The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-25 00:00:00

. MARLBOROUGII-STREET.
1 konzas Douglas, a mere child, who was committed
;or a month from this office, for stealing cigars, was
rjrain charged with committing theft yesterday, in
ttenhain-court-rood, keying left prison only a short
time before.

Police-constable 130 E f.eid he noticed the prisoner,
in company with two other boys, lingering near Mr.
Simpson, the boottnaker's door. Saw tie prisoner bend
pa boot from within the door-post and
put owfcrs pocket. \Vas walking away,
when
i t: and 3
enn Le
intotp Lis
took
tip
o'k'him into custody-. The other two boys
ran away.
Mr. liAnnwicx sent, the case to the Middlesex
Sessions.

Georjr:c Turner, who had something of the appearance
of a ci).11.-porter, was charged by Police-constable Leaps
kith liffitig a hat from a peg at Mr. Wild's doer, hatter,
266, Oxford street, which he immediately put on Lis
With the rice ticket (75.) still sticking in the
from the door when the constable, who saw him take the
hand, and waked away. He had only got some ten yards
hat, took him into custody.
The prisoner said be was in liquor st th time.
Mr. Ilannwicu committed him for trial at the Mid-
dlesex Sessions.

SCUTHWARK.
Thomas Brady and James Sul'ivain, two young lads,
were charged with stealing; a firkin of butter, the pro-
perty of Mr. Osborne, a aeesemonger in the borough,
and William Payne, a marine store dealer, in Bermond-
sey-street, was charged as the receiver of the stolen
property.
It appeared that en the preceding afternoon a firkin
of butter, the property of Mr. Osborn, was stolen from
a waggon while in transik from Carpenter Smith's wharf
in Tooley street. The firkin was subsequently seen by
two persons in the pcssession of a man in the company
of the two first named prisoners, and they went into the
marine store dealer's with the intention of disposing of
it. The prisoners, however, perceiring they. were
watched; ran out of the marine store shop, leaving the
butter behind them, but they were subsequently taken
into custody.
The marine store dealer 'attended as a witness. in
Court, but the magistrate, on being made acquained
with the fact of his being about to purchase the stolen
propel ty imrnadiately ordered him into the dock with
the other prisoners.
Payne, the naati7.e store dealer, endeavoured to get
out of the difficulty by saying that a man came into his
shop and threw down the firkin of butter, which was in
a bag, and then ran cut, leaving it behind him. That
he (prisoner)` was quite ignorant as to the contents of
the bag until afterwards and he declared that he had no
intention of puchasing such an article,, but was about to
call in a policemen to relate the circumstance.
This latter assertion, however, was contradicted by
the policeman and a witness, who said the other pri-
soners remained some time in the marine store shop,
and were about bargaining with the ether prisoner
(Payne) had not the discovery taken place.
Mr, SECKER said he should certainly send the pri-
soners for trhd, but that as other evidence was required
to complete the case, he should remand them till next
Wednesday.

rontht next examination.
The marine store dealer Exclaimed lendly against tl:e
. decision, and upon subsequent application he was allowed
Ctocugivte bail,with 24 hours' notice, to appear at thig
CL 11K EN TV EL L.
John Sinzston, a lad of remarkably gentlemanlike ap-
pearance about 17 years of age, was charged before Mr.
Greenwood with attempting to rob several persons at
the opening of the new schoolroomain Goswell-street on
Wednesday everting.
It appeared from the statement of police-constable
G 16 that the new schoolrooms in connexion with St.
Thomas's, Charterhoute, were opened yesterday with
more than usual soleinnit.3, the Lord Mayor and mem-
bers of the corporation attending in state. A gang of
the swell mob was seen to aver the schoolroom and
statioa themselves at various Fonts. The prisoner was
observed most [rominent.
:11iss Eliza Lloyd, who was accommodated with a seat
on the bench, said she was leaving the church about a
quarter past five o'c!ock with a number of other persons,
as the Lord Mayor an I other members of the corpora-
tion, were also going. Slie was leaning upon her la-
ther's arm when the prisoner forced himself between them,
and Ler attention being attracted by his rude conduct,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, Pm 24.
DELL V. MAY AND STEWAP.T.
This was an action to recover the sum of 111. 16s. 2d.,
for work and labour for the defendant. The defendant
May suffered judgment to go by default ; the other de-
feadant pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. J. GRAY stated the case. The plaintiff is a
carpenter at Sonuing, near Reading, and the defendants
in 1843 and 1844 were ironmorgers, &eain Holborn, and
contracted for some work done at Reading gaol. May
superintended that work, but he thought he should be
able to prove that, at the time the work was done, the
de'endants were in partnership. Although it was true
that the plaintiff wars not aware at the time that Stewai t
was a partner, and his dealing had been with May, yet
if Stewart was even a dormant partner, he was liable.
It would be shown that when the contract was completed
at Reading gaol, Stewart receive.l the money in the
names of May and Stewart, and shortly after. this the
defendants took contracts for Wanstead Asylum, and also
for works at the Royal Exchange. The work done by
the plaintiff was in February and March, 1844, and he
had to contend, that although Stewart's name might have
bei-n concealed in the contract, he wai liable. He under-
stood that the defence would be that the partnership
did not commence until a few 'days after the Reading
contract was entered into, and that a partnership deed
would be put in evidence ; that, however, would not dis-
..provealiat a partnership did not exist before, and such
documents aught to be looked upon with caution, as it
aas easy for persons to create evidence for themselves
to protect One partner. It would also be set up that the
money fur the Reading contract hr.d been received by
Stewart under an assignment of the debts of the firm,
May being in embarrassed circumstances. lie should,
however, be able to show that even in September forty-
three actions had been brought against May and
Stewart, and a set-off of that firm was pleaded; other
actions had been brought against both parties, and
which wire settled ; and even while the work was
.going on, Stewart ordered materials, and sent them
down to Reading. To set ua that the credit was given
to May would be no answer to the action if there was
a partnership, which defendant May had admitted, by
suffering judgment to go by default.
A great number of witnesses were then called, to show
that both before and after the plaintiff did the work
Stewart acted as tamaster in the shop, and over other works.
A letter signed by defendant Stewart, signed for May
and Stewart, in which he excused themselves from pay-
ment of a bill, on the ground of their having the works at
Reading and Aylesbury gads was then produced.
Mr. OGLE, for the defendant Stewart, put in the deed
of partnership, dated the 25th March, 1844, and that
the whole of the work was done before the 14th of March,
and that previous to the 25th of March Stewart was
only acting as an assistant to May (his brother-in-law),
who was in the country. He did not dispute the law as
laid down by his Learned Friend, but denied that the
evidence was at all conclusive that there was a partner-
ship at the time.
The deed of partnership was then put in and objected
to, en the ground that it was a deed made behind the
back -of the plaintiff.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF held that it could be
admitted. In summing up, however, he told :he jury that
it did net follow that because a deed was executed on a
particular day, that a partnership did not exist before as
far as a division of profit and loss went, although they
might not have held themselves out to the world as
such. Tile set-off in the action was a point of consider-
able importance—it was not 'conch:mire evidence of a
general partnership, but it went far to prove the fact,
and it would be a singular thing if they were partners
in Sqtember, 1843, and not soin February, but again
to in March,
The jury stopped the case, and found fir the plaintiff.
Mr. OGLE asked leave to move to set aside the verdict,
as paiintiff had made out the bill to May only.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said that if the.plaintiff did no
know there was a partnership, he was not bound. I.
was entirely a question for the jury, and he saw no rea•
son to disturb the verdict.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-.
GUILDHALL.
Mr. rate son, a tailor, was mninioned before Mr. Al-
derman Wilson for assaulting Mark Anthony Markham,
his apprentice.
Mr. Scott, a solicitor, rn behalf of tha d fondant, ob-
jected that he was not an apprentice, for the indenture
had not been stamped, and was not worth a farthing.
The lad's taller said this was very odd, as this gentle-
man drew up the indenture, and charged 143. Gd. for his
trouble. He also told him that all was complete.
Mr. Scott replied, he told him it would require a
stamp for 11. If the father had not paid it, that was
his fault.

The father denied that he received any such
intima-
tion. The defendant told his boy about three weeks
after the binding that he could have an apprentice with a
501. premium, and he had ill-used him ever since.
Mr. Alderman WILSON said it was an ungracious act
on the part of the solicitor to seek to take advantage of
the want of a stamp. He ought not to have prepared
such indentures, or should have given the parties full
notice that they were of no use whatever if they wire
not stamped.
Mr. Scott said his client had no desire to take any ad 7
vantage, and he was ready to carry out the indenture as
if it were stamped. lie told the father they ought to be
stamped. _ _ -

Mr.- Alderman WlLaorr said "he could take cognizttnoe
of a charge of assault without -regard to the apprentice-.
'ship, • ;Ile asked oat.premium was paid? The master
said none. It was a. binding, for only two years. The
boy was a thorough bad temper.
" Mr. Alderman Johnson joined Mr. Alderman Wilson
in hearing the case.

It appeared that the boy came forty minutes beyond
his time, during which the master was working without
a fire on a frosty day. When the lad began to light the
fire he threw the fender , aside so as to break a piece of
it off, .and chip a piece off' the oil cloth. The master
ordered him to.leave. The boy would not go, and in
resisting his master's efforts to force him out gave him
a black eye The toy had previously received two blows
in the face, and had been beaten over the arms to make
trim give up his hold of a looking glass, which he meant
to purl down if his master persisted in forcing him away.
The MAGISTRATES wereof opinion that the master had
Oven way• to unnecessary violence iu the outset, instead
or appealing to the magistrate. At the same time, con-
siclering'that the apprentice had struck the master, they
reduced the fine to ss. and costs. As the servant was
paid weekly wages, he might set up his claim for wages
at the Court of Requests, if the master refused to pay
what was due to him.
A donation of 101. was received from the Goldsmiths'
Company.