The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-10 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHANIBER, FEB 8•

(Sittings at Gray's Inn Hall before the Loan CHIEF
BARON.)
MEADOWS V. FOSTER.

This case was on a demurrer to a bill filed by
plaintiff to obtain an injunction, and to have a pro-
missory note for .5,000/. delivered up and cancelled.
The circumstances of the case, as they appeared
from the plaintiff's bill, were substantially as fol-
low : Dixon Meadows, Esq. (who died last
August), resided at Ilkley, in the county of Hants;
he had two children, a son (George Dixon Meadows,
the present plaintiff, a physician and surgeon, prac-
tising at Portsea), and a daughter ; the defendant
Foster, supposing that Miss Meadows was entitled
to a large property in her own right, paid his
addresses to her, and was clandestinely married to
her. The father was displeased with the match,
since he considered Foster a person of no character,
and refused to make any provision fot her, Foster,
in consequence of this disappointment, resolved to
obtain a large sum of money from the plaintiff's
family, by having recourse to fraud and deception.
Having obtained an unbounded influence over his
wife, he prevailed upon her to join him in accusing
her father of having forcibly attempted to violate
her. The accusation was accordingly made on the
19th of November, 1831, and plaintiff was threat-
ened that, unless the sum'of 5,0001., or some such
sum was settled on Foster or on his wife, or their
issue, the father would be prosecuted for felony.
Plaintiff was taken by surprise; and in consequence
of the threats of Foster, and in the belief that, by
giving the note of hand required he would stop a
prosecution by which his father's life was endangered,
he complied with Foster's demand. The attorney
provided the proper stamp, and a note of hand
for 5,0001. was drawn out in the usual form, pay-
able in fifteen days, and signed by the plaintiff.
The bill stated that when plaintiff signed the note
he was not a free agent, and his signature was ex-
torted from him through fear for his father's safety ;
besides defendant knew that plaintiff could nor pay
such a sum, since he had been lately established as
a physician and surgeon at .Portsea, and was still
dependant on his father. When plaintiff was re-
leased he was speedily convinced by his friends that
the charge against his father was false. By an
action brought against him in the Court of King's
Bench in 1833, plaintiff was held to bail in the full
amount of the note. These are the circumstances
of the case.

Mr. SIMPKINSON said that the question for his
Lordship to decide was, whether in the case of the
plaintiff a Court of Equity could interfere; and whe-
ther the plaintiff was entitled to come into Court,
and demand that a promissory note should be can-
celled, which note he (plaintiff) bad given to com-
pound or stifle a felony.
Lord LYNDHURST said, that there being no crime
nor misdemeanor, the plaintiff was not debarred
from coming into Court ; and he thought that, as
the note had been fraudulently ob,ained, the com-
plaining party had a right to obtain relief from the
Court. The demurrer was accordingly overruled.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

ROBBERY OFRANK NOTES.—A man named
Joseph Polden was brought before the LORD
MAYOR on Saturday, charged with having stolen
2051. in Bank of England notes and three sove-
reigns. The prisoner was apprehended by Daniel
Forrester. The prisoner was a porter employed
occasionally in the yard of the Cross Keys lnn, in
Gracechurch-street.
Mr. William Wilson Crimgeour, a clerk of the
Bank of England, on Saturday fortnight took a
parcel, containing 2051. in Bank notes and three
sovereigns, to the Cross Keys Inn, in Gracechurch-
street. It was directed to Mr. Clark, at Wigging-
ton Lodge, near Tamworth, Staffordshire. He
booked it at the inn himself, arid delivered it to the
bookkeeper. 'Witness had heard since he deposited
the parcel into the custody of the bookkeeper that
it had not been received. He did not know the
prisoner at all.
Bank notes had been brought since
into the Bank to the amount of 1054, by a person
isivahm signedoed
Ntvh
eaKent.the, and sub-
scribed
Aid
mar
stolen notes
changed at the Bank for sovereigns.
r rtaihederda,(si namegoof oft
Shore,Jsonoel.s ipni on n m
t h e
soon itched
upon the prisoner, after having succeeded in tracing
one of rite notes.
W W proved that . arner, a porter, lof the
Forrester, on hearing of the robbery, p
stolen notes, to the amount of 80/, had been in-
trusted to him by the prisoner, in order to get them
changed for sovereigns at the Bank, which commis-
sion he had executed for the prisoner.
The prisoner was remanded.
BO W- S TREE T.
Mr. Thomas John Manning, residing in Upper
Baker-street, New-road, attended at this office in
consequence of a summons issued at the instance of
the officers of the General Post-office, charging him
with unlawfully destroying a letter which had been
posted at the General Post-receiving-house in
Upper Baker-street.
Mr. John Barham, of No. 1, Upper Baker-street,
where there is a receiving house for general post
letters, deposed that on the Ist of February instant,
at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, while witness
was employed in making up the bags for the Ge-
neral Post-office, the defendant entered his shop
and requested him to search for a letter which had
been deposited in the box, addressed to " Mrs.
Nassau, Osyth Priory, near Colchester, Essex."
Wi ne's ascertained that he had such a letter, and
the defendant declared that it was his letter, and
that he wished it to be returned to him. He told
him that his instructions were when a letter was
once posted never to give it up to any person ex-
cept the legal authority, and lie must follow those
instructions. The defendant said he merely wished
to make an alteration in the letter, and if he would
hand it over to him no one should know anything
about it; he, however, again declined giving it to
him, but, after considerable importunity from the
defendant, offered to permit him to write any
thing on the back of the letter he might think
fit. For this purpose he handed the letter over
to him, together with pen and ink, when the
defendant said that he should keep the letter.
Witness called a Mr. Gibbons, who was siting
to the parlour, to be a witness to the transaction,
and demanded the restitution of the letter from die
defendant. He, however, tore open the letter, and
offered to show his signature, which he said was
attached thereto; but witness declined seeing it,
and the witness collected the pieces of the letter,
and on a subsequent day forwarded them, together
with a statement of the facts as above, to the Post-
' office. The postage of the letter, which contained
an enclosure, would be Is. 4d., of which sum the
revenue of the Post-office was, by the destruction of
the letter, defrauded.
' Mr. Gibbons above mentioned corroborated the
latter facts detailed in Mr. Brrham's evidence.

The defendant, upon being called upon for his
explanation of the transaction, declared that on the
day in question he had sent the letter described by
Mr. Barham to the Post-office by his servant. Sub-
sequently, however, from private reasons, he wished
that the letter might not be forwarded. He was
informed, however, that the letter could not be re-
turned, but Mr Barham offered to allow him to
make any correction or remark on the outside, and
for this purpose handed the letter over to him. He
then, considering lie might do as he pleased with
his own property, tore it up, and threw the frag-
merits away.
Mr. HALLS said the results of a case of this de-
scription might be of a very serious nature. It
must be seen at once that were the Post-office to
allow the return of letters once posted, large depre-
dations might be committed. He had no doubt of
the defendant's respectability, and therefore had no
wish to put any ill construction on the case. The
Post-office, no doubt, would be satisfied by his
putting in bail for his appearance at the Sessions.
Mr. Peacock said the Post-office had been com-
pelled to come forward on this occasion on public
grounds. lie would take care to represent the facts
of the case to the Postmaster General, who would
take them into consideration, and act upon them
accordingly.
Bail having been procured the defendant was dis-
charged.