The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-13 00:00:00

SMITH V. TYAS.

This was an action for false imprisonment on a
charge of felony, to which the defendant pleaded
" Not guilty."
Mr. Chambers, Q C , and Mr. lluddlestone were
counsel for the plaintiff'; and Mr. James, Q.C., and
Mr. Hinirnarsh for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a builder anti surveyor and te-
nant of the Sun-wharf, Horton, under the defendant,
a gentleman of property and a magistrate at Don-
caster. Some machinery on the wharf was purchased
by the plaintiff of defendant at the time of the com-
mencement of the tenancy, but not paid for before
the former became bankrupt. Last June the plain-
tiff detected a man named Burke, who lived on the
premises ,taking parts of
defendant
of the
himi m ar-
rested, and wrote to
T
dant answered by sayingthee dpelfaei nn
the fact, and asking himthtaotphreosleocoukteed to.•

tiff for the protection of the machinery, as he had re-
fused to deliver it up when demanded. When
the assignee under the bankruptcy took a list
of the property at the wharf the plaintiff
caused the letter L to be put opposite almost all
the things in the list, including the machinery, to
denote that they were the property of the landlord,
and thereby save them from being seised by the
messenger. The defendant, on coming to town, found
a great part of the machinery had been removed from
the wharf to the plaintiff's residence, and gave him
into custody on a charge of stealing the machinery,
which charge was dismissed before the magistrates.
Several witnesses gave evidence in support of the
plaintiff's case, and the defendant and others were
examined for the defendant in mitigation of damages.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, said that with
reference to tha remarks that had been made by
counsel as to the want of the plaintiff's testimony, he
had considered the intention of the new Evidence Act,
and he thought it was not so much brought forward
to supply defects of evidence as to disclose the whole
truth ; and that here it might have been as well if the
plaintiff himself had given his testimony. His Lord-
ship then went through the evidence in the case.
The jury retired, and after a short interval returned
with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 25/.

SMITH, TIIE YOUNGER, V. TYAS.
CARD V. TYAS.

These cases presented precisely the same facts as
the former, as the plaintiff in each was arrested at the
same time with the former plaintiff, and charged with
the same offence. A verdict, therefore, was taken in
each case by consent for 201.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, Dec. 12.
(Before the ItECORDER.)
EDWARD AND ANOTHER V. STACKEY-SHARPE AND
WILKINS, GARNISHEES.

This was an attachment in an action of debt under
which two boxes of Californian golddust, of the value
of 16,000 dolls., in sterling 3,4911., had been attached.
The action was for 7001.

Mr. Randall (with whom was Mr. Locke) appeared
for the plaintiff; Mr. Ryland for the garnishee Wil-
kins, trading as Sharpe and Wilkins.
From the opening statement it appeared that the
plaintiffs were merchants at Halifax, and Mr. Starkey
had traded as a merchant at Liverpool, as Starkey and
Co. The garnishee, Mr. Henry Charles Wilkins, was
a bullion broker in Winchester-street, in the City.
The present proceedings involved a novel point. I❑
October last he received from the bullion-office of
the Bank of England, by virtue of a bill of lading
which he had received from Starkey, two boxes of
Californian golddust, of the value described, which
had been shipped from San Francisco, where Starkey
had a branch establishment, for Southampton, by
the steamer Clyde, and which, on its arrival at that
port, was conveyed to London, and deposited in the
bullion-office of the Bank of England for security.
The captain of the vessel in which the gold was
brought from California had a bill of lading which was
deposited at the Bank of England, and another bill of
lading was forwarded to Starkey at Liverpool, to
whom the gold was consigned. The last bill of
lading stated that the consignment was "as per en-
dorsement," the endorsement being a list of persons
to whom the proceeds of the golddust were to be paid
over in various proportions, and the question to be
decided was, whether Mr. Starkey had a real and
substantial interest in the consignment, or, in other
words, whether the golddust, ,which came into the
possession of Mr. Wilkins, belonged to Mr. Starkey,
or to the persons whose names were endorsed on the
bill of lading, under which he received the golddust
from the Bank. There was no such endorsement on
the bill of lading brought over by the captain, and
the question was, whether the other was genuine, and
had the endorsement when it left San Francisco. A
bill of lading had never been so endorsed before, and
the point which arose in this case had never occurred
in any previous proceeding.
The evidence proved the receipt of the gold and bill
of lading from the captain. The gold realized 3,351/.
7s. 2d., of which Mr. Wilkins had paid 2,400/. to the
persons named in the endorsement. He had the ba-
lance on account of the present proceedings.
It was contended by the Learned Counsel for the
garnishee that Mr. Starkey had no interest in the
consignment, but was merely an agent, and that
when the bill of lading had come into the possessio❑
of the accountant to Mr. Starkey's estate it was sent
to Wilkins, and the sum paid bad been divided in pro-
portions, the balance being kept until the present
question was decided.
It was proved that the signatures to the bill of
lading were those of Starkey and Brothers, San
Francisco, and Mr. Wilkins said be had no doubt
that the bill of Jading left California with the en-
dorsement of the names of the parties for whose be-
nefit the golddust was forwarded.
The RECOUDER, in placing the ease before the jury,
said he had intended to ask them whether they were
of opinion that the endorsement was on the bill of la-
ding when it left California, but after what Mr.
Wilkins had said there could be no doubt about it.
It appeared to him that the gold was consigned to
Starkey to hold for the benefit of others, and, though
it was formally consigned to him, it was the property
of the parties named in the endorsement. It was of
the greatest possible importance that the law re-
lating to bills of lading should be strictly
adhered to, giving as they did a paramount title to
property consigned, and being so extensively used in
transactions between commercial men ; but in the
present case (and he never recollected a similar one)
he thought, that although the bill of lading was sent to
Starkey, he bad no interest in the property, and if
the jury adopted that view of the case they would re-
turn a verdict for the garnishee.

—The foreman said the jury were of opinion that
S'arkey had no substantial interest in the gold.
The RECORDER said it was in effect a verdict for
the garnishee.—Verdict accordingly.

SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 13, 1851.

to do so until after the deathlof the deceased, which took
place on the fol!o wing Monday. Ile then found a
wound which had penetrated the eye and fractured
the orbital plate of the frontal bone. There was con-
siderable laceration and the brain had been injured,
which had been the cause of death. The wound had
been about two inches in depth, and little splinters of
bone had got into the brain. ile should think that
the wound had been made by a knife, but he would
not say that it might not have been made by a shar-
pened piece of wood.

Mr. MONK addressed the jury for the prisoner, and
urged that there was no proof of malice in this case to
sustain the charge of murder. There was no doubt
that the blow given by the prisoner had caused the
death of the deceased, and no one regretted it more
than he did, but the blow was given in a moment of
extraordinary provocation, and that circumstance, in
the absence of malice, made the offence manslaughter.
Mr. Baron PARKE summed up the evidence, ex-
plaining to the jury the law as it respects the charge
of murder, and what amount of proof of provocation
was considered to be necessary to reduce the crime to
that of manslaughter.
The jury, after a short consultation in the box, re-
tired from court, and had not returned when our re-
port left.
Francis Mawdesley, aged 23, was indicted for the
manslaughter, on the Bth of Decemb?r, at Prescot, of
John Chesworth.

Mr. Raffles prosecuted, and Mr. Tindal Atkinson
defended the prisoner.
It seemed from the evidence i❑ this case, that on
Monday evening last the prisoner, the deceased, and
some other men were drinking together at a public-
house in Snig-lane, Prescot. The conversation
turned upon a fight which had taken place on the
previous Saturday evening between William Ches-
worth and another man. The deceased boasted
that he had challenged every man on the field to
fight, except the two who were actually engaged.
Upon this the deceased said, " Well, it's now then,"
and they accordingly adjourned about a quarter-past
ten o'clock to a field close at hand. The only witness
of the fight was a man named Hulme, who Said
that they fought 13 or 14 rounds, and that it was a
fair fight. The deceased received several severe
blows from the prisoner, and, soon after they had
given up fighting, was seen to stagger up against some
rails, and began to vomit. The prisoner asked Hultne
to take him home, which he did, and a surgeon was
immediately sent for. From the first he considered
the case hopeless, he being in an apoplectic fit, evi-
dently arising, as was his opinion, from external vio-
lence. There was a rupture of the stomach of a very
serious nature.

His LORDSHIP' on proof of these facts, put it to the
Learned Counsel for the prisoner if he would address
the jury, and told them, that the death having evi-
dently been caused in the manner alleged, they must
find the prisoner guilty, and
The jury having accordingly convicted him,
His LORDSHIP said he should deal leniently with
the prisoner under all the circumstances, and sentenced
him to three weeks' imprisonment.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)

James Aspden, 57, was charged with having, at
Blackburn, on the 22d of November, killed and slain
Paul Parkinson.

Mr. M'Oubrey prosecuted, and Mr.:!Blair. defended
the prisoner.
It appeared that about nine o'clock on the night of
the 22d of November, the deceased and two other
boys named Eccles and Waddington were walking
up Dar wen-street towards Blackburn. When pass.
ing near the house of the prisoner, who is a clogger,
one of the two other boys heard the sound of a blow
falling on the head of the deceased, but the person
who gave the blow was seen by neither of them.
Eccles and Waddington then ran off, and at that time
saw no more of the deceased, but soon after Wad-
dington returned, and found him sitting on the foot-
way, whence he was removed to the Hare and
Hounds public-house. It further appeared that a
boy named George Tierney, who was going in an
opposite direction to that in which the three boys
were, met them, and after they had passed turned
round to look after them, when he saw them crossing
the road. They were about the middle of the road
when this boy saw the prisoner strike the deceased,
apparently with a walking-stick. The deceased fell
close to the footpath, and on Tierney going up to
him he said " Oh, dear," and was very shortly taken
to the Hare and Hounds, where he died in about '2O
minutes. From the evidence of a woman named
Alice Todd it seemed that the deceased might have
fallen upon the kerb-stone, and Mr. Pickup, the
surgeon, who saw the boy, said that the contused
wound which he found on the side of the boy's head
might have been caused by a blow from a stick or by
a tall upon the kerbstone. A bloodvessel hod been
ruptured, and there was some coagulated blood on
the brain. When the prisoner was taken into custody
he expressed great regret for what had happened, and
said that the boys had been calling him names and
throwing stones into his shop, upon which he had run
out, and struck one of them with a stick, not intend-
ing any harm. It was admitted on the part of the
prosecution that the character of the prisoner was
irreproachable.

The jury found a verdict of Not Guilty, upon
which

The Learned JUDGE discharged the prisoner, say-
ing that he was sure his own feelings had been a
sufficient punishment, and cautioning him against
using such a stick as had been described against a
child in future.

Frederick Jones and William Walker, two boys,
who had pleaded guilty to an indictment charging
them with presenting a pistol at Ellen Wood with in-
tent to rob her, were called up in the course of the
morning for sentence.

Mr. WHEELER, who was instructed for the prose-
cution,requested his Lordship's attention to the facts
of the case, which were of a somewhat singular na-
ture. It appeared that the prisoners wbo were about
sixteen years of age, were born at Stockport, where
they had lived up to the present time, and hitherto
no charge had been brought against them. They
had not been the associates of dishonest characters,
nor, so far as was known, had they been absent from
their work for a single day. From inquiries made by
Mr. Sadler, the head of the police, that gentleman
had ascertained that about fifteen months since they
had been employed by a man who had been in the
habit of reading publications like " Jack Sheppard "
and others illustrative of the lives of notorious rob-
bers. These boys had been encouraged by this man
to indulge in the perusal of similar books, and it was
believed to be owing to the vicious excitement engen-
dered by reading such trash that they now stood in
the dock before his Lordship. Their parents had set
them an excellent example, and up to the time of their
going to work with this man they bad been well-
conducted youths. Masks, matches, and all the
paraphernalia of " Jack Sheppardism " were found
upon the boys.
The Learned JUDGE, in passing sentence upon the
prisoners, said that, upon reading the depositions, he
had very much feared that he should be compelled to
pass upon them a sentence of transportation ; but,
after what he had heard, he was led to to think that a
lengthened term of imprisonment might result in their
reformation and satisfy the ends of justice.—They
were then sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
John Deane was charged with having, at Liver-
pool, on the 25th of July last, forged and uttered a
bill of exchange for 1541. 16s. 3d.
Mr. Simon and Mr. Rushton prosecuted ; and Mr.
Tindal Atkinson and Sir G. Stephen defended the
prisoner.
The prisoner was a highly respectable tradesman in
Liverpool, having, for forty years carried on the busi-
ness of a chemist and druggist in Castle-street, in that
town. For three or four years he had banked with
Messrs. Moss and Co., of Dale-street, but his account
was not at any time a large one, and latterly it had
been in a very unsatisfactory state. In July last
Messrs. Moss pressed the prisoner for the payment of
the balance then owing to them, which was 1381.
Being threatened with legal proceedings the prisoner
went to the bank on the 25th of July, and paid to his
own account a bill of exchange for 1541. 16s. 3d., drawn
by himself on John Ainley, broker, &c., Leeds, pur-
porting to be accepted by John Ainley, and payable
at Glyn's and Co., London. The bill was discounted
by Messrs. Moss, and the prisoner's account credited
with the balance. The bill went through the hands
of various endorsees, but when due was dishonoured.
Inquiries were then made by Messrs. Moss at Leeds
for the acceptor, and a letter was sent to Leeds, but,
notwithstanding all the inquiries of the police, no such
person could he found. When the prisoner was ap-
prehended be stated that Ainley was a sharebroker at
Leeds, but he was ignorant of where he was to be
found, and that he last heard of him by letter from
Leeds, and believed he had gone to America. In was
proved by the police that there was no such person
as John Ainley, a sharebroker in Leeds, and, that,
though persons of that name did reside in that town,
none of them were sharebrokers, or knew anything of
the prisoner. The prosecution contended that it was
for the prisoner to show who John Ainley was. The
present was not the only transaction in which the
prisoner was engaged, for he had accounts at two
other banks in Liverpool, at both of which bills
drawn and accepted in a similar manner had been
paid in, and duly honoured. In every case the
prisoner had himself retired these bill, when they fell
due, through the Borough Bank—the Liverpool cor-
respondents of Glyn and Co. He appeared to have
used the Borough Bank solely for the purpose of re-
tiring these bills, and, though he had been paying
them in at various times at various banks since the
year 1847, all being of the same description, drawn
by himself on Ainley, and accepted by Ainley pay-
able at Glyn's, there did not appear to have been any
person in the character of an acceptor making in-
quiries as to them when they were falling due, and
no one came forward on the part of the prisoner to
give any account of a person named John Ainley an-
swering to the description of the supposed acceptor.

Mr. Gilbert Moss, a partner in the banking-house
of Messrs. Moss and Co., proved the payment into
their bank of the bill which formed the subject of the
indictment, and produced two other bills paid into
their bank also by the prisoner; one dated the 3d of
October, 1850, payable at four months ; the other
dated the 21st of January, 1851, both drawn and ac-
cepted in a similar manner.
Sullivan, an officer of the Liverpool detective po-
lice, proved that he went over to Leeds, and, with the
assistance of Bromley, an officer of the Leeds force,
made every inquiry possible with a view to discover
the alleged acceptor of the bills, but no John Ainley
could be found. A letter was found at the post-office
addressed to such a person, which proved to be the
usual notice from Messrs. Moss and Co. of the dis-
honour of the bill.

Two persons from Leeds were called, one a bro-
ker's clerk, and the other, whose name was John
Ainley, a solicitor's clerk, who proved that there was
no broker of that name in Leeds. Proof was also
given of the prisoner having kept accounts at two
other bunks in Liverpool, into one of which a dis-
honoured bill was paid, purporting to be accepted by
the same person, and dated on the 25th of June last.
No other person than the prisoner was known to any
of these parties, and of course they were ignorant of
John Ainley. The supposed accept,r had never paid
any of the bills.

Mr. T. ATKINSON addressed the jury for the de-
fence, and urged that there might have been such a
person as John Ainley, and that he might have gone
to America, and that he might have had transactions
as an "outsider" on the Leeds Stock-Exchange. lle
suggested that they were accommodation bills, in
which case the prisoner might not like to retire them
through his own bankers. He called a ❑umber of
respectable witnesses who had known the prisoner
thirty years, and gave him an excellent character.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury, after a
short deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty, with
a strong recommendation to mercy.
The Learned JUDGE, in passing sentence, said,
that in a case of doubt evidence of previous good
character might be of some advantage, but in a case
like the present, where the guilt of the prisoner was
so clearly brought home to him, and fraught with
such dangerous consequences to a commercial
country, he should not be doing justice were he to
pass a lighter sentence than transportation for ten years.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Francis Lloyd was brought before Sir J. Key,
charged with having robbed his employer.
The prisoner was servant to Mr. Everest, a licensed
victualler, and had, from certain circumstances been
suspected of dishonest conduct. Cigars and spirits
had sometimes disappeared as if by magic. At last
it was discovered that a hole had been bored in a
spirit cask, and in the prisoner's jacket were found
six cheroots, which the prosecutor believed had been
supplied to the house by his own tobacconist, upon
applying to whom he was informed that be was right
in his conjecture. The prosecutor, therefore, watched
the prisoner, who soon afterwards stepped into the
bar and pocketed some money which had been left
marked in the till, and also some cigars. When the
prisoner thought he had completely succeeded, he
was astonished by being collared by his master, who
asked him for the money and cigars he had just
stolen. He at once delivered up several cigars and
some pence ; and the prosecutor, upon searching the
fellow's box, found some bottles which had recently
contained brandy, which no doubt had been drawn out
of one of the casks in the cellar, by means of a gimlet
found along with some of the stolen property in his
jacket.
Sir J. KEY—Did you make him any promise of
pardon ? Mr. Everest—l told him that if he would
tell me the extent to which he had robbed me I
would discharge him at once, and would not prese-
cute him, but if he would not I would lock him
up. I have reason to suppose that he has been
plundering me for a eonsiderable time, and could not
think of letting him go without communicating with
the magistrate.
Sir J. KEY—I shall remand him for a week. I
regret to find that the facilities which necessarily exist
in public-houses for the commission of plunder, are
taken advantage of in innumerable instances. A
publican can scarcely turn his head about without
subjecting himself to robbery in some shape or other.
The prisoner did not attempt to deny that he had
been robbing his master, but submitted that he was
entitled to some wages which he said was due to him,
and to which no act of his could disentitle him.—The
prisoner was then remanded.
GUILDHALL.
Joseph Cox, describing himself as a tailor and
draper, of 22, Drummond-street, was brought up
on a warrant in the custody of Roe, the summoning
officer of this court, charged with endeavouring to
obtain 1501. from a charitable fund, commonly
known as " Wilson's Trust," by means of fraud and
forgery."
Mr. Finch, of the firm of Finch and Shepheard, of
Moorgate-street, solicitors to the trustees of Wilson's
Trust, stated that he appeared on behalf of Mr.
Brown, the Chamberlain of the city of London, to
prosecute the prisoner for an attempted fraud upon
the charity, to which the Chamberlain was treasurer,
but, as the prisoner had only been apprehended
within the previous hour, he would not be in a po-
sition to prove more than was merely sufficient to
ask for a remand.
Sym3 Scott, a clerk in the Chamberlain's-office,
said he knew the prisoner at the bar, and received
from him the form of application for a loan produced.
The form was originally issued from the Chamber-
lain's-office. Witness received it on the 22d of July,
1151, from the prisoner. The form of application
contained several names purporting to be signed by
parties recommending prisoner to the trustees for the
loan, and offering themselves as security for the re-
payment of the money advanced. Two of the recom-
mending parties were David Carr, draper, of 28,
Warwick street, and S. Bull, draper, of St. Martin's-
lane. These appeared on page 1, and on page 2
there were three other parties named as sureties—
John Smith, bargeowner, of 24, Louisa. street,
Stepney, George Lucas, Ironmonger, 15, Caledonian-
road, Islington, and Walter Cooper, 23. Euston-
place, New-road, the district surveyor to the parish of
St. Pancras. The application was for 1501., of which
the Lord Mayor, the two senior Aldermen, the Re-
corder, and the Chamberlain were the trustees. The
interest chargeable on all loans from this fund was
1 per cent. for the first year, and 2 per cent, for the
next four years. Witness bad seen prisoner several
times since, as he called from time to tithe to see how
his case was progressing, but witness continually put
him off. He looked at the Post- office Directory, but
could not find any of the names of the three proposed
sureties. Prisoner, after describing himself as a tailor
and draper, commenced his petition as follows :
" I, Joseph Cox, respectfully apply to the trustees kr
managing Mr. Samuel Wilson's legacy for the loan of
1501., and propose the persons whose names are under
written as tbs sureties. My age is 20. I commenced
carrying on business at 22, Drummond-street, as above,
on the 4th day of March, 1850. I first went into busi-
ness on my own account as a tailor and draper on the
28th day of February, 1850. I hold the said premises
of Mr. Lecock under lease for 21 years."
The petition was then signed with the prisoner's
name, followed by those of the proposed sureties. In
consequence of information witness received he ac-
companied Roe to 22, Drummond-street, and the
door was opened to them by the prisoner. Witness
inquired if his name was "Fenton, and prisoner im-
mediately looked him very hard in the face, retired
into the back parlour, followed by witness and Roe,
who then produced the warrant, and took prisoner
into custody. Witness did not see the prisoner sign
the form of application, but he brought it to him as
his own signature.
Thomas William Allen, clerk to the solicitors for
the trustees, said that on the sth of September he re-
ceived directions to inquire into the particulars of pri-
soner's application for the loan. Prisoner had no shop
in Drummond-street, but lived in a private house
there. He went to Bull's, in St. Martin's-lane,
and saw the head man of the establishment, who in-
formed him that the name of G. Bull on the form was
not Mr. Bull's signature, neither were the initals cor-
rect. There was no other person of the name of Bull
in St. Martin's-lane.
Mr. Finch was about to prove that the other names
were equally fictitious, but
Alderman Flews said there was enough given in
evidence to support the charge of forgery.
The prisoner, who bad declined asking any ques-
tions or making any defence before, on hearing the
charge was likely to be treated as a forgery, denied
all knowledge of the contents of the application, or
that any part of it was his handwriting.
Alderman FINN'S said the prisoner had delivered it
as his application, and that would be sufficient for the
ends of justice.—The prisoner was then remanded.
BO W-STREET.
Lazarus Reichenberger, a German, was brought
before Mr. Jardine fur re-examination, charged with
sending a threatening letter to Mr. Joseph Ullman,
ironmonger, of 446, New Oxford-street, with the view
of extorting money.
It transpired at the previous examination that the
complainant had known the prisoner abroad, and had
frequently relieved him since his residence in this
country. He had lately resisted his demands, and
consequently the letter in question was sent to him,
the prisoner having therein represented himself as an
agent of a trades' protection society, and intending to
expose " certain transactions" abroad, affecting
com-
plainant's character, if he did not transmit him 151.
There was not the slightest foundation for the impu-
tations implied in the letter.
Horsford, the rnendicity officer, produced a number
of fraudulent documents, begging letters, &c., by
whi•-.41 the prisoner had carried on a prosperous trade
in imposition for many years, but the persons who had
been defrauded had refused to prosecute. Witness