The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-27 00:00:00

SMITH V. WINDER.

This was an action to recover 1,500/. upon a bond
executed by the defendant.
The material answer relied upon to the action was
contained in what is called, by the recent alteration of
the law under the Common Law Procedure Act, an
equitable plea, which alleged that the bond in question
was not intended to be carried out, but that it was
merely given as a temporary security until a mortgage
should be effected upon certain property belonging to
the son of the defendant.

Mr. Petersdorff and Mr. Hance were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Prentie appeared for
the defendant.
The circumstances under which this action was
brought were somewhat peculiar. It appeared that the
defendant, Mr. Matthew Winder, is a farmer residing
in the neighbourhood of Saffron Walden, in Essex, and
that his son, Mr. Wm. Winder, was possessed of pro-
perty to 601113 considerable extent in right of his wife, in
the same county. In the year 1851 he had become de-
sirous of taking possession of the Blue Posts public-house
in the Haymarket, and all the arrangements were com-
pleted, and on the 31st of Aug. he was to have posses-
sion upon paying a sum_of 1,500/., and if he failed to
complete the bargain he would have incurred the loss of
a very considerable sum that had been paid as deposit.
Under these circumstances, it appeared that he applied
to the plaintiff, who is a solicitor in Chancery-lane for an
advance of money upon his wife's property, and it was
alleged that be, well knowing the property, and hav-
ing been originally engaged in some litigation con-
nected, with it, and having succeeded in recover-
ing it for the lady, consented to advance the re•
quired sum upon mortgage. Shortly before the
oay appointed for the payment of the money to en-
able the defendant's son to take possession of the public.
house, according to the case for the defendant, the plain-
tiff represented that he had not had time to look into
the title to prepare the deeds for the mortgage, but he
said he was ready to advance the money if abond were
given him as security until the mortgage was completed,
and upon this the bond in question was drawn up and
executed by the defendant, his son, and Mr. George
Wakeling, a highly-respectable auctioneer at Chelms-
ford, who was acquainted with the family. It appeared
that two or three months afterwards a regular mortgage
deed was executed, but the plaintiff never gave up the
bond, and he brought the present action to recover from
the defendant, who was one of the parties who had exe-
cuted it, the amount that he had advanced.

The issue, according to the form of the pleadings,
being upon the defendant, Mr. Hawkins addressed the
jury, and .tated the above facts. Ile then called the de-
fendant, his son, and Mr. Wakeling, as witnesees,and

the second letter, which she had secreted while the offi-
cer was engaged in searching elsewhere.
Several of the clergy and gentry came forward to give
the rriEoner a character.
The learned Judge said he must sentence her to four
years' penal servitude.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.--BURT ST. EDIIIINDX, March 26.

(Before Chief Justice Jervis.)
STABBING.

Daniel Cuthbert, 18, labourer, was charged with ma-
liciously and feloniously stabbing William Williams, at
Bredfield, on the Bth Dec.

Mr. Brooke appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Dasent for the defence.

The prosecutor, the prisoner, and some other persons
were at Bredfield Castle public•house on the Bth of De-
cember. A quarrel arose between them, the prisoner
being accused of greedily eating the little boy's dinner,
blows were struck, and after the parties left the public-
house, the prisoner stabbed the prosecutor slightly in
the neck.

Mr. Dasent, for the prisoner, said he had been griev-
ously assaulted by the prosecutor, andgenerally subjected
to great provocation. He was also of weak intellect.
A surgeon was called to prove this, but stated that he
did not consider him of unsound intellect. At the same
time, he was what was generally called a " soft," and
had been greatly neglected by his parents.
Other countrymen—not very " bright" themselves—
stated that the prisoner was considered as rather a fool
by the people in the parish.
The jury found him guilty of unlawfully cutting only.
The Chief Justice said the practice of at once using
the knife had become alarmingly prevalent of late, and it
must he repressed as much as possible. The prisoner ap-
peared to be the " butt" of the neighbourhood, and to
have been greatly neglected by his parents, as was too
common in Suffolk parishes. He should sentence him to
six months' imprisonment.