The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-15 00:00:00

•
LAW IN TELLIGEN CE,
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Afiy 14.
(Satins at Nisi Prius, Guildhall, before Lord Chief Justice
TINDAL and Common Juries.)
A case was called on this mo'rning shortly after the sitting
of the Court, in which was involved an action for a breach of
contract against the owner of a vessel, but there was not the
least interest attached to that or any other case heard during
the day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 14.
(Sittings in Guildhall.)
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN was occupied during the day in
disposing of cases, the leading features in almost all of which
were breaches of contract, or actions for the recovery of debts
of small amount.

SHERIFFS' COURT, May 14.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
BLACKMAN' V. OBBARD.
PRIZE MONEY ♦ND PRIZE AGENTS —Theplaintiff in this
action is an outfitter, &c., in Leadenhall-street, and the
defendant is an officer in the navy. The action was brought
to recover the eum of 101. for goods sold. The defendant
pleaded that he was not indebted.

Mr. CorumE stated the eau. During the last year the de-
fendant became entitled to prize money to a considerable
amount, and having some business with Mr. Levy, a navy
and prize agent, the latter introduced him to plaintiff, who
supplied him with a variety of articles, which were sent to
him at the Golden Cross, Charing-cross. Ho should prove
the order and delivery of the goods, and was at a loss to
know what the defence could be.
The plaintiff's foreman was called, arid proved that the
defendant was introduced by Mr. Levy, and goods were or-
dered. On two subsequent occasions the defendant alone
called, and other goods were ordered and sent. Levy said
that the defendarit was a man of property. Levy afterwards
called, and desired the accounts to be :tent in to him.
Mr. THOMAS, for the defendant, called for the plaintiff's
books, and which it appeared were very irregularly kept. but
under the heading of Levy, Obbard's name, as being intro-
duced, were inserted. The invoices, however, were made out
in Levy's name. The Learned Counsel then urged that the
credit had throughout been given to Levy,' who had
paid something on account, and the bill made out showed
what he was to charge defendant in full, and by the discount
the sum he was actually to pay. Levy had become bank-
rupt, but he would be put into the witness-box.
Levy, on being called, said that he was in the habit of ad-
vancing money on prize notes. He had had dealings with
plaintiff and defendant before. Defendant was entitled to
500/. prize money. He believed he advanced one-third in
money, and dress and ornaments for the rest. Out of the
cash part 501. was a bill, which was not taken up. He could
not say to whom plaintiff gave the credit, but he, witness,
or his brother, bad paid 101. on account.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and Mr. Justice Covrmasr.)
THE BATTERSEA MURDERS.
Mr. Baron At DERSON intimated that as no counsel was
engaged for the prosecution in tb: case of the woman Clarke,
who was charged with the wilful murder of her children by
throwing them over Battersea-bridge, the trial (which was in
the paper for to-day) muststand over to a future period. Tl'
Learned Judge then said that he felt bound in justice to Mr.
Bodkin, senior counsel for the prosecution in the trial of Wm.
and Ann Maria Richardson for murder, to state that the
Learned Counsel had been imperatively compelled to absent
himself from Court in order to attend his Parliamentary
duties in another place.
Mr. BODKIN thanked his Lordship for baying thus publicly
stated the reason for his non-attendance in Court during the
whole trial.
Silvester Houlahan was indicted for feloniously killing and
slaying John Stack.
The charge in this case arose from what is generallytermed
"an Irish row." A party had been given at the prisoner's
house, on Monday, the 23d March, and words arose between
the host and John Stack, one of the guests. The prisoner
seized the poker and struck Stack on the head, who fell down
insensible. He was removed to the Westminster Hospital,
where he died. The surgeon found, on making a post mortem
examination, that the skull had been driven in upon the
brain, causing inflammation, which terminated in death.
Mr. Hutt conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Parry at-
tended for the prisoner.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN summed up, and the jury returned
a verdict of Manslaughter, but with a strong recommenda-
tion to mercy.
Sentenced to imprisonment in the House of Correction for
four months, and to be kept to hard labour.