The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-08 00:00:00

BROWN V. BARLOW AND ANOTHER.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT moved for a rule in this case to
show cause why a new trial should not be had or a nonsuit
entered. The question was as to the sea-worthiness of a
vessel upon which a policy of insurance had been effected.
The vessel was a North American, and was bound for this
country. It appeared she had met with an accident, and
went to the bottom. It was contended by the defendants
that the vessel, previously to the accident, was not sea-wor-
thy. Sir James Scarlett raised three objections to the ver-
dict, and the Court granted a rule upon the whole.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 7.

FURNIVAL V. FLETCHER.

This was an action tried last Term in the City of Lon-
don, when a verdict was found for the defendant. Mr. Ser-
geant WILDE this morning moved for a Rule to show cause
why a new trial should not be granted, on the ground that
the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the verdict. The
plaintiff was confined in Horsemonger-lane gaol for a debt
of 701. incurred in France, and from his having formerly
effected his escape from a French prison, and a communi-
cation being made to the gaoler of Horsemonger-lane pri-
son, he suspected that the plaintiff intended to escape, and
he, therefore, subjected him to very strict confinement,
placing him in the strong room on the felons' side for several
months. The plaintiff brought his action against the then
Sheriff, and the Lord Chief Justice then left it to the Jury
on two points,• namely, whether the gaoler had reasonable
grounds that the plaintiff intended to effect his escape, and
whether the coercion was excessive. The Jury found for
the defendant.
The COURT granted a Rule Nisi.

PALACE COURT, Nov. 7.

(Before CHARLES KNOWLES, ESQ.)
DANGERFIELD V. REEVES.

This was an action for defamation of character and false
imprisonment. The damages were laid at nineteen guineas.
The defendant is a grocer residing in Hackney, and the
plaintiff a shoemaker living near to him, and on the 15th of
August last plaintiff entered the defendant's shop and pur-
chased some articles. Defendant was not at home, but his
wife served him. He went out of the shop witheut paying
for them. Her husband came in soon after, when she in-
formed him of the circumstance. He pursued the plaintiff
and gave him in custody to a policeman on a charge of
felony, and of obtaining goods under false pretences. Plain-
tiff, however, denied the charge, and stated that he thought
that Mrs. Reeves would have given him credit for the arti-
cles and put them down to his account.—Verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 61. 10s.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

Yesterday Thomas Turner and John King, two well-
dressed men, were brought before Mr. MINSHULL by
Fletcher the officer, on a Bench warrant, which had been
issued in consequence of a bill of indictment having been
found against them at the Sessions for keeping a common
gaming-house in St. James's-street.
The prosecutor was a young gentleman named Michael
Leeke. He identified the defendants, and they were or-
dered to find bail.

They were unable to give the necessary security, and
were conveyed to prison by the police van.

LAMBETH-STREET.

Yesterday Abraham Jacobs, a sprucely-dressed Jew, an
apprentice to Mr. Pollock, a tailor in Goodman's-fields,
attended before Mr. WALKER, and a County Magistrate,
to support a warrant which he had taken out a day or two
before against his mistress, of whom he swore he went in
bodily fear. From his statement it appeared that some
months since he purchased the sixteenth of a ticket in the
Glasgow Lottery ; but shortly afterwards he regretted
having speculated his money on such an uncertainty, and
frequently solicited his master or some of the family to join
him in the risk, but they all refused to do so, and he was
compelled to keep the ticket himself until the drawing,
when it was drawn a prize of 10,0001. Finding that this
was the case, one or two of the members of his master's
family endeavoured to persuade him that they had actually
joined him in the ticket, and were in consequence entitled
to their proportions of the prize. He, however, would not
have it, and he received himself 6251., which sum a friend
of his had placed in the Bank of England to his account
and to his benefit. Since that happy event, and on account
of his refusing any of the family participation in his good
fortune, he had been treated very indifferently by them. His
master's eldest son frequently struck him, and his mistress
spat into his coffee, and threatened him in such a manner
that he went in bodily fear of her.
Mr. Pollock, the master of the complainant, attended
and handed to the Bench a medical certificate, setting forth
that Mrs. Pollock was unable from indisposition to attend.
Mr. Pollock went on to say that the charge against his
wife, who was a very old, infirm, and ailing lady, was most
unjust, and concluded by observing that there was no stand-
ing or bearing with the complainant since his accession to
fortune, and that, in fact, he had done just as he liked.
The Magistrates ordered the warrant to stand until Mrs.
Pollock was able to attend, but expressed a hope that in
the interim the business might be amicably settled.