The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGEN CE,
HOUSE OF LORDS. Maylls.
The House sat to-day, to hear appeals. The Peers present
were Lord Cottenham, Lord Brougham, and Lord Campbell.

LEITH v. YOUNG.

The arguments on this part-heard appeal were resumed
this morning. The question in the case is on• totally devoid
of any interest, relatnig to the construction of a power in a
Scotch deed of entail.

_
(Tho case had not concluded whoa our Evening Edition
went to press.)

PRIVY COUNCIL, May 15.
t The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat to-day
to hear appeals. The Lords present were, the Master of the
Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, the Judge of the
Admiralty Court, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan-
caster.

BLUM v. RACKFIAII.-JUDGMENT.
Their Lordships' gave judgment to-day in this case, the
arguments on which were concluded on Wednesday last.
Their Lordships' affirmed the judgment of the Court below
with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 14.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice Wicarritan and
Common Juries.)
HOOPER r. WDONALD.
This action was brought by a newspaper agent to recover
from the defendant the amount of a bill for advertisements
inserted in the London papers for the announcement of a pro-
ject which was called the Cape of Good Hope Western Rail-
way, which was brought forward in August last, and of
which the defendant was a provisional committeeman. The
amount of the bill ,774/ 450/., and it was made np of money
paid by the plaintiff for the insertion of the advertisements,
and of a demand for his personal trouble in procuring the
insertion.
Mr. limns-12s (with whom was Mr. Francillon, stated
the plaintiff's case to the jury in a short, but amusing ad-
dress.
Colonel Lothian Dixon was then called and Sworn—He
said that he held an office under the Crown at the Cape, and
that he was a director of the project in question. The wit-
ness, by the direction of the defendant himself, caused the
defendant's name to be inserted in the list of the committee,
which he attended upon one occasion.
Cross-examined—Major M'Donald, upon having been ap-
pointed a provisional committeeman, declared himself dis-
satisfied, as he had expected to be made a director. This was,
however, after his appointment as a provisional committee-
man had actually been made.
Mr. Oldershaw, the attorney of the company, stated that
all the insertions had been either directed or sanctioned by
the witness and by the board.
Another witness proved that the plaintiff had paid every
farthing of the bill to the several newspapers in which the
advertisements had been inserted.
Mr. HAYWARD appeared upon the part of the defendant,
and contended that the authority which the defendant had
given Colonel Dixon to put his name upon the committee
was coupled with the condition of his being made a director,
and that, not having been so appointed, he took no further
trouble upon the subject. In such circumstances the Learned
Counsel contended that the evidence was not eufficieat to
establish the liability of the defendaat.
The jury, under the direction of the Learned Judge, found
verdict fur the plaintiff for the whole amount.
May 15.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice
WIGHT3LA W, and Common Juries.)
The greater part of the day was occupied in disposing of
undefended cases.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 15.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, Guildhall, before Mr. Justice Er
and Common Juries.)
NISS V. DAVIS.

This was a case brought on for the purpose of trying and
deciding a technical law point. The facts of the case were
these :—The plaintiff was attorney in a case in which he
obtained a judgment against a person named Carroll for a
debt of 2401., and for which he had been arrested and given
in to the custody of the defendant, who is high sheriff of the
county of Radnor ; that Carroll was brought up to London
tinder a habeas in the month of February, 1846,
in the custody of the sheriff's officer, and that
while in London he was permitted to go about
town and transact some business, and went to Hampstead on
the Sunday, but was not at any time out of the custody of
the officer. The allegation of the plaintiff was, that this con-
stituted an escape in law from the custody of the sheriff, and
the case was now brought before the Court merely for the
purpose of having the point decided. The case was one in
which there was a great deal of dry law argument, and had
LIQt terminated when our report left.

SECONDARIES' COURT, May 15.
(Before Mr. Secondary JA.stEs.)
ROBERTSON V. HENLEY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is the
proprietor of the Railway Record, to recover of the defendant,
who is one of the directors of the Direct London and Exeter
Railway Company, the sum of 121. 10s., for newspapers sup-
plied by his order. The defendantADleaded, in abatement,
that five other persons being the Managing Committee of
the Company, were also liable.
Mr. Payne appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Parry for the
defendant.
The case lasted a considerable time, but the facts were
very simple. It appeared that, in September last, the de-
fendant went to the Railway Record office and requested a
paragraph respecting the Company to be inserted, mid at the
same time ordered 500 copies of the paper to be sent to the
solicitor to the Company, and he wrote the order on the back
of his own card.

The question raised was, whether the order had been
given by the defendant individually, or whether there was
anything to lead the plaintiff to suppose he was dealing with
the Company.
The SECONDARY, in summing up, said that if the jury
considered the plaintiff was dealing with the Company, it
WAS incumbent on the defendant to set out the names of all
the parties liable, and not a part, which might leave those
parties to plead that others ought to have been sued.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, May 14.
(Before the Cmx., CO3LMIS3IONER and Mr. Commissioner
Pouocx.)
DT RE THR EEV. CHARLES WETHERELL.
The rule in this case for the rescinding of the vesting
order was specially appointed for this day.
The insolvent, whose name is unfortunately too notorious,
obtained a rule nisi on the ground that the petitioning cre-
ditor, Mr. Thurmott, a coal-merchant, of Bedford-street,
Strand, had been induced to take that step by means of
fraudulent representations on the part of other persons, and
that he was new willing that the Testing order should be
annulled.

To-day Mr. Cooke appeared in support of the rule, and
Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Dowse to show cause.
* Affidavits on the part of the respondents were read from
Several parties—one of whom, William Revell, a creditor
of the insolvent'e to the extent of 1041., swore that he
had applied to Mr. Thurmott to obtain the 'vesting order,
that the insolvent's estate might be preserved for the
creditors. Ile also stated that he had seen Mr. Thur-
mott's attorney (Mr. Moseley) on the subject. The affi-
davit of John Mynde Cooke stated that the insolvent
was in custody at the suit of Mr. Langston for the sum of
14,484/., the amount of a judgment in an action of covenant
on the post-nuptial settlement of deponent's wife and insol-
vent's daughter; that the insolvent had named as trustee
Lord Glenelg, without that nobleman's sanction, who refused
to act; and, consequently, .Ir. Langston, deponent's brother-
in-law, was the only trustee; that insolvent's daughter, on
obtaining her majority, had become entitled to a fortune of
about 21,0001., which had been expended by the insolvent in
about two years; that 14,4801. is the amount admitted by
the insolvent to be due to his daughter as part of the
SUM obtained from her, and it was settled that seques-
tration should issue against the insolvent's living at
Bylield, Northamptonshire; that the insolvent had en-
deavoured to avail himself of an inaccuracy to the at-
testation of the warrant of attorney given as collateral secu-
rity; that insolvent had brought a writ of error against Mr.
Langston, but deponent was advised and believed that there
were no grounds for it, and that it had only been brought
by the insolvent for the purpose of annoyance.
Mr. NICHOLLS commenced his arguments against the rule
by :urging that the best evidence of the motives by which
the creditor had been actuated in obtaining the vesting order,
viz., his own, had not been produced. It was insinuated that
King and Cooke had induced him by fraudulent representa-
tions to obtain the vesting order, and that be was now willing
to its being annulled. The next best evidence, that of Mr.
Moseley, the petitioning creditor's attorney, was not forth-
coming, and the whole case rested upon refined and subtle
statements.

The Conar intimated that the affidavits of the gentleman
referred to were highly desirable.
Mr. COOKE hoped tht Court would permit him to put them
in now.
Mr. CommissiorAr PorLoat said the insolvent knew what
he had averted,, and should have been prepared to support
his etatelne'4t. The affidavit of Mr. Thurmott and Mr.
Moseley could not be received now.
' The Learned CHIEF Co3tsfISSIONER expressed his opinion
that the absence of these affidavits was conclusive, and CQU
yelled the Court to dismiss the rule.
Mr. Comm
_issioner PoLLocic concurred.
oll9applied for costs from the estate.
Mr. Commissioner POLLOCK. said the Court could not forget
that Mr. Thurmott had been set in motion by a
atad that all the detaining creditors except ML:nraes person,
willing that the vesting order should. be rescinded.g tma
were
Buie discharged. Costa refused.

POLICE IN TELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
On Saturday, John Bannister and Bentham Fabian,
the parties charged with the forgery of railway scrip,
were again placed at the bar for re-examination.
Mr. Alderman GIBBS having taken his seat, the case
Against the prisoners was called on.
Mr. Clarkson said he had to ask for a further remand
of the prisoners for some days, in order to complete
certain inquiries now in progress.
Mr. Doane said Mr. Richards was in attendance, and
ready to give all the information in his power.
Mr. Clarkson was aware of that, but, as counsel for
the prosecution, he was not at present ready to proceed
with the case. He should be able to prove that a press
for printing had been found on the premises of the pri-
soner Fabian, in Gower-place, and should call a
gentleman who printed the bona Jide scrip of the
Buckinghamshire, Oxford, Bletchley, and Junction
Railway, with the London and Birmingham
Railway, who would prove that the scrip now produced,
was spurious, and a forgery. Another ground for a re-
mand was, that the secretaryTof the company could not
possibly attend to,day. If the examination was post-
poned for a short period, it was expected most important
evidence would be obtained, not only as related to the
prisoners individually, but as affecting other parties
whom it was unnecessary to name. He thought, fur the
purposes of public justice, that a remand was absolutely
tecessary, and therefore he asked the worthy Aldermano
postpone the inquiry until Tuesday week, the 2d of
June. The prisoners would not be inconvenienced by a
remand, as they could not possibly be tried during the
present sessions of the Criminal -Court, the grand jury
haying been discharged this morning. The Learned
Counsel called
Daniel Forester, the officer, who, having been sworn,
evidencel relating to
said, I am engaged in con
the charge against the prisoners,
goner Fabian's residence, No• 42
, Gosweaer;hld the pH-
there found a printing-press, which was constructed for
fo
emboasing the borders of cards and other documents,
ir
have every reason to suppose, that if the prisoners
are
remanded for a few days I shall be able to obtain fur-
ther important evidence.
Mr. Ballantine said, the next session of the Criminal
_ _ _
,nday, the 15th of June, and
.141V116141 ila idiculd not ob.

al*if)
-iejen
h.ll7*'t
/P/474;

G, - ;

jest to a remand, if his learned friend told him he
should then b. prepared to go to trial.
Mr. Clarkson—Yes, certainly.
Mr. Ballantine—Then, as it is impossible to try the
case at the present session, it will be to the personal com-
fort of the prisoners that they should be remanded ; but
he trusted that there would be no unnecessary delay in
proceeding with the inquiry.
Mr. ALDERMAN GIBBS (addressing Mr. Clarkson)
said—Do you not ask for rather a long remand ?
Mr. Clarkson—Why, Sir, it will save expense and
trouble to all parties, for if an earlier day is named it is
possible the case would not be ready to be proceeded
with.

Mr. Samuel Ebbs, printer, was then called. He said—
I printed the scrip of the Buckinghamshire, Oxford, and
Bletchley Railway Company. The scrip now produced
was not printed by me. I unhesitatingly pronounce it
to be a forgery.
Mr. Ballantine—l dare say, Sir, that you have
printed a great quantity
of scrip lately ? Witness—Yes,
Sir, I have.
Mr. Clarkson—And no doubt the printing of scrip was
valuable to you. Witness—Of course it was a souree of
profit.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Doane—l do not suppose you would like to take
it back again at prime cost.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Ballantine stated that a number of papers and
bills of exchange had been found at the residence of the
prisoner Fabian, which had nothing to do with the pre-
sent charge, and were not required for the purposes of the
prosecution ; he suggested that they might be given up,
as it would be necessary to present the bills for payment
on their arriving at maturity.
Mr. Clarkson thought the documents had better re-
main in the hands of Inspector Waller, who might give
the necessary notice when the bills became due.
smlinthsrcpayn
Inspector Waller said the bill for 1701., payable at.
and Smith's, was duly presented last
week, but it had not been paid; he was informed that
the company on which it was drawn were about winding
up their affairs, and offered los. in the pound for the
liabilities. He had not, however, since then heard any-
thing further on the subject.
The LORD MAYOR ordered the inspector to keep
charge of the money and bills for the present.
The prisoners were then remanded until Tuesday, the
2d of June, and immediately afterwards removed to the
Compter in custody.
STEAMBOAT REouLATIoNs.—The captains of no less than
thirty-five of the river steam-boats appeared before Alder-
man Gibbs, who sat for the Lord Mayor, to answer infor-
mations issued at the instance of the Watermen's and
Lightermen's Company, wherein they were charged with
acting as commanders without being licensed by the said
Company. These proceedings were a preliminary step to
enforcing the bye-laws recently passed by the Corporation
for the regulation of steam-boats, particularly to prevent
the over-crowding which has long been deemed so dangerous
to the public. When all commanders of steam-boats shall
have been duly licensed, the boats must also be licensed to
carry only a certain number of passengers, according to
measurement.
There appeared, in support of the informations, Mr. Cooper
(firm of Clark and Cooper), solicitor to the Watermen's and
Lighhtermen's Company; and for the defence, the solicitors
for the respective steam-boat companies, viz., the London
and Westminster (wooden boats), Waterman, Citizen, Eagle
and Falcon (Gravesend); the Putney, Old Woolwich, Chel-
sea (iron beats); and Diamond (Gravesend) Steam-boat
Companies. The first five companies have signified their in-
tention of taking out licenses, twenty one of the informs.
tions, as against them, were not proceeded with.
The solicitor for the Gravesend Diamond Company said
that their steam-boats had now been established many years,
and had given great satisfaction to the public, who had not
complained or called for the bye-laws, which were therefore
not necessary.
Similar remarks having been made by Mr. Catterns for
the Old Woolwich Company, and all having intimated that
they should appeal against any conviction, the evidence in
the cases was taken pro formd, and the captains of the four-
teen boats, viz., the Cricket (penny boat), Moonlight, Day-
light, Matrimony, Bride, Bridegroom, Bridemaid, Wedding
Ring, and Bachelor (Chelsea iron boats); the Ariel, Sylph
and Fairy (Woolwich); the Rainbow (Putney); and the
Diamond (Gravesend), were each fined 405., and costs.
The Cricket only paid the fine; for all the others notice of
appeal was given. This will have the effect of deferring the
carrying out of the bye-laws for nearly two months longer,
as the next London Sessions will not be held till the 9th of
July.
The case excited great general interest, and the Court was
much crowded throughout, particularly with those connected
with the steam and other navigation of the river.
GUILDHALL.

John Spence, who lately carried on the business of a book.
seller in Holywell-street, Strand, was brought before Sir P.
Laurie for further examination, for being in possession of
stolen goods, and not accounting satisfactorily for them.
Mr. Robinson conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Joyce, a
barrister, defended the prisoner.
Mr. Robinson stated the nature of the case. The Govern-
ment printed the Nautical Almanac, for the use of naviga.
tors, three years in advance. The almanac for the year 1848
was commenced in August, 1844, and the printing cf it was
completed in the December of that year. Messrs. Clowes, of
Stamford-street, printed all the Government work, and of
10,000 copies of the almanac they had issued only 1,500.
Mr. Cope, of St. Martin's-lane, contracted to bind the whole
number, and to deliver them to the Government publisher,
Mr. Murray, of Albemarle-street. It having been ascer-
tained that 16 copies of the almanac had been sold at an
auction of pawnbroker's pledges for less than the cost price,
inquiry was made, five of the copies were recovered, and
were found to have been stolen from the printing-office. This
was ascertained by the style of binding, which was unlike
that adopted by Mr. Cope. The stock at the printers' was
then counted, and a deficiency of more than 40 was disco-
covered. The pawnbroker who had sent them to the auction
was next applied to, and he pointed out the prisoner as the
pawner. The prisoner's account was that he purchased them
of a stranger in the way of business.
Mr. Attenborough, the pawnbroker in Fleet-street, iden-
tified the prisoner as having pawned sixteen copies of the
almanac in three parcels in January and February, 1845.
He lent him 9s. on four copies, and 12s. on six copies.
He believed the five copies produced were the same, from
their general appearance, but he had put no mark on
them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Joyce—He knex the prisoner, and
had employed him to bind books. In April, 1846, he
sent the sixteen copies to be sold by auction. When the
prisoner used the name of Cole as the pawner it could nut
have been for purposes of concealment.
Charles Assam, foreman to the bookbinder, proved that
the tire copies were not part of the 1,500 that had been
bound for tree publisher.
Daniel Phipps, from Messrs. Clowes's, deposed to missing
forty copies from the stock.
Cross- examined by Mr. Joyce—Did not send out any
copies in sheets to reviewers prior to publication. Never
sold any copies at the printing-office, or delivered any on
the publisher's order to aay person or to any other book-
binder than the one who contracted with the Stationery -office
to bind the whole.
Sir P. LADAIE said he knew it must be the practice to
send copies to reviewers before publication, because the re-
view and publication sometimes appeared together.
Mr. Phipps said the almanac presented no materials for a
reviewer.
Mr. Joyce said his client purchased the books in the ordi-
nary course of his trade, and dealers in second-hand books
were not to be expected to make personal inquiries how their
customers came possessed of the works, or even as to the accu-
racy of the names and addresses they gave. Persons who
were reduced to sell their plate or their watches to a silver-
smith, or their books at a bo,,k-stall, were not to be expected
to give their real address very readily, and the shoploeper
must be satisfied with general appearances where the goods
themselves presented no ground of suspicion.
Sir P. LAUILLE said that might be a fair observation as to
the sale of a spoon, but the book had the publi.she.ir's address
on the face of it, and there was no difficulty 'm making in-
quiry at the proper place. Here was the ',.,'-efendant in pos-
session of stolen copies of a new work :mmediately after the
publication, and disposing of them ypawning them for less
than half their price. He was P ot satisfied with the prisoner's
upon himself to discharge him.
account, and should not tee
flarther inquiry, and he therefore cora-
-1 It was a fit case for
witted the prisoner
. for receiving stolen goods.

BOW- STREET.
Joh* gr oort a cab-proprietor, was charged with stealing a
%Inv:, for 1001. from the pocket of a young mai named
Wine, a clerk to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
The complainant stated that he was returning from the
Union Bank, with the cheque in his pocket, when he felt
some one treading on his heels. He immediately felt for his
pocket-book, but it was gone. This occurred in Duncannon-
I street, West Strand. He looked round, and saw the prisoner
walking towards the Lowther Arcade, while another young
man, who had been with him, took a different direction.
Witness followed the prisoner into the Adelaide Gallery, and
there gave him into the custody of a policeman.
The prisoner said he knew nothing at all of the occur-
ranee. He was a very respectable man, and had twenty-
five cabs and horses. He had just sent for his friends, and
"Master Ballantine," whom he had no doubt would be in
court presently, if his worship would wait.
The two constables who brought the prisoner to the
station-house proved that he had offered them money, with-
oat, however, assigning any reason for so doing.
isrt.r.JAisf:rfemanded him, to Tuesday.„
Wine, alias Farmer Cook, he was brought before
the London
June, 1845. .‘l..rt.ller examination, charged with stealing
gs from the Gravesend Post-office, in
Mr. Pelleock attended for the
solicitor, defended the prisoner. Post-off'' and Mr. Lewis,
'sir. Wm. 11. Waller stated, that he was clerk in the
banking-house of Hills, Mcßae, and Co., of Gravesend,ou.
the 26th June, 1845, on which day he wrote a letter, ad.
dressed to the Commercial Bank, Lothbury. He inclosed
seven bills of exchange for 1,259/. 2s. 6d., a cheque for 100/.,
and four 20/. notes of the Canterbury bank,—the numbers of
which were 742,.744, 743, and 746. He sealed the letter,
and then posted it at Gravesend, between seven and nine in
the evening. The three notes now produced are unques-
tionably the same, thair numbers being 742, 744, and 746.
On the following morning he ascertained in London that the
letter had not reached its destination.
Mr. Charles S. Combes, postmaster of Gravesend, deposed
that the letter spoken of by the last witness should have
reached London by the mail-bag leaving Gravesend at two
o'clock in the morning. The bag containing the letters was
sealed at half-past eleven. The letter produced by the last
witness, and addressed to the Commercial Bank, bears the
Gravesend post-mark of June 26, 1845. The mail-bags for
tpheeptthforrede and
Dartfordestrappedvfe made
togetherer
p
a s usual.at the
He then
time,then placed
tthem h upone ststreet
-ed
oflooro, r i
tin b
et
ihnegp aciassatgoem,
a ry leadingf ofrom
for the
them the Ili
mail-guard o ce
to call at two o'clock in the morning to receive them. The
guard obtained them by ringing a bell, upon which
latch
hthche
servant inside pulled a wire communicating with the
of the street-door, and let him in. At one o'clock witness

saw the bags safe in the passage. At about a quarter
past two in the morning witness heard the house-bell
ring, and was informed that the three mail-bags were

missing from the lobby or passage, when the guard arrived
for them. Did not see the bags again till the Bth of the
following September, when they were discovered at No. 4,
Gravesend, many of the letters being still in
them, unopened. Others were open, strewed upon the door
Upwards of 100 were left unopened. The letter produced
was among them, having been placed, to witness's know-
ledge, in the London bag. The London letter-bill, made out
by witness, and also placed in the bag, was likewise found
among the letters in the London bag.
Henry Everett stated that he was a letter-carrier, and was
in the habit of sleeping at the Gravesend post-office for the
purpose of giving out the London, Dartford, and Deptford
wsavel bellic
which
mail-bags. They were generally called for at a quarter-past
two in the morning, at which time the mail-guard pulled a
arous:teldiim.,aland, by a contrivance adopted to
.him the trouble of getting out of bed, he pulled a wire
'icolcraltuajih
opened it. with the latch of the :treat-door, ahad

Mr. Peacock—So that, in fact, anybody might have en-
tered on pulling the bell, and taken the bags.
Witness—Yes but he could sometimes see the guard
got
the
a practice bags.
was not allowable
afterhoped
h e h
tLaait t s
at the Gravesend post-office now. Witness—Certainly not.
from
Dr. r. a
Peacock window
Mr. Lewis—Because you have now taken the precaution
to lock the stable-door, the horse having been stolen.
Witness resumed—He heard the Rochester mail-bags
brought and left in the passage on the 26th of June, and in
about ten minutes afterwards he heard the bell ring again,
upon which witness pulled the wire and opened the door again.
He then saw John Reese, the London mail-driver, enter the
passage, and begin to arrange the bags as usual. He could
see what Reese was doing from a window over the door, by
sitting up in the bed.
By Mr. Lewis.—His bed was situated on the ground floor,
about seven yards from the passage, so that he could see who
was in the passage through a glass door, there being a light
over it.
Examination Iresumed—Reese presently missed the Graves-
end bags and called up witness. They could see nothing of
them, but the Chatham bags were all safe.
William Maddox, of Gravesend, said that he conveyed the
mail-bag from Chatham to Gravesend on the night of the 26th
June last, reaching the latter office at two in the morning.
On arriving there he rung the bell, as he was accustomed to
do, and the door came open, and he then threw in his three
bags, and lett again, shutting the door after him. When on
the door steps I did not observe any other than the Sidney
bag, but there might have been others upon the floor. It
was not his place to look after them.
John Reese, of 40, Newgate-street, London, stated that he
was the driver of the Gravesend and London mail on the
night of June 26th last. He reached the Gravesend Post-
office at a quarter past two, on the morning of the 27th, and,
having rung the bell as usual, entered the passage to take
possession of the Gravesend bags, which, however, were
missing. He then called up Everett ; but they could not
find them.
Harry Jones, a clerk in the Commercial Batik, proved that
the letter containing the notes did not reach the firm in the
usual course, as appeared from the bank books.
Mary Harle proved that the bags and letters spoken of by
the postmaster were found at an empty house inEdwin-street,
Gravesend, where she went to clean, and which had been un-
inhabited for a considerable time.
George Whittick (the witness present at the former exa-
mination) proved that the prisoner tendered one of the 20/.
Canterbury bank-notes at the shop of Sewell and Cross, the
drapers, of Soho.
Another witness proved the payment of one of the other
notes at the shop of Fortnum and Mason, oilmen, Piccadilly,
also by the prisoner ; but he admitted that he could not swear
positively to his identity.
Jonathan Whitcher, who apprehended the prisoner at 163,
Sloane-street, Chelsea, atter having watched and followed
him from several houses in the neighbourhood of Drury-lane
the previous night, deposed that on accusing him of steal-
ing the four Canterbury notes, he said " it was all a mistake,
and he was not the man." He then asked when the notes
were changed. Witness replied on the 6th of April, upon
which he said he could prove that he was in France at the
time. He refused to give his name or address at the station
house, but subsequently stated that his name was John
Farmer, and that he was a glover. having no fixed residence.
John Shirt, another constable, found a quantity of goods
at the prisoner's house, which had been purchased by the
notes produced.
The prisoner was then remanded upon the above charge
till Friday next.
It b-ing nearly five o'clock, the other eases were also de-
ferred to Tuesday and Friday next.

WORSHIP-STREET.
An intelligent little girl, named Esther Hobson, about
twelve years of age, was placed at the bar before Mr.
Broughton, charged with attempting to commit self-
destruct ion.
It appeared from the evidence of a woman named Caroline
Yorke, that in consequence of the prisoner's mother having
some time since deserted her home and family, the witness
had been induced by her father to take care of his two
children, and manage his domestic affairs in her absence.
This arrangement, however, appeared to have excited feel-
ings of great dislike in the mind of the prisoner, who was a
girl of very headstrong and violent temper. and, having
found it necessary on the preceding day to correct her for
some misconduct of which she had been guilty, the girl
became greatly excited, and exclaiming that that was
the last time she should behave so towards her, instantly ran
up-stairs to a closet in which two phials, containing extract
of lead, and labelled " poison," were deposited. Fearing she
meditated some serious mischief, the witness hastened after
her, and on entering the room found the prisoner dis-
coloured round the mouth, with one of the bottles clasped
tightly in her hand, and that she had just swallowed the
whole of its contents, A surgeon was instantly sent for, and
a powerful emetic administered, which had the effect of dis-
lodging the poison, but the prisoner had ever since been suf-
fering acutely from its effects ; and, as she had several times
afterwards declared her determination to destroy herself at
the first opportunity, the witness felt it her duty to give her
into custody.
The prisoner's father here stepped forward, and stated that
the conduct of the girl for several weeks past had caused him
the greatest discomfort and ,uneasiness, and he was appre-
hensive that her mind had been influenced by an elder sister,
who had so misconducted herself some time since that she
had been committed to the Westminster Bridewell, and died
while confined there.
The MAGISTRATE questioned the prisoner as to the cause of
her attempting such an act, and the girl, who appeared the
picture !of melancholy and wretchedness, burst into tears,
and sobbing said she felt so miserable and unhappy at being
kept forcibly separated from her mother, that she could not
live any longer without seeing her.
Mr. BROUGHTON said that the circumstances of the case
were certainly of a remarkable description, as he had never
before witnessed such an utter recklessness of life in so young
a child, and he thought he should be acting most kindly to
the prisoner herself if he sent her for a week to Bridewell,
where she would be properly admonished on the heinousness
of her attempt, and an opportunity would be afforded in the
meantime for some arrangement being come to to obviate
her continued residence at home, to which it was manifest
she bad the greatest repugnance.
The chill seemed pleased with this decision, and accom-
panied the gaoler to the cells with obvious willingness.
WESTMINSTER.

William Lull; alias 2111 nford, who stands charged with
brutally assaulting and throwing a woman with whom he
cohabited out of window, was again brought before the
magistrate.
It had been supposed by the prisoner's acquaintances that
the extraordinary exculpatory statement made by the injured
woman at the hospital on Tuesday, and which was oopo,ed
to the evidence of the whole of the witnesses who had been
examined, would have the effect of procuring his liberation;
but they htel, however, fallen into error, as, upon the prisoner
entering the dock,
Mr. BURRELL informed him that he was further remanded
for a fortnight.
Prisoner—May I not have bail, your worship?
Mr. BURRELL—I shall nut take bail.
He was then removed.
THE RIGHT OF REDEEMING PLEDGES —Yesterday Mr.
Burrell gave his decis,on in a matter of some importance to
pawnbrokers and those who are driven by necessity to
their shops. The case arose out of an informati<li exhibited
by Birch, a common informer, against Mr. Perkins, a pawn-
broker at Chelsea, charging him with taking more than the
legal interest on a pledge of 3s. The article had been pledged
on the 2d of January, 1845, backed at the expiration of a
year for three months, and ultimately " redeemed " as the
informer alleged, on the 3d of last April. The facts, save the
" redemption," were not disputed, but it was contended, on
behalf of the pawnbroker, that the article had become for-
feited, and that he was consequenly justified in selling it at
any price he thought fit, and further that it could not be
termed a redemption, because the time having expired in
which, according to the Act of Parliament, it became for-
feited, the pawner had absolutely lost all right to it. The
law expresply laid down the rules which should apply to
pledges ahovs 10s., reserving a right to the pawner to receive
any overplus which the property might fetch atter the ex-
penses of site, tisc., were deducted ; but there was no such
proviso with reference to minor pawns, and the words clearly
expressed, that unless the article under 10s., should be re-
deemed within the limited time it "should become forfeited,
and might be sold."

Mr. li;erkins's solicitor handed an opinion of the Attorney-
General to the magistrate. Its purport did not transpire ;
but it must be presumed that it was favourable to their
view of the matter, or it would not otherwise have been pro-
duced.

Mr. BURRELL, after adverting to the case of Walker v.
Smith, in Barnewall and Alderson's Reports (where a verdict
was given against a pawnbroker in an action for trover for
refusing to deliver up a gold watch and appendages, after a
year and a day and a new trial moved unsuccessfully), and
in which Chief Justice Abbott, Judges Bayley, Holroyd, and
Best, were of opinion that a pawnbroker had no right to sell
unredemed pledges after the expiration of a year from the
time the goods were pledged, if the original owner tender the
principal and interest due, said he did not consider the for-
feiture complete until the absolute sale, and up to which
period the article was redeemable. As Mr. Perkins acted
under the impression that he was justified, he (the Magis-
trate) of course should not inflict a greater penalty than 40s.
Mr. Perkins's solicitor applied to have it made 31. 35., in
order to give his client the power of appeal.
Mr. BURRELL expressed himself most desirous of affording
the defendant an opportunity of appealing, and increased the
penalty as requested, in order to enable him to do so.
Birch, the informer, pressed the magistrate to make it 101,
as be should be put to great expense in going to the sessions
on the appeal.
Mr. BURRELL refused.

sion, exhibit two other informations for similar
against defendant, as ho should like to go
to
the sessions
Birch then said he would, with the magisrate's
with a brace of cases, lest one should break down. opffencisesenn-
Mr. BURRELL refused the application.
CRUEL,ne,
, .
II
rC. 0 CLERKENWELL.
'ArPaEsl;
Cone,his
Camaeb-street, Islington, was charged by John
JohnNpUerStoOkFenAham, MASTER
a master TOWARDStaiIor,
apprentice, a lad of sixteen, with an assault of a very
savage nature upon him. The poor lad, whose body exhi-
rienssiding at ,
exhi-
bited marks of severe personal violence, his thighs being
covered with stripes, was bred in the Foundling Hospital, and
bound to the defendant about two years ago, who received a
premium of 10/. from that Institution. In order to encou-
rage good apprentices, and to prove to masters that the con-
ductors of the Foundling cherish a parental regard for de-
serving youths who are bound from it, they make presents
to the boys from time to time, upon a certificate if good be-
haviour from the master. In this case the defendant sent
the boy to the Foundling at Ea-ter with a certificate, and
the boy received 15s. as a present. He had no sooner re-
turned than the master took the money from him and
pocketed it, saying he would buy clothes for the boy with it,
although by the indenture he was bound to clothe him. On
Tuesday morning last, the master returned home after an
absence of half an hour, and called the prosecutor to ac-
count for his time, saying be had done nothing during that
half-hour. The lad replied he had been at breakfast. The
muter thereupon took up a yard measure, and beat the boy
for ten minutes with it, so as to cover his arms and thighs
pe:ISTRATE said the master behaved like a trent,
beaten him in a most savage manner. Even in the
awnidlt hlhesa stripes.
The
factory districts, about which they heard so much, half an
hour was allowed for breakfast. lie would fine the de-
fendant 51.—The money was paid at once,

-01;3aemtwane,einia,Sinixg
thei Regent's
Workhouse The
three orr
SUPPOSED SUICIDE OF A FOREIGNE
tahnedaspepvrtraon'celeockofoiat Wednesdayfog evening,
dthettobacslati?.
Canal, near the Skew-bridge, adjoining St. Patlerasg4
deceased (who had evidently been in the water
was of extremely dark complexion, with black hair and oeu•r• days)
five feet four inches high. He was attired in a dark cloth shooting.
an:
coat, with fancy sporting buttons, black waistcoat, and draboeilon .
trousers. There were no marks of violence on his person. The
body was removed to St. Pancras Workhouse, where it awaits
i identity.
RUINOUS EFFECT OF FREE TRADE.—Notwithstand-
ing the clamour raised against Sir Robert Peel's free-trade measures,
scarcely a farm falls out of lease that is not readily relet at a consi-
derable advance. As a striking instance of this, we may mention
that, for one of the Dumfriesshire farms of James Oswald, Esq., of
Auchencruive, now out of lease, twenty offers were received, and the
farm has bees let at a rise of 33 per cot. oil the forum' re.utais—ayr
asirtrA:Nr.