry
to a...Tuse any person, as he did not know upon whom
suspicion rested, as their apartments were open t-a all
persons in the house.
Mr. TRAIL asked the prisoner from whom he had the
diamond brooch, but he refused to disclose. the name
of tiie lady, or even to give the place of her abode, as
he had a strong objection that it should be even sup-
posed he was suspected of felony. Mr. Trail told him
that the inquiry could be made without any communica-
tion of the kind being made to the lady ; but the pri-
soner still refused to agree to the suggestion, and as
there was no further evidence to adduce, the Magistrate
said that he considered there was so much suspicion at-
tached to the case, that he should call upon the ac•
cused to find surctes to appear at the Court on a future
day to answer the charge.
The prisoner not being prepared with the requisite
sureties, was sent to the county gaol,