The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-15 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 14.

Lord Chief Justice Wilde and a special jury were
engaged the whole day in the trial of an action for an
alleged illegal distraint under a fiat of bankruptcy. The
case, which was of no interest except to the parties con-
cerned, was not concluded at the rising of the Court.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

The second session of the present mayoralty was
opened yesterday morning.
Mr. Samuel Taylor, of 2, George-court, Drury-lane,
printer of the Patents Journal, was indicted fur the
publication of a libel on Mr. Vincent Price, late the
secretary of the London Mechanics' Benefit Institution,
ascribing to him motives of personal interest in the
establishment of the society, and describing him as unfit
from ignorance for the situation which he held.
Mr. Horry was retained for the prosecution, and Mr.
Robinson for the defendant. _ _

Mr. Thomas Henry Smith, of Rider's-court, Leicester-
square, an ivory turner, stated that he was a member of
the committee of the London Mechanics' Benefit Insti-
tution, and testified his belief that the description which
appeared in the report that emanated from Mr.
Taylor's printing-office could only refer to the founder,
Mr. Price, and no one else. To ol.r. Robinson's cross-
examination, he replied that he was a member
of the committee, but that several secessions had
been made from the society since his installation in
office, so that the committee could not be identified.
George Henry Brankes, a member of the committee,
said that, though constant in his attendance, there were
three or four members that he had never met with.

---....
The policeman proved the identity of Mr. Taylor as
the printer of the libel.
The publication of the alleged libel having been
proved,
Mr ROBINSON submitted that Mr. Price had neither
proved that he was the secretary of the society, nor
that the society itself was a legal society. To make it
the latter, it ought to have been registered under 7th
and Bth Victoria, c. 110, s. 2. ; but this objection being
overruled by the Judge, Mr. Robinson addressed the
jury for the defence. He was prepared to prove that
the libel was inserted in the journal, if libel it was, with-
out any countenance, or even partisanship, of the de-
fendant. This was a sufficient defence both in
law and equity but there was a further proof in the
readiness of the defendant to give every information that
could be desired by the prosecutor, so as to enable him
to get at the real author. Mr. Taylor had printed only
two or three numbers of this journal, and could not
possibly have either interest or motive to prejudice the
character of the prosecutor. He then called
George Wilson Bartlett, clerk to Mr. Warnford, the
prosecutor's attorney, who proved that he had called upon
Mr. Taylor, at the instance of Mr. Price, to complain of
the libel, when the former stated that he was quite ready
to give up the name of the author, but must first have an
interview with him. At a subsequent meeting with Mr.
Warnford, on the 3d of October, in Holborn, Mr. Taylor
had expressly stated who was the author, and that
two persons in his employment could prove the hand-
writing of that gentleman, as exhibited in the copy of
the libel.

Thomas Payne, a compositor in the employment of
Mr. Taylor, who had been employed on this journal,
proved that tie copy came into the office on a Wednes-
day evening, when Mr. Taylor was away from home.
111 r. Simpson, the overseer for Mr. Taylor, confirmed
the evidence of the last witness.
Mr. HORRY replied.

The Comaussrolom summed up, stating that the jury
must be clearly satisfied that there was a mischievous
intention in the defendant, as also that he was the actual
printer and publisher, before they could convict.
After a short consultation the jury returned a verdict
of Not guilty.
John Brown, William Reynolds, and Robert Rose, were
jointly iadicted for a conspiracy to defraud Thomas Stiff
of 451., by means of false pretences. The two first-
named defendants were surrendered, Rose did not ap-
pear to take his trial.
Mr. Ballantine prosecuted ; Mr. Clarkson defended
Brown, and Mr. Parry appeared for Reynolds.
From the evidence adduced in support of the charge,
it appeared that the prosecutor is a job master in
Quebec-mews, Portman-square, and on the 6th of Octo-
ber, the defendant Rose went to him and told him that
Brown, who is the landlord of the Three Tuns p-üblic-
house, Oxford-street, had a horse in his possession be-
longing to a gentleman to whom he had advanced a sum
of money, and that he was anxious to sell the animal,
which he described as being worth eighty guineas, but
which he said he could offer for a much smaller sum.
The prosecutor accompanied Rose to Brown's house, when
a very fine showy animal was brought out and exhibited,
but he declined at that time to enter into any negotia-
tion for the purchase of it, expressing a wish to see the
gentleman to whom it belonged, or, at all events, to be
satisfied that Brown had his authority to dispose of it.
A few days after this, Rose again called upon him, and
said they had got the gentleman's authority ; and upon
the prosecutor's going to Brown's public-house, that de-
fendant showed him a letter, signed G. A. Smith, which
authorised Brown to sell the horse ; and upon this the
prosecutor consented to give 45/. for the animal, which
was then sent to his stables, and he very speedily dis-
covered that it was a regular " screw," being a roarer,
and badly broken winded ; in:fact, perfectly useless ex-
cept as a means of fraud, for which, however, its showy
and grand appearance rendered it peculiarly applicable ;
and it appeared that only a few days before
the present prosecutor was bit, a gentleman in
Finsbury-circus had purchased the same ani-
mal for thirty guineas from Brown, and upon
discovering its worthlessness, he sold it to him back the
same day for 20/., resolving to lose the difference. The
only evidence against the defendant Reynolds appeared
to be that he had written the petitioner's letter in the
name of G. A. Smith, but this fact was not clearly esta-
blished.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against Brown,
and acquitted the other defendant.

A number of respectable witnesses were then exa-
mined to show that Brown had borne a good character
previous to this transaction.
Mr. BuLLoex sentenced him to be imprisoned for six
calendar months.
The indictment found at the last sessions against seve-
of cadetships, has
ral individuals for having illegally trafficked in the sale
been removed by certiorari from this
Court to the Queen's Bench.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION HOUSE.

THE QUEEN V. J. B. FAULKNER AND B. FABIA.N.-

Mr. Ball RAILWAY SCRIP.
appeared, on Thursday last, upon the part
of J. B. Faulkner and B. Fabian, the former of whom
had been tried at the Central Criminal Court, and the
latter of whom had absconded before the day appointed
for his trial, that the remainder of monies and railway
scrip in the hands of Charles Walker, one of the in-
spectors of the City police, might be delivered up to
them or to their attorneys. 9
The Learned Counsel stated that Inspector Walker i
had n his possession certain railway scrip, and stock,
and money, the
propert of Faulkner and Fabian; that
Faulkner was :tried at the Central Criminal Court, and
Fabian did not surrender• that Mr. Bodkin applied for
restitution of their property, and the Learned
Judge did not makean order, but it was
afterwards said that such property as Leon
Solomon, who prosecuted, could identify was to
be given up to him, and -11,e identified 360/, part of
1,0651.; that the remainder was expected to be delivered
to Faulk
still in t ner ; that the money
he Inspector's hands ; and that afterwards an
action was brought by Faulkner and Fabian. against
'and other property. were
Walker and upon that a rule was drawn up, whicts hav-
ing been argued, the Judge said he thought the 3601.
ought to have been impounded. Under these eirciiin-
stances, it was referred to Alderman Gibbs, before
whom the case had been originally brought, to decide
what portirn referred to the crime ; and the Learned
Coun,el argued that the property in `,Talker's hands did
not refer to the charge against Faulkner and Fabian, on
the face of the depositions, and ihitt the only property
connected with the forgery was the Buckinghamshire
scrip, which was delivered to bur. Leon Solomon, at the j
office of his solicitor.