The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-24 00:00:00

LEWIS V. BOWER.

Mr. BALL moved for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should not be granted in this case, tried
before Lord Lyndhurst at Guildhall, at the sittings
after last Friary term. It was an action on a bill
of exchange, brought by the holder, who was the
endorsee, against the acceptor. The ground of the
motion was, that the plaintiff bad not proved that
he had given consideration for the bill, although the
defendant had received no consideration for his ac-
ceptance. At the trial the plaintiff did not prove
that he gave a valuable consideration for the bill.—
Rule granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

110 W- f BEET.

Yesterday having been appointed for the further
hearing of the charge of unlawfully pawning, pre-
ferred against Mr. S. Bayntun, one of the members
for the city of York, by Mr. Mullett, the uphol-
sterer, of the Strand, the office was crowded, long
before the proceedings commenced, by persons
anxious to ascertain the result of the inquiry.
The evidence taken on Monday week was read
over to the witnesses, and Mr. Callow, for the pro-
secution, called

Stephen Samuel Sheppy, who proved that he
was foreman to Mr. Jones, a pawnbroker, residing
at 3, Tothill-street, Westminster. In July last,
witness was in the employment of Mr. James Hall,
a pawnbroker, living at No. 93, High-street, Mary-
lebone. The looking-glass now produced was
pawned at the shop of his then employer, for 21.,
on the 28th of July, by a person who gave the name
of Thomas Transfield, and who stated that he re-
sided at No. 25, Northumberland-street, New-road.
The defendant was not the party who pawned the
glass.
Nathaniel Bowen, shopman to Mr. Hall, pro-
duced the looking-glass, which was identified by
Mr. Mullett as his property.
Mr. Polding, who lives with Mr. Mullett, here
entered the office, and stated that he had been in
search of a witness named Ignatius Cavendish Coyle.
He had followed him to the Craven hotel, and
wished him to come forward, but he positively re-
fused to appear. His evidence was most material.
Mr. HALLS directed Ledbitter, the officer, to go
in search of the witness, and bring him forward
without delay.
The witness Bowen then stated, in reply to ques-
tions put to him by Mr. Callow, that about a month
ago he received directions from Mr. Polding not to
part with the glass. A person came to redeem it a
few days after, but witness detained the duplicate,
and refused to let him have the glass. That person
was now in the office.

Thomas Clarke, the person referred to, was then
sworn. He stated that he was managing clerk to
Messrs. Peach and Bowditch, solic►tors to Mr.
Bayntun, and that he was the party who went to
redeem the glass.
Mr. Callow—From whom did you receive the
duplicate ? Witness—From Mr. Bayntun.
Mr HALLS—Do you mean to say that you got
the duplicate from Mr. Bayntun himself? W►t-
ness—Yes; both the duplicate and the summons
from this office were handed to me ; but when 1
went to redeem the glass it was refused to me.
The witness was then examined with reference to
a conversation alleged to have taken place at the
office of Messrs. Peach and Bowditch, about four
months ago, in which, accord►ng to the evidence of
Mr. Polding, Mr. Bayntun assured that gentleman
that the furniture which was supplied to him was
perfectly safe, with the exception of the looking-
glass, which he had sent to his sister at Brighton.
The witness declared that he had not the slightest
recollection of any such admission having been made
by Mr. Bayntun. A negotiation was going on at
the time between Mr. Bayntun and Mr. Mullett,
with respect to the furniture, and it was arranged
that it should be returned, and that any part which
was deficient should be paid for.
In answer to a question by Mr. Callow, the
witness Clarke said that he could not swear posi-
tively that the conversation deposed to by Mr.
Pulding did not take place.
Mr. Callow then said, that he wished to call
forward a person of the name of Pledger, to prove
that Mr. Bayntun offered to sell to him the whola
of the furniture which he had hired from Mr. Mul-
lett, which, in his judgment, was an act of felony.
Mr. HALLS said that the fact stated might furnish

grounds for another proceeding, but at present the
charge before him was one of unlawfully pawning.
If, however, the prosecutor had sufficient evidence
to establish a charge of felony; he might lay an in-
formation in the clerks' office.

Ledbitter, the officer. here returned and stated that
he had not succeeded in finding the witness Coyle.
Mr. Ruiz directed that a warrant should be

issued to compel his appearance, and observed that
the prosecutor had a right to demand a postpone-
ment or the case until be could procure the attend-
ance of Coyle.
Thomas Transfield, servant to the defendant, was
then called forward and sworn. He pledged the
looking-glass at the shop of Mr. Hall some time in
July last. He pledged it in his own name for 21.,
and gave the money to Mr. Coyle, who authorized
him to pawn the article. Mr. Coyle acted as Mr.
Bayntun's agent.
Cross-examined—My master was not in town at
the time the glass was pawned. Mr. Coyle talked
about " raising the wind," and when witness gave
him the 21. he sent for some beef and ham. Coyle
was discharged from Mr. Bay ritim's service since that
time. He is now a discarded agent.
James Collard was in the defendant's service in
July last, and went with the last witness to pawn
the looking-glass. They received directions to
pledge the glass from Mr. Coyle, who was a gentle-
man, and master's agent. Never saw master in the
boilse after the glass was pawned.
Miss Frances Stokes lived in Kingsgate-street,
Holborn. In July last she kept a house in Nor-
thumberland-street,New-road. The defendant took
.lodgings in that house. He was in town to her cer•
tain knowledge in July last, and remained in town
until the August following. The defendant took
the lodgings on the 7th of July. She was a little

angry with him because he had not acted towards
her as a gentleman. He owed her a balance of 61. for
rent, which she could not get from him. The wit-
ness, on being pressed by Mr. Bayntun's attorney,
acknowledged that she called at his office on the
_ _

irevious day, and told him that she had been sum-
moned to give evidence against Mr. Bayntun, and
-he asked whether she should appear or not. She
lid not say, however, that the should go forward
unless she was paid the sum she demanded.
A document, purporting to he an account of what
witness stated on the occasion in question, was hen.
)roduced and read by the clerk. It stated in sub-
stance, that the defendant took the lodgings for six
months certain, but kept them only three weeks;
that all she received from him was 31., and that she
.:11nuld not screen him unless he paid her the balance

which he owed her of 6/.
Mr. Callow then called Mr. W. Pledger, tavern-
keeper, of No. 58, Fore-street, to prove that the de-
"endant was in town at the latter end of July. The
witness stated that he recollected going to Mr.
Bayntun's, in Northumberland-street, but could no,
tell the exact time. He went to buy some furniture.
It was a very few days after the defendant left the
!louse with the goods.

Mr. HALLS said, that as yet there was no evidence
to prove that the defendant was privy to the pledg-
nu of the glass by Coyle. There waq no doubt

bit that, whether the defendant was in town or not
at the time, he might have directed the pawning,
nal the only question was as to whether the
glass was pledged by Coyle on his own re-
sponsibility or by direction of his master. He
should remand the case for another day, on
the application of the prosecutor, to give time
for the production of the witness Coyle, who must
at present be considered as the defendant's agent.
Certainly, no evidence hid been produced as yet to
show that the defendant had a guilty knowledge of
the pawning. He should therefore discharge him
for the present, but if on any future occasion addi-
tional evidence should be produced, he must hold
himself prepared to answer it. He was not ac-
quitted of the charge, but he was discharged simply
because the case against him was not made out.
Mr. Bayntun and his witnesses then retired, and
the prosecutor on leaving the office declared that he
was determined, for the sake of public justice, to
follow up the inquiry.