The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-10 00:00:00

FORTH V. C. K. WHITAKER.

Mr. F. Pommel( stated that this was an action of libel.
The plaintiff was a young man just entering life, who had
been, educated as a surveyor, but who, until a favourable
opportunity offered for entering upon the active duties of
his profession, was residing with his father. The plaintiff
had been charged by the defendant with absconding from
his sureties. This scandalous charge was one of the worst
kind, and especially when directed against a young man.
The plaintiff, while waiting for the opportunity of eligible
employment, was living upon an allowance made him by his
father;; he and the defendant had been school-fellows, and
the defendant was now a clerk in the office of an attorney.
The defendant offered to get a bill discounted for the plain-
tiff, and he did get it discounted, for the sum of 28/. ; that
bill became due and was dishonoured, and an arrangement
was subsequently made by which the sum due upon it was
to be paid at 21. per month. One of these days of pilyment
fell on a Sunday. The person entrusted to pay the money
went up on the Saturday afternoon to the office where the
defendant was, but saw no one but a little boy ; he did
not therefore leave the money, but he left a message and a
note. On the Monday morning he called again to pay
the 21., but was told that judgment had been signed under
the plaintiff's cognovit, and that the money could not be
received unless the amount of costs incurred in signing
judgment was also settled. Of course he refused this de-
mand. A very short time afterwards the following hand-
bill was printed by the defendant, and circulated by him
amongst the plaintiff's friends :
" Absconded—Whereas Henry Townsend Forth, late of
241, Oxford-street, has absconded from his sureties ; no-
tice is hereby given that one guinea reward will be paid to
any person who shall bring the present residence of the said
Henry Townsend Forth to Mr. C. K. Whitaker, 19,
Pickett-street, Strand."

The Jury would see what were the motives with which
this placard was issued, when he told them that it was sent
to the plaintiff's attorney, to his sister, and to his brother-

in-law.

Mr. MILLER, for the defendant, contended that his
client had a right to complain of the manner in which he
had been treated throughout this case, and not the least in
the opening of it. The youth of the defendant was care-
fully kept out of view. It appeared, however, that he must
be younger than the plaintiff, for while the plaintiff had
finished his education, the defendant was still in his articles
of clerkship. Now, who was the plaintiff ? Why, he ap-
peared to be a young man that wasted his time at cigar
divans, and accepted bills which he could not honour, and
then gave cognovits, on which he did not pay the instal-
ments as they became due.
The. Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 5/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dim. 9.

PRINGLE V. STURT.

Mr. WILSON stated that this was an action for breach of
promise of 'marriage, to which the defendant had pleaded
that he did not promise.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD stated the case. The plaintiff
was of Scotch descent, and having emigrated to America,
there married a cousin of the same name, who was prac-
tising at the American bar. She was shortly left a young
widow, and falling with ill health, resolved to come to
England. She accordingly embarked, and on the voyage
became intimately acquainted with the defendant, a Captain
in the Royal Navy, and connected with a family of opu-
lence in the west of England. On the arrival of the vessel
in England, the defendant made a written promise of mar-
riage, induced the plaintiff to accompany him to London,
where he took lodgins for her. He subsequently went
into the country, and wrote her a number of letters, in
which the same promise was repeated. (The Learned
Counsel here read the letters, many of which contained
promises, and references to promises of marriage, and were
signed as the plaintiff's " Betrothed.")
Jane Hill, examined by Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—Is
wife of Mr. Zechariah Hill. I formerly lived in ---,
City-road. I recollect Mrs. Pringle coming to lodge there
in February, 1831. She lived with me a year and nine
months. During that time Captain Sturt visited her. The
first time was about theee or four months after her arrival.
She was in the family way, and had a child, a fine boy, who
is now alive. I overheard some conversation between
Captain Sturt and Mrs. Pringle. It was the second day
after her confinement, when she was in bed. I showed him
into the bed-room. I heard her say she " would rather he
would have thrown her overboard, than have brought her
into the distress she was then in." He said, " Isabella,
you need not fear, I will allow you 21. per week, that will
come to 1001. a-year, till I return to London, and then I
will marry you." That was all I could then hear.
Mr. Henderson, a clerk in Hammersley's banking-house,
said Mr. Sturt, of Buckshaw House, near Sherburne, is
father of the defendant. He keeps a good account at our
house. I know he has a son namod Richard Henry Sturt,
and am acquainted with his handwriting. I believe these
letters to be in his handwriting.
The witness then underwent a long examination upon the
appearances of particular parts of several letters of the de-
fendant, written after that above referred to, and in which
the different references to the alleged promise of marriage
were, in his opinion, written upon erasures, and were not in
the handwriting of the defendant.
After this examination Mr. Sergeant WILDE and Mr.
Sergeant TALFOURD consulted together, and agreed, that
as it was now growing dark, and it required a good light
to examine the letters, the cause had better be referred to
a Gentleman at the Bar.—Referred accordingly.

ROGERS V. ANDERSON AND OTHERS.

The plaintiff in this case had been inspector of police.
The defendants were proprietors and publishers of the
Morning Advertiser newspaper, in which. a letter had ap-
peared charging the plaintiff with having been found in bed
with the wife of one of the policemen. The publication
havinc, been proved, and the first witness having established
the falsehood of the statement, the defendants made an
apology, and expressed their regret that they should inad-
vertently have admitted the letter, whereupon a verdict of
40s. was taken by consent.

SECONDARIES' OFFICE, DEC. 9.

BINGHAM V. HAMMOND.

This was an action brought before Mr. JAMES, the Se-
condary, for the recovery of 181. 3s. 6d., for clothes sup-
plied by the plaintiff to the defendant's son, a minor.
The son of the defendant had been for a considerable
time served with clothes by Mr. Tongue, a tailor, who
worked for the defendant's family, and his clothes, although
be was, at the time the plaintiff gave the credit, no more
than seventeen years of age, cost about 401. a year. It was
was proved that a gentleman named Robertson bad recom-
mended the defendant's son to the plaintiff, by speaking of
the undoubted respectability of the defendant himself, and
that no expostulation had been made by the defendant on
the subject of giving credit to the boy, until payment of the
bill was demanded. It was also proved that the defendant
had said that, although he was not liable under such cir-
cumstances, he would pay the demand when the twelve-
months' credit was expired.
Upon the part of the defendant, it was contended that
the plaintiff had not exercised necessary precaution in the
case.

'The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount
demanded,
The counsel for the defendant asked whether the Jury
• verdict, because they considered the goods

were supplied to the son." They again entered into con-
sultation, but could not agree.

COURT OF ALDERMEN.

A Court of Aldermen was held yesterday, for the dis-
patch of public business, at which the Lord Mayor, sixteen
Aldermen, and the City Officers were present.
The inquest of the parish of St. Sepulchre, in the ward
of Farringdon Without, presented some ruinous and danger-
ous premises, which the Court ordered to be immediately
boarded up, to prevent accidents to the public, and instructed
the solicitor to put the Act of Parliament into force.
Sundry persons were allowed to be admitted brokers, and
several discharged from that office.
Commissioners of the Court of Requests, for the month
of February next were appointed.
The Court directed a by-law to be prepared, for the re-
gulation of the number of passengers to be carried by steam-
navigating the river.
The consideration of proceedings to be adopted under
the Act passed in the last session of Parliament, respecting
ward constables, was postponed till after Plow Monday.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

A case of rather a curious kind came on yesterday be-
fore the LORD MAYOR. A young woman, who appeared
to be in great distress of mind, was brought up on a charge
of felony, but her prosecutor was not present.
The LORD MAYOR bad received a letter signed by a fo-
reign gentleman, named Lucett, who stated that he was a
professional man and well known, that his engagements for
the 'day were of so important a nature as to prevent the
possibility of his attending until Wednesday at the Justice
Room, and that he hoped justice would be done to him.
His Lordship said that he was anxious to do justice to his
correspondent as to the female at the bar, but he could not
do her the injuotice to send her back to prison without in-
quiring into the cause of her detention.

- A witness, as he was standing in Token-House-yard, at
half-past eight o'clock on the preceding evening, saw the
prisoner coming down the yard steadily and quietly. Im-
mediately afterwards he saw a foreign gentleman who was
walking up the yard, and who of course met the prisoner,
suddenly seize her by the collar, and shake her in the most
violent manner, and accuse her of having robbed him of his
purse. The woman appeared astonished and quite ignorant
of any robbery, but the foreigner persisted in his statement,
and grasped the prisoner by the neck i❑ a very rough man-
ner. At length, at the request of the people whom the odd-
ness of the matter collected together, he called an officer,
and gave her up to the care of the keeper of the Compter.
Other witnesses deposed to the same effect.

The prisoner cried bitterly during the examination. Sho
declared that she was shocked and surprised at being laid
hold of by a person she had never seen before, and charged
with robbery.

The LORD MAvon said it was evident that the gentle•
man had made a mistake, and discharged the prisoner.

GUILDHALL.

Yesterday John Roach and Thomas Cannon, in the em-
ploy of Messrs. Blyth, Hamilton, and Co., feather dressers
and horse-hair manufacturers in Upper Thames-street, were
brought up for further examination, on suspicion of having
attempted to set fire to their extensive Warehouse, by
placing a small piece of candle against a post on the fourth
story, so as to ignite a partition by the side of it and a beam
above it.
The prisoners were discharged.